John:

There were certainly US NGOs engaged with people linked to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, not because they were supporting it, but rather because they were trying to encourage Sunni leaders to engage with the political process (rather than shooting at people). The point being raised in the article is that doing this has become something of a legal grey area in the US.

Let's say, for example, that a US NGO wishes to build the negotiating capacity of those in Hamas who support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and who would be prepared to enter peace negotiations. Or, in another scenario, wishes to work with faction of the MEK who favour non-violent change in Iran.

Ought this be illegal, legal, or should (as in the UK legislation) there be some legal language that recognizes that there might be some justified grounds for interaction?

I've known cases where "material support" concerns has led to farcical situations, such as aid agencies seeking legal opinions before they consider supporting web-based projects on the grounds that designated groups on the DoS (or Canadian, or other) lists could access the website the same as anyone else, and "materially benefit" from the information provided. Indeed, if AQ or the Taliban read SWJ, would that make SWJ in violation of the law, given that criminal intent to support terrorism seems does not to be required element?