Homeland Security Slaps 6-Year-Old Girl On No Fly List

The Department of Homeland Security’s anti-terrorist airplane protection services are so ironclad that even a sneaky 6-year-old Ohio girl couldn’t make it through the dragnet. The feds were on to her and stuck her on the No Fly List. Possibly because she planned on asking for extra peanuts, getting up and going potty several times during a flight and maybe even kicking the seat in front of her.

The girl was not the one in the picture, but may have seemed just as deadly.

The UPI reports:

“We were, like, puzzled,” said her father. “I’m like, well, she’s kinda 6 years old and this is not something that should be typical.

Once the parents reported the snafu, a Transportation Security Administration told the parents the girl is OK to fly. For now.

6-year-old girl on ‘no fly’ list [UPI]
(Thanks, Tom!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. W10002 says:

    Little did the parents know, their daughter had a sinister plot of giving peanuts for everyone on the flight. Including to those who are allergic to peanuts! *gasp*

  2. ShyConsumeristFantasy says:

    That’s what she gets for messing with her sister!

  3. pantheonoutcast says:

    All children under the age of 16 should be on a “no fly list.”

    In all seriousness, though – considering that children don’t have identification cards, and passports aren’t needed on domestic flights, how would anyone even know her name? I mean after the initial ticket purchase, of course. All future ticket purchases could be made for her in a completely different name, yes?

    • mythago says:

      Given TSA’s competence, the new ‘fake’ name might be on the no-fly list as well, and then she’d have to explain not only that they are stupid, but that she gave a fake name. (Rather, her parents would have to explain it, but still.)

    • skapig says:

      Easier to fix it now while she’s 6 than wait until she’s older.

    • dg says:

      In all seriousness, all children under the age of 13 shouldn’t be allowed on flights. No more screaming, kicking, tray banging, crying, yelling, or whining (well, except from the drunk adults)

    • CRCError1970 says:

      No, when I fly with my 2 year old daughter I need a copy of her birth certificate. I also bring her passport just in case but they never look at it.

  4. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    Everyone knows pigtails or an extremely long braided pony tail can be used as a weapon. With enough force, they can even cut through steel.

  5. El_Red says:

    OK, Can someone tell me why the name isn’t accompanied by a birth date?

    • Tim says:

      I thought it was. Or, at least the airlines collect your date of birth when they say they’re collecting TSA information. Maybe not?

    • Anonymously says:

      That wouldn’t help in the (curious) case of Benjamin Button, now would it?

    • mythago says:

      When you buy tickets for under-18s you definitely have to supply a birthdate.

    • sporks says:

      I bought tickets last week and had to supply my full name, gender and date of birth. Considering there are less than 50 people in the Social Security Death Index with my last name, and less than 20 with my first name, I highly doubt I’m going to get on the no fly list because a terrorist shares my name.

      Granted, I’ll probably still get searched because I seem to get searched every time I fly because of a suspicious looking comb in my carryon.

  6. nbs2 says:

    The TSA assures us that no children are on the No Fly List.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      They aren’t. They just happen to share the same name as someone on the list.

    • Anonymously says:
      • humphrmi says:

        The point of that blog, which apparently nobody at the airlines read, is that if you are presented with someone who is a child, and their name is not on the list, the child standing in front of you is *NOT* the person on the list.

        The TSA doesn’t directly prevent fliers from boarding. The airlines issue you a boarding pass, or they don’t because you’re on the list. Once you have a boarding pass, TSA screens you. You can also be denied boarding, based on late-breaking updates to the no-fly list, but again that’s a gate agent who makes that call.

        So this really boils down to airlines doing it wrong. As usual.

        • nbs2 says:

          The problem is two-fold:

          1) That blog is nothing more than Propaganda Village.
          2) The procedures implemented on the airlines is developed and enforced by the TSA. While name and ID verification does nothing beyond protect airline profits, it does represent a move beyond conducting a basic administrative search for WEI, and thus scope creep, on the part of TSA.

          Frankly, we’d all be better off throwing everybody associated with TSA out on the street or in jail.

          • humphrmi says:

            I’ll admit that the TSA does many things wrong, believe me, I’m on board with you and Lewis Black and everyone else who mocks them.

