"Well, actually, this is America, and it has to be proven both that he sent the money and that he sent it knowing that it would go to fund terrorism. It's not up to the defense, me, you, or anyone else to prove he didn't send it.

He is presumed innocent, and the burden of proof for claims to the contrary falls on his accusors."

Well, actually, he isn't being charged with a crime, so the FBI does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether he did or did not send the money.

You know there was a huge scandal here in Michigan involving Detroit police and material witnesses. The Detroit cops would essentially arrest and detain pretty much everyone as material witnesses near the scene of important crimes, such as murder. So, say you're out with your friends drinking and you walk out of a bar to see a shooting across the street -- they would arrest you and your friends, and toss you in jail as a material witness (they were literally arresting *anyone* believed to be in the vicinty at the time of a murder).

Imagine how that would look when you can't make it to work on Monday because you're in jail and your boss learns you were arrested as a material witness in a murder case!

They even lost a major lawsuit over the practice (plaintiff won $500K) and kept on doing it. The U.S. prosecutor for the area had to step in and threaten the city with a civil rights lawsuit to stop the practice.