Partridge
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 35
Well, the TSA is at it again. I have got nothing against security measures (after all, 911 wasn't a heap of fun) but a certain sense of perspective would be nice.
Okay, a list of names of no-fly people exists. So, you, as a person who deals with this at the airport come across one of these names. At which point do you decide that, well, perhaps this toddler in front of you (despite it's look of anger) is not the suspected terrorist named on the list. After all, how many one-year olds have attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan? Not too many I am willing to submit.
How about a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of bending the rules in the face of overwheliming evidence?
Or am coming at this from the wrong angle?
Read for yourself, courtesy of CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
Okay, a list of names of no-fly people exists. So, you, as a person who deals with this at the airport come across one of these names. At which point do you decide that, well, perhaps this toddler in front of you (despite it's look of anger) is not the suspected terrorist named on the list. After all, how many one-year olds have attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan? Not too many I am willing to submit.
How about a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of bending the rules in the face of overwheliming evidence?
Or am coming at this from the wrong angle?
Read for yourself, courtesy of CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
Last edited: