Lynne Stewart the evil terrorist!

[flamin lib]

I looked into the Lynne Stewart case just to see who on the Dem side “aided the terrorists”.

Stewart was appointed by a federal court to represent Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Cleric) who was later convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

Stewart continued to represent Rahman after he was convicted. She said that her representation had two main purposes: to improve the terms of the blind and diabetic Sheik's confinement and to convince the U.S. to return him to his home country, Egypt, where he would remain in prison.

The government, however, claimed that her continued representation was a ruse so that she could aid the Sheik in getting messages out to his followers, members of the Islamic Group, an organization tied to terrorism.

In 2000, the Justice Department said that visits could resume if Stewart would agree to certain restrictions on their meetings. These restrictions are known as Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). Pursuant to regulations enacted in 1996, these restrictions can be placed on a federal prisoner's communications or contacts with the outside world - including visitors, and the media. The SAMs prohibited Stewart from having any contact with her client that the Department of Justice deemed to be outside the scope of "legal representation" and prohibited Rahman from having contact with anyone outside prison walls except his wife. The SAMs specifically restricted his access to the media. Stewart agreed to the SAMs - having little choice, as it was the only way she could visit her client.

On October 31, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, secretly amended the SAM regulations - without notice to the public. As amended, the regulations allow the Bureau of Prisons to conduct videotape and audiotape surveillance with respect to attorneys' communications with people in federal custody.

Under US law there is no exception for attorney-client privileged communications; indeed, the laws were written specifically to cover this communication. The regulations apply not only to convicted persons, but also to defendants awaiting trial - and even detainees against whom no charges are even pending.

No warrant is necessary for the surveillance to occur. Nor is specific notice to the attorney or the client.

Along with Mohammed Yousry, an interpreter, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar who sometimes acted in the role of a law clerk, the government alleges Stewart tried to thwart the government's surveillance, a surveillance she knew nothing about. The government charged Stewart violated the prohibition on outside contacts in two ways: first when she gave Reuters a press release saying the Sheik opposed a cease fire in the middle east and second, when she was present when Yousry and Sattar allegedly helped the Sheik compose letters that served as communications to his followers. While Yousry and Sattar speak Arabic it is undisputed that Stewart neither speaks nor understands Arabic so she would have had no way of knowing what was being discussed if indeed the alleged crime occurred.

Ms Stewart, 65 years old, faces 30 years in prison while her case is appealed for thwarting a surveillance she knew nothing about and for overhearing a conversation in a language she does not speak or understand based on evidence that was illegally obtained.

We should just give our Constitution to the Iraqis. It's a perfectly good Constitution and we’re not using it anymore . . .