Full Version: Civil Rights Lawyer gets 2.5 Years
Link
From the article:
here's my favorite:
Okay, so here are the questions for debate.
Is the punishment fair?
If not, what would you're sentence be?
Do you think that Stewart's rights were abused, as Mr. Dorfmann suggests?
On edit: I would've bet money I put this is Big Trials and Legal Issues...
CP
From the article:
QUOTE
A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced Monday to nearly 2 1/2 years in prison — far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted — for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.
QUOTE
Stewart was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement issused by one of her clients, Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.
here's my favorite:
QUOTE
"It's not just Lynne Stewart who is a victim; it's the Bill of Rights that's the victim," said Al Dorfman, 72, a retired lawyer.
Okay, so here are the questions for debate.
Is the punishment fair?
If not, what would you're sentence be?
Do you think that Stewart's rights were abused, as Mr. Dorfmann suggests?
On edit: I would've bet money I put this is Big Trials and Legal Issues...
CP
Is the punishment fair?
No, I wouldn't call 30 months instead of 30 years fair.
If not, what would you're sentence be?
I am against the death penalty, but sedition and treason give me pause on that stance. How about the guideline sentence of 30 years for starters.
I like the 150 people shouting "free Lynn" outside the courthouse. That's nice - reminds me of the "Free Mumia" rally we had in Chicago last weekend. Always up for their fellow citizen, these right-minded chanters.
No, I wouldn't call 30 months instead of 30 years fair.
If not, what would you're sentence be?
I am against the death penalty, but sedition and treason give me pause on that stance. How about the guideline sentence of 30 years for starters.
I like the 150 people shouting "free Lynn" outside the courthouse. That's nice - reminds me of the "Free Mumia" rally we had in Chicago last weekend. Always up for their fellow citizen, these right-minded chanters.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 16 2006, 04:41 PM) 
Is the punishment fair?
If not, what would you're sentence be?
Do you think that Stewart's rights were abused, as Mr. Dorfmann suggests?
On edit: I would've bet money I put this is Big Trials and Legal Issues...
CP
It's really hard to tell exactly what she did from this brief article, but if she intentionally gave aid to this terrorist, we should lock her up in the most horrible prison in America, maximum security and hope she gets what's coming to her.
I'd have to venture to state that a woman of her intelligence would've understood exactly what she was doing. I hate that the conviction came with the whopping 30 months, for potentially something that could've killed Americans and/or people in other nations. This is absurd. Kids get worse for stealing cars or carring marijuana!
There's a lot of information out there related to this rather complicated case.
Lynne Stewart's supporter's website:
http://www.lynnestewart.org/
Where as you can see she is not in jail, and is out on bail pending appeal.
The woman has breast cancer, and as such any jail sentence is likely the equivalent of a death sentence:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/03/...er_delays_s.php
And the Wikipedia article has specifics of the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart
Personally, I simply do not know enough about the details of the case or of the specifics of what exactly she was charged with and whether or not she was actually guilty. The case is extremely complicated as the boundaries of attorney-client privilege seem to be tested here. While I certainly don't think she should have released press releases for her client after being ordered not to, there do seem to be some instances in the case where the government overstepped their bounds such as with the wiretapping of her conversations with her client.
She even admitted in a letter to the sentencing judge that what she did was wrong:
http://www.lynnestewart.org/Stewart%20Lett...)%20scanned.pdf
Caution PDF
I think that letter shows someone who believed solemnly in her duty to her client, and made a terrible mistake. In my opinion, the judge's ruling was fair, the woman is 68 and has an incredible history of being a self-sacrificing civil servant defending people to the point where she has put herself into poverty.
I do wish the more conservative posters would take the time to understand the case before jumping on the government's bandwagon of rolling over the rights of anyone with a terrorist connection. Certainly this is not as cut and dry as you have responded, unless you would prefer to completely throw out the 6th amendment in terrorism cases. It seems that perhaps that is ultimately the Bush Adminstration's goal.
Lynne Stewart's supporter's website:
http://www.lynnestewart.org/
Where as you can see she is not in jail, and is out on bail pending appeal.
