I promise I'll leave these ones alone from now on, but couldn't resist one more...
Ward "An Aikidoka, sober and centered, ... The Aikidoka simply steps off-line and the assailant breaks his hand and wrist having struck the wall full force. Did the Aikidoka act violently? Should they have redirected the punch away from the wall and utilized a control technique instead?"
Agree with you in this instance, this was a non-violent response. Any avoidance tactic(including the good old "run like buggery") is a valid, non-violent response. I also fully agree with everyone who states the principles of aikido are a guide towards non-violence.
However, I wouldn't agree with "inherently non-violent" as even (especially?) with a philosophy, statements of intent and method to achieve this goal must be balanced - aikido is (as far as I'm aware) still a MA which involves using techniques designed for the purposes of impairing an attacker's ability. If you are totally opposed to violence in any form, why are you practicing a martial art?
Even if you wish to control and limit this aspect of your character/circumstances by becoming skilled enough to render violent conflicts null rather than expand the conflict, you have still accepted there is violence and are (very sensibly I think) choosing a path than dimishes violence rather than feeding it. However, the violent aspect is still there.
It is on the subject of aikido technique that I think I'm disagreeing with most of the posters. If you conciously use a martial art technique, for whatever reason, on another person, you are being violent. The violence can be justified and used with perfect control and purity of intent, but is still violence.
As promised, I'll shut up on this subject now (good thread though).