On the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack, the media is doing recaps, and one thing discussed is the USA Patriot Act and other changes in government. The Act allows nearly untrammeled surveillance of people ‘suspected of terrorism’ or ‘suspected of links to terrorism’.
Some time ago I heard that we haven’t actually defined terrorism. This doesn’t sound likely, given how laws are usually carefully specified, to avoid vagueness.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no definition. Perhaps this is part of the reason that so many are opposed to the Act.
I’m also not convince that laws in general are so carefully crafted. Isn’t that part of the role of the US court system, to help resolve ambiguities and confusion in law?
In my state, “terrorism” has become a pile-on charge. A kid throws a rock at a car and he’s now a “terrorist” in addition to a vandal. I suspect that the DAs are using it as a plea bargain scam. E.g., “If you plead guilty to X, we’ll drop the terrorism charge.”
I.e., it’s legal meaning is whatever they want it to be that day.