Lynne Stewart

[jps]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html

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

The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.

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.

Regardless of one's views on Lynne Stewart's personal politics, or those of her clients, her recent conviction is a major blow to civil rights in the United States.
At a time when the governments policy of denying those they deem enemy combatants access to the judicial system is being challenged, this conviction is a step towards making such access no longer meaningful.

While Stewart may have pushed the limits of these special prison rules denying her client access to the outside world, she is harldy the first to do so, and in fact, her clients former attorney, Ramsey Clark, has said that he has done the same thing. Such rules state that violations can result in an attorney being denied further access to her client.

To make the leap from pushing the limits a rule which is itself probably unconstitutional, to giving material support to terrorists is quite a stretch, and would almost certianly not happen in any other case. Lawyers are required to represent their clients zealously, an impossible task if any small mistep in their representation makes them open to prosecution as terrorists themselves.

If prosecutors need only fear a slap on the wrist, or a suspended license for violating legal procedures, while defense attorneys can be charged with the crimes of their defendants for the same violations, then for the ideological enemies of the government, simply being accused of a crime will virtually guarantee a conviction for it.

I remember when I was a teenager, in the early 1950’s, they used to talk about creeping socialism. That the country was going to wake up one morning and be socialist. We really have been subject to creeping fascism. It comes in very slowly, but it still stands on your neck when you least suspect it. I said to the woman in Oregon, that it (fascism) is not creeping in anymore; It’s galloping.

-Lynne Stewart, at an event in her support held by the National Lawyers Guild on 2/17

more information:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20050214.html
http://www.counterpunch.com/colson02182005.html
www.lynnestewart.org
http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/141942/index.php

 

[Jagger]

Nothing this adminstation does in the pursuit of power surprises me.

What does surprise me is apparantly over 50 percent of the voting population supports this adminstation.

 

[laughing weasel]

Are the people running the suicide bomber schools, the one sending money to the terrorist guilty of aiding and abetting where do you draw the line? If Hussein never personally executed any one does that make him any less responsible for the deaths that he has caused by his direct actions? She smuggled out messages which were designed by intent to cause a crime to take place. That is a deliberate and unethical act for which she deserves to be punished.

 

[jps]

If thats what had happend I could see an argument being made against her, but its not.
What she did was publicly issue a statement on behalf of her client, as part of a legal strategy. A message which did not advocate violence, and which even the prosecution in this case admits did not lead to violence.

 

[milkweed]

If thats what had happend I could see an argument being made against her, but its not.
What she did was publicly issue a statement on behalf of her client, as part of a legal strategy. A message which did not advocate violence, and which even the prosecution in this case admits did not lead to violence.

What legal strategy?

Stewart had signed an agreement with the Bureau of Prisons to abide by restrictions that prohibited disclosure of their conversations and distribution of messages from Rahman to third parties.

<BR>&nbsp;

 

[jps]

As she has explained, such restrictions make effective representation impossible if interperted literally, and challenging them can take years. For this reason it is sometimes assumed by defense attorneys that there is an exception for those activities that are judged to be necessary to the legal defense. The statement was intended to keep attention on her client.

 

[milkweed]

As she has explained, such restrictions make effective representation impossible if interperted literally, and challenging them can take years. For this reason it is sometimes assumed by defense attorneys that there is an exception for those activities that are judged to be necessary to the legal defense. The statement was intended to keep attention on her client.

Do you have a link to this? What I am finding does not bode well for her side of the story. Such as this: "It's one of the real sacred precincts of the law -- that your client should be absolutely free to tell you whatever he needs to tell to you, and you should be free to give whatever advice you need to give."

Nowhere do I see the governments ban on delivering messages to third parties infringes on her ability to hear anything he has to day, nor her ability to give her client advice. And as far as I have found, this was not an act of defending an innocent, or gathering evidence to show such things.
<BR>&nbsp;

 

[jps]

legal representation extends beyond trying to prove innocence. In this case, her client had already been found guilty. Many(probably most) high profile cases involve the use of public statements as an aspect of a legal strategy.
Check the links above.

 

[milkweed]

legal representation extends beyond trying to prove innocence. In this case, her client had already been found guilty. Many(probably most) high profile cases involve the use of public statements as an aspect of a legal strategy.
Check the links above.

After checking the links as you suggested, I did not find the original Reuters release anywhere. I would like to read exactly what was reported she said in this statement. So far, I have only seen the "withdrawing support" part. Was there more that would fall under a real lawyer/client statement?

I did find the doj release linked in findlaw to be an interesting read.

 

[Nasor]

The CNN article is unfortunately very vague on exactly what Lynne Stewart was convicted of.

Stewart doesn’t speak Arabic, so she was allowed to have an interpreter with her when she talked with Abdel-Rahman. Her interpreter, Mohamed Yousry (the other guy who was mentioned in the CNN article) was actually a contact for the Islamic Group of Egypt, Abdel-Rahman’s terrorist organization. Stewart was convicted of pretending to meet with Abdel-Rahman to discuss his legal case when the actual purpose of the meetings were to allow Abdel-Rahman to issue orders to the Islamic Group via Mohamed Yousry. The orders included, among other things, killing as many Jews as possible.

It’s difficult to imagine how using deception to arrange for her client to communicate murder orders to his followers could be considered part of a “legal strategy”.

 

[Ophiolite]

If what you say is true, should the next prosecution be of the security and intelligence services for incompetence in failing to recognise the character of the interpreter?

 

[jps]

It’s difficult to imagine how using deception to arrange for her client to communicate murder orders to his followers could be considered part of a “legal strategy”.

Yes, but whats even more difficult to imagine is that Stewart, given who she is, was intentionally facilitating the transmission of murder orders,
as it would be contrary to everything she has worked towards in the past.