            But this same story has been told over and over again, and yet stupid airline employees can’t get it through their thick skulls that CHILDREN ARE NOT ON THE WATCH LIST. It’s just that simple, the TSA reiterates it every time this happens, and yet I guarantee you that in a month or two we’ll hear another story about it. If the person standing in front of you at a check-in counter or gates is a child, and their name is on the list, that name does not represent them.

        • FredKlein says:

          ooh, sorry, No.


          “Secure Flight started rolling out in 2009 and I’m happy to announce that TSA is now performing 100% of the watchlist matching for domestic flights. (Airlines used to conduct all of the passenger watchlist matching)”

          So, this Sh!t happens even WITH the “Secure Flight” [program in place. How wonderful.

    • Bob says:

      …and we always been at war with EastAsia.

  7. gazeux says:

    She hates us for our freedoms!

  8. Angus99 says:

    I am of the opinion that the sole remaining justification of the TSA is that of a jobs program. I wonder what it’s actually going to take for it to be dismantled. Demonstrated incompetence and ineffectiveness in their core mission apparently is not sufficient cause.

    • danmac says:

      Unfortunately, any politician who wanted to dismantle the TSA would open himself to political attacks about not taking homeland security seriously. That’s probably not a risk many are willing to take.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Unless they go with the angle that the TSA is incompetent and keeping them is putting YOU the citizen in danger.

    • jason in boston says:

      I agree. They are a joke. But getting rid of them will cause the unwashed masses to feel scared.

      I flew out of Logan on one of the first flights after 9-11 (I was in the Navy), and seeing the state police SWAT and National Guard with their M4s made me feel the safest I have ever felt. The airlines should use the same security that the Israel airlines use…basically the same thing, but with people in suits carrying MP5s.

      • kmw2 says:

        Israeli air security isn’t scaleable. Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv sees around 11 million passengers a year these days. London Heathrow sees 66 million. There is no way larger airports could or should provide that level of security. Furthermore, it’s not necessary. Israel’s airport security is the result of living for 50 years under constant attack. Most of the Western world does not have this problem. An American’s chance of dying of terrorism is less than their chance of dying of arsenic poisoning, perchloroethylene, and several other far more common fatality risks. See here http://riskometer.org/pages/riskringsExposures.html It’s time to gain a little bit of perspective. Even what we have now is overblown security theater. (And before you ask, I’m in the air a dozen times a year and my partner, four times that. Neither of us has been blown up yet, shockingly. We’ve just spent a lot of time being poked and prodded and having our deadly tweezers and 2″ pocket knives taken off us.)

        • mythago says:

          Except that even the Israelis think we approach security in a stupid way – and by “stupid” I mean “ineffective”, not “what is necessary for Israel’s high-security situation”.

        • humphrmi says:

          Israel’s security scheme works out of every airport that they fly out of, not just Ben-Gurion. But point taken. The other problem with adopting the Israeli security model is that widespread use of profiling by the U.S. government would result in many lengthy lawsuits…

    • lyllydd says:

      “I am of the opinion that the sole remaining justification of the TSA is that of a jobs program.”

      It is. For the people who are too illiterate and brainless to become janitors.

  9. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Have you SEEN the posters the TSA has to try and reassure you they’re helping? Unfortunately you get bombarded with them while standing in line at the airport. They’re hilarious and pointless. I wish I could find them online.

  10. blogger X says:

    “She may have threatened her sister, but I don’t think that constitutes Homeland Security triggers.”

    Think again!

  11. Grabraham says:

    She planned to smuggle a turtle aboard and the TSA was tipped off!

  12. leprechaunshawn says:

    OK, I’m gonna go here:

    The TSA cannot even manage to keep a 6 year old named Alyssa Thomas from Ohio off the “no fly list” but a suspected terrorist named Faisal Shahzad from Pakistan was allowed to board a plane bound for the Middle East.

    How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our health care?

    I know that is a tired, old question but it seriously needs to be asked. Not only does it need to be asked but I think it needs to be addressed by our President. Pick up a newspaper, watch your favorite tv news station or visit your preferred news website and what do you see? Government incompetence at all levels – local, state and federal. So again, I ask, why should I expect them to be any more responsibly involved in health care?

    • nbs2 says:

      I suppose, by creating the workfare program known as TSA, the government is essentially keeping the special kids occupied while the smart kids can move forward on health care management.

