Soooo vague.
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of....
How can you prove that someone poses a significant risk? Does this Executive Order say how you have to prove that? Do they even have to prove it?, or can the federal government just decide you pose a significant risk?
THAT's the problem with this type of "law".
Under someone as benevolent as Bush we might be ok, but what happens when a real asshole takes power, and this intricate system of laws is already in place?
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of....
How can you prove that someone poses a significant risk? Does this Executive Order say how you have to prove that? Do they even have to prove it?, or can the federal government just decide you pose a significant risk?
THAT's the problem with this type of "law".
Under someone as benevolent as Bush we might be ok, but what happens when a real asshole takes power, and this intricate system of laws is already in place?
