why is this not surprising at all?

and how many real terrorists have we convicted out of all these heavily-publicized arrests?

I was listening to the case on the radio yesterday and I am thinking, "Ok, but what is the catch?" Here we go. It is sad that there always seems to be a catch.

Why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that the difference in affidavits was due to a lie or conspiracy?

From the Seattle Times article, it seems there is a sensible explanation:
"Sacramento FBI spokesman John Cauthen said the deletions in the document were made because the original details were "not relevant or not accurate in context" for the purpose of proving a probable cause to arrest Hamid Hayat and his father...this material may also reveal intelligence material that the government did not want to release."

So could the possibility be that the original release was information that was not supposed to be released? Could it be there is an innocuous mistake when this was made?

If you are suggesting, as I assume you are, that this was all made up to begin with, then the people will have one hell of a lawsuit.

But one might consider Occam's Razor that the information originally released was not supposed to be. Not that there was some nefarious action going on. These are federal prosecutors who are just going about their jobs. Average people. They make mistakes too.

It is entirely possible that all of the info in the first affidavit is true, but it was not necessary to charge them with the crime that the Feds are pursuing against these individuals. Remember, they got Capone on tax invasion. Against Capone's tax invasion, would one need to submit an affidavit that lists all of his crimes? No.

You don't accuse people of being terrorists loudly, and on television, if you don't have all your facts straight. This happens all the time, and it's pure propaganda--like every person we catch in Iraq is a "top deputy" or "mastermind" or a "number 3"--it's all bullshit.

We're arresting grandmothers and calling them terrorists now.

We are all terrorists now.

But the American Civil Liberties Union challenged Mr. Bush's numbers, citing a study done by Syracuse University that showed the "vast majority" of the 400 cases were for minor, non-terrorism offenses." Lisa Graves, an ACLU senior counsel, said the study showed that most of those arrested "posed such little threat to national security that most served no jail time."lis' link

I think CCR covered this already:

"Oh lord, stuck in Lodi again."

But seriously.

dios, I appreciate your point, but I think that Occam's Razor isn't like chance, it does not reset itself each time something has happened. When there is a demonstrable pattern of trumpeting dubious terrorism arrests, then the easist explanation begins to be that these arrests and the publicity they generate are pursued for just that, publicity. If there are this many instances of poor oversight, I feel even less good about it. In a way I'd rather have my government lying to me while they do bad things than to be so incompetent that they can't get an affadavit together. ok, not really, I'd rather have neither.

U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges
Statistics Often Count Lesser Crimes