Lynn Stewart convicted of Helping Terrorists

[obnoxiousdrunk]

U.S. National - AP


Lawyer Convicted of Helping Terrorists

14 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - A veteran civil rights lawyer was convicted Thursday of crossing the line by smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients — a radical Egyptian sheik — to his terrorist disciples on the outside.


Reuters Photo


Related Links
• Indictment: U.S. v. Stewart (FindLaw)



The jury has been deliberating off-and-on over the past month in the case of Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene. The jury deliberated 13 days in all.


Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that included conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.


Stewart sat stoically in a courtroom filled with her supporters, who gasped when the verdict

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial

[seriousstan]

1. Sounds like she was helping to me.

[Ian David]

2. If she's guilty I'm glad . But I have serious doubts she's guilty

Lately the government has made a habit of classifying exculpatory evidence.

Who knows what documents were suppressed that could have been used to prove her innocence.

[cascadiance]

12. Exactly, Sibel Edmonds's experience is a prime example

of how the government is losing its trust from informed citizens on what qualifies as "classified" information that can be protected by "states secret act" or the like and what is simply a coverup to protect someone's ass, for perhaps very selfish and mundane reasons, but perhaps also for very severe and criminal reasons too. The more we feel that that secrecy is being misused, the more we distrust any "secret" decision like this, no matter how justified it might be.

[thecai]

28. Not Just Lately

The gvt. has been destroying, "losing", and covering up exculpatory evidence for YEARS, (and I have proof that is totally ignored, denied, and of course, covered up).

[jdots]

8. very simple " sounds like "

come on now give her the benifit of the dought , unless we all were flys on the wall who knows what this is about other than a news sound bite.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Yes, like the govt. accusing someone of helping terrorists is

an easy thing for a jury to be objecitve about.

Just like the jury was objective with the Rosenbergs.

(sarcasm)

[Zhade]

104. Damn, that's a devastating - and excellent - point.

NT!

[struggle4progress]

163. The anonymous federal jury. Perhaps made up of journalists on the grift?

[ashling]

114. Ok, I am not the grammar/spelling police, but

I just can't stand it anymore!

a degree of uncertainty is a doubt.
dought, as best I can determine, is a dry spell without an R.

If there is more than one fly on the wall, there are, in fact, numerous flies on the wall.

sorry, nothing personal

[txaslftist]

123. Simma dayun, nawh!

Spellin don't come so eazy fer all o' usns.

[Eric J in MN]

61. No. This is a smear for having controversial clients. (nt)

nt

[Jamastiene]

97. helping deliver mail?

There is no law against hate here in America last time I checked. Hate is protected. But then again if there were "plans" to commit violence as opposed to wishes and hate of violence, then I can see a guilty verdict. Otherwise, it's more Bushit.

[lostnfound]

115. Sounds like you might want to listen to DemocracyNow! about this case

DemocracyNow! has had several segments including extended interviews with Lynne Stewart, her lawyer, and sometimes Ramsey Clark.

This is a frightening case with huge implications for 1) a future of retribution against defense lawyers who might be embarrassing or inconvenient to the Bush Administration and 2) a gag order against any who might be able to expose abuses of clients by the government

[The Stranger]

116. Sounds like a pretty ignorant statement to make.

"Sounds like . . ." -- stick to charades.

[BrendaStarr]

138. 2 jurors had serious doubts.

But what the hell they weren't going to jail.

I'd call this a travesty of justice.

News Watch

At Terror Trial, Jurors' Notes Leave NY Lawyer's Team Upbeat

New York Lawyer
February 9, 2005

By Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal

Lawyers for defense attorney Lynne Stewart and her co-defendants in a federal terror trial were cheered yesterday after jurors sent notes asking to speak to Judge John Koeltl.

The notes prompted the Southern District judge to meet individually with two jurors in the robing room. He opted to have representatives from both sides present: Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow and David Ruhnke, attorney for co-defendant Mohamed Yousry.

After the interviews, Mr. Ruhnke emerged to brief his fellow attorneys in a huddle that brought smiles to the faces of the lawyers as well as Ms. Stewart, Mr. Yousry and another co-defendant, Ahmed Abdel Sattar.

Barry Fallick and Kenneth Paul, who represent Mr. Sattar, refused to comment on the notes or the meetings, the records of which have been placed under seal.

They also adamantly refused to speculate on whether their light-hearted gathering near the defense tables meant there were indications that the deliberations were breaking their way — either for an acquittal or a mistrial.

http://www.nylawyer.com/news/05/02/020905l.html

The jury deliberated 13 days before convicting Stewart, 65, a lawyer known for representing 'unfashionable' defendants during a career that has spanned more than 30-years. Two of the jurors appeared unsure of their guilty verdicts when polled by the judge, but allowed the judgments to stand.

http://www.baou.com/newswire/main.php?action=recent&rid=20053

[NewYorkerfromMass]

144. Thanks Brenda. That encourages that an appeal may succeed

Very interesting discussion on this entire thread.

[LinuxInsurgent]

149. i feared this...

if she's guilty, then I feared that she would smear the Left as some sort of enemy-symphatizing bunch...she did cross the line...you shouldn't smuggle messages from terrorists to terrorists.

If she's innocent, then she's being scapegoated for simply defending the rights of foreigners.

I haven't read on the case much, so I won't pronounce guilt...but, those are my views on this, depending on what's reality.

[Just Me]

3. Unbelievable. This is worse than jailing political dissidents!!!

They are jailing attorneys charged with the duty to advocate on behalf of their client in accordance with the procedural and due process rights granted by our Constitution!!!

Good God!!!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eric J in MN]

63. Attorneys are supposed to present their clients cases.

And she was charged for talking to a guard while a translator talked to the client in Arabic, on the theory that she must have been trying to distract the guard.

This was a dirty prosecution to scare attorneys away from defending people accused of terrorism.

[jayctravis]

91. Did she know the content of the messages she was passing?

Lawyers certainly get to know their clients. I don't know the details of the case. Did she verbally give information, or deliver a sealed envelope unknowing of the contents?

Surely a lawyer would only consent to this if allowed to verify the contents.

If she knowingly had information that would lead to violence and passed it on, then yes, she did something wrong.

[Just Me]

93. NO! WRONG!!!! PAY ATTENTION!!!!

Please pay attention to what this PROTECTOR OF OUR LAWS,...has been charged with.

Otherwise, I WILL get very pissed off by any misrepresentation of FACTS!!!

She did NOTHING WRONG!!!

