3 ms·
>> individuals listed under the policy may ultimately petition a U.S. appeals court directly for relief Why isn't it the other way around? Shouldn't they have
by TallGuyShort 12y ago
>> individuals listed under the policy may ultimately petition a U.S. appeals court directly for relief
Why isn't it the other way around? Shouldn't they have to prove to a judge that there is reasonable suspicion you are or have been engaged in terrorism before they can interfere in your affairs?
- higherpurpose 12y agoGuilty until proven innocent.
- adventured 12y agoYou're absolutely correct. They should have to provide evidence proving legitimate concerns about the person in question, preferably to a civilian judicial court that is public, and each person has to be manually confirmed to be a danger and then put on the list. Then there should be a transparent, straight-forward way to challenge it.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]