Terrorists Could Be Your Next Door Neighbor...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
Hell, they could even be your newborn. Have you asked your toddler lately whether or not (s)he has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html

'No-fly list' keeps infants off planes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States 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, Arizona, 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 September 11, 2001, 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."

Sanden and Zapolsky would not allow their children's names to be used in this story because they fear people who prey on children.

Well-known people like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, 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 September 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."

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.

I know the next time I see an infant on a plane, I'll always be wondering: is that pacifier explosive?

Melon
 
Hey, the stuff in those kids' diapers could be deadly! :eek:
 
babies are very sneaky



we need to keep rubber bands on their little legs

if they try any thing

we can snap em'
 
I have a 2.5 year old who can fuck up any civilised environment. I'd not be surprised if she one day takes a water pistol to the cats and holds them ransom.
:tsk:
 
The first time I had to fly after they started that list I was so paranoid that my name would be on it, mistakenly of course :wink:

I'm still paranoid that one day it will be, after all they probably just keep adding names
 
There will be no room for common sense in the war on terror.





Also found this part interesting:
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."
 
Maybe a bit of religious profiling could do the job a lot better; or at least sex and age ~ males aged 15 - 50. It's all well and good to look at something plain stupid like this and say that they should fix it; you may wind up with a system that you would consider unjust.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Maybe a bit of religious profiling could do the job a lot better; or at least sex and age ~ males aged 15 - 50.

So my sweet and loving boyfriend who just happens to be a Muslim male aged 26 should automatically be suspect and harrassed? Just for existing???? Reasoning like that will turn the so-called "free world" into a joke before much longer. :down:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You mean like the one we have now?
I think that the current system is more inept than unjust, not like it makes that much of a difference anyway, nobody could hijack a plane today ~ passengers would probably jump a team of hijackers before they had a chance to cause any real damage. Mass transit and carbombs ~ they are the soft spots of any metropolis.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:


So my sweet and loving boyfriend who just happens to be a Muslim male aged 26 should automatically be suspect and harrassed? Just for existing???? Reasoning like that will turn the so-called "free world" into a joke before much longer. :down:
As opposed to wasting time checking out little Suzy, dear old Aunt Gladys or Ted Kennedy ~ as I said there are any number of factors, sex and age could significantly slash the fluff, religion would be the furthur degree ~ race is more or less useless.
 
This little anomoly is a product of a government with too little information about passangers and a system that requires examination from the 40,000' level (to avoid any appearance of profiling).
 
A_Wanderer said:
I think that the current system is more inept than unjust,
In a free country such as the US, an inept system is unjust.

A_Wanderer said:

not like it makes that much of a difference anyway, nobody could hijack a plane today ~ passengers would probably jump a team of hijackers before they had a chance to cause any real damage.
People had similar thought processes before 9/11 too. Once you start thinking that way, the enemy will find a new way in.



A_Wanderer said:

Mass transit and carbombs ~ they are the soft spots of any metropolis.
I think this is true, although you could never get the same results as a 9/11.
 
A_Wanderer said:
As opposed to wasting time checking out little Suzy, dear old Aunt Gladys or Ted Kennedy ~ as I said there are any number of factors, sex and age could significantly slash the fluff, religion would be the furthur degree ~ race is more or less useless.

Problem is as soon as you profile Muslim men, they they'll start to recruit women.

Profiling has never and will never work.

I love how those that always support profiling are those that are always safe from it.
 
How am I safe from it ~ I am male aged 15 - 50, I could easily be a bomber given the right convergence of events? Exclusive profiling is too narrow, if there is a system where if you stick Muslim on your religion ID card then you will profiled these men will just stick a different religion. Religious profiling would create a blind spot, but sex and age are much more effective.

Profilling the young and the elderly and (generally) women would be a waste of time.
 
A_W have you been following certain news stories lately in exceptionally crappy media outlets about certain groups here specifically?
 
A_Wanderer said:
How am I safe from it
Maybe a bit of religious profiling could do the job a lot better;
You said it, I'm not making up shit.



A_Wanderer said:

Profilling the young and the elderly and (generally) women would be a waste of time.

I would think finding someone who's lost their child to a US occupation and doesn't have much "life left to live", would be an ideal canidate for recruitment.
 
A_Wanderer said:
And this statement is being based on what exactly?

Well show me where it has worked.

Here in the US where areas admitted to profiling for gang violence, gang violence wasn't reduced. I grew up in an area that had curfews in public places for certain ages and they haven't reported less crime and curfews have been in effect for over a decade now.
 
I would think finding someone who's lost their child to a US occupation and doesn't have much "life left to live", would be an ideal canidate for recruitment.
Yes maybe in a hollywood movie but statistically it just does not happen!

International Islamist (not marxist, not nationalist) terrorists are generally male, middle class / wealthy and educated individuals who are driven by religious fervour.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Yes maybe in a hollywood movie but statistically it just does not happen!

International Islamist (not marxist, not nationalist) terrorists are generally male, middle class / wealthy and educated individuals who are driven by religious fervour.

It's called sleight of hand. Once you start to single out one group, they will figure it out and find a way around it. If you give them a reason to recruit this demographic they will.
 
When I worked in banking, we were given lists of these terrorists and had to freeze accounts if we found a match.

One of the problems was, as another poster pointed out, if the info on the list is incomplete it is difficult to find out if you have a genuine match or not.

As for profiling I dunno where I stand on that one to be honest. I can see both sides of the debate.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
When I worked in banking, we were given lists of these terrorists and had to freeze accounts if we found a match.

Here in the U.S., it's called OFAC, and I've skimmed through the entire list myself when I was in banking. I'd say 75% of the list is organizations and businesses, with the other 25% being rather high profile terrorists or war criminals.

In other words, it's a lot more targeted than, say, a "no-fly list." Green Party members can end up on a "no-fly list"--and have--whereas OFAC is generally restricted to only the most unquestioningly bad people.

Melon
 
melon said:
Here in the U.S., it's called OFAC, and I've skimmed through the entire list myself when I was in banking. I'd say 75% of the list is organizations and businesses, with the other 25% being rather high profile terrorists or war criminals.

Yeah I know. Initially we did it semi-manually but thankfully moved to a more automated way of doing it.
 
How about this: One of the parents of a young child is a terrorist. They know that their name is on the watch list so they have another lesser known extremist put an explosive vest on the child. If airport security went by a more 'sensitive' approach, they'd let the baby pass without any questioning why the child's name is on the watch list. Hmm, could it be that the child's parent is a terrorist and they might use their own child as a method to get around the security of the airport? Noo, of course not. That'd be crazy. And we all know that terrorists are rational and moral.
 
Back
Top Bottom