[lbo-talk] Lynne Stewart charged again

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Fri Nov 21 23:54:33 PST 2003


[This seems a little police state-ish. John Mage, are you still on her case? I'm not sure I understand the basis of these charges. "Material support" seems similar to the charges brought against the Guantanomo translators, but without their basis in military law and the rules governing the handling of classified information. I don't understand how you can make charges like this in a civilian context without using essentially the same sort of patriot act justification as in the case that got thrown out.]

[BTW, while we're on the subject: the rule that allowed the Feds to monitor her lawyer/client conversations in the first place -- is that technically part of the Patriot Act? Or is it just one of many terrible laws passed in the wake of 9/11 that many of us think of as part of the Patriot Act but which are actually separate from it -- and not sunsetted?]

New York Times November 20, 2003

Lawyer Faces New Terror-Related Charges

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

F ederal prosecutors filed new charges yesterday against the defense

lawyer Lynne F. Stewart, who had succeeded in getting a federal judge

to dismiss earlier charges that she had helped one of her clients, a

convicted terrorist, pass messages from prison.

The new charges accuse Ms. Stewart of conspiring to provide material

support with a co-defendant, Mohammed Yousry, a translator, to the

same client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence

in prison after being convicted of plotting to blow up New York

landmarks. Ms. Stewart and Mr. Yousry are also charged with concealing

their support for the sheik.

When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the original charges in

2002, he called it the first use of a rule allowing the Bureau of

Prisons to monitor conversations between lawyers and inmates who are

threats to commit "future acts of violence or terrorism." The judge

who dismissed the charges in July found them to be constitutionally

vague.

The new charges are based on a different legal foundation and should

not face the same constitutional concerns as the original charges,

according to a statement issued by James B. Comey, the United States

attorney in Manhattan.

If convicted, Ms. Stewart and Mr. Yousry could each face 5 to 15 years

in prison.

Mr. Ashcroft said in a statement, "The government's decision to bring

additional charges against the defendants in this case is justified by

the evidence we obtained during our investigation, and reflects the

seriousness of the conduct allegedly engaged in by the defendants."

In a telephone interview, Ms. Stewart said she was perturbed.

"I'm just as emphatically not guilty as I was a year and a half ago,"

she said. "We're going to keep on keeping on."

She said the filing of new charges "seems like a pretty vindictive act

on the part of the government."

The government claims that during a prison visit in May 2000, Mr.

Abdel Rahman dictated letters to Mr. Yousry that gave instructions

intended for a terrorist group while Ms. Stewart distracted the

guards. "At one point," according to prosecutors, "Stewart and Yousry

explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to

the prison conference room and might notice that Stewart was not

involved in the conversation between Yousry and Abdel Rahman." Ms.

Stewart pretended to be part of the conversation "by making extraneous

comments such as `chocolate' and `heart attack,' " the prosecutors

said.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list