In the post 9/11 era there is no surprise for most US lawyer

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the post 9/11 era there is no surprise for most US lawyers that such veteran civil rights lawyer as Lynne Stewart, "convicted of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists and defrauding the government", became a victim of the Bush administration's anti-terrorist policies. Stewart's verdict was a terrible message to send at a time when we need civil rights lawyers more than ever. I'm sure her case became a dark day for civil liberties in the USA as well as for civil liberties lawyers in this country. The trial showed us that anti-democratic campaign against any journalists, members of non-governmental organizations and, at last, our lawyers, who try to uphold freedoms of especially Muslim people in the USA, gathers headway in present-day America. The main rule of judicial practice - the government can't tell lawyers how to do their job - has stopped operating in the USA now. And world community should make a point of the fact that US government has begun to lock up the lawyers, held terrorism cases.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 880 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Poppycock. Stewart went down for lyin' under oath, obstructin' justice, and for subvertin' lawyer-client privilege to suit her own despicable, treasonous, anti-American agenda of support for terrorism and known, convicted, imprisoned terrorists. Stewart became a co-conspirator with Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik convicted and sentenced to life for his roll in the 1st WTC bombin', a conviction and sentence upheld all the way throught the appellate process includin' SCOTUS. Stewart used her attorney status to facillitate information exchange between Rahman and his network of terrorists - a crime in and of itself - then lied about havin' done so, stackin' criminal conduct on top of criminal conduct.

You may find it disturbin' that the government frowns upon and takes action against threats to our nation's security and assaults on our body of law. I don't. Stewart deserved every sanction she got, and then some. I really sorta resent that my tax dollars will feed, cloth, and care for her - and her client/co-conspirator, 'till they die a natural death.

0 Replies

Is there a link to this? Haven't heard of it.

0 Replies

Poppycock is not strong enough.

You either have no knowledge of the facts behind the Stewart case or are a terrorist supporter.

Tell us which?

0 Replies

goodfielder -

The Lynne Stewart website

woiyo -

woiyo wrote:

You either have no knowledge of the facts behind the Stewart case or are a terrorist supporter.

I think all that "with us or with the terrorists" rethoric is extremely dangerous. It prevents any justified discussion from the beginning.

0 Replies

I found this commentary on FindLaw to be interesting:

The Lynne Stewart Guilty Verdict: Stretching the Definition of "Terrorism" To Its Limits

Quote:

Stewart's supposed support for terrorism instead consisted of aiding her client in 2000 by giving a press release to Reuters News Service in Cairo, Egypt, and of being present when her co-defendants allegedly aided her client in writing a series of letters.

Admittedly she showed poor judgement about the press release. But that being material aid to terrorists? Whoo boy.

Makes me wonder about all those ads showing how buying drugs supports terrorism....

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Poppycock. Stewart went down for lyin' under oath, obstructin' justice, and for subvertin' lawyer-client privilege to suit her own despicable, treasonous, anti-American agenda of support for terrorism and known, convicted, imprisoned terrorists. Stewart became a co-conspirator with Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik convicted and sentenced to life for his roll in the 1st WTC bombin', a conviction and sentence upheld all the way throught the appellate process includin' SCOTUS. Stewart used her attorney status to facillitate information exchange between Rahman and his network of terrorists - a crime in and of itself - then lied about havin' done so, stackin' criminal conduct on top of criminal conduct.

You may find it disturbin' that the government frowns upon and takes action against threats to our nation's security and assaults on our body of law. I don't. Stewart deserved every sanction she got, and then some. I really sorta resent that my tax dollars will feed, cloth, and care for her - and her client/co-conspirator, 'till they die a natural death.

I have read through several articles regarding this case and see absolutely nothing that backs your claims. Sounds like right wing hysteria to me. We all of course are entitiled to our opinions.

0 Replies

The "Find Law" link provides an excellent case history.

How one can read it and still support the conviction is beyond me.

0 Replies

Not to mention the SAMs were changed after she agreed to them.

Quote:

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.

0 Replies

She was appointed to be his attorney?
Then they convicted her for having done so?

Do I have something mixed up here?

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

She was appointed to be his attorney?
Then they convicted her for having done so?

Do I have something mixed up here?

Take a look around. everything in America is now mixed up except for the clear and purposeful direction in which it's being manipulated.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

She was appointed to be his attorney?
Then they convicted her for having done so?

Do I have something mixed up here?

Passing info to her clients terrorists friends was part of her job? Here I thought it was to try and get the guy off.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

goodfielder -

The Lynne Stewart website

woiyo -

woiyo wrote:
You either have no knowledge of the facts behind the Stewart case or are a terrorist supporter.

I think all that "with us or with the terrorists" rethoric is extremely dangerous. It prevents any justified discussion from the beginning.

What is there to discuss? Seems to me the judge ruled properly against Stewart.

"Passed in 1994, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the statute prohibits defines a violation as giving material support to anyone while intending or knowing that the support will be used in connection with any one of a list of violent crimes.

What violent crime did the government cite? It claimed Sattar was alleged to have been conspiring to commit terrorism abroad, urging Rahman's followers to kill Jews. But again, no such crimes have ever been linked to the Reuters news release.

This time, Judge Koeltl found the statute, as applied, to be constitutional. But in doing so, he interpreted the intent standard to require very specific proof: proof that

Stewart knew she was providing resources to carry out a specific violent crime. "

The fact that "no crime was committed" is weak and I will counter that maybe we averted the crime from happening.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
She was appointed to be his attorney?
Then they convicted her for having done so?

Do I have something mixed up here?

Passing info to her clients terrorists friends was part of her job? Here I thought it was to try and get the guy off.

Well, if you buy the constitutionality of the charges, and if you can make the the illogical leaps made in the accusation more pallatable(that the unproved statement withdrawing "his support for a ceasefire that currently exists" was an encrypted message to his followers), and if you believe that a virtual "jail-break," in which Rahman did not actually get sprung from prison, but did get his messages of violence out to the world is something more than paranoid speculation, then, yeah, you're right.
She's a lawyer who seems to be playing by the rules while the government plays by a completely different set.

Shocking.

0 Replies

So you are saying it is her job to pass messages back and forth from the client to the world?

What types of engagement has she had and with what groups? Is there or was there something in her past that would show she was sympathetic to his cause? You know I'm sure there are people on this website if asked by certain groups would do the very same thing. I am almost sure we do have those on this website who would love to see the US hit again so that we could "learn a lesson" from those that they see as heroes.

0 Replies

The rest of the story, for those who might be interested:

Quote:

Andrew C. McCarthy: Lynne Stewart & Me

Quote:

Michael Tremoglie: Who Is Behind Lynne Stewart?

0 Replies

In the post 9/11 era there is no surprise for most US lawyer

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know