That’s how liberals believe you and I define the term.
Certainly this liberal:
We are and should be more worried about the Miranda rights of any perpetrator, because … once the gloves are off, it is difficult to put them back on again. Who is to say how the definition of “terrorist” might change over the years? At this point, we seem to have a clear idea that a terrorist is someone “other” … a person who does not belong to our culture. But what happens when the government decides that anyone speaking out against a sitting president is a “terrorist” or might have terrorist affiliations? I know that sounds silly and well, we have the First Amendment. Or do we? If Miranda rights do not apply to everyone within our borders, including “terrorists” … then they can be suspended for us too. It really is an all or nothing deal … if those rights do not apply to everyone, then they can at some point be suspended for anyone.
What happens when they come for you? Don’t you want to have those protections? I know I do. The Miranda rights do force our justice system to work harder in order to successfully prosecute a case against an offender and we find people who are innocent sitting on death row. It is not infallible so the ordinary citizen (including suspected terrorists) needs to have as many protections against the almost overwhelming power of the state as they possibly can.
There’s much to say about this but none of what comes to my mind is truly printable.
What comes to your mind?