She fulfilled her duty as a "protector" of our Constitution and has been PERSECUTED by those WHO DESTROY EVERY "CIVIL" RIGHT FOR THEIR OWN EAGER, SELFISH INTERESTS!!!

Only a "FASCIST" STATE attacks those who take a stand for the "rule of law".

I REPEAT: ONLY A FASCIST STATE ATTACKS THOSE WHO TAKE A STAND FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

[Zhade]

107. JM, you are exactly right. This is important.

I fear too many are too blinded by the fear of terrorism to understand what you're saying.

[Southern Dem 2005]

118. Dude, relax

Seems to me she should have been convicted. Despite your rhetoric, what she did was illegal. AS far as facts, why don't you read the indictment.

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

Regardless of whether she stands for the "rule of law," if what she did was illegal she goes to jail. Finally, as Mystified noted, she was convicted by a jury of her peers, not some secret military tribunal.

[txaslftist]

124. Read the indictment. I'm an attorney. It's bullshit.

You have a bunch of inflammatory stuff about her client, then a bunch of allegations about her, all of which obviously came from the co-defendant interpreter, who undoubtedly avoided a federal death sentence by "cooperating" with the government.

Then you have obvious situations where the government taped her phone conversations, a series of overreaching court orders to silence her, and finally a bunch of bullshit statements, obviously coming from the interpreter (who else could have heard them?), to the effect that she was sympathetic to her client's terrorist actions.

Reality check: The government wanted this man prosecuted. They wanted everyone in the public to feel confident in his prosecution, so they said, "see, he has a lawyer, everything's ok. By the way, here's a gag order so the lawyer can't communicate with the media if everything is NOT okay." She made the mistake of communicating with the media, and so she becomes the object of the witch hunt.

The interpreter, who was apparently the one passing messages for her client, becomes the star witness against her. Why? Because she is a more newsworthy defendant than he is, criminal defense attorneys are LOATHED by this administration and especially by prosecutors, and it teaches all defense attorneys out there a lesson.

The lesson is, be "zealous", because the that's what the law says you are supposed to be, but don't get in our way.

Hey, lesson learned. I'm sure as shit never going to accept an appointment to a terrorism case.

[Southern Dem 2005]

126. Ooh, ooh, I'm an attorney too

I'm not saying the administration wouldn't use scare tactics to suppress dissent, I'm just saying it appears to me she broke the law. The mistake she made was violating the order by communicating with third-party terrorist groups.

[txaslftist]

131. Possible...

...she may have gone over the line, I didn't hear the case.

I can reaffirm this, however, I practice federal criminal defense. I've defended murderers, pushers, kingpins and a host of extremely complicated cases. Seeing this one, I'll never take a terrorism case. Forget it.

I read this indictment and I smell bullshit. Not saying it ain't true, but it smells like bullshit to me.

And I'd say this to any other criminal defense attorney out there. If you wanna keep your license and stay out of jail, decline these cases. If it boils down to the alleged terrorist's word against yours, the govt. is going to pretty quickly ditch him to get you.

[RuleofLaw]

133. For a lawyer, you don't seem

to familiar with the facts. She did not communicate with a third party terrorist group. The charge was, that by making public statements on behalf of her client, those statements might be hidden messages to supporters of her client.

The government never had to prove that that theory actually was true, that the statements contained messages and that those messages was received by followers of her client.

Totally B.S.

But like previously said. It send a message to any attorney thinking of defending a terrorist suspect, that if you are not careful, you, the lawyer, can end up in jail too.

I recently went to a seminar with Linda Moreno, the attorney for Sami Al-Arian (The USF professor in Tampa) and she told about the incredible amount of intimidation and obstacles put in her way by the government.

This is truly scary, because it allows for the government to maintain a facade of the rule of law, while at the same time totally undermining the right to counsel.

[Southern Dem 2005]

135. Hmmm

I agree that this particular administration has little respect for (1) individual rights (2) or the Constitution in general when it comes to crim law. They are much more concerned with broadening presidential powers than protecting individual rights. I don't think they are undermining the right to counsel in a general sense, but rather attempting to limit the right to counsel for people they lable as terrorists. They are clearly trying to do this with the Guantanamo Bay people.

[thecai]

32. Welcome To Amerika!

And under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Acts, violations of our Constitutional Rights and Ammendments are LEGAL now.

[Selteri]

59. Yes, I'm sure that smuggling statements of the abuses

suffered is up there with high treason. SARCASM

[geek tragedy]

5. The right outcome.

Being someone's attorney does not give you the right to take part in their criminal activities, nor to do things that are otherwise illegal.

She helped the sheikh communicate and maintain his terrorist network and organization. I hope she rots.

[What Is This Crap]

11. thats my take on it

to a tee. in fact she is supposed to withdraw as counsel i believe if her clients continue to engage in criminal activities likely to cause bodily harm. (i think i have the model rules right)

[geek tragedy]

26. She's not supposed to withdraw if they're going to commit crimes, but she

can't help him commit crimes. If representing him means helping his illegal activities, then she would have to withdraw.

[Zhade]

15. And the proof of these allegations?

If you say "the government said so", you'll have to wait until I stop laughing to continue.

[geek tragedy]

24. She illegally helped him communicate with his terrorist followers.

The attorney-client relationship isn't a blank check. She had no right to forward his message to his followers, attorney or not.

[geek tragedy]

33. Here's what she did:

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_72/aworriedlynnestewart.html

<snip>
The centerpiece of the government’s case came live on Sept. 13 from a visibly nervous Esmat Salaheddin, a Reuters News Service reporter, who testified he had tape recorded from his home in Egypt Stewart’s statement in New York from Abdel Rahman calling on the Islamic Group to reconsider ending its cease fire with the Egyptian government, an act which Morvillo has said was comparable to a “call to arms.” Salaheddin’s story ran over the wire on June 14, 2000 and was published in Arabic language newspapers, provoking intense debate in political circles over such issues as the diminished militancy of the I.G. — which by then had been non-violent for three years — and the legitimacy of the sheikh as the group’s “spiritual leader.”

In issuing the sheikh’s statement to Salaheddin, Stewart broke a sworn agreement she had made with the U.S. Justice Department to restrict his contacts with the outside world and particularly the I.G., which the government believes had hatched a plot to kidnap and kill innocent people to win the release of Abdel Rahman.
<snip>

She was helping him lead his terrorist organization. Cut and dry.

[rooboy]

18. She did NOTHING of the sort.

You Americans might have ignored this trial, but the legal communities of the entire world were paying close attention. Her case was featured on Australian television over a year ago.

