Lynne Stewart has been released from prison.

[roody]

Source: Lynnestewart.org

She went home Tuesday.

Read more: http://lynnestewart.org/

[Kali]

1. this is from a listserve I am on:

*****************************

Below is a listing of audio/video coverage already on the web, and that which will be broadcast in the coming days.

*****************************
COVERAGE ALREADY ON THE WEB

For a 6 min., 30 sec. video of Lynne answering questions at LaGuardia (recorded by Renee Feltz of Democracy Now), go to

. (I was fortunate to be able to broadcast much of the sound of this live on WBAI this afternoon.)

For a still photo of Lynne hugging her daughter (and medical watchdog) Dr. Zenobia Brown -- and for ongoing updates -- go to http://lynnestewart.org/

For an audio of last night's one-hour WBAI program that I hosted on Lynne's then-impending release, Go to http://www.wbai.org/server-archive.html. Scroll down to Tues., 9 PM ("Muslim State of Mind" - the usual show at that hour). This includes:
* interviews with family and supporters
* an interview with Lynne herself from Texas shortly after her release
* a detailed medical update, and
* a 2005 phone interview that Mumia Abu-Jamal did by phone (from Death Row) with Lynne, in which she challenges the premises of the prosecution's case against her.

COVERAGE COMING UP

All WBAI programs can be heard in NY/NJ/CT at 99.5 FM or online at http://www.wbai.org. Afterwards, check the archive at http://www.wbai.org/server-archive.html. Scroll down to the date and time of the show.

Thurs., Jan. 2 bet. 7 & 8 AM - The WBAI morning program will include a 5-minute excerpt from Sally O'Brien's recording of the welcome.

Thurs., Jan. 2 bet. 8 & 9 AM - Amy Goodman and Renee Feltz of Democracy Now! covered the whole welcome-home, and will play excerpts at some point during the show. Later in the morning, check the archive and transcript at http://www.democracynow.org

Thurs., Jan. 2 bet. 8 & 9 PM - On WBAI's Where We Live, co-producers Sally O'Brien and dequi kioni-sadiki will present excerpts of Sally's recordings of the LaGuardia welcome plus updates on the parole campaign for elderly people in NYS prisons.

Mon., Jan. 6 bet. 7 & 8 PM - On WBAI's Building Bridges: Your Labor and Community Report, Mimi Rosenberg will run part of her recordings of Lynne's welcome for half of the hour.


***********
Special thanks to WBAI Producers Sally O'Brien and Mimi Rosenberg, as well as Democracy Now producers Amy Goodman and Renee Feltz, for all the coverage they provided today, as well as to WBAI Interim Program Director Bob Hennelly for arranging air time on WBAI, and WBAI operations staff members Tony Ryan, Max Schmid, and Reggie Johnson, for all their technical support, and WBAI and Pacifica Board member Cerene Roberts for proposing the past two days of live WBAI coverage.

[roody]

4. I mistakenly rely on DU for my news.

I got this from Democracy Now.

[Kali]

7. yeah, I get almost all news here too

but I also listen to DN! and am on a listserve for community radio - been a lot of posts flying about her release

[rug]

2. !

[donco]

3. Who is

Lynne Stewart?

[roody]

5. She was the defense attorney for Sheik

Rahman, convicted of terrorism. I'll get some links.
Apologies for Fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/31/ny-judge-orders-compassionate-release-terror-lawyer-lynne-stewart/

[rug]

6. A lawyer who spent her entire career reprsenting the indigent and pushing back.

It's all on the website.

May 30th, 2010

Who is Lynne Stewart?

Lynne Stewart is a radical human rights attorney who has devoted her life to the oppressed – a constant advocate for the countless many deprived in the United States of their freedom and their rights. Lynne has been falsely accused of helping terrorists in an obvious attempt by the U.S. government to silence dissent, curtail vigorous defense lawyers, and install fear in those who would fight against the U.S. government’s racism, seek to help Arabs and Muslims being prosecuted for free speech and defend the rights of all oppressed people. She was arrested in April 2002 and arraigned before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl, who also presided over her trial in 2004. She was convicted, and received a 28-month sentence in October 2006. However she was free on bail until 2009, when the government appealed the sentence. In late 2009 Lynne was re-sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. She is now in a federal medical facility for women in Texas, thousands of miles away from her home, family and community.

http://lynnestewart.org/about-lynne/

[Octafish]

142. Thank you!

A real lawyer, with integrity.

[msanthrope]

10. Criminal defense attorney who was convicted of violating the SAMs her client was under.

She was caught on tape facilitating her client's issuance of a fatwa.

[alfredo]

16. A Fatwa is a legal opinion. It is not binding to those outside the issuers sphere

of influence.

