Here's a good question:

What is "terrorism"?

Within the US Justice system alone, there are 44 separate definitions of the term, each unique in some way or another. Ryan's question in his last post is a good one, but it seems like its almost impossible to answer.

Looking at our own history, can we better define the term? Or is it in the best interest of the government to keep it broad, general and ambiguous? Should "terrorism" be left to the sort of determination that Ryan so frequently employs with GOP candidates... "we'll know it when we see it"?

Seriously... let me give you an example:

In 1975, a single man went on a shooting rampage that lasted nearly three years and killed 6 while wounding 7. The killings and the letters sent from the "killer" paralyzed the City of New York, creating a wave of hysteria that has rarely been rivalled since. Police were overwhelmed with calls and tips from tens of thousands of citizens each week who thought they knew who the "killer" was, and this volume of activity actually hampered the investigation more than it helped.

David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam killer) was proven to be mentally unstable, and is serving 6 life sentences right now... but his actions fit perfectly with the current model and definition of a "terrorist" according to the FBI. He was targeting individuals with no regard to political or military activity, his actions were intended to create fear and anxiety in the entire society, and his "goal" seems to have been the destruction from within of the entire City of New York.

Was Berkowitz a "terrorist"? If Major Hasan was a "terrorist" for his actions at Fort Hood... how is Berkowitz not? If McVeigh was a "terrorist" then weren't Harris and Klebold the same thing at Columbine High?

To suggest that someone who does what Klebold and Harris, or Hasan, or Berkowitz did is "crazy" or "mentally deranged" and that makes them NOT terrorists is silly, I think. Where the men who flew the planes into the WTC or the Pentagon any MORE stable or rational than the rest?

What about the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914? Was Princip a terrorist? Or was that a "political assassination" with cause?

How would we define "terrorism" here?