It wouldn't matter, for the purposes of a conspiracy or aiding and abetting charge, if all the interpreter did was to interpret, as long as the interpreter knew that Stewart was doing the thing that was illegal, and agreed to do it with her or to help her. You might as well ask about the driver of a getaway vehicle, what was the driver doing taht any other driver wasn't doing? The answer would be: participating in a crime. Same here, if that's the charge, which I am sure it is. jks
DoreneFC at aol.com wrote:In a message dated 11/23/02 7:12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com writes:
DoreneFC at aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/23/02 12:22:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, furuhashi.1 at osu.edu writes:
And the indictment charges that Ms. Stewart allowed interpreter Mohammed Yousry and the sheik to pass messages in Arabic while she covered the exchange by chattering about inconsequential matters in English.
Thanks. Sorry to be literal-minded, but I am still trying to figure out exactly what the interpreter is accused of doing.
Maybe I can think of some places to look.
DoreneC Probably conspiracy or aiding and abetting, that is, same thing as Stewart under accomplice liability. jks
My question really is "what is the interpreter accused of doing differently than any other interpreter would do?"
I downloaded the indictment from www.lynnestewart.org and I have at least read it. The indictment and the Special Administrative Measures are clearly an assault on attorney-client privilege, but I see other issues for interpreters as well.
Unless the rest of the list is dying for further commentary about what I read, I would rather continue conversations in private as people are interested.
DoreneC
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021123/54c60156/attachment.htm>