I think people are latching on to one person’s very poor choice of rhetorical flair. The case has nothing to do with terrorism and no one involved has actually

I think people are latching on to one person’s very poor choice of rhetorical flair. The case has nothing to do with terrorism and no one involved has actually been accused of terrorism, outside of this hyperbolic rhetoric. But I do think it is bad practice for the state to turn up the rhetoric in its legal disputes when it turns a legitimate adversarial dispute about the legality of actions into an improper attack on a citizen’s character. But on the other hand, there are plenty of circumstances where we feel it is totally proper (e.g. criminal prosecutions, but probably also lawsuits for fraud, gross negligence, and intentional physical injury). It is hard to balance the state’s dual roles as neutral arbiter/enforcer of the law and adversarial participant in it. The executive/legislative/judicial split helps, but does not solve it.