[msanthrope]

20. And under his SAMs, he isn't allowed to issue a damn thing. nt

[alfredo]

25. True. He knew it was forbidden and that it would compromise his lawyer if

she agreed.

[msanthrope]

51. He chose to use her. Terrorists do that sort of thing. She, however, made her choices. nt

[alfredo]

95. true. He exploited her weakness.

[msanthrope]

107. Her hubris. nt

[alfredo]

120. Precisely.

[Recursion]

147. Meh. IMO the government should be more than just barely on the right side of the law...

... before it jails a defense attorney.

[merrily]

39. An opinion on Islamic law issued by a scholar of Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa

The wiki makes an analogy between a court decision and a fatwa, but I would question that comparison.

Court decisions can be enforced civilly by imprisonment for contempt of court, seizure of property by a sheriff, etc.

I don't know who would have enforced a fatwa of someone in an American prison.

Even assuming he demanded death to all Americans, would everyone who did not take up arms immediately have to go to jail?

Of course, that assumes that a fatwa was indeed what Stewart passed on, but I am not at all sure yet of that. I need to do more googling.

P.S. the Second Circuit opinion says it is an opinion by a cleric on the holiness, under Islamic law, of something, in this case apparently, terminating a cease fire in Egypt.

[merrily]

37. "The message that Islamic Group should reconsider a cease-fire in attacks against the Egyptian

government" is what talkleft says.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/7/15/215324/363/terrortrials/Lawyer-Lynne-Stewart-Resentenced-to-10-Years


His wiki claims that he issued a fatwa before his arrest:

After the first World Trade Center bombing, the FBI began to investigate Omar Abdel-Rahman. The FBI recorded Rahman issuing a fatwa that encouraged acts of violence against US civilian targets, particularly in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. Rahman was arrested on 24 June 1993.[23]

I am also mindful that Bybee sits on the Ninth Circuit. Granted, it is a different circuit. Nonetheless, people who sit on a federal bench are not exactly apolitical.

[soundsgreat]

44. Long live the PATRIOT ACT!

The people has to be protected from these evildoing terrorist lawyers! 10 years was quite a benign sentencing.

[msanthrope]

46. Did the Patriot Act have a time machine? She was convicted of acts prior to its passage. nt

[soundsgreat]

55. ??? She was convicted after the Patriot Act

Your statement is misleading. Listen to these Chicago lawyers:

http://nlgchicago.org/programs/support-lynne-stewart/

Prior to September 11th and the hastily enacted “Patriot Act,” Lynne Stewart would never have been indicted at all. The charges against Lynne Stewart came at a time when the Bush administration and Ashcroft Justice Department were using the September 11th attack as a vehicle to attack the civil liberties of all Americans, and the rights under international law of many people of the world.

The “Patriot Act” was passed in an atmosphere of trauma and fear. Before 9/11, the Florida vote controversy and popular resentment over the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court ruling lingered; the was administration was on shaky ground. After September 11th the opportunity arose for Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft to push the country even further to the right and to move toward a police state. The Patriot Act implements a number of domestic “antiterrorism” measures that enhance government surveillance powers to enable the FBI and other law enforcers to intrude upon the privacy of anyone and everyone in the United States.

Under the guise of making us feel safe, the Act sacrifices values that are at the core of democracy and thus at the core of our Constitution The Act fosters detention and deportation of noncitizens based on their political activities and associations. When the Bush administration lacks authorization from Congress it may self-authorize by executive fiat, interim rules and directives all done in secrecy. By a signature of Ashcroft, the administration may monitor privileged communications between federal detainees and their attorneys completely bypassing Judicial scrutiny. This thwarts the ability of criminal defendants to receive the effective assistance of counsel to which they are entitled under the Sixth Amendment. Under these same interim rules and directives there are new guidelines for domestic intelligence gathering that repeal the hard-fought-for reforms of the Church Committee’s 1976 findings that the FBI and the CIA had engaged in domestic spying and disruption of lawful political activities (Cointelpro). This and other manipulations of Bush et.al. have set back established Constitutional and human rights. This could only have happened behind the cloak of fear engendered by 9/11.
“I am here not because the Government wanted to put me in jail for 40 years but because I have fought for Justice in the United States for 40 years.”

[msanthrope]

61. Does no one teach civics anymore? Lynne Stewart was convicted of acts that took place before

the Patriot Act was even passed.

Are you claiming an ex post facto conviction?

FYI...Stewart wasn't prosecuted or convicted under the Patriot Act...in fact, the investigation of her began under the Clinton DOJ.

[soundsgreat]

109. you don't have to repeat yourself *sigh*

"convicted after the Patriot Act" is something different than "convicted of acts that took place before the Patriot Act".

