"Anyone who knowingly contributes to the nonviolent wing of an
organization that he knows to engage in terrorism is knowingly contributing
to the organization's terrorist activities," the majority ruling said. "And
that is the only knowledge that can reasonably be required as a premise for
liability."
The American Muslim Society was deemed a leading element in the
Hamas-aligned network in the United States. The court said the society
served as an "alter ego" of the Islamic Association for Palestine, which
conducted media campaigns for Hamas in the United States. In 1994, three
IAP members founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
which became a leading Saudi-funded lobby in the United States.
The latest decision — which could be appealed to the Supreme Court --
reversed a ruling by the Seventh Circuit in December 2007 that cleared the
two Islamic organizations. In that ruling, judges of the appelate court
ruled that the Boims were required to demonstrate a link between the
organizations and the killing of their son. The Dec. 3 decision was by the
entire court.
"To require proof that the donor intended that his contribution be used
for terrorism — to make a benign intent a defense — would as a practical
matter eliminate donor liability except in cases in which the donor was
foolish enough to admit his true intent," the majority opinion said.
"It
would also create a First Amendment Catch-22, as the only basis for
inferring intent would in the
usual case be a defendant's public declarations of support for the use of
violence to achieve political ends."