Its a masterpiece you can't understand. You think if some Arab opens a bank account and puts $100 into checking, that means he must be a terrorist.
Your "analysis" was hilarious. You take each action independent of each other, and without any connection or context, and then argue that this action was perfectly legal and doesn't prove anything. And this is aside from the fact that this list was never intended to be evidence anyway. It is a bit like this.
Say a young woman was found dead, bound with duct tape, at 123 main street, shot by a 45 caliber pistol. The police arrest the suspect and put him on trial with the following facts.
Suspect owns a 45 caliber pistol.
Galileo and Barrett: So what, it is not illegal to own a pistol in this country!
Suspect lives at 124 Main Street.
Galileo and Barrett: Now they are persecuting a man solely because of where he lives. Obviously their case is weak.
Suspect was caught on video camera the day before the murder purchasing duct tape at WalMart.
Galileo and Barrett: So, it is perfectly legal to purchase duct tape. Maybe he was working on home repairs?
I could go on, but this idiocy is not worth the time.