      At least, that’s the best I can come up with.

      Besides, it isn’t like private industry is any better. There is even an analogue (Blackwater) to the Security Monkeys that like to play LEO.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      And I’m going to go HERE:

      The TSA’s no-fly list should read:

      “People from / with ties to The Middle East / A number of other Muslim-dominated countries.”

      And if there are truly people from have those countries who have innocent motives for traveling here, then they won’t mind the six-month background check and / or visa process.

      • yusefyk says:

        “The TSA’s no-fly list should read:

        “People from / with ties to The Middle East / A number of other Muslim-dominated countries.””

        So over one BILLION people on the no-fly list? Not only does this idea reek of racism, it is not implementable.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          It took three months for me to get my visas for Nepal and China. I was not able to get one for India. It is completely “implementable” if we had politicians courageous enough to do it. But we don’t – we have people capitulating to certain demographics in order to garner votes, and others screaming “racism” when an uncomfortable fact is pointed out.

          • yusefyk says:

            Sorry, when you said “The TSA’s no-fly list should read:” I thought you were referring to the “No-fly list,” not visas.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              Well, there were subsequent words in the post. Words like “visa”. They were there to convey additional information.

              • yusefyk says:

                You said all people related to Muslims or who are Muslims should be on the no-fly list. This is absurd. You have yet to explain how such a system would be remotely workable.

                • pantheonoutcast says:

                  I said nothing of the sort. I said that people from Muslim-dominated countries or countries in the Middle East should be on a no fly list and / or undergo a lengthy visa process complete with 6-month background checks.

                  I can’t fly to Cuba? Ok, Great. No one from Pakistan should be allowed to fly here. What’s the problem?

                  • yusefyk says:

                    “I can’t fly to Cuba? Ok, Great. No one from Pakistan should be allowed to fly here. “

                    So the United States should be like Cuba?

                    “It took three months for me to get my visas for Nepal and China. I was not able to get one for India”

                    So the United States should be like Nepal and China and India?

                    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but I’m done anyway. The USA is ruled by sane people so your whole idea is moot.

                    • pantheonoutcast says:

                      “So the United States should be like Nepal and China and India?”

                      When it comes to keeping out undesirables, or possible security risks? Yes. Definitely.

          • nbs2 says:

            You do realize that the NFL includes airspace “violations”? If Alyssa had been on a flight from LHR to MEX, it would have crossed US airspace. As a result of her NFL status, she would have been forced to seek an alternative route if caught ahead of time, or the flight would have been diverted.

            Would I tolerate increased screening based on actuarially defined factors (which would include age/sex/location/race), if a person has no WEI, there is no reason to deny them access to what is essentially privately owned public transit.

          • dragonfire81 says:

            I wonder could you argue that keeping all middle easterners off of planes would virtually eliminated the possibility of terrorism?

            Maybe at first, but the terror groups would just adapt to the new rules and focus on recruiting people who aren’t middle eastern or find other ways to infiltrate the country.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        I can’t believe what a screaming racist you are.

        Seriously, you’re going to deny passage to these united states to A BILLION PEOPLE because there are a handful of lunatics that want to kill us?

        By that logic, you’d deny just about EVERYONE passage on an airplane. There are homegrown terrorists that are JUST AS DANGEROUS as those from overseas. Ask Oklahoma City about that one.

        People with your attitude are bulletin board material for terrorist recruiters in the middle east. Congratulations, you’re part of the problem. Now GTFO my plane.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          “People with your attitude are bulletin board material for terrorist recruiters in the middle east.”

          Thereby proving my point. Thanks.

      • mythago says:

        “Ties to the Middle East” meaning, what? They grew up on a kibbutz? They have a funny Arabic-sounding last name? They’re reading Arabic flash cards? They have an uncle who just made aliyah? (Israel is part of the “Middle East”. I’m assuming you’re not trying to teach your adoring students geography.) But it’s totally OK if they’re from Somalia, or Indonesia, because those are totally not in the Middle East and no way could any of their citizens be Muslim terrorists or anything.

        I’m going to go here: assuming that being offensive and obnoxious is proof that one is the still, small voice of reason among the sheeple is an attitude most people grow out of after high school. Slapping the label of “politically incorrect” on it doesn’t make it any smarter.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          Somalia and Indonesia are Muslim-dominated countries. They would be under the same provisions as people from countries in the Middle East, as I clearly stated. Please read all of the words in a post, not just the ones you wish.

