Originally posted by BP: imo one is a person who's sole goal is to commit murder and destruction on a macro scale and is a national security threat to our nation, the other isn't anywhere near the level of a national security threat. i'm not belittling the crimes of rapists or saying what their punishment should be i'm just stating that to me there is a pretty big difference between the two.
You're thinking far too narrowly.
Terrorism doesn't have to be on any more of a "macro scale" than a murder/rapist.
A "terrorist" can kill one person. Hell, a terrorist might not even succeed in that and still be tried as a terrorist.
A serial murderer can kill dozens of people -- much more "macro" than the vast majority of actual "terrorists" who may kill no or just a couple people in their suicide bombings. A murderer can can even, quote, "terrorize" communities. Just look at the DC Snipers -- they arguably impacted the lives of more people in that area than 9/11 did -- terrorism or murder?
What's the defining characteristic between someone who drives a carbomb into a building and kills 3 people and someone who walks into the building and shoots 3 people? If the only difference is intent, that's a mighty big loophole to get people in and out of. And even then it seems a bit odd that "intent to intimidate" is the only difference between a federal offense worthy of the death penalty and a state offense that's not.
Here's an example question: Did McVeigh commit "Terrorism" or "Murder" when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building?
