<HTML>In a message dated 11/23/02 11:04:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, nathanne@nathannewman.org writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Actually, the interpreter is the one really accused, as I understand it, of illegally conveying information back and forth between the Shiek and his followers, with Lynne accused of covering up the illegal conversations through speaking loudly and preventing the guards from hearing the conversations.  (Or at least that's one incident). At least this is how Lynne and some other second-hand descriptions have talked about it. \ -- Nathan Newman </BLOCKQUOTE> Ugh! The Special Administrative Measures are so objectionable and so central to this case, I hope the case doesn't get spun just as "blame the interpreter." The sheikh is blind. Without the SAM's, reading mail in Arabic addressed to the him that came to his attorney's office would be a totally predictable thing an interpreter might do and an attorney might or might not express any interest in knowing the contents, let alone the significance of the letter. But maybe another informational point for networking: Arguably the Stewart prosecution is also about intimidating other lawyers who might have quite reasonable objection to the SAM's. Are the SAM's geting any play, particularly any resistance, in your areas? (Here we have a local community activist with ties to a mosque in London. He is on video saying pretty intemperate things and he is accused of delivering two laptops to Afghanistan as well as, horrors, running a topical website. He is being held under the same SAMs. His lawyer borrowed an approach from the east coast. They refused to sign the SAM's for quite awhile, did some maneuver I do not fully understand and continues to fight and make objections. ) Just curious about other reports.... DoreneC</HTML>