Comments on: Newark Terminal C evacuated because TSA forgot to screen a tiny baby

By: John Robinson

John Robinson — Thu, 03 May 2012 15:13:00 +0000

Can’t help but think of the movie “12 Monkeys”. It could be that the baby was sent from the future as some sort of absurd plot device.

By: Rod Barnhart

Rod Barnhart — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:12:00 +0000

As a carrier of liquids, why was the baby not separated into < 3.1 oz bottles and placed into a clear ziplock baggy?

By: modusoperandi00

modusoperandi00 — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:51:00 +0000

Wasn’t Scan the Baby a Peter Gabriel song?

By: CognitiveDissident

CognitiveDissident — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:31:00 +0000

“Babies are social ticking bombs waiting to explode.”

No, that’s just the extremely full diaper.

By: Jim Saul

Jim Saul — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:24:00 +0000

Maybe it’s a time-travel/prophecy thing… they’re searching for the baby neohitler/anti-christ.

By: Austin Richardson

Austin Richardson — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:45:00 +0000

Cory, one day a baby will explode and you’ll look like an asshole.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:08:00 +0000

I’m not so sure. Kids will do ANYTHING for approval.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:07:00 +0000

yet they never actually *do* anything with that information

yeah…. not betting that’s true in the long run. Not hopeful it will work out well for us.

By: twianto

twianto — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:00 +0000

That’s the secret: the passengers of the few late-night flights that _don’t_ get canceled have a wonderful non-crowded experience. Thanks, Robert, for making my experience a positive one!

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:37:00 +0000

I was headed for a late-night flight at Newark, but it got canceled. WTF!

By: HubrisSonic

HubrisSonic — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:44:00 +0000

Funny thing is babies can only hold 100ml of fluids also!

By: The Life Of Bryan

The Life Of Bryan — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:33:00 +0000

Actually, that’s more Garrison Keillor-esque, than anything else.

By: Ipo

Ipo — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:08:00 +0000

Why return?
This can be the new normal.

By: Ipo

Ipo — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:03:00 +0000

Logic says no such thing.
Logic says that when you have 58,401 (2011) employees, spending $8.1 billion (2012) annually, you’ll want to see some sort of positive result pertaining to the mission assignment.
Something.
Anything.

When your insurance costs you more than the worst case scenario damage, you’re not being logical.

“They hate us for our freedom, so lets give it up, then they’ll like us.”
“Let’s terrorize our population, so the terrorists can’t.”

All babies containing more than 3.4 ounces of liquids, aerosols or gels have to be disposed of into the bins conveniently placed near your waiting line.

By: Tim Drage

Tim Drage — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:59:00 +0000

That’s more Harry Stephen Keeler-esque than Clancyesque to be fair.

By: andygates

andygates — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:39:00 +0000

Baby Bourne!

By: modusoperandi00

modusoperandi00 — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:37:00 +0000

Goody. Now when you fly you’ll pass by the barrel of confiscated babies in with the confiscated lighters, scissors, half full bottles of water, various other contraband items, etc.

By: Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:06:00 +0000

ok, I’m confused. Are exploding babies a threat we should worry about or not? Should we trade more liberties for some theoretical increase in safety that is more likely an illusion than reality? Is TSA theater a bigger long term threat to air travel than the terrists?

By: Ipo

Ipo — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:48:00 +0000

Diapers can hold surprisingly large amounts of liquids or even matter of a consistency not dissimilar to cupcakes in a jar.
Clear and present danger.

By: Ipo

Ipo — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:43:00 +0000

(Spoiler for clancyesque blockbuster)
The baby really was a bonsai-terrorist.

By: Lemoutan

Lemoutan — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:12:00 +0000

Ah, yes – the good old controlled detonation.

By: The Rizz

The Rizz — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:35:00 +0000

Play it safe? I agree. I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

By: TWX

TWX — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:39:00 +0000

I’ve always been amazed how they fuss and hem and haw about ID and about paper boarding passes, yet they never actually *do* anything with that information, like, oh, make sure that boarding passes are legitimate, and timestamp individual passengers as they go through security so that they can review footage to figure out who it was that was brought through.

Yes, I know, the baby probably had no documentation on him as he probably shared a seat with a parent, but the parents should have had something each, and it would have been simple to figure out where they were going and to deal with it that way.

And as for the concern for what could have been carried through with the baby, I don’t want to hear about knives or the ilk when one is able to get a knife from a restaurant within security. It’d better be an explosive for it to actually matter.

By: TWX

TWX — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:29:00 +0000

Yep. Here, MVD is definitely faster and better organized. When you arrive you select the operation that you’re there to do as there are multiple, and you are issued a call ticket with a number. When the clerk who draws your number calls you, they already know what the situation is and how to best handle it quickly.

Contrast to the TSA, which theoretically has only one job and has fixed spaces every major airport in the US in which to do it, and it’s still a frackin’ mess.

IF the security and screen process worked properly in the first place then I could understand there being a problem if they failed to check the baby, as yes, it could be possible for someone to use a baby as a mule to take something nonpermitted through security. But, all things aren’t equal, as the security is spotty and uneven, with both false positives and with detection failures.

By: miasm

miasm — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:49:00 +0000

You frothing, rationalist patriots have harried yourselves to the point where you are imagining BABIES IN MINIATURE EXPLOSIVE VESTS.
Stop doing that.

By: ben_b

ben_b — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:57:00 +0000

Whats the difference between a truck full of blowing balls and a truck full of babies?

By: ben_b

ben_b — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:55:00 +0000

No, people just needs to lick the government’s boots a little more, then we will be safe.

By: jere7my

jere7my — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:38:00 +0000

The problem is not that they wanted to scan the baby, which is, after all, basically luggage. If I wanted to sneak something onto a plane I might try sewing it into a diaper, then doing a “Here, honey, can you hold her for a second?” pass while I got re-scanned. Focusing on the “tiny, little, itty-bitty baby” part of the story is great for stoking outrage, but (if you accept that luggage needs to be scanned) that’s the one part of their procedure that makes sense. Imagine if she’d passed her purse to her husband before getting re-scanned — the security hole would be pretty obvious, right?

Evacuating the terminal, passing the blame, and losing the baby seem like less tenuous vectors for outrage.

By: The Life Of Bryan

The Life Of Bryan — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:07:00 +0000

Is there any problem at all that a couple of well-placed tactical dingos can’t solve?

By: SomeGuyNamedMark

SomeGuyNamedMark — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:20:00 +0000

APB, Baby Face Finster

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/07/01-07/finster.jpg