The problem is that you have been ingrained the picture of terrorism to be a bomb blowing up, killing people or crashing planes. This is how probably 99% of all people would define terrorism (me too). However, laws cannot just talk about a common word without defining it. Everything needs to be made precise. That is what this law is doing in their very first sections. It defines what terrorism includes. And I quoted that in my first reply which you may re-read. It does define terrorism differently.
As has been noted by others, Miranda had potentially national security related material which can be interpreted as (a) or (b) of above.
You misquoted that law by quoting only one section of two which define terrorism. Go back and read the rest of it and you will understand why you are wrong, or see the quote from symmetry below.
As has been noted by others, Miranda had potentially national security related material which can be interpreted as (a) or (b) of above.
This will be my last response.