This is one of the darkest days in the history of the American legal system.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yinkaafrica]

60. You may or may not be an attorney from NYC (I doubt that you are), but

the government has been after this high profile defender
for many years. She was set up, she should be free.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

86. If you are a criminal attorney in NYC

you know that newspaper accounts don't tell you much about the case, especially in Southern District terrorist cases. And it is very difficult to comment intelligently unless you were in the Courtroom for most of the trial.

The one thing I can tell is that she seemed to get a pretty fair shake from Koeltl, an underrated judge. Another thing I know is that prosecutors often violate SAMs with "witnesses," including one Patrick Fitzgerald. So excuse me if I'm a little skeptical.

[geek tragedy]

89. I worked mainly the civil side of things.

I agree about Koeltl.

I personally think that the a/c relationship in general encourages attorneys to behave unethically in cases similar and dissimilar to this.

For every Lynne Stewart, you can be sure that there are many committing similar crimes on behalf of the very rich.

The pressure to be an accomplice, instead of merely an advocate, is more than some can resist. I suspect that's what happened with Ms. Stewart.

[txaslftist]

125. You're so right. We should do away with that whole privilege...

...I mean really, the idea that a person charged with a crime should be able to just talk to some "lawyer" without a minder from the government being present...

Preposterous!

[txaslftist]

128. "The pressure to be an accomplice...is more than some ...

can resist."

You've obviously never practiced criminal defense, whatever kind of attorney you are. This is so reminiscent of Kerry's campaign twattle about "I represented a guilty man, but I had to get off the case because I was uncomfortable with it..."

If you've never done it, you don't know dick about it, and I find your comments about the morality of defense attorneys both insulting and obscene. Get off your damn "I'm just a lawyer for the money" soap box and come down here where the real work of attorneys is done.

[Zhade]

105. You're the person who claims Greg Palast "just makes shit up".

You can understand why some don't find you credible, right?

When you're the type of person who dismisses the guy who found hard evidence of the very thing this website was eventually formed to protest (i.e. fraud in Florida during the 2000 election), you can expect some skepticism from those of us who understand and respect the work of people like Palast.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

112. Oh, I don't think you're either evil or a Republican plant.

You make too much sense on other issues to warrant such a conclusion.

No, I merely think you are ill-informed when it comes to some issues, such as this one and Palast's documented findings about Selection 2000 (not really sure why you brought up Kerry, as I did not mention him or the 2004 election).

That you deny the evidence he has presented - such as confronting Clay Roberts (who promptly bolted into his office) with the "felon voters" lists used to scrub 90k mostly black, mostly Democratic citizens' voting rights - when you are on a site dedicated to exposing the unelected b**sh administration is interesting. Your kneejerk belief that Palast "just makes shit up" (exact quote; it burned into my brain) whenever his name is brought up is not a credit to your character. It makes you appear misinformed, and costs you credibility.

I guess I'd ask why you think Palast is not credible, but I didn't get an answer the last time I asked that question.

But for the record, no, you are not a Freeper. I know better than that.

[Zhade]

156. Mods, I don't think this post needed to be deleted.

It wasn't really a personal attack, IMHO.

[Zhade]

103. It certainly is. Some of us recognize that reality.

Dark indeed.

[Zhade]

108. Today's Guardian UK (emphasis mine)...

Prosecutors said Ms Stewart and two co-defendants carried messages between Abdel-Rahman and members of his terrorist network. At the time he was in solitary confinement.

During the trial the prosecutors played videotape recordings of conversations between Ms Stewart and her client. The FBI secretly recorded 85,000 telephone calls and faxes.

It failed to produce any first hand witnesses. Her defence said she had done nothing wrong by defending her client.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1410688,00.html

[Eric J in MN]

66. Do you think that if the prosecutor in that case had released

similar information, he would have been charged?

This isn't about justice.

This is about scaring away attorneys from controversial cases.

[The Stranger]

117. Wrong. She is a political prisoner.

If it cannot be proven she committed or furthered a crime, then she is nothing more than a political prisoner.

[RuleofLaw]

134. Wow, what a lot of unsubstantiated BS.

"She helped the sheikh communicate and maintain his terrorist network and organization."

The government never had to prove that this took place.

[shance]

6. Guess right wing agenda is to scare off attorneys from taking these

type cases.

Would be interesting to hear the videotapes. Seems the videotapes would be important in delivering a verdict.

Someone mentioned that exculpatory evidence may have been classified? Is that true for this case? That's important.

Overall, this is not a good verdict for Americans. The radicals may try to use this case to further to prosecute activists and concerned citizens at large.

[Eric J in MN]

67. Exactly; (nt)

nt

[CHIMO]

7. "Free the 6th Amendment, The Right to Counsel": Attorney Lynne Stewart Bla

"Free the 6th Amendment, The Right to Counsel": Attorney Lynne Stewart Blasts Gv't. Terror Case Against Her

JUAN GONZALEZ: Why do you think that Ashcroft decided to target you specifically, and to go after you in this way that even most defense lawyers, no matter what their political persuasion cannot believe happened?

LYNNE STEWART: Yeah, I think that. well, Ashcroft, as we know, has a certain viewpoint, and a certain viewpoint towards women, I think is clear also. So, my friends do say, if you don't think this has to do with your being a woman, you're crazy. But I also think that one of the things they said in their summation was something like, if it's a revolution, Stewart's for it. She will back any revolution. Like I'm some wingnut -- left wing -- wingnut out there, espousing soapbox violence for everything. They sort of wanted to commingle my personal politics with my work as a lawyer. They are really, very, very separate. I'm hardly a fundamentalist. But I think Ashcroft saw me as an easy target. I hope he now knows that he was wrong.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In other words, they are prosecuting you for being too good at preventing them from being able to listen in on what should be confidential conversations with your clients?

LYNNE STEWART: Exactly, Juan. As Michael Tiger likes to say, they were not supposed to be listening in, but you're wrong for preventing them from listening to what they're not supposed to listen to. It's a little convoluted, but it is sort of the hallmark of the entire case.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/06/152255&mode=thread&tid=25

[rodeodance]

9. looks like she was doomed from the start

[seriousstan]

29. Most guilty people are.

[thecai]

35. Doomed From The Start

So are the innocent and wrongfully convicted.
It is extremely easy to convict the innocent, yet difficult to free them.

