Along with various indictments for lying to federal offiicals and violating the terms of speaking with the defense, the big accusation is "Conspiracy to Provide and Conceal Material Support to Terrorist Activity" with the gist being that she helped him communicate with his supporters to continue his terrorist activity.
As I said, the evidence is sketchy and the politics of it all may stink, but there is nothing wrong with the legal principle upon which she is indicted -- aside from the problem of surveillance violating needed privacy for attorney-client discussions -- only in the facts being alleged.
Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
She is not accused of doing what you say. She made information public. If she had brought secret instructions on how to commit some crime, you might be on stronger ground.
I appreciate your interest in attacking lawyers who facilitate crime, but her case is very different.
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 11:26:08AM -0400, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Let's distinguish between two kinds of lawyers-- those who come in after a
> crime is commited to defend a person, and those who actively advise
clients
> on how to effectively break the law and use the lawyer-client privilege to
> hide incriminating actions and documents.
>
> Yes, there have been a number of indictments focusing on the latter set of
> lawyers, but to merely call them "defense attorneys" is wrong. Many of
them
> have actively assisted fraud and financial robbery of investors and the
> public at Enron, in Medicare scams, in tax avoidance schemes, and so on.
>
> I'm all for them being indicted if they actively participate in illegal
> crimes. Being a lawyer shouldn't give you immunity when you participate
in
> criminal activity and, worse, the attorney-client privilege shouldn't be
> used to hide illegal activity. Remember, decades of tobacco research that
> showed deliberate attempts to addict children were hidden under "work
> product" rules, until Florida litigation finally dragged it out into the
> open.
>
> 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. But don't go from attacking bad
> evidence to making a broader argument that lawyers should be immune from
> prosecution if they facilitate illegal activity. Thank god the corporate
> lawyers are finally be taken down-- they are some of the worst criminals
out
> there, since they are the masterminds of most criminal corporate activity.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Lynne Stewart
>
> There's a good piece in the current ish of Reason (not on web) on the
> Justice Dept's attempts to criminalize being a defense attorney. It's
> not just Stewart they're after - it's an entire pattern. Of course
> the Stewart prosecution is politically scarier. She's not being
> charged under the PATRIOT Act, because her alleged offenses were
> committed before that law was passed. Under the PATRIOT Act, the very
> defense of an accused "terrorist" could itself be prosecuted as
> terrorism.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk