She will not be able to help kill any more Americans for a few years!

My oh my........the liberals across the country must be grieving tonight. I hope that fat pig gets the maximum sentence possible. Let her rot in jail a long time to think about what a bad girls she has been for 35 years helping every left wing extremist cause possible for her own enrichment and ego.

Have people forgotten that our justice system falls apart without lawyers who vigorously defend the accused? Latter day super patriots seem to forget things like founding father and second president John Adams defending despised British soldiers who killed colonists in Boston. Adams called this "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country."

Anadarko,

She wasn't convicted for being a defense lawyer. Don't even try to argue that. She's being convicted for violating an agreement she made not to pass messages from her client to his followers.

Maybe you should actually read about the case before you give your knee jerk response.

Stewart's actions went beyond vigorously defending the accused to outright enabling a convicted terrorist's attempt to wreak havoc. She violated SAMs which specifically prohibited her from giving Rahman's communiques to third parties. These messages had to do with doing away with a cease-fire with the Egyptian government, as well as a fatwah instructing Muslims to kill Jews, wherever they may be. And before anyone suggests Stewart didn't know what those messages were, keep in mind doing so insults the intelligence of anyone who knows better.

Uttering her name in connection with John Adams is the very worst kind of historical revisionism. More than that, it's an insult to John Adams.

Do we still have a guillotine we can use...? :)

1. Let's not overreact.

2. We're not France.

I've read plenty about the case. I was responding to comments disparaging her career and suggesting she deserves no sympathy because she defends bad guys.

And I didn't compare her to John Adams. I used him as an example of the importance of defense lawyers in this system.

You folks should read the case, both sides of it, not just the government's side.

She didn't "slip" information to terrorists. She held a press conference. Something that had been done dozens of times before by his previous lawyer, Ramsey Clark.

She didn't break the law, she refused to cooperate with complete isolation of her client, which is unconstitutional, even for people accused of the worst crimes.

The fact that Ashcroft went on David Letterman the day he arrested her is a clear sign this was a politcal witchhunt.

You can deny it, but history will show that you were apologists for witch hunt. On the side of the McCarthyites, pure and simple.

shame shame shame.

Sigh.

It's indisputable that she did violate the SAMs by disseminating information from her "client" to third parties. And thanks for bringing up the press conference...because that was one way she slipped information to said third party: by holding a press conference in which she basically said Rahman didn't want the cease fire to continue...and making that statement public.

The fact is there were SAMs in place TO WHICH SHE AGREED that allowed her to be accompanied by translators when speaking to Rahman...but only about LEGAL MATTERS. Those SAMs also specifically prohibited dissemination of Rahman's instructions, thoughts, or statements to third parties.

Now, on the first part, the "translator" Stewart used was actually there to talk directly with Rahman about whether to lift the cease fire IG had with Egypt's government. In other words, Stewart wasn't there at all to talk about legal matters, but to enable an IG goon to talk to his boss.

Now, on the larger note...was Rahman completely isolated? Did anything stop him from sending a letter or making a phone call? To his wife? Well, prison mail is monitored, as are phone calls. So how would an intrepid terrorist get out his calls to violence? Well, abusing attorney-client privilege might do the trick. Besides the public statements, who knows what private communications Stewart had with IG thugs on behalf of her "client?" That she did, you know, smuggle communications out for her "client" is one of the very things she was convicted of.

But let's pretend for a moment that your argument has merit...that Stewart was merely trying to demonstrate that the SAMs were unconstitutional. If that were the case, she could have simply held a press conference with merely technical violations of the SAMs, like saying "Rahman wants you to know he's innocent, prison conditions are awful -- especially the prison hummous -- and he's going to prove his innocence to the world." That would have been a technical violation and a interesting case.

But she didn't do that. She communicated an order to kill people...an order that Rahman didn't even bother to couch in euphemism. Such conduct is not only outrageous, it violates basic legal ethics rules as well as the law (and, incidentally, is not protected under the 1A). In sum, Stewart's actions strengthen the case for having SAMs, not weakens it.

So ignoring facts and suggesting Stewart is the target of a political witch hunt? Shame Shame Shame.

On the facts:

First, a press conference is a public forum; there is no secretive "slipping" of information. And as I said, his first lawyer did it all the time.

Second, Stewart at first refused to sign what was called "Special Administrative Measures" (SAMS) which are draconian restrictions on how she could see and defend her client. These aren't laws passed by the US Congress, these are arbitrary regulations set by a Justice Department that wanted to make any defense of the Sheik very difficult.