[seriousstan]

37. Of course, nobody is ever found innocent in the US courts, I forgot.

<sarcasm off>

[thecai]

41. Rarely

<no sarcasm at all>
It depends upon legal funding, and how much corruption and malfeasance is allowed in court.
I've heard of RICH suspects going free, when they were guilty.

[Zhade]

106. Indeed.

"It's better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent." -- Immortal Technique

[TroglodyteScholar]

10. Holy @#$% (eom)

[Supersedeas]

49. wrong in preventing them from doing what they were not suppose to be doing

Albert Gonzo to Johnny A@@craft....no objection, sir.

[IfRichGirl]

14. I agree with the jury on this one

Took my first year law class to see evey bit of this trial. Voted unanimously to convict. If you'd seen the whole trial, you'd be hard pressed to find her not guilty. Great verdict.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Great--please share some details with us.

Since you've got legal background & saw the whole trial, I'll bet you've got lots of information.

[IfRichGirl]

17. What would you like to know?

Ask me anything.

[rooboy]

19. Proof that you were there, for one thing. n/t

[seriousstan]

23. I take it you were? I KNOW the jurors were and they decided guilty.

So why don't you tell me what you saw on TV?

[loveandlight]

21. I'd like to know what information she supposedly passed and to whom

What exactly was she convicted of? Passing what kind of information? This guy wasn't supposed to communicate with anyone at all and she communicated for him to someone, that is what I get from this. What proof did they use to prove she passed information?

[seriousstan]

27. between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist

A major part of the prosecution's case was Stewart's 2000 release of a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire in Egypt by his militant followers.


Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

[whatelseisnew]

31. How about a description of Stewart's defense/evidence?

And what were the convincing points of her conviction?

[seriousstan]

34. Here's a link to the indictment....do your own footwork

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

P.S. this is a link from the story. You should also try a simple google search.

[whatelseisnew]

52. I'm curious to read a first hand account

and get IfRichGirl's idea for the "feel" of the courtroom scenario from - it can be palpable at times and not conveyed through the media.

[whatelseisnew]

51. Did they play any audio/video tape

of Stewart meeting with Abdel-Rahman?
And, in what context did she say this:

But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve
justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this
country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

[Zhade]

111. That quote is so out of context!

She's not ENDORSING violence as a means to correct society's ills - she's RECOGNIZING that it's going to be violent when change occurs.

I believe the same thing, should I thus be declared a "leftist radical terrorist sympathizer" (not your words, I know)?

[seriousstan]

20. I'll take the word of the 12 jurors that DID see the whole trial

How can you assert anything else, since you didn't see the trial?

[thecai]

38. Jurors Only See

What the prosecutors ALLOW them to see. And common faulty juror instructions often result in "guilty" verdicts. The gvt. does not profit from "not guilty" verdicts, so courts go to great lengths to convict suspects, whether guilty or not.
It is not a matter of justice, it is a matter of PROFITS.

[mudderfudder77]

40. I don't believe for a second

that most judges base their rulings on what is most cost effective. She was convicted by a jury of her peers. She has the ability to appeal, bu t at this point she's convicted and guilty.

[thecai]

43. Appeals

Are not even always reviewed, much less granted.
Most states take $25,000 - $50,000 per inmate, per year, of our tax-dollars, (even though the inmates pay for rent, restitution, medical, the gym, classes, etc.) Prisons are one of the most profitable businesses in America, yet a heavy tax-burden on citizens.
ALL Judges are fully aware of the profits in incarceration.

[seriousstan]

45. Funny, you didn't take my challenge to refute post #36

[thecai]

48. Sorry, I Couldn't Find It

Because it was at the bottom of the page.

[jayfish]

57. Yeah, Lets All Sit Around And Refute Hearsay All Day.

How exactly would that work? Here's something to refute. You ain't got a liberal bone in your body. Refute that shit.

Jay

[Psephos]

94. Uh oh, the "I'm more liberal than you are" cops are on the street now n/t

[jayfish]

98. Trust Me, He Doesn't

Whaaaaaa.... :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Jay

[Zhade]

109. That's kind of a personal attack, but damned if I don't agree.

"Serious"ly.

[seriousstan]

42. Read post 36 and refute that.

While I am all for protecting the innocently accused and I applaud your effort in forming an organization that furthers this goal, I refuse to close my eyes to the fact that some people hold themselves above the law and both break and have no respect for the law. When someone openly admits to breaking the law and the presented evidence supports THEIR OWN STATEMENTS, only an agenda blinded zealot would continue to defend their innocence.

[thecai]

46. Coerced Confessions

Are very common, even among the innocent. I do not know if she's guilty or innocent, but I do know our "Justice System" is LONG overdue for a complete overhaul. (But that will never happen under this current administration).
Over 20,000 Americans are wrongfully convicted each year in the U.S., and that is only the confirmed cases. Most inmates cannot do the legal work for their appeal, with the 30 day time limit.

[seriousstan]

47. "I do not know if she's guilty or innocent", don't let that stop your

defense of her though. lol

[thecai]

53. I'm Not Allowed To Comment

on the fact that a guilty verdict does not necessarily mean guilt? I've witnessed and documented enough court corruption to base my opinion on the fact that honest and equal justice is RARE.
Yet YOU are entitled to voice your biased opinion. I see... (said the blind man).

[tinanator]

84. you might want to know the conditions the jurors were placed in

this was a very bad miscarriage, and its a pity most people will fail to understand that. Ever get the feeling youre screwed by your fellow citizens lack of understanding?
it sucks.

[thecai]

85. Every Day

I get the feeling we're screwed by our fellow citizen's lack of understanding.
The defense is allowed to choose 6 jurors, but ONLY if the prosecutors approve of the choices. So basically, PROSECUTORS CHOOSE the Jurors. I've seen jurors sleeping in court...

[txaslftist]

127. Uh...no.

Neither the defense nor the prosecutor get to "choose" jurors.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys "strike" jurors they don't like. The twelve that are left is your panel.

[thecai]

142. In Washington State

The defense is allowed to "choose" 6 jurors, but if the prosecutors disapprove of any, they are "stricken". It boils down to the only choices are the jurors the prosecutors approve of.

[rayofreason]

30. Jury

Those posts here that have mentioned the Jury have hit the nail on the head. Unlike many countries, this case was not decided by a lone judge - it was a jury of citizens of NY that found her guilty, and that's good enough for me.

[SuffragetteSal]

74. to post 30 - rayofreason

if your reasoning is correct, then O.J. jurors were correct in letting him get off for murder?

