What is the process of digestion in man?

FBI arrests man for sending letters laced with poison. Due process freed him. Isn't it essential to retain due process protections?

• For years now, War on Terrorism hawks have been arguing that terrorists -- by which they mean people accused of terrorism -- don't identify themselves like traditional enemies; and that it's foolish to read them their rights, to bring them before a judge, to require that evidence be presented to justify holding them, or to interfere with the judgment calls the executive branch makes in war time. Insofar as I know, the folks who make those arguments didn't call for Paul Kevin Curtis in particular to get the enemy-combatant treatment. That's to their credit. But would things have been different if his name was Abbas Hussein Mohammed? Or if a federal official had actually been hospitalized or killed by one of the ricin laced letters? Or if the frame-up had included the threat of more ricin imminently targeting unspecified officials in the U.S. government? This case is a reminder that being accused of a heinous act, like sending a poison-laced letter to the president, does not mean that the accused is guilty. It is an eye-opening look at an FBI apparently willing to continue holding a man it had good reason to believe innocent. And it is a demonstration of why our system requires appearing before a judge, with evidence, to hold a suspect: to protect innocents from being imprisoned, and to ensure that the real bad guys are found. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/what-the-framing-of-a-terror-suspect-says-about-gop-attacks-on-due-process/275558/

• Answer:

  They found the true criminal on that case ... about 20 minutes down the road from my house ..