An 8 year old on the No Fly List? Really?
 

C'mon Son....


The Transportation Security Administration, under scrutiny after last month’s bombing attempt, has on its Web site a “mythbuster” that tries to reassure the public.

Myth: The No-Fly list includes an 8-year-old boy.


Buster: No 8-year-old is on a T.S.A. watch list.


“Meet Mikey Hicks,” said Najlah Feanny Hicks, introducing her 8-year-old son, a New Jersey Cub Scout and frequent traveler who has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person. “It’s not a myth.”
Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.

The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.
After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.

“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mrs. Hicks recounted. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”
It is true that Mikey is not on the federal government’s “no-fly” list, which includes about 2,500 people, less than 10 percent of them from the United States. But his name appears to be among some 13,500 on the larger “selectee” list, which sets off a high level of security screening.
At some point, someone named Michael Hicks made the Department of Homeland Security suspicious, and little Mikey is still paying the price. (His father, also named Michael Hicks, was stopped for the first time on the Bahamas trip.)

Both lists are maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are given to the Transportation Security Administration, which in turn sends them to the airlines.

A spokesman for the T.S.A., James Fotenos, said that as a rule, “there are no children on the no-fly or selectee lists,” but would not comment on Mikey’s situation specifically.
For every person on the lists, hundreds of others may get caught up simply because they share the same name; a quick scan through a national phone directory unearthed 1,600 Michael Hickses. Over the past three years, 81,793 frustrated travelers have formally asked that they be struck from the watch list through the Department of Homeland Security; more than 25,000 of their cases are still pending. Others have taken more drastic measures.

link

Ok, why can't the TSA just use common sense? Ovbiously a little boy isn't going to be causing any trouble.

Oh...I don't know...Legos can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands

Because common sense is in serious jepardy in this country...and in some cases other parts of the world too.

Well, I guess TECHNICALLY the TSA is correct- the Mikey that they want isn't really this little boy. But since the name matches, he gets caught. Which is rediculous. But I guess that is what happens when people are so caught up in the letter of the law that they don't look at the spirit of the law.

Although I wouldn't put it past a crazy suicide bomber to use their 8 year old as a bomb carrier.

Erm, false?

Look, this isn't Tel Aviv, buses aren't blowing up left and right, I understand that - but how can we have it both ways? How can we say "The underwear dude should have been on the list!" then go "The list needs to be more subjective because apparently I trust the people in charge of lists all the sudden, in spite of the evidence!"

Plus, the kid is obviously flying, hence he's clearly not on the "No Fly" list - he's being cleared to fly on a plane.

Right. Obviously little Mikie is most likely not a threat. Unfortunately, it's not going to stop him from being stopped on the way to the plane, and to be honest, I think he should be. I don't think it's necessarily the TSA's fault - they're doing their job. They should be taught more about doing it with tact.

THIS. I understand that TSA employees have a tough job, but I've lost track of the number of times I've been treated rudely and unprofessionally (and/or have seen fellow travelers treated in that manner).

I guess it depends on where you fly and how you treat the TSA employees. I fly out of BWI in Baltimore sometime three times a month. The TSA employees at this very busy airport are very professional and polite. They do an excellent job processing a large number of patrons through the screening process. I have, however, seen very unnecessarily rude travelers take out their frustrations on TSA employees who are only trying to do their jobs. I actually can't remember a single time that I have been treated rudely by someone from TSA or seen someone else treated rudely that didn't deserve it.

As for the issue with this kid, aren't they now required everyone to give more information when they book flights to narrow down information so that these problems don't continue to occur. A simple birthday would keep mistakes like duplicated names from causing the wrong person from being searched every time he goes to the airport. We are expected to check name and birthdate when we verify our patients in hospitals. I don't see why Homeland Security should get away with less. Blaming TSA is like whipping your puppy because your husband let it piss on the rug.

Yes, when I bought a ticket a few days ago, I was prompted for a little more personal information than I normally am (birthday, sex) and they prompted me for a redress number, if that was applicable. A redress number, it seems, can allow people like this little kid to be verified as NOT on the watch list to prevent this sort of nonsense. This isn't exactly new, so if this has been such a problem, why didn't his parents get him a redress number before? :confused:

This stuff seems at least 9 years late to me. I'm just saying.

Agreed!

One of my Mom's coworkers shares a name with someone on the no fly list and they gave him a special document that he carries with him when he flies.

I can also see looking at kids because there have been people who have smuggled drugs using their kids as a pack mules so perhaps better safe than sorry? I don't know.

I have a friend with a fairly common Irish name. He has learned to get to the airport at least three hours before a flight, because his name is on "the list". How does he get that document?

I have absolutely no idea this was just what he told her when they were at an all business meeting together in Texas. It was about 5 years ago now too IIRC.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking too.:(

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/im...s/viewpost.gif
Although I wouldn't put it past a crazy suicide bomber to use their 8 year old as a bomb carrier.

My two-year old son was searched last summer, when we were picked out randomly (I think) for an extra check when we flew 'home' from NY to Europe. At first I was a bit worried as I was not allowed to stay with him (had to stay 10 feet away), and at the time, he didn't speak that much English yet (he's come a long way since then!) and slightly annoyed. I understand the necessity of the whole screening process, and always try to be as cooperative as I can be but - naive me - was thinking this was a bit over the top and that a two-year old, in all likelihood, was not going to blow up a plane. My husband, rightfully, pointed out to me that if they didn't apply the same measures of security to kids, it would only be a matter of time before some idiot would use a kid for exactly that purpose.

The guy who 'checked' my son turned it into one big game for him, asking him to pretend he was an airplane (which was a word he did know) so he could pat him down.

If that's what it takes to fly home and arrive safely, then that's what it takes!

I recently read an article that many of the child suicide bombers are actually handicapped, physically or mentally, and this is genocide in more than one way. Unfortunately, I forget the magazine - I was in a doctor's office.

Have you seen "The Hurt Locker"? If any of that was true, there are some very disturbing scenes in that movie involving a child.

Haven't seen that movie - but I'll be sure to put it on my Don't Bother list. Anyone who can use a child as any sort of tool of destruction is less than subhuman.

And I emphasize the word use because, well, kids sometimes just are tools of destruction - in a funny sense.