Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Think it through.

Said close relatives of that child should be on the no fly list themselves already. There’s no need to put the child on a no-fly list if his close family already is because it’s highly unlikely that he’d be traveling like that without them.

Plus, considering the size of your average six year old, just how *full of explosives* can you pack one of them?

Now, theoretically, any six year old with terrorist relative connections that is being send on a flight all by himself that looks unusually bulky, lumpy or padded, ought to raise red flags with whatever security agency is screening passengers, but that is presuming that the security agency is capable of exercising common sense and admittedly, that is a bit of a stretch.

No, I wouldn’t want to fly on a plane with terrorists, but like I pointed out, THEY - the adults- should already be on the no fly list. There’s no need to put a six year old on in that case.


48 posted on 06/27/2010 5:39:08 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: metmom

I appreciate the freedom related issues, but I just think the fact that a child is that age doesn’t preclude them from being a potential security threat. They might not fly with the parents, they might fly with someone else.

Probably “no fly” would be too much, unless the person was in the family of an actual suicide bomber. Is there an “additional layer of security” list, that doesn’t go as far as “no fly”?


49 posted on 06/27/2010 5:44:24 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson