FYI:

[www.cnn.com]

EUGENE, Oregon (AP) -- The issue of guilt or innocence has already been decided for six men and four women who admitted to involvement in arson fires around the West that did $40 million in damage.

Now the question is: Are they terrorists?

Judge Ann Aiken was to hear arguments Tuesday in Eugene on a motion by the government to add a so-called terrorism enhancement to sentencing guidelines.

Prosecutors want a federal judge to declare the group terrorists -- something defense attorneys argue has never happened in 1,200 arsons nationwide claimed by Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

Defense attorneys say branding their clients terrorists is more about politics than sentencing.

A ruling they are terrorists is not likely to boost the time they spend behind bars, but it could result in their being sent to tougher prisons.

The ten face sentencing for their parts in the fires, which targeted forest ranger stations, meat packing plants, wild horse corrals, lumber mill offices, research facilities, an SUV dealer and a 1998 fire at Vail Ski Resort. Those charges carry prosecution sentencing recommendations ranging from three to 16 years.

Defense motions argue that none of the fires killed or injured anyone, and the terrorism enhancement is really a way for the Bush administration to claim a victory in its war on terror.

"The Government has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' political agenda to advance with this case, and nothing else to lose if the Court declines to impose the enhancement," wrote attorney Terri Wood, who represents Stanislas G. Meyerhoff, who faces the stiffest sentence recommendation for his involvement in seven fires and toppling a high-tension power line.

Under agreement by all parties, the terrorism enhancement issue will be settled in Meyerhoff's case and then applied to all the remaining defendants, all of whom have pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and arson.

The case, known as Operation Backfire, is the biggest prosecution ever of environmental extremists, and has turned on its head the prevailing idea that arsonists have generally acted alone, said Brent Smith, director of the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.

"We thought these people operated for the last 15 years under this kind of uncoordinated violence approach, just like the extreme right was doing -- leaderless resistance," Smith said. "That's why this case is so very different."

Prosecution filings argue that though the defendants were never convicted of terrorism, they qualify for the label because at least one of the fires each of them set was intended to change or retaliate against government policy.