Can we agree on that? Thanks.

Stewart was investigated under the Clinton administration. But the witchhunt began with the Bush/Cheney/Ahscroft regime.

Here's an interview with her from 2002:

On June 14, 2000, radical attorney Lynne Stewart broke a signed agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. She released a press statement to the Reuters news service in Cairo on behalf of her imprisoned client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted of instigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The statement said, in part, that the Sheikh, spiritual advisor to the fundamentalist Islamic Group [IG], wished to call off a cease-fire then observed in Egypt by the IG. Following this press release, the Clinton Justice Department admonished Stewart for violating the Special Administrative Measures [SAMs], which prohibited the Sheikh from communicating in any way with the outside world. Stewart admitted she had erred and signed the SAMs agreement again, assuming her work would proceed as usual.

On April 9, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft, while on a visit to New York City’s Ground Zero, indicted Lynne Stewart for conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist organization. Charged with her were her Arabic translator Mohammed Yousry and two supporters of the Sheikh, Ahmed Abdel Sattar (now held in the United States without bail), and Yassir Al-Sirri (currently free in England).

Civil libertarians and attorneys have been quick to decry Stewart’s indictment as an assault on attorney-client privilege and possibly on the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. With the U.S. public’s post-September 11 unconcern for the erosion of individual freedom, however, Stewart’s success in beating the charges appears alarmingly uncertain. At age sixty-two, Stewart faces a possible forty years in prison, while the Bush administration seeks a major victory in its war on constitutional rights.

http://monthlyreview.org/2002/11/01/counter-intelligent

[msanthrope]

111. Look...when you help your client release a fatwa about killing "the Jews," you can hardly

be surprised when the DOJ goes after you....

The October 2000 Fatwah

w. On or about October 3, 2000, Taha called SATTAR anddiscussed a fatwah Taha had written under Abdel Rahman’s name in responseto recent events in the Middle East, to which SATTAR had made revisions.
- 21 -

x. On or about October 4, 2000, SATTAR called YassirA1-Sirri, a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein, and readto him a fatwa to be issued under Abdel Rahman’s name entitled, “FatwahMandating the Killing of Israelis Everywhere,” which A1-Sirri agreed torevise and disseminate.

y. On or about October 5, 2000, the fatwa appeared on theweb-site operated by A1-Sirri. The fatwah called on “brother scholarseverywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimousatwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews, and to kill themwherever they are.” The fatwah further urged “the Muslim nation” to“fight the Jews by all possible means of Jihad, either by killing them asindividuals or by targeting their interests, and the interests of thosewho support them, as much as they can.”

z. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephoneconversation, YOUSRY told STEWART that Abdel Rahman did not want hisattorneys to deny that he had issued the fatwah urging the killing ofJews around the world and the targeting of the interests of those whosupport them.

aa. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephoneconversation, STEWART told YOUSRY that she could not deny that she hadissued the press release in June 2000, and that her position was thatAbdel Rahman “is going to get his message out no matter what.”

- 22 -

bb. On or about October 20, 2000, during an attorneytelephone call to Abdel Rahman, YOUSRY was told by Abdel Rahman that hedid not personally issue the fatwah, but did not want anyone to deny hehad made it because “it is good.”


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

[soundsgreat]

112. You're siding with Ashcroft - do you feel comfortable with that? nt

[msanthrope]

113. I'm siding with the NY grand jury who issued the indictment.

Ashcroft did a lot of things wrong. A lot. But prosecuting an attorney who conspired with a terrorist to issue this fatwa? Prosecuti g an attorney who conspired to release false information about torture????

[div class="excerpt"

Dissemination of a False Claim Regarding Abdel Rahman’s PrisonConditions

gg. On or about January 8, 2001, SATTAR spoke by telephonewith STEWART. During this call, SATTAR informed STEWART that the prisonadministrator where Abdel Rahman was incarcerated had pleaded withAbdel Rahman's wife to tell Abdel

- 24 -

Rahman to take insulin for his diabetes. Although SATTAR and STEWARTknew that Abdel Rahman was voluntarily refusing to take insulin for hisdiabetes, they agreed that SATTAR should issue a public statementfalsely claiming that the Bureau of Prisons was denying medicaltreatment to Abdel Rahman. STEWART expressed the opinion that thismisrepresentation was “safe” because no one on the “outside” would knowthe truth.

hh. On or about January 8, 2001, SATTAR spoke by telephonewith A1-Sirri and together they wrote a statement regarding AbdelRahman’s prison conditions, which included, among other things, a falseclaim that Abdel Rahman was.being denied insulin by the United Statesgovernment. A1-Sirri instructed SATTAR to send the statement to Reutersand any other news agencies he could contact.

ii. Between on or about January 8, 2001, and on or aboutJanuary 10, 2001, SATTAR and Al-Sirri disseminated to several newsorganizations and on a website the false claim that United Statesauthorities were withholding insulin from Abdel Rahman.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)

[1000words]

114. The reaching is becoming acrobatic, no?

I applaud your patience.

