I wonder, too, about how applicable the definition of terrorism in
18 USC Ch. 113B: TERRORISM is in this particular case:
It depends on how you construe the words "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."
It's difficult to see how murdering senior executives of health insurance companies could be said to be intended to intimidate or coerce anyone other than that minute section of the civilian population who are themselves senior executives or major shareholders in such companies, so I can see how there's an arguable case either way.
In English law, references to "the general public" can be construed as meaning "a particular section of the general public" (e.g. statutory provisions referring to the threat an offender presents to the general public apply to serious sexual offenders who exclusively target teenage girls, even though they're no particular threat to anyone else), but I don't know how it works in the US or how small a group has to be before this kind of provision cases to apply.
Doubtless it will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.
