That rethinking ought to include a closer look at just exactly which incidents might reasonably fall into the category of eco-terrorism. Freeh, at least, has changed his stance in the past couple of years and has testified to Congress that terrorism in aid of environmental and animal-rights causes has risen to a level equivalent to violence against abortion providers. So, if step one in the process of adequately addressing eco-terrorism is to recognize and document its existence, step two is to rethink the laws that deal with it. The laws against terrorism aimed at the United States government are tough. But they are complicated and violations are hard to prove.
Laws dealing with some aspects of eco-terrorism are either nonexistent or too weak.
Attacks aimed at those selected by these vigilante protectors of the earth or its animals are not misdemeanors by any means, and they shouldn't be treated that way. It is a matter of luck, and only luck, that nobody has been killed in these attacks. Reclassifying acts of eco-terrorism makes some people uncomfortable, dealing, as it does, with criminal motives. But a society that can define and recognize crimes of hate, when the motives may not always be that clear, can certainly discern motives that are often spray-painted on the victims' walls. The key point of all this, though, is to underscore the illegitimacy of terrorism as an activity in a democratic society.