Stretching the definition of "terrorist"

A crazed young man with no specific political goal or views murdered several children. The government wants to label such people as "terrorist" although that stretches the definition of "terrorist" to the point of meaninglessness.

Terrorism means violence (or threats of violence) against noncombatants for some cause (regardless of which cause). That is a coherent concept, so terrorists thus labeled on the basis of that definition have something important and clear in common.

But once you include people who engage in violence for no specific reason, the set becomes so broad that it ceases to be coherent.

Some cops want those murders to be declared terrorism because it would allowed them to question the suspect for longer.

They advocate stretching the word "terrorism" to be arbitrarily stretchable. That would make the word entirely meaningless.

Should they have been allowed to question that suspect for longer? I have no opinion on that; I am not sure what the possibilities are. But if the UK would like to give cops more time to investigate certain kinds of suspects, it should do this in a way that avoids causing collateral damage to the word "terrorism".

</li>