Quote Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
It IS an important point to consider and protect civil liberties. The term "terrorism", and by extension "terrorist" have reached the point in our society of being little more meaningful than "natural" or "artisan" or "awesome". When it comes to law the obvious problem is definition. There usually isn't any. Merriam Webster says:

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and

Terror: a state of intense fear


There is a LOT of room for interpretation in those definitions. The people in Sandy Hook Elementary School almost certainly felt a state of intense fear (aka, they were "terrorized"). Does that make Adam Lanza a terrorist? If A=B and B=C does A always equal C? Do we treat gang members who shoot up a neighborhood the same way as we treat members of al-Qaeda? One of the hard parts about living in a society like ours is that we have to protect the rights of a mass killer the same way we protect those of a shoplifter. The big thing here in NE right now is to charge anyone who uses a gun to threaten another person with "making terroristic threats". To me that is the most absurd wording that could have been used because I associate terrorism with political goals. Most other people I've talked with have a similar view. Everyone, I guess, except for our lawmakers.
I like how you summed up the words terror and terrorism as having been reduced down to empty, hollow words like awesome, natural, and most especially, artisan. What exactly does artisan mean anyway? This really made me stop and think and see this whole issue a little differently. Thanks! Rob (I do see terrorism as being different and usually as you said connected to some kind of politics.)