[msanthrope]

115. Ignoring the "Kill the Jews" fatwa is predictable. But nothing erases that indictment. nt

[soundsgreat]

118. Right on - support your pal! He can need it nt

[soundsgreat]

117. You're certainly not siding with Janet Reno

Stewart was not prosecuted under the Clinton administration; she was not even removed from the case.

So you say Reno was a weenie, right?

[The Stranger]

75. Why wouldn't communications between her and her client be subject to attorney-client privilege?

[hack89]

80. Privilege can be limited - she agreed to the limits then violated them. Nt

[The Stranger]

82. Privilege can be "limited"? That could only mean waiver. The attorney cannot waive privilege on

behalf of the client. That is hornbook law.

[hack89]

85. SAMs are specific restrictions on an attorney

She was not allowed to facilitate communications between her client and any third party. She engaged in a conspiracy to do exactly that. It was against the law and she got caught.

[The Stranger]

87. What the fuck is a "SAM"?

[Ranchemp.]

89. Special Administrative Measures.

[hack89]

90. Special administrative measures

As part of Stewart’s defense of Rahman, and her serving for several years on post-conviction issues, she was subject to modified "special administrative measures" which govern communications between suspects and their legal counsel. Stewart had accepted the condition that, in order to be allowed to meet with Abdel Rahman in prison, she would not "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman".[28] The special administrative measures, or SAMs, were modified in the wake of the September 11th attacks and were designed to prevent communications that could endanger US national security or lead to acts of violence and terrorism.[29]

[The Stranger]

122. Not only can the attorney NOT waive the privilege without the client's consent, these "special

administrative measures" violate the right to the assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

[hack89]

123. They are common for terrorism and organized crime prosecutions

For obvious reasons. In any case, she formally accepted then so she knew she was breaking the law. She should have formally challenged the SAMs instead of conspiring to evade them.

[The Stranger]

140. If it's an unconstitutional law, then her "breaking the law" is voided.

And she did challenge the SAMs, apparently, but the Second Circuit refused to consider it, erroneously calling it a collateral attack.

I guess what no one seems to fucking get here is that not only is the Government invading every fucking part of your life, it has now taken over the only relationship that would protect you from it.

[hack89]

141. What court ruled it unconstitutional?

Or are courts irrelevant - can lawyers ignore any law they personally deem unconstitutional?

[The Stranger]

156. That it is unconstitutional does not require it be ruled so.

Lawyers interpret the law -- whether they are on the bench or at bar.

It would appear that the issue hasn't yet reached the Supreme Court, in any event, also made up of lawyers.

And, finally, courts of appeal often have majority, plurality and dissenting opinions, also issued by lawyers (who happen to be on the bench).

What fucking idiot said that something is unconstitutional only if a court has already reached the issued and ruled it to be so?

[hack89]

157. So the government should void her conviction just because she thinks it unconstitutional?

that is an interesting defense strategy.

With in the framework of the justice system, "it's unconstitutional" =/= a get out of jail card like you seem to think it does. The reasons why that is the case should be pretty obvious. But then maybe not.

[Recursion]

150. They were developed for mafia trials

So that Don Corleone's lawyer can't go tell Vito to whack Fredo. They have their place, though they seem to have been overused here.

[msanthrope]

83. Communication regarding his legal issues is...communication outside those matters is not.

Stewart facilitated a 'translator' who was a political operative for the sheik's terrorist group.

[Recursion]

146. It is. The government can't ask her what he told her.

The government according to current law can prevent her from telling anyone else what he told her. This whole case was a fiasco, though, even if the government was (just barely) on the right side of the law.

[rug]

77. The Special Administrative Measures are bullshit, as are the CMUs.

http://prezi.com/vi5pehwf0zns/solitary-confinement-in-the-united-states-of-america/

You can trash her all you want but don't attempt to justify these SAMs.