[thecai]

95. Racist, Corrupt Police Officer

Mark Fuhrman was incorrect in tainting the OJ case and committing perjury. He was only fined $200. for telling numerous lies under oath. He now has a radio talk show in Spokane. In those days, more jurors received proper and legal jury instruction, they were following the laws and weighing the evidence. Fuhrman cast a reasonable doubt of guilt. IMO, he enabled the guilty to go free.

But it seems only liberals are severely or excessively punished, while conservative's corruption is frequently rewarded and exalted...

[rayofreason]

145. OJ

Sometimes juries will nullify what should be a conviction, and my opinion is that the OJ case is one of those. One could imagine a jury that, believing it to be immoral to keep Sheik Abdel Rahman from communicating information to his followers, would find Stewart innocent regardless of what the evidence shows.

She cross the line from lawyer to accomplice. How ironic that someone who claims to be a progressive defender of human rights, makes common cause with a leader of a mysogensitic, gay-hating/killing ideology, whose views, if realized in the world today, would so profoundly act against everything progressive in the West today.

[mudderfudder77]

25. I'm more apt to believe the 12 people who sat in the court room

then what anyone happened to see on TV...

[jayfish]

55. So You Believe That OJ Is Innocent? -NT-

Jay

[txaslftist]

129. If she does, she should have to prove it, right?

Don't we have to prove our innocence in this country?

Or can you support a verdict of not guilty even if you believe he was guilty but they failed to prove it?

Hmmmm. Yeah, let's do away with that whole presumption of innocence thing, it sure would make this little moral quandary go away.

[jayfish]

154. I Agree With You 100%.

I hold the idea of innocent until proven guilty as an absolute. I was trying to gage whether or not she (and whoever else wanted to answer) would be consistent in her argument. She was.

Jay

[mudderfudder77]

140. No.

I believe that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a difference.

[jayfish]

153. My Bad On The Poor Choice...

of words. I commend your honesty and above all your consistency. Good show.

Jay

[Kagemusha]

36. I have heard snippets of what Stewart has admitted to.

Her position is simply that what she did ought not be a crime.

The Congress of the United States of America made what she did a crime. She doesn't get to decide it's not a crime simply because she's a lawyer.

She thought it was wrong that this Sheik was denied contact with the outside and she corrected that wrong. She's been convicted of a crime which she disagrees with, but which is on the books.

IF she denied helping the Sheik contact the outside, I would not believe the government's case at face value. Arguments about, "Yes, I did, but I thought I was doing something legitimate", yeah, well, a jury of her peers rejected it for good reason, IMHO.

And mind you, I am basing this based on what I have heard her ADMIT TO freely and without coersion. She decided she knew better than the law and that something ought to be legal which was NOT. Case closed.

[RhodaGrits]

39. This is the interpretation that I understood also.

She saw it as civil disobedience. We can choose to act in defiance of the law but if we do so, we have to bear the consequences.

[Kagemusha]

44. Sadly I see her as having been naive and been used.

That's not the government's fault. About the only thing I heard of re: this case that was at all icky was Ashcroft monitoring her communications with the Patriot Act. But a proper judge would've approved tapping her communications in a case like this *anyway*. The fact the Patriot Act is abusable doesn't mean the evidence was tampered with or invented or anything like that.

Let's say she was right and all she did was allow herself to be used as a willing political tool and nothing she conveyed actually contributed to terrorism or had secret messages. It might have. It was reckless. She agreed and swore not to. She let her perceptions of the justice of her cause cloud her judgements and make her do something really stupid.

I did see the Law & Order version of this case on TV too, but without her admissions, as I said, it'd be much harder to sit and judge having not spent time in that courtroom.

[CHIMO]

50. "Free the 6th Amendment, The Right to Counsel": Attorney Lynne Stewart Bla

"Free the 6th Amendment, The Right to Counsel": Attorney Lynne Stewart Blasts Gv't. Terror Case Against Her



AMY GOODMAN: The prosecutors have raised a lot of questions, and in the summary arguments as well, about why you went and visited the sheikh in prison. I mean, they say it's a life sentence, no chance of getting out. Raised questions, and of course, focusing on that 2000 release that you were trying to communicate with his supporters in Egypt, when the government was trying to cut off all communication to say -- end the cease-fire?

LYNNE STEWART: Well, of course, we do. As Michael said yes, we lawyers do this kind of pro bono work for people who are despised or thought little of, we wear that as a badge of honor. It wasn't me alone, of course. That's one of the big points of our case. It was me. It was Ramsey Clarke, Abdean Jabar. We were all doing this. The tapes show we all dealt with him in pretty much the same way. It was mainly done because you want to keep pressure on the government so the conditions don't worsen. You want to bring up a lawsuit if the time is right to make a lawsuit. You cannot let the government dictate how you practice law. Lawyers being autonomous is really to some degree the backbone of the entire legal system when it does work well, and lawyers making decisions based on the rules of ethics. So, those things are all in the case, but I always like to say, there's absolutely no proof that I'm linked to any terrorist conspiracy. That they have to prove. The second thing is, everything I did Ramsey Clarke did, Abdean Jabar did, and I'm sure the jurors are going to say, why aren't they arrested and why aren't they part of this?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/06/152255&mode=thread&tid=25



Tomorrow, Feb. 11, 2005 Democracy Now, Lynne Stewart & her attorney Michael Tigar.

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl

[Eric J in MN]

64. Do you think if the prosecutor had released the same information,

that the prosecutor would have been charged?

The point of this case is to scare attorneys away from defending people accused of being terrorists.

[geek tragedy]

69. Two problems with your argument.

1) This wasn't "information." It was instructions/commands/orders from the head of a terrorist organziation to his terrorist followers.

2) The government didn't do that. Lynne Stewart did, and she belongs in jail for it.

[Eric J in MN]

70. What did Lynne Stewart say which you think she should

go to prison for?

[geek tragedy]

71. She helped the sheikh communicate with his terrorist followers, against

the terms of his incarceration.

Illegal activity designed to aid a terrorist organization.

[Eric J in MN]

76. What were the words she communicated? nt

nt

[geek tragedy]

78. "The cease fire is over."

I have no idea why the government wouldn't want a terrorist leader telling his terrorist followers that they should start killing again. :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

92. How did she communicate that? nt

nt

[geek tragedy]

100. By calling reporters. eom

[Eric J in MN]

162. Given that the govt. couldn't prove anyone died as a result, what

do you consider an appropriate punishment for Lynn Stewart?

[The Stranger]

119. You throw around the word "Terrorist" nearly as much as George W. Bush.

The government did not prove -- it nearly admitted -- that she did not commit or further any crime. That makes her a prisoner because of who she defended, depriving not only the defendant of due process, but herself of First Amendment protections.