          And yes, Israel is included. Definitely included.

          • mythago says:

            Thanks, I read all the words in your post, which I was mocking the dumbth of “ties to the Middle East”. Oh noez! American citizens whose American-born grandparents retired to Tel Aviv are potential terrorists because they have “ties to Israel”, keep ’em off the planes! And let’s not worry about countries that might have terrorist or anti-American groups as long as they are not officially “Muslim-dominated”.

            Pretending that “political incorrectness” is a mark of truth is something I would expect your eighth-graders to say.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              So instead of extra screening protocols for the aforementioned people what are the alternatives?

              Screen no one?

              Hassle everyone equally, even though they clearly do not pose an equal threat?

              Should we just shrug our shoulders and say, “There are too many people who may be terrorists. It’s hard to identify and stop them, therefore, let’s not!”?

              Yes, there may be non-Muslim, anti-American groups out there looking to cause us harm. However, they don’t seem to be of the “hijack planes and fly them into buildings” or “blow up everything in the name of invisible men” variety at this point in time.

              We should focus on the enemy (or possible enemies) at hand first before moving on to others. One way to accomplish this is to lug the stream of people coming into the country. I think we’re good for now, population-wise.

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        And while we’re at it, let’s ban all middle-aged white men from accessing government buildings. They’ve bombed them in the past, after all, so that means none can be trusted!

    • dreamfish says:

      Yes it is indeed a tired old question because it implies all Government is either incompetent or evil or both and a pure libertarian approach is best, which has never been proved apart from some random, usually highly-spun, anecdotal evidence.

      I also don’t hesitate in saying that I find libertarians the most annoying people on the planet, in their religion-like fundamentalism of “You must be a complete moron not to realise how *obviously* correct the libertarian position is”

    • coren says:

      Private entities are denying coverage to babies for both being too fat and not fat enough despite both being on the normal growth curve for children of their age. How can we trust private entities to do anything!

      /logical fallacy.

    • PaRa02 says:

      There is no magic crystal ball method in finding Fasal once they figured out who he was he was already past security. Besides that aircraft even when airborne would most likely be over American territory signal the F-22’s. Without knowing the No Fly List specifics I wonder how fast it updates and how well the variety of airlines can receive the data.

      Lastly everything got cleared up for the 6 year old. Nothing is perfect and she made it to her destination.

    • jtheletter says:

      “How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our health care? “

      How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our MILITARY?
      How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our ROADS?
      How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY.
      How can we expect another federal agency to be more responsible with our FOOD AND DRUG OVERSIGHT?

      Do you understand the ridiculousness of your statement in light of all the other things we have the federal government manage/oversee? I’m not saying any of those programs are paragons of virtue but really, you’re picking two failures in a system of millions of events and saying that’s proof the government can’t run important programs. Well heck, better call up the local militias then, our government can’t possibly be trusted to run something as complicated as a national military.

      • leprechaunshawn says:

        So you’ve listed off a few things the government does mostly right but what about Social Security, USPS, Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or Medicare and Medicaid. They’re all broke or will be shortly.

        So you’ve pointed out that you think my statement is ridiculous but you’ve failed to provide any kind of answer to my question. What evidence is there to point to government being able to responsibly handle health care? Most everything they get involved in costs twice as much or saves half of what they told us.

        • coren says:

          USPS works fine, and is under defect because of having to pay ridiculous amounts of cash into unnecessary shit (and hey if we had government health care, guess who’s making a profit?).

          • leprechaunshawn says:

            The USPS lost $3.8 billion in its 2009 fiscal year. It was $11 billion in debt as of 2009 fiscal year end. USPS is expected to hit its $15 billion debt limit in 2010. How can you say the USPS works fine?

    • magus_melchior says:

      Expanding the discussion to health care (when the topic is national security– or security theater) is going beyond the scope of the discussion.

      But fine, I’ll humor you. You claim that all levels of government has failed based on a little hearsay about the media. I contend that “good news” about the government is boring and nowhere near worth the ad revenue that “government failure LULz” gets– hence the media runs headlines with the latter, not the former.