[msanthrope]

84. Tell me...what specific SAMs was the sheik under that you think were unjustifiable? nt

[rug]

91. All of them.

The May 11, 1998, SAMs applicable to Abdel Rahman “prohibited [him] from having contact with ․ others (except as noted in this document) that could foreseeably result in [his] communicating information (sending or receiving) that could circumvent the SAM intent of significantly limiting [his] ability to communicate (send or receive) terrorist information.” SAMs of May 11, 1998, ¶ 3. To enforce this general prohibition, the measures regulated Abdel Rahman's telephone contacts, id. ¶ 4, his mail, id. ¶ 5, and his visitors' visits, id. ¶ 6. The measures limited his telephone contacts solely to his attorneys of record and his wife, id. ¶ 4(a), and prevented matters discussed in those calls from being “divulged in any manner to any third party,” id. ¶ 4(c)(i). The measures required the screening of all his outgoing and incoming non-legal mail, id. ¶ 5, and prohibited him from “talk [ing] with, or otherwise communicat[ing] with, any representative of the news media,” including “through [his] attorney(s)/staff, or otherwise,” id. ¶ 8. The measures also provided for the monitoring of all non-legal visits. Id. ¶ 6. On the condition that his attorneys would not divulge any information to third parties, Abdel Rahman was permitted to communicate with his legal team by telephone, id. ¶¶ 4(a) & 4(d), mail, id. ¶ 5(a), and in person, id. ¶ 6, with fewer restrictions than with other persons. Members of this legal team included lawyers Ramsey Clark, Abdeen Jabara, Lawrence Schilling, and defendant Lynne Stewart.

Subsequent versions of the SAMs retained similar prohibitions and screening mechanisms including the prohibition against communications with the news media. See, e.g., SAMs of Apr. 7, 1999, ¶ 9; SAMs of Dec. 10, 1999, ¶ 9. They retained similar provisions regarding legal communications, and incorporated provisions requiring Abdel Rahman's attorneys to sign affirmations acknowledging their receipt of the version of the SAMs in effect. See, e.g., SAMs of Apr. 7, 1999, ¶ 4; SAMs of Dec. 10, 1999, ¶ 4. By virtue of those affirmations, counsel agreed to abide by the terms of SAMs then in effect. See, e.g., Unsigned Affirmation of Abdeen Jabara, Apr. 2000; Unsigned Affirmation of Ramsey Clark, Apr. 2000; Affirmation of Ramsey Clark, Jan. 10, 2001; Affirmation of Abdeen Jabara, Jan. 10, 2001; Affirmation of Ramsey Clark, Apr. 24, 1997.

Spin this all you like but they eroded his rights to a fair trial and a vigorous defense in the name of fighting terrorism. The politicization of prisons is now near complete.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. Don'tcha know dem terrists speak in code?

[msanthrope]

101. Shockingly, one does not have a constitutional right to continue criminal activity

behind bars.

[rug]

104. Shockingly, some people are just peachy with SAMs.

Go figure.

[msanthrope]

108. Rug...some people need SAMs because they refuse to stop their criminal behavior. Mob bosses, gang

leaders, white supremacists.....and terrorists. All told, about a hundred people in the federal system.

This particular sheik was still trying to foment terror after trying to blow up the WTC.

[1000words]

86. Both Ms. Stewart and her client agreed to the terms

She violated them, was tried, convicted and incarcerated for the crime.

It's that simple.

[rug]

92. The SAMs were imposed. Acquiescence to coercion is not agreement.

You write as if they discussed the terms over tea.

[1000words]

94. And you, as if she had a gun to her head

She could have legally challenged the SAMs, but instead chose to engage in what she undoubtedly knew was a crime.

[rug]

105. Given that this guy was blind and buried deep in maximum security pretrial,

I'd say the facts are closer to my end of the spectrum than yours.

The bottom line is the SAMs are the bigger problem than whatever Stewart did.

[mahannah]

8. Amen.

[customerserviceguy]

9. From what I've read

she helped terrorists. I'm not altogether pleased about this.

[msanthrope]

11. She did..the 2nd circuit's opinion is devastating. But, she's near death apparently.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498462.html

[1000words]

13. Jose Padilla was repeatedly tortured and his mind forever messed up for less

[msanthrope]

15. Jose Padilla wasn't her client. nt

[1000words]

19. Of course not, Padilla was not allowed counsel.

The point is, Ms. Stewart is extremely fortunate.

[merrily]

34. No one said he was?

[merrily]

38. An opinion, even a judge's opinion, is not hard evidence.

Maybe that's why it's called an opinion.

And, as we all know, judges tend to side with government in matters, especially where the government pleads public safety.

Not many liberals have been making to the bench at any level of the federal judiciary in quite some time. I am not going to treat the Second Circuit's opinion as though it were written by the hand of God.

[msanthrope]

52. Sure...if I were a Stewart supporter I'd dismiss that opinion's inconvenient recitation of facts,

too. I'd claim the entire 2nd circuit were crypto-fascists. I'd ignore the videotapes.

[customerserviceguy]

53. Yeah, it's not like she had bad counsel. n/t

[roody]

12. I am pleased. There is no reason she

should die in prison. She is no threat to public safety.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Hopefully

she has no current information to pass on to our enemies.