[Selteri]

65. I'll refute it in two words.

Secret Arrests


If you'll note that's something out loving government has been more than happy to be pushing hard for. Not allowing someone to contact the outside world through a legitimate means after making them a prisoner does go against the grain since it cannot be properly santized from terrorist messages but instead becomes a structure where anyone accused of terrorist thoughts or motives can be made to be completely quiet, with no voice for justice or freedom against a regime that has proven itself to be in violation of countless human rights.

Boiled down - I don't give a shit if he's a terrorist, having this guy locked away so he cannot communicate suggests that we cannot know of any other violations being commited.

According to her statement she smuggled out messages, intentionally breaking the law; yet of a nature to where the abuses he reputedly was suffering, not orders to commit crimes. If this is true as a lawyer then either she was duped, or complicit and creating an excuse.

Your own argument is even refuted then by Religious leaders on both the conservative and liberal sides of the debate. She chose to break an unjust law supposedly on moral and ethical reasons.

Researching her history reveals she is a firebrand who doesn't back down when she believes something is wrong, even though her history also shows a large case of foot in mouth disease by not always wording her statements intelligently.

My opinion - I doubt she would intentionally leak orders to terrorists , though having not been there it is a difficult assessment to make with clarity. The government though does seem to have taken things too far with making silent prisoners who can be abused with numberous cases appearing and no record for the past 4 years of actually speaking in a truthful or manner consistent with social liberties. Judging the two members of the case based upon their present track record I would side with her, only for the reason that this government has slid into neo-fascism in many of it's leanings.

Keep the Government under a microscrope, not let the Government keep a microscope over you.

[TexasLawyer]

54. Why aren't the REAL criminals being tried?

"A major part of the prosecution's case was Stewart's 2000 release of a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire in Egypt by his militant followers. Prosecutors, though, could point to no violence that resulted from the statement."


BFD! To me, this looks like they were harassing Stewart. Now hear this defense attorneys: if you try to defend people accused of terrorism too effectively then we just might throw your ass in jail for 20 years.

Meanwhile, the TRUE criminals walk free. Richard Perle, for example, who helped master-mind this sick war, gets rich on war profits (conflict of interest???), feeds inside info to Israel (spying???), gets government contracts for companies that pay him huge consulting fees (fraud???) and gets to live it up at his villa on the French Riviera.

[thecai]

56. "The Color Of Justice

is green" quote J. Scott Hornoff, wrongfully convicted former police officer. He even had to appeal to the courts for release after the guilty confessed. He credits his family for having money to help get him out of prison.
The TRUE criminals are above the law as long as they have power and money.

[txaslftist]

130. Excellent post!

[donheld]

58. This is a very sad day in America

[femme.democratique]

72. There are alot of sad days in America now...almost all of them!

[Junkdrawer]

73. Here's Lynne's side of the story (from DemocracyNow)...

....

LYNNE STEWART: Yeah, I think that. well, Ashcroft, as we know, has a certain viewpoint, and a certain viewpoint towards women, I think is clear also. So, my friends do say, if you don't think this has to do with your being a woman, you're crazy. But I also think that one of the things they said in their summation was something like, if it's a revolution, Stewart's for it. She will back any revolution. Like I'm some wingnut -- left wing -- wingnut out there, espousing soapbox violence for everything. They sort of wanted to commingle my personal politics with my work as a lawyer. They are really, very, very separate. I'm hardly a fundamentalist. But I think Ashcroft saw me as an easy target. I hope he now knows that he was wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: They also accuse you of covering up political conversations that your translator was having with Sheikh Abdel Rahman, putting out words that might cover as they were having a conversation, since you weren't supposed to have political conversations, but only legal conversations. They knew this because they were recording your conversations.

LYNNE STEWART: Exactly. You know, when you visit someone in a jail, when the guards seem to get too interested, we now realize they were so interested because the F.B.I. was in the next room taping all of this. It was a different scenario, but we couldn't understand why they were leaning in, why they would turn around and look at us. We said, let's deal with this. I know that I have the right as a lawyer to protect my client's confidences, whatever they may be. If he says, I'm having trouble with my teenage son, I'd like you to tell my wife to do this and that. He has to have confidence in saying that to me, confidence in me and also a confidence. So, when we whisper, we lawyers, when we talk in somebody's ear, whatever way we do it, even Patrick Fitzgerald, who was their first witness, the government's first -- the sinny qua non prosecutor, said there are things that lawyers do that are secret and we are bound to protect them. Thats all we were doing. There was no big secret. When they recorded it, we were equally protecting conversations that are totally innocuous to those which might have had political content.


....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/06/152255

[Red State Rebel]

81. What a crock!

Read her own words during the prison visits, etc. She convicted herself.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt11...

[Junkdrawer]

82. And which words would those be?

:shrug:

[Red State Rebel]

87. Here are some, you can read the indictment just like I did

On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

p. In or about late May 2000, after STEWART and YOUSRY's visit to AbdSteStewart's M&y 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement the Terms of the pecial Administrative Measureswart's M&y 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement the Terms of the pecial Administrative MeasureseStewart's M&y 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement the Terms of the pecial Administrative Measuresl Rahman on May 19 and 20, 2000, SATTAR had telephone conversations with Islamic Group leaders in which he stated that Abdel Rahman: (1) did not object to a return to work” (terrorist operations); (2) agreed that the Islamic Group should escalate the issues in the media; (3) advised the Islamic Group to avoid division in the Islamic Group's leadership; and (4) instructed the Islamic Group to hint at a military operation even if the Islamic Group was not ready for military action.

Stewart’s May 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement to Abide by the Terms of the Special Administrative Measures

q. On or about May 26, 2000, STEWART submitted to the United States Attorney’s Oftice for the Southern District of New York the affirmation that she signed on May 16, 2000, in which she agreed to abide by the terms of the SAMs then in effect on Abdel Rahman.


The June 2000 Press Release Regarding Abdel Rahman’s Withdrawal of Support for the Initiative

r. On or about June 14, 2000, STEWART released a statement to the press that quoted Abdel Rahman as stating that he “is withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists.”

s. On or about June 15, 2000, during a telephone conversation with'another person, STEWART stated her concern that she would not be able to “hide” from the United States Attorney’s office the fact that she had issued the press release.
-----------------------------------------------------

This is just a small portion of it. She knew what she was doing was illegal - she covered for terrorists communicating and planning terrorism. If that's ok with you then good luck.

