Terrorism by numbers ...

Here is my only point of disagreement with you, and its fundamental as it relates to this question:
"I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated ..."

Now I get what you mean, our action on this is much more important then what we call it; however, I think improperly addressing the former profoundly affects the latter. In other words the most recalled line in the 9/11 Commission Report was (& I paraphrase), "They were at war with us, but we were not at war with them." The argument and subsequent debate in this nation was (and still is unfortunately) whether to address terrorism as a criminal justice matter, or an act of war directed at our national security. It seems to me that to NOT properly identify various acts as what they are - terrorism, in specific Islamic terrorism - weakens the resolve and vigilance of the "we are at war" argument and serves not only to undermine domestic police focus on the matter, but our efforts abroad as well. And if we lose that argument/focus we condemn ourselves to a 9/10/01 mentality.

Let me put it another way. If (God forbid) a suicide bomber detonates himslef in a large American mall and it is refered to as merely a criminal act of a lone nut, even though it has all the trappings, rehtoric and affiliations of a Hasan character, I think that description is a diservice to the American people. They need to know that acts of war/terror are being perpetrated less they lose sight of the importance of victory abroad and vigilance at home. Language matters is all I'm saying, and proper justice can not be meted out unless we have properly identified the problem.

Now, as to the other ...

Your last question is really at the heart at how to wage this war, given confederates (potential and literal) exist within our own borders. In 2009+, outside an act of nuclear holocaust, we are NOT going to "round up" Muslims in a WWII fashion, nor should we. Hell, the political hierarchy can barely stomach GITMO, and those are known extremists.

First off, even though I am of the "we are at war" crowd rather then a criminal justice advocate regarding terror, I fully recognize that within our own borders it is incumbent upon the FBI et al to police potential acts of terror. From Posee Comitatus to the CIA's foreign service mandate this is just how it has to be internally. So that distinction now being said aloud, let me also say that I want zero infringement of the First Amendment. I want extremist Imams and Mosques to openly profess their beliefs so that the FBI and relevant agencies can more easily identify, monitor, infiltrate, and subvert their influence and potential schemes. One story that dove tails with this emerged about 3 years ago. There was some rumblings within Arab-American anti-defamation groups over a government policy of monitoring Mosques for radiological signatures after 9/11. While this is certainly not on the order to the WWII roundups these groups still complained. I for one certainly think it was a common sense response. At some point we must realize that an act ceases to be "racial profiling" and becomes a description of the suspect when you have the faith, regional orientation, sex, and rough age of the perpetrating group. Who were they supposed to monitor? Catholic Cathedrals? Mormon Temples? How about Jewish Temples? If there was a rabid plural marriage, gun stock piling, abortion "doctor" killing white American on the loose with a paramilitary agenda and confederates should they monitor Mosques rather then the excommunicated Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church? This is what I mean about the lethality of political correctness. While we are patting down an 85 year old Polish grandmother for appearances sake at the airport the more likely offender is just that much more prone to slip by. It's madness.

At any rate, there is no simple answer to your question as you are well aware. My best response would be that our first step in providing security versus protecting rights would be to reject political correctness as a replacement for common sense. With that example being set both in the executive and legislative branch I feel that our security professionals both at home and abroad will be able to adequately provide protections for both. Unfortunately that example in leadership will NEVER emerge from this White House or this congress, making the task of an FBI anti-terror agent or US soldier in 2009 an unenviable one to say the least ... just ask CIA interrogators.