[bobjam]

WHile some parts of the ruling I disagree with, the "Bake Sale" argument is pretty compelling. There's a big difference between knowlingly supporting a terror group and being tricked into supporting them. Should Ryder be held liable for renting Tim McVeigh a van? Of course not. Ryder had no idea McVeigh would use it in a terrorist attack. Punishing someone for unknowingly supporting a terror outfit is like punishing gun manufacturers ans sellers for the crimes committed with their products.

[steve-b]

While some parts of the ruling I disagree with, the "Bake Sale" argument is pretty compelling. There's a big difference between knowlingly supporting a terror group and being tricked into supporting them. Should Ryder be held liable for renting Tim McVeigh a van? Of course not. Ryder had no idea McVeigh would use it in a terrorist attack. Punishing someone for unknowingly supporting a terror outfit is like punishing gun manufacturers ans sellers for the crimes committed with their products.

***DING DING DING*** No more calls; we have a winner.

The key problem with the law is its failure to require a clear element of criminal knowledge and intent.