These techniques should be used for all Terrorists?

The president always justifies what many (including, recently, the courts) consider to be questionable surveillance practices by saying that they are simply trying to avoid "another 9/11" or a ten-fold 9/11 or any number of similar phrases, involving the words "nucular weapons" and "mushroom clouds". Yet when asked if these methods are effective, their best examples are the arrests of environmental activists whose practices cause destruction of property but who insist that they take precautions to prevent damaging humans, and who have caused no injuries. These groups are classified by the government as terrorists and were used as an example of how their surveillance efforts are necessary and successful. No group which causes similar property damage to abortion clinics, however, has been classified by this administration as terrorist.

Should these extreme surveillance techniques be used on every terrorist organization, or only those who have taken or express the will to take lives?

What is the difference between legal disagreement, civil disobedience, and terrorism?

Here's a handy little quote:

"Terrorism is terrorism 鈥?no matter what the motive," declared FBI director Robert Mueller on Jan. 20

You got a point

According to the Zionists, all goyim are terrorists.

Only the Zionists are not terrorists.

Let's start with the differences. Legal disagreement is resolving a dispute through the structured legal process: courts, arbitration, negotiated settlement, whatever.

Civil disobedience is breaking the law in a non-violent way. Sit-ins. Destroying draft cards. Refusing to pay income tax. It's still criminal, and punishable, but no people or property are damaged.

Terrorism is trying to control people through fear and paranoia, and generally (but not always) requires some threat to life. I'm going to distinguish terrorism from vandalism, where there is threat to property as an economic dis-incentive, but no threat of death or bodily harm.

Next, let's look at the laws themselves. Under the current surveillance laws, the govt can eavesdrop on any overseas conversation without a warrant. If one or both ends of the conversation are in the US, the govt needs to get a warrant, but may do so secretly without ever telling the suspect they are being tapped. And the govt may get the warrant 3-15 days after the tap has begun, when necessary.

So, under the current laws (when followed) almost unlimited secret surveillance is allowed, just by filling out the proper forms.

Bush wants to justify his illegal wiretapping program by saying he's fighting terrorists. The thing is, his illegal program is absolutely unnecessary because everything he wants to do can be done legally. The entire scope of the program is available under the existing laws. So, Bush has no valid justification for breaking the laws, because they are not actually limiting the scope of surveillance. And the current laws allow such secret surveillance of both the terrorist and vandalist groups, provided warrants are obtained.

So, against what criminal activities are sufficiently dangerous that Bush is justified in monitoring people inside the US using illegal warrantless programs, when full legal surveillance is just as readily available? None.

And even if we allow illegal monitoring to stop people from being killed, the govt must also pay a penalty for those illegal activities. And the penalty established for over a half-century is that the govt cannot use any evidence obtained illegally to prosecute the criminals. So, aside from deportation for non-citizens, the govt's illegal actions only hurt their case, not help it.

i think this is the time to segregate the meanings of terrorism, while waiting for acceptance of defining terrorism, internationally...

it must be categorized to political, social and economic as well as humanity or morality...

agree?

I agree . You can't force people to your way of thinking , but you can scare the hell out of them , which is terrorism .