Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:27 AM
Original message
Left-Leaning Attorney Is Guilty of Aiding Terror....AOL article
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. And it's another to tape an attorney speaking with her client...
Like I said, I'll stick to bank robbers and killers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. So were the Gitmo folks...
torture okay then?

I mean shit, if we're gonna relax the rules, why have rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Itsthetruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Right wing Religious extremists kill thousands in New York
Why didn't I see that headline on 9/12/01?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-11-05 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC