Terrorism
Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose. Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act. to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. For example, carrying out a strategic bombing on an enemy city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism. An associated term is violent non-state actor.
USA Act and the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act
The primary difference between the USA Act and FISA is the definition of terrorism. In FISA, terrorism is limited to acts that are "backed by a foreign power." The phrase "foreign power" is commonly regarded as "foreign government". Focus on Al Qaeda after September 11 raised the issue that there are terrorists who are not backed by a foreign government and even those who may act completely alone. In the USA Act, terrorism was redefined to be activity that appears to be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce the government or civil population AND (2) breaks criminal laws AND (3) endangers human life.