Why is the media and the ACLU missing the Two Horrible Precedents being set in Oregon?

I'm not talking about the "militia" per se, but what they are protesting. Two ranchers set fire to some land. It spread to Federal property and they were jailed for arson. All well and good. But then, when they were released, they were re-jailed for a much longer term under an obscure anti-terrorism statute.

This sets two Really Bad Precedents. The government can pursue totally unconstitutional Double Jeopardy, punishing someone twice for the same crime. I don't care what the technicality is, this really violates the spirit of the Constitutional injunction against double jeopardy.

Further, stretching the definition of "terrorism" so far that it covers a grass fire endangers us all - including those of us liberals who are hooting in derision. Double jeopardy and terrorism-stretching can be done just as well against Occupy Wall St, or any form of civil disobedience by any group, liberal or conservative.

I am amazed this has been missed. Although given our rotten media, not too amazed. There is media furor over the unlikeability and clownishness of the "patriot" group - and I don't like them either; but that is obscuring a really important legal issue. Where is the ACLU on two such bad precedents that directly contravene the Constitution and simple justice?