Left-Leaning Attorney Is Guilty of Aiding Terror....AOL article

[in_cog_ni_to]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050211070509990001

Left-Leaning Attorney Is Guilty of Aiding Terror

NEW YORK (Feb. 11) - 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.''<snip>


There's also a poll on this page. DU it!

[No Exit]

1. Here comes the purge. They have to either jail, kill, or

banish the members of the intellectual class. Interestingly, this goes not only for those educated people who are against them, but also for those educated people who (due to some mental illness or strange perception problem) are for them.

It's just like what was done in Communist China, or the USSR. Fascist or communist--totalitarians are the same.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

They will gain control over the internet....somehow, some-way. They MUST shut up the bloggers and anti-chimp web sites. It's another threat. I know people say there's no way for the fascists to take over the internet, but I say, JUST WATCH. They will find a way. They WILL do something to stop the truth.

[No Exit]

19. You're right--since currently the net is our only friend, media-wise,

it follows that the net is THEIR biggest enemy.

Well, IF they manage to somehow sever the connections of all of us who are coming together on the net, maybe, just maybe, we can re-take some of the other media.

I mean, they have a stranglehold on so much of the media. How long can any entity keep such complete domination? I don't believe they can keep their stranglehold forever. There are too many of us out here. As we know, many persons who formerly would have supported republicanism are FED UP with the neocon domination of that party. While those persons' views will not be in total agreement with those of democrats, still, they may try to unite with democrats just to get rid of the neocons. Something's gotta give.

The more of us there are, the harder it will be for them to shut us up, even if they try to bring censorship to the web. When they try this, I predict it will come in the guise of "anti-terror" provisions.

[txaslftist]

3. As a criminal defense attorney, this is chilling...

but I don't know all of the facts. The best defense attorneys develop a rapport with their clients, but there is a fine line between doing what you are allowed to do for a client and doing what the client wants you to do.

Did she cross the line and become the client's agent instead of his attorney? I don't know, but I hope that she DID. Why? Because if she didn't cross that line, then a federal judge, a federal prosecutor, and twelve jurors have made it illegal to defend really unsavory people, the people who need defending most of all.

In light of this case, if I was court appointed to represent a "suspected terrorist" I would decline. I have a wife and two kids, and my duty to them comes first. Does that mean he doesn't get an attorney?

Maybe so. That's a tragedy for him. Call me a coward, but I'm not going to put my professional license and my freedom on the line to represent someone I don't even know.

[bryant69]

4. Good comments

That's the problem. It's easy to assume that he probably wasn't doing anything wrong because the Bush Administration is so full of crap. But just because something is easy to assume doesn't always mean its accurate. If the guy was using his position to pass on messages to terrorists, well, that's not so good.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[noonwitch]

6. Allegedly, she used her position as the sheik's attorney to vocalize

his messages to his followers, specifically, she said something about him no longer supporting a cease fire or something. She had signed an agreement not to do so beforehand.

I don't know enough about the circumstances to make a good judgement on the issue. If she did pass messages on to his terrorist followers, that's one thing and it should be treated as a serious crime.

[Red State Rebel]

5. She deserved what she got.

She signed an agreement with the government regarding how she would restrict visits with her client would involve her and other people in the case and discuss only the case.

Instead, she brought his fellow terrorists in and faked conversations while they planned and plotted terror.

Unfortunately for her, the FBI suspected what was happening and taped the conversations.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you can ignore it and not expect to be arrested and punished when you are caught.

I suggest anyone curious about this read the actual indictment. She convicted herself with her own words.

[txaslftist]

7. I read the indictment...

I already expressed my opinion that it looked trumped up to me, as it most likely relies on either secret tapes (of course taping attorney client conversations is now legal under the patriot act) or a "snitch" interpreter.

Regardless, I stand by my opinion. I'll never take a terrorism case. How can I talk to a client knowing I'm being taped? Shit, who knows what off-hand comment I make could be used to indict me?

Fuck that. I'll stick to bank robbers, murderers and drug kingpins. They've still got some rights and they're not high enough on the radar to get MY ass indicted.

[Red State Rebel]

8. This happened BEFORE the Patriot Act

These conversations happened in 2000. It's one thing to represent a terrorist, it's another assist them in carrying out their terror.

[txaslftist]

9. And it's another to tape an attorney speaking with her client...

Like I said, I'll stick to bank robbers and killers.

[Red State Rebel]

10. I would say in this case it was absolutely warranted

and the correct thing to do. This guy was connected to Bin Laden for crying out loud!

[txaslftist]

13. So were the Gitmo folks...

torture okay then?

I mean shit, if we're gonna relax the rules, why have rules?

[Red State Rebel]

16. Not even close on the comparison...

That stands for the Attorney too - why have rules if because you are an attorney you can ignore them?

[UdoKier]

12. I agree. And "left-leaning" is an understatement.

I'm left-leaning. This lady seems so far left of the Ward Churchills and the "Free Mumia" crowd that she's almost circled around to the right again.

[Itsthetruth]

15. Oh Stop That!

You're repeating total right-wing b.s! That just shows how effective the corporate media is in spreading their lies and propaganda. Even some good folks here on DU are fooled!

[Red State Rebel]

17. All I did was read her own words in the indictment!

She knew what she was doing was wrong - she knew what she was signing when she agreed to the restricted communication regarding her client. The fact that she didn't like it does not excuse her from being held responsible for breaking the law.

[The Magistrate]

11. This Conviction, Ma'am

Is a disgusting disgrace. This good woman committed no crime at all; she was duped by those she defended to some degree, but that is no crime on her part. This charge was brought solely to discourage competent attornies from accepting briefs to defend those the government has singled out as its enemies. The members of the jury have let down their country and themselves very badly by not serving the government a sound rebuke by acquittal in this matter. Even more than the charge, the conviction is Un-American in the most profoundly possible sense.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the Reason? Why, when it prosper, Sir, none dare call it Treason."

[txaslftist]

14. My agreement...

"This charge was brought solely to discourage competent attornies from accepting briefs to defend those the government has singled out as its enemies."

It worked, too, at least in my case.

[No Exit]

21. You're right. And if anyone thinks the feds play fair in

the average federal criminal prosecution, that person has just never seen the inside of the federal criminal system. If they only knew!

Those who see this woman's actions as wrong are a priori assuming the guilt of her client. Her client is a "terrorist", after all. But he is a terrorist BECAUSE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLS US HE IS A TERRORIST. Sorry, but what the current federal government TELLS me is not believable to me, given who is currently in charge.

[Junkdrawer]

22. ..and to insure that anyone charged as a "terrorist" is silenced...

completely and thoroughly.

I wonder how much information embarrassing to this government languishes under the charge of "terrorism". Even IF they ever get an attorney, I doubt any attorney will talk now.

[ComerPerro]

18. Right wing Religious extremists kill thousands in New York

Why didn't I see that headline on 9/12/01?

[CHIMO]

20. The Headline

And article should be approved by the government before it is published. It could be giving out a message or even messages.