--- Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> [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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/