The woman has breast cancer, and as such any jail sentence is likely the equivalent of a death sentence:
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/03/...er_delays_s.php
And the Wikipedia article has specifics of the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart
QUOTE
Stewart was accused of using her meetings with Abdel Rahman to facilitate communications between Abdel Rahman and members of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, in English), an Egyptian organization classified as a terrorist group by the Department of State. Stewart was alleged to have allowed her Arabic translator and co-defendant, Mohammed Yousry, to use her meetings with Abdel Rahman to receive communications for passing to followers. She was also charged with releasing her client's press conference statements, which declared his withdrawal of support for Al-Gama'a's cease-fire against the Egyptian government.
Personally, I simply do not know enough about the details of the case or of the specifics of what exactly she was charged with and whether or not she was actually guilty. The case is extremely complicated as the boundaries of attorney-client privilege seem to be tested here. While I certainly don't think she should have released press releases for her client after being ordered not to, there do seem to be some instances in the case where the government overstepped their bounds such as with the wiretapping of her conversations with her client.
She even admitted in a letter to the sentencing judge that what she did was wrong:
http://www.lynnestewart.org/Stewart%20Lett...)%20scanned.pdf
Caution PDF
I think that letter shows someone who believed solemnly in her duty to her client, and made a terrible mistake. In my opinion, the judge's ruling was fair, the woman is 68 and has an incredible history of being a self-sacrificing civil servant defending people to the point where she has put herself into poverty.
I do wish the more conservative posters would take the time to understand the case before jumping on the government's bandwagon of rolling over the rights of anyone with a terrorist connection. Certainly this is not as cut and dry as you have responded, unless you would prefer to completely throw out the 6th amendment in terrorism cases. It seems that perhaps that is ultimately the Bush Adminstration's goal.
Is the punishment fair?
If not, what would you're sentence be?
It seems pretty light for the crime she was convicted of, but considering her age and health, I don't find it outrageous.
Do you think that Stewart's rights were abused, as Mr. Dorfmann suggests?
No.
The idea that Lynne Stewart's prosecution was an assault on the Sixth Amendment is specious. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial and the assistance of counsel. Omar Abdel-Rahman had his fair trial in 1995, and was convicted. Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheikh, a.k.a. Bad Santa was the "spiritual leader" of the terrorists who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and were planning other attacks in New York.
Andrew McCarthy, the lead prosecutor of Omar Abdel-Rahman points out:
The timeline is important. Stewart, in her letter to the sentencing judge, suggests that her conduct in 2000 was interpreted very differently after the 9/11 attacks. But the special administrative measures that prohibited Rahman from making public statements were imposed by the Clinton Justice Department in 1997. Why? Because he was a danger, even in prison. In 1996, the Egyptian Islamic Group issued a statement saying, "All American interests will be legitimate targets for our struggle until the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his brothers." In November 1997, terrorists murdered about 60 tourists near the Luxor pyramids. They left leaflets calling for Rahman's release.
In May, 2000, Lynne Stewart signed an agreement with the Justice Department, stating that she would abide by the special administrative restrictions. She promptly violated the agreement by releasing a statement to the press that Rahman no longer supported a cease-fire between Egypt and the Islamic Group. She also attempted to fool the guards who were watching their conversations. She would talk, and her "translator" would pretend to translate, but actually read letters from the Islamic Group to Rahman.
Stewart says she was just being a zealous lawyer, but there was basically nothing she could do as a lawyer. Her client had been convicted, sentenced to life in prison. His appeals had been rejected. According to Stewart's letter, she was trying to get Rahman sent to an Egyptian prison, which seems an unlikely act of mercy. If Rahman requested this action, I can only assume it was because he believed it would be easier for his jihadist comrades to break him out of an Egyptian prison.
Lynne Stewart's conduct was reprehensible, and she should be punished.
If not, what would you're sentence be?
It seems pretty light for the crime she was convicted of, but considering her age and health, I don't find it outrageous.
Do you think that Stewart's rights were abused, as Mr. Dorfmann suggests?
No.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Oct 17 2006, 04:02 PM)
I do wish the more conservative posters would take the time to understand the case before jumping on the government's bandwagon of rolling over the rights of anyone with a terrorist connection. Certainly this is not as cut and dry as you have responded, unless you would prefer to completely throw out the 6th amendment in terrorism cases. It seems that perhaps that is ultimately the Bush Adminstration's goal.
The idea that Lynne Stewart's prosecution was an assault on the Sixth Amendment is specious. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial and the assistance of counsel. Omar Abdel-Rahman had his fair trial in 1995, and was convicted. Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheikh, a.k.a. Bad Santa was the "spiritual leader" of the terrorists who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and were planning other attacks in New York.
