C) after having been actively attacked by some State special forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

edit: I keep thinking about that, and I don't know how you don't become crazy when you discover that the four or fifth biggest economy (at the time) actively attacked you. A "sane" level of paranoia doesn't exists anymore, you are actually framed by the secret services, you are in the novel, in the movie. They have allies all over the world, the rest is USSR friends you don't trust either or non-aligned third world countries.

Exactly - I don't generally support Greenpeace, but there is no doubt they were a victim of state-sponsored terrorism - the state being France. Actually, it's the only terrorist attack we've ever had in New Zealand, and it resulted in a civilian's death.

France threatened to embargo NZ goods within the EU unless we handed back their terrorists. At which point they were released and promoted.

And now some of them work in the US.

We consider greenpeace terrorists now?

Eco-terrorism is very real - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

And the problem the law has with it is not due to it's ends, but with it's means.

Terrorism implies violence or threats of violence. Neither Greenpeace nor Chris Eaton can be reasonably labeled as “terrorist” or connected with terrorist actions. Calling such organizations and people terrorist is disrespectful to victims of actual terrorists.

It can be argued that eco-activism hurts “the economy”. But that argument goes both ways: Some practices like whaling, mining, fracking and deforestation do (or can do) massive ecologic damage, and are not sustainable.

On his blog, Mr. Eaton mentioned the possibility that he may be subject to such intimidation precisely because of the inability to connect him with illegal activities (http://chriseatondotnet.tumblr.com/post/59902438104/freedom).

Just because some people have committed violence in the name of defending the environment, why does that relate to greenpeace. As far as I know they are are non-violent.

This is what is wrong with the label terrorist - it mixes up people happy to shoot at crowds and bomb markets with all sorts of other people the government finds threatening. The aim of its use is to label people as beyond the pale and therefore not worthy of the protection of our laws. We should be very wary when this label is used.

That these powers have been abused for detaining and searching members of greenpeace, or film makers like Poitras, is a very persuasive argument for me that the government should not have these powers of arbitrary arrest or detention at all.

That's a false dichotomy. Why can't all three be factors?

The article states in the first paragraph that it's exploring edge cases from a thousands* of foreign travelers.

*surprising that they don't give a real number.