She only agreed to them when it became clear that she would not see her client (why the quotes around that word? Are you alluding to the fact that she was appointed by the court in this case, and that she probably didn't get paid very much for her work? She was his lawyer, that makes him her client. Or are you so very prejudiced that you refuse to acknowledge that relationship. It was, after all, the very point of the case. THE LAWYER CLIENT PRIVILEGE -- WHICH THE GOV'T VIOLATED WHEN IT SECRETLY TAPE D HER CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM IN PRISON.

Second, the Sheik didn't finger people to be killed, as you and the government would suggest.

Thirdly, the translator (no quotes) was an academic who was not only NOT fundamentalist, he wasn't even religious. However, he was a cultural muslim, he did know the language, and so he is set up as a terrorist. None of the government transcripts have him conferring privately with the Sheik.

The legal assistant is accused of conspiring with the Sheik because he was an activist for the Palestinian cause, and he was trying to politically network with the Sheik for that cause.

What does that have to do with the bombing of the WTC in 1993?

It's true that Stewart defied the SAMs. Breaking such a regulation does not consttute aiding a terrorist. Holding a press conference does not constittute passing secret information to terrorist networks.

He was a famous iman. He used inflammatory language. Once the CIA brought him here, he had a First Amendment right to do so.

Stewart felt it was her obligation to break with the SAMs. You can disagree with that strategy as a defense, but to call it abetting terrorism is plain wrong.

"j", this isn't hard.

1) OK, if you want to argue semantics, proclaiming in a press conference that her "client" didn't want his terrorist buddies to continue with a cease fire isn't "secretive" (And bringing up the "Ramsey Clark Did It Too" defense isn't really helping you, by the way...). But I stand by my use of the word "slipping" as in "slipping it past a SAM to which SHE AGREED." If you want to assume I meant she was being secret about that one factoid, that's your assumption. But since you just conceded that Stewart violated the SAMs, you therefore conceded Stewart lost the case on the merits of the case and are left spinning like a dog-slobbered frisbee.

2) The SAMs in place weren't to make defense difficult, as they quite plainly allowed her to speak with her "client" about legal matters. The SAMs were in place to keep her from acting as a mouthpiece for some guy who wanted to order fatwahs to kill people. And the constitutionality of SAMs has been settled. So if Stewart didn't agree with them, she didn't have to agree to abide by them. However, since that that point she stopped being an actual attorney for her "client" and became a political crusader (hence the quotes, since transcripts show very little lawyering...more on that in a minute), that only adds to my argument that she deserves her conviction.

And also, thanks for bringing up the attorney-client privilege. The fact that it was taped and your resulting outrage shows your extreme ignorance of the law. To sum up, you can't cry a breach of privilege here because her "client" wasn't the target of the resulting lawsuit.

Oh, you have two "seconds" in your rant there. So we'll call this one...

2.5) The Shiek absolutely did issue a fatwah calling on devout Muslims to kill Jews. I'm not "suggesting" it...I'm flat out TELLING YOU. In fact, if you want to go a little farther, a message telling his buddies to go out and start killing Egyptian government-types is also a call to violence, also a call to start killing people, and just as reprehensible.

3) This is my favorite part, because this is where your ignorance truly drowns out everything else in the room.

Whether the translator was a fundamentalist, or religious, or even a member of IG isn't the point (Although you then sink your own argument by conceding he's connected with the Palestinians and is trying to network with a terrorist...but I still think he was connected to IG in some manner.). What is at issue is he was supposed to be there so Stewart could communicate with her "client." However, FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS ON STEWART'S OWN SITE we see she was abusing this, and using her position as an attorney to enable her "client" to pass private messages and letters to the outside world.

In fact, let's take a look at those transcripts. Pick one. Oh, let's take May 20. In numerous parts of the transcripts, it's quite plain the translator is conferring privately with her "client," FOR THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE REASON THAT THEY WERE BOTH SPEAKING IN ARABIC, AND STEWART DOES NOT SPEAK ARABIC. In fact, several times Stewart spoke up for the benefit of the guards, in English, in order to maintain the charade that she was there to talk to her "client" about legal matters, while the guy was dictating several letters to whomever....all in Arabic. And then Stewart agreed to send those letters (remember, in Arabic) to their recipients. In other words, we have an attorney WHO KNOWS SHE'S VIOLATING A SAM, allowing her "translator" to have extended conversations with her "client" IN A LANGUAGE SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, and sending letters IN A LANGUAGE SHE CANNOT READ from a convicted terrorist to whomever. And that's just from the transcripts we have in hand.