      You claim that several government institutions’ failure in different ways is indicative of a pattern throughout the entire system, without accounting for things like bureaucratic inefficiency or the fact that more efficient models of governance– say, dictatorship– are unacceptable for reasons other than efficacy or fiscal prudence.

      But most egregiously, IMO, you make an incendiary claim without links to evidence or discussion of alternative theories– primarily, that government will be in control of health care. Your aim is clearly to assist Republican politicians in repealing the Affordable Care Act, thus you shoehorn a discussion of health care into a discussion about the DHS’ security theater.

      Give Betsy McCaughey my regards, and tell her you failed.

  13. vastrightwing says:

    I didn’t think of this one. Next time I sit around parents who can’t keep their children from screaming and kicking my seat, I’ll get them added to the no fly list! Perfect!

    Well, they do terrorize us on the plane. Come on!

  14. minneapolisite says:

    Posting the father’s quote is, like, just BAITING the grammar police to kinda come out of the woodwork…

    • brinks says:

      No kidding. Are we sure the 6-year-old wasn’t quoted, not the dad?

    • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

      I totally, like, loved the dad’s kinda amazing quote! ‘Cause, I mean, well, she IS kinda, like, 6 years old!

    • icedteagirl says:

      Glad I’m not the only one who was bothered by that. That quote sounds like it came from a teenage girl.

    • jessjj347 says:

      Yeah, I actually pictured a teenage mother, but didn’t realize it was the father.

  15. bitslammer says:

    My problem with the TSA is that I gauge their ability to keep the bad guys out by how well they can avoid from hassling those that aren’t the bad guys.

    So far their record for doing stupid stuff to the public vs. stopping bad guys is pretty damn bleak. How come Israel who has plenty of people who hate them is able to keep things safe without all the dumb stuff the TSA does?

    • Damocles57 says:

      Israel has 2 international airports and 9 domestic airports compared to how many in the US?

      Also, many of the methods Israel uses to thwart potential attacks would be illegal here (a few are probably illegal there too).

  16. ajlei says:

    Pffft, I didn’t even get a single bag of peanuts on my last four flights.

  17. GrandizerGo says:

    My 3 year old daughter was on it as well.
    Found out obviously as we were boarding the plane to PR…

    Why this is NOT picked up when you go through TSA makes no sense. Why am I displaying my information to you if you are not checking it. Hell If I am on the no fly list, what am I doing in the area reserved for passengers to get on the plane?
    Seems simple that if I was really a bad man, that I can slip something harmful into someone else’s bags knowing I am not getting on the plane.

    I like watching obvious government incompetence.

    • nbs2 says:

      The TDC at the checkpoint serves no purpose. Not only is that the least secure portion of the Security Theater, it only exists to protect Ma and Pa Airline’s profits.

      And the TDC couldn’t have cought anything – they don’t have access to any database to run comparisons.

  18. dreamfish says:

    Can you PROVE without doubt she’s not a terrorist?

    Safety first is the name of the game.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Using that logic, we should not allow anyone on a plane. Because, you can never be certain.

  19. coren says:

    Maybe she’s banned because they think stupidity is hereditary!

    …I’m kidding of course (mostly)

  20. MSUHitman says:

    Just because she looks like a kid, doesn’t mean that she can’t be 10 years older and a double agent …

    ^ Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker reference

    • Doncosmic says:

      Or an Eastern European midget prostitute serial killer. (won’t mention the reference because its recent enough to be spoilery)

    • evnmorlo says:

      The CIA has good information that after extensive plastic surgery Osama bin Laden now resembles a 6-year-old girl.

  21. mxjohnson says:

    There are two lists — the no fly list and the broader selectee list. Headline notwithstanding, I haven’t seen anything to suggest she’s on the no fly list.

    My name is on the selectee list. It’s a hassle, but I still get on the plane, eventually.

  22. ellemdee says:

    Sounds like the TSA is profiling little girls after the tiny terrorist turtle incident.

  23. mythago says:

    Nice. I just called Southwest to confirm that my kids (all under 18) do not need photo ID to board a plane for our upcoming family vacation. If we get hassled because they are ‘on the list’ then I might be the subject of one of those “bad consumer” posts.

  24. kcvaliant says:

    Must be Stewey’s sister…

  25. RyansChestHair says:

    Can the like father say “like” like anymore like friggin times? Like what the hell? Like OMG!