This poses three further questions:
1.- What’s the definition of murderer?
2.- What’s the definition of terrorist?
3.- What’s the definition of political prisoner?

Before you think this is sofistry, consider that every one of these three questions has evolved through time, and in some respects, it’s a matter of judgement (political, ethical, otherwise). Murder is a loaded word. If I kill in self-defense, for instance, I may not be regarded a murderer, but I’ve killed someone. If we take a biased, but relevant, source of ethical judgement, one of the Ten commandements says “You shall not kill” — and not “You shall not murder”. Typically, every government has always disregarded it, when it comes to a war. Soldiers are specifically trained to kill other human beings, whatever their rationale.
The German army in World War II had a sentence “Gott mit uns” written all over their garments. (That means “God is with us”). But most armies have an equivalent notion inscribed in their mind, whatever their definition of “god” might be — including secular armies (like the Soviet Red army), which did it for the good of the working class, or the Soviet state, or whatever.
Terrorism is nowadays regarded as bad. However, during WWII, the OFFICIAL policy of both the British and US governments was that their massive bombardements over Germany and Japan and Italy were intended to terrorize the populace, to undermine support for their own governments.
And finally the idea that if someone is declared a political prisoner, this is immediately some kind of endorsement for their views/actions, is simply preposterous.
What it means it that the main reason for their being jailed is the political views they support. Most governments regard the advocacy of certain ideas as a criminal act. And in many cases this is specifically supported by legislation to that effect. Whether or not they also did something which can be otherwise regarded as “criminal” is a moot point.
For example, throughout history, the advocacy of certain ideas has been regarded as a criminal act in and of itself — how many people have been put on a cross or burned to the stake, or simply jailed because of their support for “non-conformist” viewpoints?
Where they political prisoners? Does it mean that those who went against them were wrong?
I’d answer “mostly, yes” to both questions. But that’s not to say, that it’s ok to advocate every idea, and that any form of suppression of those who argue a particular idea is always wrong and anti-democratic.

as for the spontaniety, yes it does suggest coordination, whether that means prisoner abuse isnt for sure. it might suggest planning between islamist prisoners who seem to be at the center of this thing at this point in time.