I spy with my little eye ...

... a slippery slope.

(Granted, I'm prone to slippery slopes)

(That's a funny image. Me prone on a slippery slope)

A wire story on Salon describes efforts by federal prosecutors to "enhance" the sentences of some arsonists as follows:

Prosecution filings argue that though the defendants were never convicted of terrorism, they qualify for the label because at least one of the fires each of them set was intended to change or retaliate against government policy.

What does it mean to "enhance" a sentence? Is that constitutional?

Is an action "intended to change or retaliate against government policy" the definition of terrorism? Apparently it has to be violent, but how violent?