Plaintiffs also argued that the law, when applied to speech, should require proof of intent to support the foreign terrorist organization’s illegal activities. The Court also rejected this interpretation. The Court writes that “Congress chose knowledge about the organization’s connection to terrorism, not specific intent to further its terrorist activities, as the necessary mental state for a violation.”
The Court noted that it would be impossible to separate funds or activities designated for humanitarian purposes from those furthering terrorist action. Also, the Court ruled that providing any support to such groups is tantamount to promoting terrorism.
“The PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means,” wrote the Court.
♦ Photo by me and the sysop/Flickr