Oh nonsense. This dopey thread is reading like the DUmmie FUnnies.
I don't know about that; there is real danger in letting the government define everything. Terrorists in this particular case, but consider even 'mental illness' -- the "mental illness" reason was used to remove people who did not agree with the party in Communist Russia -- why is it so far off to think that allowing the definition of 'terrorist' to be government-defined will not fall into the same abuse?
Note, also, how the government is claiming that there is not right to "due judicial process" -- that they can just have some process and call that "due process" that satisfies the 5th Amendment. However, the 6th Amendment is clear that in ALL criminal* prosecutions the defendant has the right to a Jury trial. So, by doing this the government apparently hopes to void the 6th and 5th Amendments.
* -- Is a terrorist a criminal? The congress introduced laws defining things like 'terrorist acts' and in so doing made the 6th apply to them, regardless of whether or not it would have beforehand.