Seriously, "j". Just because the transcript is in English doesn't mean all the talking was in English. The Government does have a few Arabic-speaking people on their payroll, and they did take the time to translate the conversations so the jury could plainly see Stewart wasn't there to talk about legal matters. And the parts in English are plainly identified as such on the transcript.

In fact, let's talk about that translator a little more. You say he was there to politically network with Stewart's "client." Well, that Stewart let him do so is in itself shady, especially as she had no idea what they were talking about during their jam sessions. He wasn't set up as a terrorist because of his cultural background...IT WAS BECAUSE HE WAS "NETWORKING" WITH A CONVICTED TERRORIST.

4) The WTC? Who is talking about the WTC?

Now, thanks for again conceding Stewart violated the SAMs. The manner in which she violated them makes the conspiring with terrorist charge valid. And she certainly smuggled plenty of stuff out of that prison to make my point valid.

On your next throwaway statement, people have no 1A right to conspire to murder. And there is no 1A right for an attorney to act as a mouthpiece to do such a thing. It is, and it should remain, illegal.

In sum, Stewart was not acting out of some committment to civil rights (if she did, she could have challenged the SAMs in a much less injurious manner), but rather out of committment to her principles which condoned terror...principles PLAINLY ARTICULATED BY HER. So yes, she was the mouthpiece for a man who basically ordered IG to quit its cease fire. And if it quacks like a duck....

To clarify: here is what Lynne Stewart said about her decision to issue the press release:

"You know, it was not a decision that was just made off-the-cuff. We thought about this for awhile before we made the press release, and it was considered that it was important to him, considered important to our handling of the case, that this press release be made to keep him a figure on the world stage. If he had lost that, we would not have any bargaining power, we would not be able to do anything that would move him from this really torturous situation in which he was being held a blind, sick man who did not speak any English. And so the decision was made, and it was considered. Of course, I had no notion of this kind of consequence. Actually, these prison regulations, these SAMs said you know, “If you break these regulations, you may be cut off from your client.” That was our greatest concern, that we would be cut off from the client. The idea of prosecution never entered our minds. But the fact of the matter is, even with what has happened, it was the right decision. You can't start saying, “Well, maybe I will do this, but I won't do that.” It has to be that within the rules of ethics, what vigorously and zealously defending a client means you carry through on it and you do so wholeheartedly. I believe with my mind and heart that it was the right thing to do. I don't like the consequences. I feel for the people who care so much about me personally and the terrible destruction that has brought. But I do feel that it was the right thing to do and that that is what we do. I think that Ramsey said it very well on the witness stand. It was the right thing to do for the client."

His previous lawyer, Clark, did the same thing, and the gov't noticed but did nothing, as at the time, it was not considered, it seemed, conspiring to defraud the gov't, and certainly not conspiring to help any terrorists (which she is not accused of...)

Stewart was trying to negotiate getting the Sheik transferred to a prison in his own country, so she wanted to keep him on the world stage.

If you look at the press release, the Sheik didn't say 'cancel the ceasefire' at all.

It is the government exxagerating the consequences of this press release. (and the corrected version of it, in which it was emphasized again that the Sheik was not calling for an end to the ceasefire but told his followers to hold a discussion about it, particularly in the media.)

None of this points to Lynne Stewart as a "terrorist lawyer." None of this should have any meaning at all to the "war on terror" as Atty Gen'l Alberto Gonzalez squawked about today.

Did you realize that none of the charges even mention the word terrorism???

What we should be talking about is the gov't's growing attempt to keep the trials and the defense of those accused of terrorism a secret. That's what the SAMs were all about.

If it were any of us in the jail cell, I'm sure we would all feel differently about these prison restrictions on our ability to communicate with the outside world.

That's why so many people, "liberal" or otherwise are deeply disturbed by this case.

if you aren't, you have missed the point.

J, you're obviously arguing with a moron. Let the conservatives in this country piss away their rights and freedoms as individuals for the "illusion" of security. Some day, when the other boot falls, they'll wish they hadn't.

i finally got around to reading all of this. John, you made every single point that I was going to make in response to "j," right on down to the citing of uber-looney ramsey clark issue. heh.

