Quote: and imo you're looking at it far too broadly.
Too broadly? I used your definition. Macro-Scale and national security threat.
Quote: simple as this, one is a national security threat and one is not.
Define "national security threat".
What makes the Unabomber a murderer and not a terrorist?
What makes the DC Snipers murderers and not terrorists?
What makes McVeigh a murderer and not a terrorist?
All the above had express intentions of intimidating particular groups of people, entire societies, or the government. They are, by simple definition, terrorists. But not in our legal system. Should they be? When Kerry says "Terrorists should be executed" is he referring to the above offenders too? Or do they have to be Muslim and fighting a Jihad to count?
There needs to be some clarification here before we start executing people left and right based on the very vague definition of "Terrorism" and the further vague 'clarification' of "national security threat".
Quote: do you think bush should declare a war on serial rapists as a national securtiy threat?
That's not the question. The question is whether one should be treated significantly differently by the courts than the other.