[alfredo]

17. Most intel has a short shelf life.

[merrily]

40. Oh, please.

[customerserviceguy]

54. Please yourself

Maybe you don't think Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a big deal, because it never affected your little corner of the world.

[truebluegreen]

78. I'm more worried about being struck by lightning.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/how-much-longer-can-america-afford-be-so

[customerserviceguy]

132. Lighting doesn't care

Terrorists aim. And they're aiming at any American they can kill.

[truebluegreen]

134. Pretty poor aim, if you ask me.

How many have they killed in the last 10 years? Or, since I'm sure you would prefer this framing, since the year 2000?

In that same time period, how many garden-variety murders have there been in the US? How many traffic deaths? How many fatalities from preventable medical mistakes? Are you as worried about those?

And it goes without saying that changing our colossally stupid foreign policy of incessant meddling and bullying would go a long way toward diffusing the terrorist threat, such as it is.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

158. Crazy terrorist wants to kill Americans and Jews, film at 11.

It's not like she passed nuclear launch launch codes or The location of Dick Cheney's underground lair.

Seriously, put this in perspective. A defense attorney was put in prison over a hyper technical over enforcement of an administrative rule.

(I know this doesn't bother you in particular this post is for other readers)

[OnyxCollie]

18. According to the government,

Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange helped terrorists, too.

Your concern is duly noted.

[msanthrope]

22. According to a jury, Stewart did, too. nt

[merrily]

35. Is that really the issue that the jury was asked to decide?

Whether she helped terrorists or not?

[msanthrope]

50. Yes. nt

[The Stranger]

76. Does helping them include representing them?

This is so far off the reservation I can't wait to hear the answer.

[HERVEPA]

126. It was the defense the representation that got her sent to jail.

Pay a little fucking bit of attention.

[The Stranger]

137. Your post doesn't make any fucking sense.

Make a little fucking sense when you post.

[customerserviceguy]

133. That's not what she was convicted for

And you know it. Or should know it.

[The Stranger]

138. She wasn't?

You sure about that.

Look beyond the plain fucking obvious.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. Let's all keep in mind who was the defense council for the Redcoats of the Boston Massacre....

John Adams.

Because everyone deserves to be defended.

[1000words]

23. It wasn't her legal defense of Abdel-Rahman that landed her in prison.

[merrily]

41. Exactly what did land her in prison? Do you know exactly what the notes that she passed on said?

Moreover, her defense was that she did not think the SAMs applied to his attorney and also that she thought they were unconstitutional.

[1000words]

43. I haven't the slightest idea what was on those notes

It's irrelevent. The point is, her incarceration had little to do with providing legal defense to a terror suspect, as was implied by the poster.

[merrily]

45. Maybe.

[Recursion]

148. The overt act was her quoting him in a media interview

Saying he had not supported a cease-fire.

[msanthrope]

24. Of course. But the attorney who colludes with a client in breaking the law is despicable.

Stewart could have challenged the SAMs legally. She chose to lie, instead.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. Considering this is something that happened during the Bush Era it makes you wonder.

[msanthrope]

27. Not at all...she's on tape, laughing about the USS Cole bombing. The 2nd circuit opinion

is detailed and devastating.


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498462.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. The Bush bastards regularly fabricated stuff. We all know that.

[msanthrope]

30. But not a time machine. The Clinton DOJ had her, on videotape.....you should read the

opinion...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498462.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Did you catch all of the restrictions they put on her when meeting with her own client?

[msanthrope]

47. Yes..and she could have challenged those restrictions. Instead she chose to perjure

herself and give cover to a terrorist. Ramsey Clark managed to effectively represent the same client..without getting himself jailed.

Having a client under restrictions is a pain in the ass...but only a very arrogant lawyer would place themselves in the position she did.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

60. Or someone who didn't take it seriously because she knew it was a show trial.

[msanthrope]

62. If she didn't take it seriously, then she shouldn't be practicing law. What

she did was extremely serious.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. We have a "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality in the United States.....

They gave her a stiffer sentence than bank robbers get.

80 countries were pushing for her release.

[msanthrope]

64. She deserved a stiffer sentence, because she knew better. As an attorney, I will tell you

that this type of behaviour is punished severely because it is so corrosive to justice and our profession.

She should get a stiffer sentence than the 'common' criminal because she should know better....she has had privilege and opportunity, but she chose perjury.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. She was a political prisoner.

[Ranchemp.]

66. No she wasn't.

She was convicted of real crimes, by a jury of her peers, nothing more, nothing less.
This woman knew better but went ahead and knowingly violated the SAM's.
That said, I'm glad she's out of prison and able to spend what little time left she has on this earth with her family and friends.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. Come on. If we started locking up unethical lawyers there would be no room for prisoners.

