They can't complain.
At least the powers that be recognise the fact that there are a lot of David Nelsons out there and any mistakes have been correctly handled.

If they're that pissed let them change their names by deed poll.

Boy, must be a wonderful life in the UK, to be conditioned to accept without question having your personal rights ripped out from under you.

LOL. Well dude. I did post that deed poll line, tongue in cheek.

But looking at it logically if there is a terrorist called David Nelson then it's only natural that these guys should find themselves inconvenienced.

What would you rather the security services do? Ignore all David Nelsons?
This would possibly lead to a terrorist of that name being able to board a plane unchallenged and killing a lot of people.

What would you rather have? Inconvenience or death?

Yeah, it's unfortunate for these guys but at least they're still alive. If I were them I'd grin and bear it. It's not something that's going to affect them for the rest of their lives and they will probably be compensated in some way at a later date.

Unfortunately, that's the world we live in. Some people have to suffer inconvenience to keep the rest of us alive.

I feel sorry for these guys but I try to look at the situation as if I were in their place. Granted, I wouldn't be happy. But I would recognise that the entire scenario is being run for the good of the whole.

First of all, if this guy really was going to perform a terrorist attack, I seriously doubt he is going to use his real name, esp if the databases are looking for him.

Second of all, even with our current security, there is NO protection against terrorism. For the better part of 40 years, we have had to deal with baggage screening, metal detectors, and other assorted problems that were supposed to make us safe.

On 9/11, did they protect us? Not one bit. What have we done since then? Now, we have to have our bags searched very very very carefully to make sure we dont bring on nail clippers and hockey sticks.

We dont have any real new safety precautions, we just have existing ones enforced to the point of causing serious problems for normal people. If it didnt work before, what makes anyone think it will work now, esp since any new attacks will have taken such precautions into account?

The best bet for airline security is to follow the lead of El Al: each flight has 2 plainclothes agents on board, one with a Jericho pistol, the other with a micro-uzi. If a terrorist boards an El Al flight, he doesnt get off alive.

You notice that El Al has never been hijacked?

I am personally in favor of a proposal allowing any credentialed, certified, and sworn law officer in the US to fly with thier firearm loaded and on thier person during thier normal business flights. This would, in a matter of days, quadrupal the number of "air marshalls" on any given aircraft.

Hell, let a terrorist get on board. When he is carried off in a body bag, Im sure it will make any future hijackers think twice.

Originally posted by dragonrider

We dont have any real new safety precautions, we just have existing ones enforced to the point of causing serious problems for normal people. If it didnt work before, what makes anyone think it will work now, esp since any new attacks will have taken such precautions into account?

You notice that El Al has never been hijacked?

So because in your opinion these precautions didn't work once, we shouldn't use them again?
Can you prove that these precautions actually haven't stopped another 9/11?

As for ElAl. Have you ever flown with them? It's like getting on a prison transport.
There go your personal freedoms, dude.

Be real. You can't have it both ways.

I just prefer to put my faith in competent individuals with firearms (as I am one). I would feel FAR more comfortable knowing there was someone on a flight equipped and trained to deal with any potential hijacker rather than being on an unarmed hostage transport (which is essentially what the modern airliner is now), knowing that there will always be a way to beat the security system.

Consider, if you are a passenger on an airliner that is hijacked, would you rather know that an airmarshall was onboard and could selectively annihlate the terrorist, or, because "this couldnt happen, they should have been stopped by security" the gov has to resort to the only other means of defence, which is to scramble a fighter and shoot down the enitire plane, passengers and all?

I'll take my chances with the bullets in the cabin, thank you.

By the way, when was the last time you flew El AL?

I do note that the one attack at LAX last year was stopped cold by an El AL agent of the type I described above.

I do not really want guns being fired because if a couple shots go through the plain cabon pressure is lost. Then there would be a dead guy and problems no one could fix.