Rainforest Action Network, I 'll mention that this type of pressurue is nothing new...however the amount of pressure is.  Lots of interesting little tidbits that I can't share at the moment but hopefully you won't be seeing any of us in front of a Grand Jury in DC anytime soon.

I will say that "terrorism" by definition must have a human compononet and once again, similar to the Red scare under McCarthy, the terminology is being batted around, molded and adjusted to fix various boxes, or situations, that the accuser would like to fill or address.  Terrorism does not include destruction of property. If it did, then this country was founded by terrorists. Afterall, what was the Boston Tea Party but a bunch of "revolutionairies" masquarading as native americans, destroying the property of the East India Tea Company, a rather important company to the British Crown. During all of these "eco-terrorist" events, protests or actions, the primary determining factor is safety and avoiding injuring other human beings.  Its why those tractors were set fire in the middle of the night after all workers had been cleared from the area.  It's why our SUV pal didn't blow up the SUV's during lunch hour.  To label these people the same as we would Osama Bin Laden, at least to me, is a bit of...well a stretch.    

A good friend of mine, who ironically works at the FBI as a lowly tech, explained to me sometime after 9-11 that it seemed anythign labeled "terrorism" in the the planning office received immediate funds to deal with the issue.  It got bad enough that agents began labeling anything that might not normally receieve funding as a "terrorism" claim to ensure financial security.

So are these types of actions non-violent? Yes. Care and safety of all around is always the first priority. If we were terrorists, we wouldn't care about that.  

Jay Els Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

Too bad joe six-pack hasn't the intellectual capacity to comprehend anything you said.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

Thank you, Sir!  May I have another...?

In all seriousness, you make great points, and it is easy to get distracted.  One other thing this accomplishes for the Republican politicians involved: makes it look like (to those who buy such arguments) that they're actually doing something against "national security threats."

Sustainablog: http://sustainablog.blogspot.com

But I feel as you may have missed my point.  
The question is whether it is at all possible to arrive at an exhaustive and objective definition of terrorism and how it ties to the claim of the existence of "eco-terrorism."

For this argument I'll defer to Boaz Ganor who is the Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

"The definition proposed in international courts of law states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. This definition is based on three important elements:

The essence of the activity--the use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent protest--strikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.).
The aim of the activity is always political--namely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in questwill not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible. The concept of "political aim" is sufficiently broad to include these goals as well. The motivation--whether ideological, religious, or something else--behind the political objective is irrelevant for the purpose of defining terrorism. In this context, the following statement by Duvall and Stohl deserves mention:

'Motives are entirely irrelevant to the concept of political terrorism. Most analysts fail to recognize this and, hence, tend to discuss certain motives as logical or necessary aspects of terrorism. But they are not. At best, they are empirical regularities associated with terrorism. More often they simply confuse analysis.'

 3. The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian "underbelly"--the tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term "terrorism" should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields."

So as you can see destruction of property does not fall into the definition of terrorism.  It has to be violence directed, indefinitely, at a civilian or towards a person specifically, inflicting harm with political motives. ELF and ALF, though extreme in thier tactics, are not "terrorists" by international standards. However, they have become unfortunate scapegoats for a society hungary to point fingers and slap cuffs on the closest version to it.  

If we are ready to claim the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist event, done by terrorists, then so be it.  But once again, I do believe it is based on perspective: afterall, your terrorists are our freedom fighters, and vice versa.  I will continue to believe that the implications of progress in society will always be revolutionary.

Jay Els Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

Aaron,
Are these green groups saying they are being targeted by the federal government? Or are they just worried they may get thrown into the same terrorism bucket as organizations like ELF and ALF?  This is a pretty big deal because suddenly the federal government is directly affecting the way in which 501c(3) and c(4) organizations operate.

What ever happened to the Republican ideal of small government so the common man could regulate him/herself? I guess it disappeared with the fear of terrorism...

Jay Els Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org

The groups we've run into are just more and more apprehensive about anything slightly aggresive or 'radical.'  This is of course, the radical right think tanks aim - winnow down the publically acceptable environmentalism to recycling.

Check this outrageous assault on NEPA and responsible environmentalism:

CEI blames Sierra Club for Katrina

And of course check out the club's GAO-backed
response

Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf