They might well regard rebellion terrorism, the world their subjects.

So a terrorist is neither rebelling nor invading then?

A non-citizen terrorist is not rebelling, and it's hard to argue that terror attacks constitute an invasion - there's no intent to control territory, nor is a governmental entity involved.

So, no.

I think the rules apply to the non-citizen while they are here. I think they actually agree to that when they enter the US. So, technically, they are rebelling.

If they're "rebelling", then so are Russian agents here covertly. I'd say it's pretty clear the Constitution didn't intend for arbitrary criminal acts committed by individuals or small groups to count as rebellions.

A person part of a militant group entering US territory with the express aim of subverting the US government would be invading, not rebelling.

If you're of the country and attacking it, you're a rebel. If you're not-of the country and attacking it, you're invading.

That makes sense to me. I don't think you need to have an intent to control territory. Nor do I think we stop an examine things to make sure of the purpose.

Rebelling, maybe. If they were USA citizens (not to imply there aren't any; hell, we've got the Klan).

Invading, no. They are not a governing body.

Not sure one has to be a governing body to invade. Godzilla could invade.

Can Godzilla really be considered an invader, given they frequently simply stomp-and-leave, or defend against others - who would stomp-and-leave (or occasionally set up shop) - by stomping-and-leaving? When I think invaders, I think intent-to-occupy; Godzilla seems to have no interest in occupying any Tokyo estates. Where there's no intent to occupy, I consider them to be just destroyers.

Hmm. Would obliterating something (and leaving) count as an invasion? To take it to ridiculous proportions: say we blew up another planet. Did we invade it?

To be fair, at the time of writing, it was pretty difficult to destroy another nation's cities/property/wealth without physically entering and being next to them.

Things become a lot clearer if you replace the word "terrorist" with "murderer".

A terrorist is someone who employs terror as a political weapon, a murderer is someone who commits murder. They're not synonymous, although a terrorist may employ murder to create terror, just like they could employ facial hair in a pogonophobics group session.

If the U.S. has an official definition of terrorism, they aren't sharing it with the rest of us.

Regardless, the point of the "invasion or rebellion" exception is obviously to handle circumstances so extreme that there won't be a government to recognize habeus corpus if due process is followed. The U.S. faces no such threat from lawfully dealing with terror suspects.

Yes. The government argues that terrorism is a unique threat that requires extreme measures, such as removing rights from citizens. But the counter-argument is that it IS a unique threat: one that can never be conclusively dealt with. There will never be a time when we can say "we have won; we are safe from terrorists." Therefore, any rights we surrender in this "war" will be gone forever.

In other words, the ubiquitous, eternal possibility of terrorism is the strongest argument for why we should NOT allow "extreme measures" that involve citizens losing their rights, because that loss will be permanent.