How would this not be 'terrorism'?

The only mention of the word “terror” I can find in the Associated Press story on the Michigan arrests is “David Cid, executive director of the Oklahoma City-based Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, said there has been a resurgence in the past year or two of ‘domestic militancy’ similar to what was seen before the Oklahoma City bombing.”

So, why aren’t we calling these people terrorists, or at least alleged terrorists? We know the government never makes mistakes on the people it seizes. Every detainee ever held in Guantanamo is/was a terrorist, right?

So, shouldn’t we be shipping these folks to Cuba for “enhanced interrogation” and military prosecution? Aren’t they too dangerous for our civilian courts?

After all, the government says that these people were targeting law enforcement officers — the very folks charged with protecting the rest of us. Anyone who would think of killing  a cop is that much more dangerous to the population at large, isn’t he?

Instead, though, we use words like “militant,” we make arrests and schedule hearings in civilian courts.

To be absolutely clear, I think that’s the right way to go.

But let’s all be clear about another point: If those arrested this week identified themselves as Muslim, the media, congressional and public reactions would be far different, wouldn't they?