This would only happen if the target had not been cataloged already and repeatedly by incidentals, which, if it's a target, it has. Surveillance of operational matters wouldn't require and ,in fact, may preclude overt photography. If necessary, it could be done at a distance with compound lens. But the reasons that would require this are minimal and remote. A simple walkabout can determine personnel, schedules, traffic, routes, routines, etc. I am unconvinced a sophisticated group would risk personnel and exposure by on site photography whose value would either be minimal or better obtained by less overt means.
This is a good start on the terrorist attack cycle and the surveillance techniques that are used. One of the problems with defense is that you had to protect against all possible attacks, and that includes people conducting on the ground surveillance.
As you suggest, more sophisticated groups will find better means of gathering the intelligence they need. Unfortunately, that still leaves crappy groups that don't know any better. Surveillance remains the best time to catch terrorists.
I can't speak to the specific example in the article, as usual the US is paranoid and over reacts, but the fundamentals are solid. Look for people conducting surveillance to catch terrorists.
Unless you are in a war zone, which USA is not, there aren't terrorists to find. USA soil is incrediy safe as a baseline, and all the security theatre doesn't stop anyone who actually tries. Nearly all the "wins" are entrapment of mentally ill people.
Yes, you're right. However, that's another issue. The question was "do terrorists take pictures of their targets?" and the answer is "yes they do". If the question is "are there terrorists in the USA?" then the answer is more complicated (I'd argue that shooting up an abortion clinic is terrorism), but in general the answer is "no". Should photographers be singled out for harassment? No, definitely not.
