I hate to make such a prediction, but this case is factually analogous to the ACLU's case against the targeted killings of US citizens without due process and A

I hate to make such a prediction, but this case is factually analogous to the ACLU's case against the targeted killings of US citizens without due process and ACLU's demand the standards of the kill list be disclosed. If a citizen can have his life taken without due process, it seems consistent a citizen's Constitutional Right to travel can be taken without due process. For those that do not know: "On August 30, 2010, the [ACLU] filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants. They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of [a US citizen], and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the claims were judicially unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches." Coincidentally, or likely not coincidentally Judge John D. Bates, is also the presiding Judge of the FISA Court as shown in the Rules of Procedure for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (See: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf) I do not agree, but at least the US government has an argument that by disclosing publicly known or suspected terrorists, it may jeopardize our national security interests. How the hell can that be logically extended to the idea that disclosing the criteria to get on the "kill list" or "no fly list" jeopardizes our national security interests?