I'll play devil's advocate for the theory behind the no-fly list. (Though certainly not for the government's sloppy implementation.)
I think your argument is that the government simply cannot be justified in restricting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crime.
Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low.
You could make a distinction based on how broad or narrow the restrictions are. Not being able to fly anywhere is more restrictive than staying 100 yards away from one particular person. But that's a different argument than there being something fundamentally wrong with the concept.
Someone can’t just show up and get a restraining order (would be quite handy if so, for prank value if nothing else).
You have to present evidence before a judge, evidence that could be admissible in court. Yes, the bar for most restraining orders is low (often simply the sworn word of the requestor plus some other evidence like police reports or testimony of others), but so is the level of restraint. The key fact is the subject of said order can fight it in open court and the claims or evidence raised by the requestor can be challenged.
One can reasonably argue as to the merits and drawback of such a system but at least they interlock with due process.
But a secret no fly list based on classified or otherwise inadmissible evidence is a completely unrelated and immoral thing.
Thanks for the point about judicial review. That's obviously very important. (And, if judicial review were added to the no-fly list, the list would probably get orders of magnitude smaller.)
But it would still be possible (with judicial review) to put people on a no-fly list who the government nevertheless has no grounds to arrest for anything, just as it is possible today to issue restraining orders for people who the government has no grounds to arrest.
That specific argument against the no-fly list is really the only thing I was trying to take issue with.
> Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low.
Restraining orders and personal protective orders are court ordered according to the constitutional framework. They aren't things that are randomly assigned by airport employees.
To be fair, the issue is there's no judicial review at all to be put on the no-fly list. That's really the difference between it and a restraining order.
I think your argument is that the government simply cannot be justified in restricting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crime.
Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low.
You could make a distinction based on how broad or narrow the restrictions are. Not being able to fly anywhere is more restrictive than staying 100 yards away from one particular person. But that's a different argument than there being something fundamentally wrong with the concept.