For both Rex and M-A, you have posited examples where, by the definitions and assumptions you put, no conceivable harm can come to anyone if your NGOs do exactly whatever you say they will do exclusively.

Why should Congress believe you ? In most every terr funding or support case that's been tried, at least one organization among the conspirators has claimed a lawful purpose as their exclusive reason for being. A standard line in "lawfare" is that we (NGO or political wing) are not one of the bad guys; we are trying to put XYZ group on the right path, but they have this radical fringe that we can't control, etc.

How is Congress supposed to separate the sheep from the goats ? The answer is that it can't by any objective mechanism that would not itself fail because it would be "void for vagueness". So, Congress elected to draw a bright line that will include some non-harmful conduct within the criminal definition. In doing so, it was probably relying to some extent on prosecutorial discretion in not prosecuting cases were the risk of harm is not evident.

In any event, what you are arguing is that Congress passed a law that covers some cases that you feel should not be covered. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional and it is not the job of SCOTUS to amend statutes (although the minority were quite willing to do that).

Your remedy (beyond trying the exception via DoS and DoJ approval) is to draft amendatory legislation and attempt to get it passed by Congress.

--------------------
Agreement with Bob and Steve that a better way of handling "terrorist" lists must be used. Mine is requiring a separate legislative act for each group (similar to an AUMF); and that the authorization be sunset after a set time and would have to be renewed.

Regards

Mike