The Warring States of NPF

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)
-   Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   Activist Lawyer Jailed for Smuggling Msgs (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=8759)

Jack's Smirking Revenge 02-11-2005 02:51 PM

Activist Lawyer Jailed for Smuggling Msgs
 
Quote:

She faces 20 years for smuggling messages from jailed terrorist
NEW YORK - A veteran civil rights lawyer known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene has vowed to fight her conviction for smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients to his terrorist disciples.

Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist, was convicted Thursday of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements.

“It’s a dark day for civil liberties and for civil liberties lawyers in this country,” attorney Ron Kuby said Thursday. “In the post 9-11 era, where dissidents are treated as traitors, it’s perhaps no surprise that a zealous civil rights lawyer becomes a convict.”

Kuby, who briefly represented Omar Abdel-Rahman after the radical Egyptian sheik’s 1993 arrest, said the verdict was a “terrible message to send at a time when we need civil rights lawyers more than ever.”

Defendant insists she is innocent
A tearful Stewart insisted she did nothing wrong after taking over Abdel-Rahman’s case and representing him until her arrest in 2002. The blind cleric was convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt’s president.

“I hope this is a wake up call to all the citizens of this country,” she said outside court. “You can’t lock up the lawyers.”

Lawyers have said Stewart most likely would face a 20-year sentence. She will remain free on bail but must stay in New York until her July 15 sentencing.

Vowing to appeal, Stewart blamed the verdict on inflammatory evidence that included videotape of Osama bin Laden urging support for the jailed Abdel-Rahman, who prosecutors said communicated with the outside world with Stewart’s help.

“When you put Osama bin Laden in a courtroom and ask the jury to ignore it, you’re asking a lot,” she said.

Other lawyers viewed the verdict as reasonable.

Advocate or accomplice?
“I think lawyers need to be advocates but they don’t need to be accomplices,” said Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island who has studied terrorism cases. “I think the evidence suggested that Lynne Stewart had crossed the line.”

The trial focused on the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior by a lawyer. Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases.

“The purpose of this prosecution ... was to send a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it’s dangerous to do so,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who was not involved in the case.

The jury heard two vastly different portraits of Stewart. Prosecutors described her as an essential and willing aide to terrorists, while defense attorney Michael Tigar focused on a lengthy legal career of representing the destitute and the despised.

The trial before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl began in late June, with prosecutor Christopher Morvillo telling the jury in his opening statement that Stewart “used her status as a lawyer as a cloak to smuggle messages into and out of prison.” He said she allowed Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik, to “incite terrorism.”

Prosecutors say promise broken
Prosecutors said Stewart broke a promise to the government by letting outsiders communicate with the sheik, who was in solitary confinement under special prison rules designed to stop him from communicating with anyone except his wife and his lawyers.

Tigar suggested the case was an intrusion into attorney-client privilege as the government eavesdropped on prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik.

The anonymous jury, which deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Stewart, also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of conspiracy for 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 about 20 years.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/

If she is guilty of smuggling messages (possibly orders?) from a terrorist in prison to his supporters on the outside, why on earth did she not think she would be tossed in prison?

All of her (and her lawyer's) arguments are irrellevant, as well.

Quote:

“In the post 9-11 era, where dissidents are treated as traitors, it’s perhaps no surprise that a zealous civil rights lawyer becomes a convict.”
Being a zealous civil rights lawyer is perfectly fine, however possibly endangering the lives of thousands of people by leaking messages from a convicted terrorist should be considered criminal. I'm glad they threw her ass into prison. Dissidents are not treated as traitors, either. :rolleyes: These people are Grandstanding and it is terribly annoying.

Quote:

“You can’t lock up the lawyers.”
I love this quote from her. Apparantly, being a lawyer means you should be above the law...

shiney 02-11-2005 03:15 PM

That last comment will hurt a lot, I am sure. She will appeal, but if she was indeed proven guilty I hope that she fails appeals.

I don't know the specifics of the case yet but certainly some website will have them.

Jack's Smirking Revenge 02-11-2005 03:44 PM

I have been searching around to find out about the evidence at hand, but nothing just yet. The story only broke just yesterday. The jury did deliberate over the course of 13 days, though, so it hardly looks like an open-shut case.

Arlia Janet 02-11-2005 04:16 PM

Still, from the result of the case- she was found guilty of giving messages and orders to terrorists. I don't see a violation of civil liberties here. Freedom of speech does not mean 'freedom to say or do whatever you want.' Freedom of speech is limited to things that do not present a clear and present danger. Giving orders to terrorists seems like it is a pretty clear and present danger to me.

Slipstream 02-11-2005 04:20 PM

Sigh, this is a sad day for America. She will most likely be tried as a traitor, and possibly sentenced to death. Treason is a pretty bad crime in America, and she will pay for her crimes most likely with her life. (It's just how I see it, it may not end up that way)

Arlia Janet 02-11-2005 04:33 PM

Are you saying that it is a sad day for America because she was convicted of transporting messages to terrorists or that she may be (probably not... actually, it's very unlikely) put to death for it? I don't think she was convicted for treason. As far as I know, there have only been two convictions for treason at the state level*.




*

Slipstream 02-11-2005 04:44 PM

Oh of course they execute traitors. If she is labled as a traitor, she will be put to death, simple as that.

Jack's Smirking Revenge 02-11-2005 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipstream
Oh of course they execute traitors. If she is labled as a traitor, she will be put to death, simple as that.


:rolleyes:

She is not going to be labled as a traitor and will not be executed.

Besides, traitors can only be executed in the field.

btw, are you suggesting that it is somehow okay to act as a messenger for a man who plotted the assasination of a president and the potential murder of hundreds civillians via the destruction of monuments? You think it's a good thing for this man to be communicating with people outside of his family?

Slipstream 02-11-2005 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack's Smirking Revenge
:rolleyes:

She is not going to be labled as a traitor and will not be executed.

Besides, traitors can only be executed in the field.

btw, are you suggesting that it is somehow okay to act as a messenger for a man who plotted the assasination of a president and the potential murder of hundreds civillians via the destruction of monuments? You think it's a good thing for this man to be communicating with people outside of his family?

I'm probably guessing that you weren't talking to me about the 'good thing'. Anyway, it's possible that she could be labled as a traitor.

Psrdirector 02-11-2005 09:41 PM

This is a sad day for america reading your posts. you all seem to think just because she was arrested and found guilty in a triel that to me did not look fair in the least, she must be an evil terrorists. America has been doing this using peoples fear of "terrorists" to allow them to do things clearly wrong. I think you people are sick, plain and simple


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.