They’ve been “terrorists” from day one. Since their arrest for a string of property crimes against corporations they believed were destroying the planet, a group of environmental activists from the Northwest have been relentlessly branded “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in government press conferences, Congressional hearings and in the media. On Tuesday, though, in federal court in Eugene, Ore., the government will try to take the T-word one step further.

It’s not just semantics. If the government successfully argues for “terrorism enhancement” penalties, it could add up to 20 years on the sentences, and in some cases quadruple prison time. It could place defendants in cells next to more traditional “terrorists.” And it could allow harsh restrictions on contact with family and friends.

But Tuesday’s court date is about more than these 10 defendants who never harmed anyone but caused about $40 million worth of property damage. And it’s about more than whether the government can put a notch on its “War on Terrorism” bedpost, which hasn’t seen much action lately, to justify the massive investigation and expense of “Operation Backfire.”

It’s about the meaning of a word that, with every mention, can hit Americans harder and deeper than perhaps any other. The word has come to symbolize planes flying into buildings, family and friends murdered, and lives that will never be the same. The “terrorism enhancement” hearing will test how much political mileage the administration can get out of that pain.

“Terrorism is terrorism”

For over a decade, and especially since the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, activists have fiercely debated whether property destruction is “violence” or “direct action.” Ask activists how they feel about breaking windows, gluing locks and burning bulldozers, and some may tell you it only makes John Q. Public less receptive to the issues. Others may tell you that those actions stop the “real” violence: and besides, can you be violent towards an SUV?

Beyond that, even if you do believe that destroying an empty building is violence, there is an even bigger question: is it terrorism?

The FBI doesn’t see a grey area. A crime is either terrorism or it is not. You are “either with us or against us.”

“Terrorism is terrorism — no matter what the motive,” said FBI director Robert Mueller at a press conference announcing the indictments. “The FBI is committed to protecting Americans from all crime and all terrorism…”

The government hasn’t been committed to labeling all crimes “terrorism,” though. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the Alabama church arson cases. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the case of a firefighter who set 28 fires because she wanted overtime pay. And it hasn’t sought “terrorism enhancement” for the murder of abortion doctors.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the Department of Homeland Security does not even list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats. Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. But animal rights and environmental activists still top the “domestic terrorist” list.

The government has singled out these property crimes for “terrorism enhancement” because of the politics of the crime. Motive matters. The defendants didn’t harm anyone, and they didn’t seek to benefit from the crimes, but they committed an even deadlier sin: targeting corporate profits.

“He closed the door”

The crimes didn’t cause any deaths, any injuries, or any substantial risk of death or injury, but make no mistake: these were very serious crimes nonetheless. They often involved arson, which immediately puts the actions on another level, separate from petty vandalism like graffiti or slashing the tires of SUVs. The defendants have accepted responsibility for their actions, and it’s clear they’re heading to prison.

But it’s critical to note in a debate about “terrorism enhancements” that the defendants went to great lengths to make sure they didn’t harm anyone. That’s a concern not shared by suicide bombers and anthrax mailers.

“A terrorist acts from hate and aims to create fear,” says Kevin Tubbs’ attorney in his sentencing memo. “A terrorist’s goal is to cause death, because is the ultimate tool. Death is the ultimate source of fear.”

The government admits as much. In a 148-page document, prosecutors spell out how some of the defendants set fire to the Vail ski resort and caused $24.5 million in damage. During that action, William “Bill” Rodgers had “opened a door and observed two hunters sleeping. He closed the door and did not set that building on fire.”

Daniel McGowan’s attorneys say in “terrorism enhancement” memo that the many precautions taken to “honor human life” separate these activists from what most reasonable people consider “terrorists.”

It is “perhaps the most compelling reason why none of them should be branded a terrorist, why none of them should bear conditions of confinement that are not only degrading and punitive, but that are affirmatively damaging to their mental health, and why none of them should be permanently catalogued in our nation’s history books alongside the names of Mohammed Atta, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or Eric Rudolph.”

These cases don’t fit most people’s ideas of “terrorism.” They don’t neatly fit the legal definition, either. To qualify for the “terrorism enhancement,” the government must show that an action “involved or was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism.” A “federal crime of terrorism” has a specific definition. It has to be one of a laundry list of specific offenses, including presidential assassination, use of weapons of mass destruction, and arson of property used in interstate commerce. It also has to be “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.”

That last part is the kicker. The actions targeted corporations and aimed to stop environmental destruction, not influence the government.

Anti-corporate rhetoric permeates the communiqués written about the crimes, like the one for arson at Superior Lumber that labels the company a “typical earth raper contributing to the ecological destruction of the Northwest” and calls for tactics against “capitalism and industry.” Another, for arson at Jefferson Poplar tree farm, shows that these crimes weren’t meant to influence government, because the defendants had lost all faith that government could be influenced. Instead, they targeted the bottom line.

The court will decide technical matters like this at the hearing on Tuesday. But the push for “terrorism enhancement” penalties should ultimately pose more questions than it answers.

Since 9/11, the T-word has been stretched and pulled and hemmed and cuffed and torn and mended to fit a growing body of political whims. This hearing is ultimately about how far the government can push its political tailoring. It’s also about the point at which we’ve outgrown the rhetoric, and we decide to stop wearing the past.

Will Potter is an award-winning reporter who focuses on how lawmakers and corporations have labeled animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists.” Will has written for publications including The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News and Legal Affairs, and has testified before the U.S. Congress about his reporting. He is the creator of GreenIsTheNewRed.com, where he blogs about the Green Scare and history repeating itself.