In Dec. 2004, federal magistrate judge Arlander Keys ordered three Islamic charities and a man accused of raising money for Hamas to pay $156 million to the Boims family for the death of their 17 year old son who was believed to have been killed by Hamas gunmen.  The judge had tripled the jury's award.

Now, more than two years later, the award has been tossed away by the court because the family had apparently failed to show a link between the contributions and the death of their son.

It's a real pot-shot at the courts making decisions based on assumptions, but I wouldn't have minded if terrorist funders could be taken down.  It's impossible to deny a link between the actions of a terrorist group and its financiers, to be honest. 

On the other hand, I think it's best we move away from the idea that legal principles don't apply, or apply to a lesser extent, in terrorism related cases.

Belief, assumption, and speculation are no substitutes for evidence in a court of law. However the plaintiffs might establish a line of proof connecting the defendants with the murder of David Boim, the law demands that they demonstrate such a nexus before any defendant may be held liable for David’s death. We must resist the temptation to gloss over error, admit spurious evidence, and assume facts not adequately proved simply to side with the face of innocence and against the face of terrorism. Our endeavor to adhere to the dictates of law that this great nation has embodied since its founding must persevere, no matter how great our desire to hold someone accountable for the unspeakably evil acts that ended David Boim’s life and created a lifetime of grief not only for the Boims but also for every other family scarred by terrorism.