system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: How does labelling an arrested criminal a domestic 'terrorist' change how the rest of the judicial process operates? (If at all)

A 'cop killer' in the United States is being charged with terrorism because interviews with him revealed that he had intended to effect change in government policy.

My question is: how does labelling him a terrorist change the game here? Do his rights change in any way, especially related to the evidence-gathering methods that will be admissible in court? Is labelling him as a terrorist going to allow the government to treat him differently than they would if he was a 'simple' 'cop killer'?

I'm also more than willing to learn about how this works in other nations as well! (esp Canada)

Thanks!
gpt
I had an old hippie computer science professor way back in 2002 that took what happened in 9/11, saw how the patriot act was and based an entire class around it...it was some sort of computer ethics class but he was tenured and it was a small school with a small department so he basically did what he wanted. He emphasized the whole "terrorist" label being bad in general and it stemmed from the fact that it's not a well defined term and can be thrown around at anyone.  It was sorta like calling someone a "communist" back in the day.  And in a lot of cases the accused gets treated differently once labeled a terrorist. If some evil country tried taking over the world and we captured some of their soldiers, their soldiers would have more rights than "terrorists".  No due process and they can be thrown into a hole for years on end. The prof was cool but a little bit of a nut but he was totally right about how things would turn out. Even today, 14 years after shtf we still don't have a universally accepted definition of terrorist that can't be twisted into fitting any general act of violence committed.