J, do a google search on "John Tant" you will find that your opponent in this discussion is a near illiterate, a sad little man with a mesianic complex.
A fool who thinks that he constitution mandated a federal sales tax and supporter of Alan Keys.
The man is a Republican Parrot, child of the jack boot and son of original sin. He has no opinion and less knowledge, his dog is better fit for discussion of fact than he is.

I'll get to everything in time, but first I wanted to address Paul's comment.

Paul, I guess I should be heartened that instead of trying to address everything on the merits, you decided to look up my name in Google and try to dig dirt. However, the point you made isn't the point I think you were trying to make.

See, the John Tant at the exis.net address is not me. So in the words of the Instapundit: Heh.

Sorry to burst your little bubble there, Paul.

Now then, on to "j".

I can't help but notice that even as you accuse me of missing the point, you keep ignoring the ones I handily refuted for our audience. Instead you either keep repeating discredited memes, Renfield-style, or keep throwing more stuff against the wall hoping something will stick. It's a favorite tactic of the so-called "tax honesty" crowd, and I'm intrigued to see Stewart's defenders adopting it.

Anyway, let's start with the press release. Rahman is quoted as saying he is "withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists." Seems pretty clear to me...a guy in a leadership position telling his goons that he doesn't support a particular course of action.

Next, we have Rahman's calling up another lackey, one Ahmed Abdel Sattar, and asking him to contact Rahman and have him clarify. Rahman said, basically: Do what you guys want, but I'm not supporting the cease fire initiative.

The question then becomes...would abandoning the cease fire have been done, or even contemplated, had Rahman not made his statement? It's called reading between the lines, "j." It's a defacto order to cancel the thing, and IG's debate was largely whether they should listen to some guy sitting in a US prison (and what fantasy world would make you give any credence to a fish story that moving him to an Egyptian prison would ever have happened?!?). Or gee, what about that little tidbit after the Cole was attacked where Rahman promised more of the same if he wasn't freed?

Or if you want something a little more explicit, Rahman took credit for issuing a fatwah that specifically called for killing Jews. Of course, he couldn't have taken credit for it were it not for Stewart's helpful nature.

All of this is beside the point, of course, being the SAMs specifically barred Stewart, or any other legal representative of Rahman's, from communicating Rahman's messages to any third party. And if Stewart wanted to make a point with the SAMs, there were much more innocuous things she could have communicated other than her "client's" withdrawal of support for a cease-fire. But she didn't. And that makes her a TerrorSymp.

As for Stewart being a "terrorist lawyer," I think it's more appropriate to call her a "lawyer for a terrorist." After all, Rahman is a terrorist, convicted as being connected with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. However, Stewart has her own terrorist sympathies, as pointed out in the quote I used in my original post. I guess she'd just prefer other people do her killing for her.

Now, on to the remarks of AG Gonzales. He's exactly right when he said "Today’s verdict is an important step in the Justice Department’s war on terrorism. The convictions handed down by a federal jury in New York today send a clear, unmistakable message that this Department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals." See, we have Stewart helping A CONVICTED TERRORIST get his messages out to third parties...messages SHE HAD NO IDEA AS TO THE NATURE OF, in direct violation of SAMs SHE HERSELF AGREED TO (and indeed, in the transcripts, showed herself quite cognizant of the fact that she was violating them). And incidentally, if I recall correctly two of the original charges did in fact mention terrorism but the judge disallowed them mainly because the laws weren't in force at the time of Stewart's crimes. So much for the Government trying to railroad Stewart.

So now at the end of your rope, you appeal to how any one of us would "feel" if we were in Rahman's shoes. Well, I know exactly how I would feel in his shoes...which is why I DO NOT CONSPIRE TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Sheesh... Isn't it rather the POINT of prison to punish criminals?!?

At the end of the day, the only people "upset" about this are those who can only view the world through a bitter, distorted lens, or those who think the terrorists are on the right side of history. Somehow, I don't think there are as many outraged people as you think there are, "j."

*sigh*

Kris, stop teasing John. We know that's you posing as sacrosanct and Paul!

Bushitler Halliburton Bush lied kids died. Conservatives are stupid and I'm not stupid 'cause I'm not conservative and you're stinky. Shame on you for being stinky. The Iraqi elections were a sham and I'm not gonna vote because Hoobastank said Republicans cheated and I like Hoobastank.