"I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation for any reason. If someone attacks, whether it's out of greed, jealousy, or hatred, they should be punished. Period."
I understand your argument and probably agree with it. The action is what matters, not the motive. I was wondering how we reconcile that sentiment with federal terrorism legislation.
The federal law against terrorism makes certain actions a "terrorist act" if they are perpetrated with the motive to achieving some political goal. Under this law, blowing up a Senator's office might just be a state-level "bombing" charge of some sort if the attack was personal, but it would be an act of terrorism under federal law if the goal was to intimidate all senators to achieve some goal.
In this case, we establish a more serious offense depending on the motive of a crime. Of course.. you could argue that terrorism is a more extreme case, but that doesn't really change the legal argument.
Hmmm.... I guess I don't see terrorism as a crime, exactly, but as an act of war. Different rules.