[w4rma]

99. Interesting. This happened back in mid-2000. When was she charged?

Is this whole thing over a leak to the press about her client's opposition to a cease-fire?

[Chicago Democrat]

75. This is a catastrophie! This is the end of the rule of law!

Attorney Client privelege is essential for the defense of liberty!

[Red State Rebel]

88. She had signed an agreement to abide by special rules

in communicating with him. She deliberately then broke those rules. Not agreeing with the law doesn't excuse breaking it.

[Chicago Democrat]

96. Its not fair

and fascist in tactic.

[Red State Rebel]

121. She knew the rules going in and she broke them.

She knowingly broke them. She is an attorney, a grown adult, there is absolutely no excuse. The fact that she enabled terrorists to communicate and plan terror doesn't bother you? There was a reason the government didn't want him to communicate with his followers and I think they were right in this case.

[Chicago Democrat]

143. I'm ashamed of my fellow Democrats and my Country

The Attorney Client privelege is dead. Anyone now can be called a so-called 'terrorist' and a whole new judicial system, where basic rights of the accused are completely absent. Where the accused can be tortured. Where the accused has no right to counsel. Where ATTORNEYS ARE PERSECUTED BECAUSE THEY TAKE ON UNPOPULAR CASES.


Its exactly the unpopular cases where the trials need to be fairest. Its exactly attorneys like her who need to be able to talk to their client in private.


(Get that passport update. Plan for escape to Canada? Start not to trust anyone. This is country is doomed.)

[w4rma]

77. This is another step towards an even more totalitarian state.

They are now more openly enforcing the fine print of the Patriot Act to imprison lawyers who defend clients that are being held under the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act needs to be overturned, and the overturning needs to be applied retroactively.

[thecai]

79. Hitler Used The Same Tactics*

"in the name of security" after the Reichstag fire. It took him 6 years to take control of the masses using "fear tactics".
*P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Acts

[w4rma]

80. PATRIOT Act = Enabling Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

[thecai]

83. And How Quickly We Forget...

...Prior to 9-11, even The FBI was under investigation for mass corruption, but beginning 9-12, those investigations ceased and The FBI were given MORE power. Go figure.

[Igel]

139. I read that she wasn't charged under any of the provisions

enacted by the patriot act.

Link (to competent source) that she was?

[leesa]

90. This seems a tad suspicious in light of the fact that Bush's family lawyer

James Baker III, represented the Saudi Arabian royal family...known sponsers of terrorism...against the 9-11 family surviviors. There was a great deal more evidence against them and a great deal more serious damage caused and yet BushCo won the case.
How mysterious is it that a known liberal legal lawyer is convicted? What was she on to against these thugs?

[robcon]

101. Stewart is no liberal.

leesa wrote: "How mysterious is it that a known liberal legal lawyer is convicted? "

Stewart is a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for totalitarian states...

Lynne Stewart: "I'm such a strange amalgam of old-line things and new-line things. I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people's revolution. The CIA pays a thousand people and cuts them loose, and they will undermine any revolution in the name of freedom of speech.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_6_54/ai_94142091/pg_2

[Chicago Democrat]

146. Stalinist-American! or even a Satanist

Stalinist Shining Path Terrorist with a law degree EVEN SOMEONE LIKE THAT DESERVES TO BE A LAWYER ! Her politics are irrelevent! Her actions perfectly normal in a normal court! But this is Kangaroo Court! Even Satan or Stalin deserves a fair trial. An ordinary trial.

Not special fucking rules that violate the most basic tenant of Western Civilization! The ability of the accused to gain effective cousel is BASIC to a FAIR trial. That must include the protection of said counsel from further politically motivated targeted prosecution of things that happened BEFORE 9/11! Furthermore havign the trial a block from the WTC site is provocative! This was a mob lynching!

[tedzbear]

113. Excellent point.

eom

[Rockerdem]

102. Its the Bush Era

What do you expect? A lot of the country has lost its marbles.

[Cori Cycle]

120. What? Looks like she was helping?

Do you ever watch Democracy Now? She was on it, and was interviewed by Amy Goodman. I had impression that government will fail to convict her.

This is scary. America is becoming like pre WWII germany. I never believed that kind of comparison. But now I do. This is really * up.

[txaslftist]

122. As a criminal defense attorney, this is chilling...

but I don't know all of the facts. The best defense attorneys develop a rapport with their clients, but there is a fine line between doing what you are allowed to do for a client and doing what the client wants you to do.

Did she cross the line and become the client's agent instead of his attorney? I don't know, but I hope that she DID. Why? Because if she didn't cross that line, then a federal judge, a federal prosecutor, and twelve jurors have made it illegal to defend really unsavory people, the people who need defending most of all.

I practice in Federal Courth. In light of this case, if I was court appointed to represent a "suspected terrorist" I would decline. I have a wife and two kids, and my duty to them comes first. Does that mean he doesn't get an attorney?

Maybe so. That's a tragedy for him. Call me a coward, but I'm not going to put my professional license and my freedom on the line to represent someone I don't even know.

[Fleshdancer]

132. As someone who is not a criminal defense attorney.....

this is confusing and scary. My question to you is, what happens now? Will we ever get all of the facts from this case?

[txaslftist]

137. As an earlier poster said, "relax, Gloria..."

After all, its just a terrorist thing. Only the terrorists are having their attorney client privilege taken away, not YOU. You aren't a terrorist, are you?

Then you don't have anything to worry about. Relax.

(this message sponsored by Halliburton)

[thecai]

147. National Security Letter

All it takes to be labeled a terrorist, is a false accusation and a National Security Letter. It's hard to relax under such injustice.

[d.l.Green]

148. Exactly, I find it appalling that a lawyer is so casual about the sense

of defending a "suspect" and someone who has already been proven guilty in a court of law. If lawyers aren't willing to defend "suspects" then there is no chance of real justice and by extension, civilization. I understand the choice between other priorities and a lawyer's practice need to be decided in all high profile cases, but the underlying message from the government- that is in control of the availability of evidence- seems to be that it's not worth it. Therefore ANY government-accused suspect, whether guilty or not, doesn't have a chance to be properly defended.

The suspicion of the nuances expressed in this whole thread are enough to question the validity of the outcome. Let's just hope there are avenues of appeal that shine a light on the ludicrous nature of this trial...

[txaslftist]

157. There's nothing casual about it...

Maybe you didn't get the irony of my post. The reality is that I'm scared to death by this kind of case. What this means, this attack on the attorney, is that attorney/client privilege (at least in a case where the govt. takes an interest) is essentially dead.