Andrew McCarthy, the lead prosecutor of Omar Abdel-Rahman points out:
QUOTE(Andrew McCarthy)
Stewart’s conviction does not pertain to what she did while she was actually defending the blind sheikh. The government has always been extremely deferential to the needs of attorneys representing accused terrorists as they prepare for trial, conduct trial, prepare for sentencing, and draft any appeals. The acts on which Stewart’s convictions were based took place long after Abdel Rahman’s trial and sentencing, long after his appeals were rejected, and well beyond the time allotted for filing habeas corpus petitions to attack his convictions. When she was indicted, Stewart was not performing the function of a lawyer defending a terrorist; her prosecution thus portends no interference with lawyers engaged in the zealous representation of criminal defendants.
The timeline is important. Stewart, in her letter to the sentencing judge, suggests that her conduct in 2000 was interpreted very differently after the 9/11 attacks. But the special administrative measures that prohibited Rahman from making public statements were imposed by the Clinton Justice Department in 1997. Why? Because he was a danger, even in prison. In 1996, the Egyptian Islamic Group issued a statement saying, "All American interests will be legitimate targets for our struggle until the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his brothers." In November 1997, terrorists murdered about 60 tourists near the Luxor pyramids. They left leaflets calling for Rahman's release.
In May, 2000, Lynne Stewart signed an agreement with the Justice Department, stating that she would abide by the special administrative restrictions. She promptly violated the agreement by releasing a statement to the press that Rahman no longer supported a cease-fire between Egypt and the Islamic Group. She also attempted to fool the guards who were watching their conversations. She would talk, and her "translator" would pretend to translate, but actually read letters from the Islamic Group to Rahman.
Stewart says she was just being a zealous lawyer, but there was basically nothing she could do as a lawyer. Her client had been convicted, sentenced to life in prison. His appeals had been rejected. According to Stewart's letter, she was trying to get Rahman sent to an Egyptian prison, which seems an unlikely act of mercy. If Rahman requested this action, I can only assume it was because he believed it would be easier for his jihadist comrades to break him out of an Egyptian prison.
Lynne Stewart's conduct was reprehensible, and she should be punished.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Oct 17 2006, 06:02 PM)
There's a lot of information out there related to this rather complicated case.
Where as you can see she is not in jail, and is out on bail pending appeal.
Indeed. You can see her along with supporters of "free Mumia" here, and in front of a sign decrying the Patriot Act as "American Gestapo" here.
The case is not tremendously complicated. She passed messages from a convicted, imprisoned terrorist who attacked America on our own soil, to the media in violation of a direct order which she signed and agreed to. It's like the definition of sedition, or at least aiding and abetting the enemy.transcript
QUOTE
The woman has breast cancer, and as such any jail sentence is likely the equivalent of a death sentence:
I know that judges take this sort of thing in mind when they issue sentences, but spare us the crocodile tears. Governor Ryan just pulled the same crap here in Illinois, and the judge rightly told him to report to jail in January. Sorry, you should have thought of this when you violated the order, Lynne. But, in this case, she "wins" and only gets a fraction of the deserved sentence.
QUOTE
I think that letter shows someone who believed solemnly in her duty to her client, and made a terrible mistake. In my opinion, the judge's ruling was fair, the woman is 68 and has an incredible history of being a self-sacrificing civil servant defending people to the point where she has put herself into poverty.
As McCarthy noted in jobius' post, she had no practical reason to assert privilege as there was no case pending or being built. Plus, there is no doubt that she was abetting Islamic radicalism and terrorism. As the prosecutor put it in the case - the Sheikh "did not have the right to pass messages which, simply put, can get people killed and buildings blown up." Ms. Stewart disagreed. And well...people got killed and buildings got blown up.
QUOTE
One of the most incendiary communications was a message Stewart herself gave to the Reuters news service in June 2000 in which the sheikh announced his withdrawal of support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian Islamic Group and the Egyptian government. The truce had been in place since 1997, just after his followers in Egypt had opened fire on tourists at the Temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor, killing 58 foreigners and 4 Egyptians. Subsequently, high-casualty Islamist terrorism resumed in Egypt on October 7, 2004, with a series of bombings that killed 34 in and around the Egyptian Sinai resort of Taba. On July 23, 2005, three bombs exploded in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 64.
Really, it's just the chickens come home to roost for her. In her own words:
"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." --LINK
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.