The prosecutors made use of anti-terrorism laws to get a sentence they wanted. Doesn't make the killers terrorists, no matter what law they were convicted under. Under U.S. law there are two overlapping definitions of terrorism, one for terrorism and one for international terrorism. They are:All violent crimes instill terror. But the beltway snipers were proven to be terrorists in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. That was the unanimous ruling of the jurors:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/us/virginia-justices-set-death-sentence-in-washington-sniper-case.html
[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.[60]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
(1) [T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that —
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended —
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum".[61]
You'll note that both definitions require a political motive. The stated political motive of one of the D.C. snipers was based on a delusion -- it wasn't a real political motive but it opened the door for the prosecutors to use it as a claim.
Not a terrorist.Sure. There was the LAX shooting, in 2002,
Lone nutcases don't count.the 2006 UNC SUV attack, the 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting,
See next above.the 2008 terrorist attack on a Universalist Church, which left two dead and injured six, etc.
See next above.The 2006 Capitol Hill Massacre was also, arguably, a terrorist attack, since a note indicated the mass shooting was motivated by wanting to end the sexual licentiousness of ravers.
Which is because he did, when it comes to the sort of planned and organized terrorist attack exemplified by 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, etc. No president, no matter how vigilant, can protect against the lone radicalized nutjob, regardless of political or religious orientation.Of course, a key conservative talking point during the Bush years is that he had prevented any terrorist attacks after 9/11. So, conservatives conveniently developed a kind of instant amnesia, where even terrorist attacks that had commanded obsessive public attention for weeks, like the Beltway Snipers and Anthrax attacks, were flushed down the memory hole in the interests of preserving the talking point.