Does that mean I'll be defending terrorists?
No. For the reasons I mentioned. I can't. If I were single and fresh out of law school and didn't have kids, I might leap at the chance. The reality of my life is that there's always another client, but I've only got one life.

That's sad, but it's true.

OTOH, since the definition of "terrorist" is completely up to the prosecuting arm of the govt., it may be that my street level crack dealer becomes a terrorist (after all, don't terrorists get their funding from drug proceeds? You certainly can't prove they don't.)

In which case, friendly big brother will be able to tape all of my conversations with all of my clients and they won't have to tell me.

Welcome to the New World Order.

"Justice is incidental to law and order."- J. Edgar Hoover.

"But as records of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable." -Ambrose Bierce.

[txaslftist]

158. By the way, welcome to DU!!!

:toast:

[Junkdrawer]

136. Label a defendant a "terrorist" and NOTHING comes out in public..

No Statement from the Defendant.

No statement from their attorney.

Nothing. Silence.

A secret trial, and then a conviction.

Seems an EXTREMELY important principle to the current rulers and the number of sophisticated "Stewart Critics" that have shown up on this thread emphasizes the importance.

Frightening indeed.

[glitch]

141. Indeed. nt

[LinuxInsurgent]

150. anonymous jury?

The anonymous jury also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of plotting to "kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country" by publishing an edict urging the killing of Jews and their supporters. A third defendant, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Sattar could face life in prison and Yousry up to 20 years.

Um....i don't like the sound of that...anonymous jury...you mean she didn't even know WHO was reviewing the evidence against her? And what's with the introduction of Osama Bin Laden...what relevance does that have to her case? So Osama likes her client...is that reason to convict her of aiding the enemy? Unless she was transferring concrete, aid to the enemy, this is quite a bogus case...she's being framed for defending people that the government doesn't like. However...

" At the time, the sheik was in solitary confinement in Minnesota under special prison rules to keep him from communicating with anyone except his wife and his lawyers."

Did she know about the solitary confiment rules that barred him from communicating with anyone? If so...she should have known that she was risking being called a "supporter" of her client by relaying messages...she should have followed those rules to the letter.

" Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the purpose of the prosecution of Stewart "was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so.""

Or...Lynne is getting attacked for her defense of the "terrorist".

This is a confusing case....it all hinges on what were the rules of solitary confinement and what did she relay out...depending on the severity of that...we can find out if she's guilty or not.

[Itsthetruth]

151. Lynn Stewarts Conviction Hurts Us All

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3092888&mesg_id=3092888

[Chicago Democrat]

152. Let's trash our most basic institutions! A public trial by jury of peers!

The right to face your accusers! Freedom of Speech! Whatever she communicated is absolutely irrelevent to "the war". Attorney Client privelege!


TO HELL in a handbasket

[txaslftist]

155. anonymous or unanimous?

secret or in agreement?

[Itsthetruth]

160. Anonymous

Anonymous jurors. And that must mean the judge also imposed a "gag order" on those jurors. What if they have second thoughts about their decision and decide to speak out? I suppose they could be indicted for aiding terrorists!

[sellitman]

159. SUV owners help terrorists by supporting Oil Shieks

Perhaps they should all get 20 years too?

:evilgrin:

[IrwinDC]

161. She assisted in the transmission of messages from her convicted...

...terrorist client to his followers in Egypt who had a specific intent to commit violence. I’m all for a vigilant defense, but council crosses a line when they act as an assessor to the crimes of a client.

No different than many lawyers who defend mob clients and are exposed as members of the very same criminal organization. As far as I’m concerned, she got what she deserved.

From a purely political standpoint, she is hardly the poster child the left needs to be rallying behind. She's a commited terrorist supporter and now a convicted felon.

[oceans13]

164. DU makes the headlines in a neocon blog

Once again, DU is cited: http://nickstewart.blogspot.com/2005/02/throw-away-key.html

[IndianaGreen]

165. National Lawyers Guild Condemns Verdict in Lynne Stewart Trial

Don't believe the propaganda crap that the MSM is spewing about Lynne!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--February 10, 2005

Contact: Michael Avery, President

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CONDEMNS VERDICT IN LYNNE STEWART TRIAL

Urges Defense Attorneys to Continue Representing Unpopular Clients

New York. In response to today’s guilty verdict in the Lynne Stewart trial, the National Lawyers Guild condemns the message that the government is sending to defense lawyers who choose to represent unpopular clients. After deliberating for 13 days, a jury convicted veteran civil rights attorney Stewart, a member of the Guild, on charges of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government. Sentencing is scheduled for July 15. The 65-year-old attorney faces up to 20 years in prison. The jury also convicted Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Arabic interpreter Mohammed Yousry.

Speaking about the prosecution of Ms. Stewart, National Lawyers Guild President Michael Avery said, "The U.S. Department of Justice was resolute from day one in making a symbol out of Lynne Stewart in support of its campaign to deny people charged with crimes of effective legal representation. The government is bent on intimidating attorneys from providing zealous representation to unpopular clients. The National Lawyers Guild strongly urges its own members and other defense lawyers to continue to proudly represent clients who are openly critical of government policies. We will not be intimidated and this prosecution has only strengthened our resolve to oppose the repressive attacks this government has made on the civil liberties of everyone in this country. We will also continue to stand by Lynne Stewart.”

Since Lynne Stewart's April 2002 indictment, the National Lawyers Guild has assisted Lynne Stewart in launching a broad-based, national education campaign about the impact that her indictment would have on the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The government is hoping that lawyers will now think twice before representing clients with unpopular views or related to unpopular causes. Members of the Guild, through its nationwide network of chapters, have also faulted the prosecution of Ms. Stewart based upon violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The National Lawyers Guild condemned the government’s November 2003 federal superceding indictment as a continued attempt to undermine the attorney-client privilege by essentially reinstating the same charges that Judge John Koeltl dismissed as unconstitutionally vague four months earlier.

The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, comprises over 6,000 members and activists in the service of the people. Its national office is headquartered in New York and it has chapters in nearly every state, as well as over 100 law school chapters. The Guild has a long history of representing individuals whom the government has deemed a threat to national security, including helping expose illegal FBI and CIA surveillance, infiltration and disruption tactics (COINTELPRO) that the U.S. Senate "Church Commission" hearings detailed in 1975-76 and that led to enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and other limitations on federal investigative power.

http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/LynneStewart0205.htm

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.