I can make a couple of preliminary comments on that.
It actually seems, as I have indicated in my comments, that what's really at issue here is trying to ram the passenger protect program into these provisions that were never actually envisioned to encompass the program, which is why we don't actually give notice to people.
People can get notice of the passenger protect program. It's easy, and this is always what happens with security measures when you say how we'd go about doing this would be top secret. If I were on the passenger protect program, I wouldn't be able to get my boarding pass electronically. That would be my heads-up. If we are actually concerned about giving people too much notice, we already have a provision for finding out whether you're likely on the list or on it de facto.
As you were suggesting, the kinds of procedural protections that would be in place and that you have outlined would absolutely go a huge way toward making the system fairer. Another important thing, though, is that we actually home onto the criteria of what constitutes an immediate threat. Right now we have the notion that some people are too dangerous to fly but apparently not dangerous enough to arrest, even on conspiracy charges. We have a Criminal Code that allows us to actually arrest people for planning, and the concern about the efficacy of this program is very much what happens in the U.S. with the no-fly list: they don't put anybody who's really bad on the list because they don't want to give them a heads-up. Ergo, what's the list for? Nothing.