Criminals should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone wiped out my life savings, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them a terrorist to do that.

What is different from what just said versus the following?

"Terrorists should be dealt with through our criminal justice system, including the presumption of innocence. If someone is a terrorist, I would be upset and want them to be prosecuted, but we don't need to call them names to do that."

All you are really doing is stating that criminals are not terrorists. The entire thread is arguing that the person in question is not a terrorist.

The thing everyone is ignoring here is that what you call someone is irrelevant. I could call you a terrorist, and it won't matter at all. It's just my personal statement and opinion. All that matter is the consequences.

What are the actual consequences of being added to the "terrorist watch list?" What I've always thought is that it means you cannot fly. Is there some other consequence?

In War soldiers do not get the same benefits as civilians accused of a crime and we keep insisting we are at war with "terror". While I think that in most cases terrorists should be treated like any other murderer, classifying someone as a "terrorist" has very real effects on what rights they have. In the extreme example we have intentionally killed American citizens without trial or any sort of imminent threat (one of whom had not done anything significant) and justified it because they were "terrorists".