>As for Lynne Stewart, she was not indicted for defending an accused
>terorist, but was indicted under charges of facilitating ongoing terrorist
>activity. The evidence may be sketchy and the eavesdropping used to collect
>that evidence wrong, but if she actually did what it is claimed she did --
>facilitate the delivery of a message directing terrorist attacks -- there is
>no reason she shouldn't be indicted.
I don't know about the legal arguments or the facts of the case, but the politics of it stink. Stewart is perfect for trying to legitimize the criminalization of defending unpleasant characters, whether they're terrorists or mobsters. It's sad that Reason mag seems to see this more clearly than you.
Doug