Here's the link to the press release: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

An interesting analysis by Prof Michel Chossudovsky here, sees it in terms of the criminalization of dissent - and no response from the House? WTF?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6377

There's an argument for legitimizing the EO in terms of its application to acts of "violence" (or threat thereof), rather than opposition per se. But what is really interesting is how the EO seems to apply to those who work for or with agents who may *later* be deemed to have used violence to upset the Iraq plan. Read it closely, folks, this is the future (present).

Incidentally, Chossudovsky sees the EO (and others like it. surely) tied in with NSPD 51, which we should all be aware of by now:

"In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack)."

Like they say, by the time you hear the gunshot, you're already hit.

sm