[Ranchemp.]

68. There's a difference between unethical and criminal.

She committed a crime for which she got caught for and was punished for.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. They would have given her LIFE though.

[Ranchemp.]

71. But she didn't get life and now she's free

to spend her last days with her family.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. Did you see the report on "Democracy Now!"?

[Ranchemp.]

74. Yes, I've read it. And????

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. When I see Issa locked up than MAYBE you'll have a case.

[Ranchemp.]

81. It wasn't me that had a case,

it was the DoJ that had a case and apparently the jury agreed.
As far as Issa? I leave that to the proper authorities to investigate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. LOL!!! Okay,...I'm sure they'll get right on that shit.

[Ranchemp.]

96. LOL!!! Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen,

can't even get the DoJ to investigate the Booosh Admin for possible war crimes.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. They sure make time for a lifelong civil rights attorney.

[Ranchemp.]

100. To be fair,

it wasn't Holder's DoJ that investigated and prosecuted her, it was the Clinton and Booosh DoJ's that did that, although Holder could've pushed Pres. Obama to issue a pardon.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

102. Or pushed to have the case reviewed.

[Ranchemp.]

103. There's that too.

But Holder seemed too busy going after MJ users and whistlerblowers.

[msanthrope]

70. Had she been, I think more reputable lawyer's associations would have mounted a defense

for her. Nor do I think the Clinton DOJ would have started an investigation into her for political reasons.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. I'll just let that last post hang out there for all to see.

[merrily]

36. Even assuming that the context supports the statement, laughing about the USS Cole is not a crime.

[msanthrope]

49. No...but facilitating your client's violation of SAMs while laughing about the Cole is. nt

[ronnie624]

151. Can you post a link to the tape, on which she is "laughing about the USS Cole bombing"?

Thanks.

[msanthrope]

152. the links to the Second Circuit opinion and the superseding indictment

have already been provided in the thread. both documents describe in detail various recordings of Ms Stewart, including the one where she is laughing at the bombing of the USS Cole.

when you ask questions like this it indicates that you haven't read the document most important to the legal case. please do so it would make your argument stronger.

[ronnie624]

153. I didn't have an argument.

Usually, when someone makes a specific claim about what someone said, like you did, but they are unwilling or unable to provide a quote, their claim turns out to be false.

[msanthrope]

154. Dude...you've already been given the links in the thread. I can't

make you read them.

[ronnie624]

155. Lol. n/t

[merrily]

42. When she took the oath, she intended to violate it?

I don't know how anyone can possibly know what was in her mind at the time that she took the oath.

Yes, she violated SAMs that she thought were unconstitutional and, in any event, did not apply to his attorney.

[msanthrope]

48. Yes...that is what she did. Your defense of her seems to be scattershot and ill-reasoned.

If she thought the law unconstitutional, she had legal recourse to challenge it. She chose perjury instead, an informed choice.

Ramsey Clark was able to represent the same client without getting himself jailed. Ms. Stewart's choices are her own.

[geek tragedy]

59. People aren't free to break laws and rules they view as unconstitutional. Personal opinions

as to a law's constitutionality are irrelevant to the legal duty to comply with that law.

[burrowowl]

28. Good!

[mc51tc]

31. I love Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!

She has followed the Lynne Stewart story in great detail. You can tell that Amy is very elated at this news. Congratulations on being released from prison.

[hrmjustin]

33. Wish whatever time she has left is peaceful.

[HERVEPA]

127. Don't give a shit if it's peaceful

She assisted in dissemination of a fatwa to kill people.

[Nye Bevan]

56. Like Michael Vick, she committed a crime but has served her time (nt)

[roody]

57. Unlike him, she would never hurt a dog.

[HERVEPA]

128. just help disseminate a fatwa related to killing people. No harm there I guess.

I hate Michael Vick for what he did by the way. Your argument was totally a straw man.

[struggle4progress]

58. Well, I'm glad to hear she's out.

[JoeyT]

88. This is the first I'd heard of her.

But seeing who this has upset can only mean that releasing her is a good idea.

[reddread]

135. quite right

these folks act like our system of justice, rotten to the core as it is, means more than
compassion and fairness.
They have clearly chosen the side of crooked judges, politicized practice and malicious
intent.
Until the Supreme Court becomes respectable, their POV is a worm's eye.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. She should not have been in prison

The neoconservatives who sent her there should be.

[Ranchemp.]

106. Well, when you knowingly violate the law,

bad shit happens when you're caught.

