You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Babies Caught Up in 'No-Fly' Confusion
2005-08-16
Your tax dollars at work.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the U.S. because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list." It sounds like a joke, but it's not funny to parents who miss flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed.

Ingrid Sanden's 1-year-old daughter was stopped in Phoenix before boarding a flight home to Washington at Thanksgiving. "I completely understand the war on terrorism, and I completely understand people wanting to be safe when they fly," Sanden said. "But focusing the target a little bit is probably a better use of resources."

The government's lists of people who are either barred from flying or require extra scrutiny before being allowed to board airplanes grew markedly since the Sept. 11 attacks. Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union say the government doesn't provide enough information about the people on the lists, so innocent passengers can be caught up in the security sweep if they happen to have the same name as someone on the lists.

That can happen even if the person happens to be an infant like Sanden's daughter. (Children under 2 don't need tickets but Sanden purchased one for her daughter to ensure she had a seat.) "It was bizarre," Sanden said. "I was hugely pregnant, and I was like, 'We look really threatening.'"

Sarah Zapolsky and her husband had a similar experience last month while departing from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. An airline ticket agent told them their 11-month-old son was on the government list. They were able to board their flight after ticket agents took a half-hour to fax her son's passport and fill out paperwork. "I understand that security is important," Zapolsky said. "But if they're just guessing, and we have to give up our passport to prove that our 11-month-old is not a terrorist, it's a waste of their time."

Well-known people like Sen. Edward M. Bagogas Kennedy, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and David Nelson, who starred in the sitcom "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet," also have been stopped at airports because their names match those on the lists.

The government has sought to improve its process for checking passengers since the Sept. 11 attacks. The first attempt was scuttled because of fears the government would have access to too much personal information. A new version, called Secure Flight, is being crafted. But for now, airlines still have the duty to check passengers' names against those supplied by the government. That job has become more difficult - since the 2001 attacks the lists have swelled from a dozen or so names to more than 100,000 names, according to people in the aviation industry who are familiar with the issue. They asked not to be identified by name because the exact number is restricted information.

Not all those names are accompanied by biographical information that can more closely identify the suspected terrorists. That can create problems for people who reserve flights under such names as "T Kennedy" or "David Nelson."

ACLU lawyer Tim Sparapani said the problem of babies stopped by the no-fly list illustrates some of the reasons the lists don't work. "There's no oversight over the names," Sparapani said. "We know names are added hastily, and when you have a name-based system you don't focus on solid intelligence leads. You focus on names that are similar to those that might be suspicious."
That's part of what you have to do, unless you prefer to have no oversight and no security at all.
The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 - or select them for extra security checks - even if their names match those on a list. But it happens anyway. Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association, said: "Our information indicates it happens at every major airport."

The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2. If the ombudsman determines an individual should not be stopped, additional information on that person is included on the list so he or she is not stopped the next time they fly.

Clark said even with the problems the lists are essential to keeping airline passengers safe.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  LOL

Watching your links qualifies I guess :-)
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-08-16 15:13  

#15  "moral turpitude"

We'll know it when we see it, now get back in line, buddy... ;-)
Posted by: .com   2005-08-16 15:10  

#14  I believe it's still bureaucratic nonsense.

Like the Able Danger treatment.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-08-16 15:07  

#13  Mrs Davis

This is exactly the reply I got when I asked. I believe it's still bureaucratic nonsense.

First of all "I didn't know it was illegal" is never an excuse.

Ah, and "moral turpitude":

Moral turpitude is one of the most amorphous concepts in immigration law. There is no definition of moral turpitude, although many courts have attempted to construe one, using phrases such as an act of baseness, depravity or vileness. While there is no set definition, it is clear that the moral turpitude involved must be part of the essence of the offense. A crime involving moral turpitude need not have resulted in a conviction for it to render a person inadmissible, and admitting to an act that has the elements of a crime involving moral turpitude is sufficient to bar entry. Where an actual conviction occurred, the only issue is whether the offense was a crime involving moral turpitude. Where there is only an admission, a number of other steps are required. First, it must be clear that the act admitted to could have been criminally prosecuted in the place where it occurred. Second, the immigrant must fully understand the elements of the crime to which they have admitted. Third, while the immigrant needs to say that he/she is guilty of an offense, he/she does need to admit to all of the essential elements of the offense. Fourth, the admission must be totally voluntary."

Hokay
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-08-16 15:01  

#12  I always thought of Ricky as the dangerous one. David always seemed a little like a big wimpy mamma's boy.

TGA,

It also takes away the "I didn't know that was illegal here" defence.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-08-16 14:53  

#11  I sure wouldn't want "T Kennedy" sitting next to me.
Posted by: Darrell   2005-08-16 14:33  

#10  The idea of usings names as 'unique'identifiers is just silly when we are dealing with non-English speaking countries whose language may not transliterate nicely into English. The multiple variants of Mo Khadaffy is a prime example. Hell, some of these people don't even have vowels in their written language.
Posted by: SteveS   2005-08-16 14:25  

#9  Now how many here think that AQ would not sink low enough to form a baby carrier out of explosives if they thought they could get away with it?

IIRC strollers filled with explosives have been used against Israelis.

TGA, the point of that box is to give prosecutors additional ways to leverage jail time or more if someone is later caught.
Posted by: leader of the pack   2005-08-16 09:40  

#8  Jackal you have a point here...
And somehow you ALWAYS sit close to a baby in airplanes.

But yes, bureaucrats will be bureaucrats. Like those who keep insisting that foreigners have to check boxes in the immigration forms whether they enter the US to commit terrorist acts, drug smuggling or moral turpitude.

Answer YES or NO
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-08-16 09:36  

#7  Heck I can see Al-Q creating a baby-sized boomer vest - to blow open the side of the airplane at 30,000ft.....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-08-16 08:59  

#6  Now how many here think that AQ would not sink low enough to form a baby carrier out of explosives if they thought they could get away with it?
Posted by: Jirt Omager7355   2005-08-16 08:52  

#5  Have you ever sat next to a baby on a coast-to-coast flight? You want to talk terror...
Posted by: Jackal   2005-08-16 08:50  

#4  Baby joining al-Qaeda? I have always wondered what happened to "Baby Herman" since "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"! The Homeland Security Department has a right to be concerned about infants joining al-Qaeda


"Osama bin Laden? Nevva heard of da guy!"
Posted by: BigEd   2005-08-16 08:19  

#3  Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union say the government doesn't provide enough information about the people on the lists

OK, who else believes the ACLU would also be screaming if the list had more information on it?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-08-16 08:18  

#2  Some babies' diaper loads are deadly.
Posted by: ed   2005-08-16 08:05  

#1  Bombs don't kill .... baby bombers kill!
Posted by: The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen   2005-08-16 07:57  

00:00