How about if the potential “listee” is notified before inclusion on watch list and given reasons why he is being listed? He can then dispute his inclusion by refuting with evidence presented against and for his inclusion on the list.
The problem with that is, we're back to the accused being forced to prove they are not guilty, i.e. proving a negative. It is (well, should be according to the Constitution) the responsibility of the accuser (the government) to prove the guilt of the accused.
Otherwise, we have Soviet style kangaroo courts. Or, if you will, central American banana republic "courts".
Am I soft on muzzie terrorists? Nope. I'm guessing that had the feds had any balls they could have filed formal charges on at least some of these 23. But they are afraid to publicly go after them (get the Rats all riled up and be called islamaphobic by the MSM) so they did it on the sly.
How many normal, everyday Americans are on this list compared to real terrorists? Thousand to one? Lot more than that I'm betting.
That might require revealing sources and methods and expose informants or undercover agents.
Something tells be that this is really what they are after.
“He can then dispute his inclusion by refuting with evidence...”
Nope, that’s still the opposite of how it works in the USA. The government must prove their case against you, while you have no obligation to prove your innocence.