[Jack Rabbit]

110. Would she have been prosecuted by a Gore administration?

She was prosecuted by an administration headed by a man who lost the 2000 election, but subsequently won a lawsuit, and approved a plan to prosecute a war on terror far more elaborate than the acts of September 11, heinous as they were, necessitated. This war on terror featured human rights violations that continue to persist to this day. Among these were laws aimed at limiting due process, wholesale violations of the Fourth Amendment and even attorney/client communications.

I have since been of the opinion the attacks of September 11, 2001 that President Gore would have responded to the attacks much differently than they were handled by usurper Bush. He would have gone after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida and would not have invaded a country that was not involved in the attacks. He would certainly not have been so anxious to invade Iraq or, as some maintain, to keep Osama around as a bogey man to call off an operation that had Osama cornered in a Tora Bora cave and, if he had failed to apprehend Osama after a length of time, no one would have heard President Gore make a lame excuse about not having to worry about Osama any way.

That is the backdrop of the prosecution of Lynne Stewart. I don't believe she would have been prosecuted under a more measured and more effective response to September 11.

[msanthrope]

116. I'm pretty sure the "Kill the Jews" fatwa would have been dealt with in the same way. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

119. Objection. Ireelevant and immaterial.

Are we talking about her triall?

So how did the prosecution meet its burden? With classic McCarthy-era tactics: fearmongering and guilt by association. First, it tried Stewart together with Ahmed Sattar, an Egyptian-born US citizen against whom it had thousands of hours of wiretaps of communications with a terrorist group. Among other things, Sattar had issued a fake fatwa urging followers to "kill [Jews] wherever they are." By trying Stewart and Sattar together, the government could taint Stewart with Sattar's sins, even though, as was the case with the fatwa, she had nothing to do with them and no knowledge of them. In his closing, the prosecutor repeated Sattar's "kill the Jews" fatwa more than seventy times.

Second, the prosecution sought to inflame the jury by introducing evidence that had nothing to do with Stewart's actions. Shortly before the anniversary of 9/11, it played a tape of Osama bin Laden expressing support for the sheik. It introduced evidence of Al Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole, even though there was no claim that Stewart or her co-defendants had anything to do with Al Qaeda, and of a massacre in Egypt in which fifty-eight tourists were killed, even though the massacre long pre-dated the actions of Stewart and her co-defendants. The prosecution offered this evidence as "background," not proof of Stewart's culpability, but it is hard to believe that such a distinction could be maintained by a jury sitting less than a mile from Ground Zero.

[1000words]

121. In the interests of fairness and consistency:

Your introduction of a hypothetical makes the entire sub-thread irrelevant and immaterial.

[Jack Rabbit]

125. Not at all

The only hypothetical introduced here is that President Gore would have responded to the September 11 attacks more wisely than the usurper did in his place.

I don't think it's at all hypothetical to charge that Bush's War on Terror was an unmitigated disaster that put America in more jeopardy than anything Ms. Stewart did. She should not have been imprisoned, but those who were plotting war against Iraq even before the fires were out in the Pentagon should be imprisoned for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[1000words]

129. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but your post implied ...

Ms. Stewart wouldn't have been prosecuted by a Gore administration. That is pure speculation.

Mind you, I am in full agreement with your opinion regarding BushCo. and the "War on Terrorism," but there is no basis for your objection considering there is no incorrect response to a hypothetical scenario.

[Jack Rabbit]

130. You understood correctly, but . . .

. . . I am not separating Ms. Stewart's prosecution from Bush's War on Terror. Part of the idea was to terrorize rank-and-file Americans into submission. The prosecution of a civil liberties attorney who represented an Egyptian cleric had more to do with intimidating other attorneys who might have had ideas about representing terror suspects.

I am saying that Ms. Stewart's prosecution had less to do with keeping Americans safe from Al Qaida than it had to do with the Bush Administration's desire to stifle dissent or to circumvent one's right to due process of law.

[1000words]

131. Essentially, we are in agreement.

I will concede that the length of her sentence was likely politically motivated. However, Ms. Stewart did break the law and considering the nature of the case and her client, she would have been wiser respecting the responsibilities of her profession than engaging in activism.

[msanthrope]

136. Overruled. nt

[Pterodactyl]

143. Releasing her is a mistake. She should stay in prison for helping terrorists.

[Ranchemp.]

144. Releasing her is the right thing to do.

While I condemn her actions regarding passing along messages for the Sheik, she's no threat to anyone and she should, and will, be allowed to spend what little time she has left on this earth with her family and friends.

[NobodyHere]

145. She wasn't currently being held for helping terrorists

She was being held for perjury.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Recursion]

149. Yes. Her appeal reduced the "aiding" charge but added a perjury charge.

From a time-in-prison standpoint it was a wash.