I think this is a pretty big deal, reported in the Washington Post.
In a 2009 sample of 103 defendants, auditors found that 11 were reported as guilty on terrorism charges and should not have been; nine of them were found guilty in 2008. One of the nine was convicted in a narcotics and money-laundering case. The other two had their charges dismissed.I think this shows a few things. First, despite what the executive branch says, proving terrorism in a court of law is hard to do. This is the same executive branch that killed Anwar al-Awlaki because they were sure he was a terrorist. But in a court of law would a jury have agreed? I think this should remind us not to take the executive's word for it when they say someone is a terrorist.
Secondly, over reporting terrorism cases seems Orwellian to me. It makes the public think it's a bigger danger than it is and it makes us think the executive branch is better at defending us than it is.