A Stitch in Haste

You would think that with, you know, that whole "Internet" thingy and stuff, stories like this could not happen:

A British Airways jumbo jet flying to New York turned back after the US objected to one of its passengers.

Three hours after take-off on Wednesday the Boeing 747, with 239 passengers, turned around after a US request that the man should not be allowed to land.

They said his name matched one on a terrorism watch list. He was met by British police on landing and was questioned, but later released. BA said there was "no threat to the safety of the aircraft".

BA flight 175 landed back at Heathrow at 1730 GMT - more than six hours after take-off.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this is possible. Can't these checks be made before the dang plane takes off?

UDPATE: Related story --

A federal judge dismissed much of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the government's no-fly list of terror suspects barred from boarding airliners.

Most claims brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of people with names identical to or similar to those on the list, must be taken directly to a federal appeals court, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly of Seattle said.
...
Zilly ruled that the plaintiffs did not show "tangible harm to their personal or professional lives."

I'm more interested in the "tangible harm" to the over 200 innocent schmucks who lost over six hours of their "personal or professional lives" because the government can't check their lists before the plane actually takes off.

UPDATE: Tom G. Palmer weighs in.

Related Posts:
"Air Amtrak" Update: Will Holiday Chaos Spur Greater Scrutiny?
"Secure Flight" Revisited