Nathan Newman writes about why he's "lost sympathy" for Lynne Stewart:
>Yes, she says in the abstract she's for free speech, but when the
revolution
>is at stake, the gulag is okay. Everyone likes free speech in the
>abstract-- the world divides on whether you believe in it when it's Nazis,
>Commies or terorists or whoever you don't like speaking. <
-So, Nathan, take your own advice. She's saying something you disagree with. -Will you defend her right to say what SHE believes, or not? Or do YOU only -like "free speech in the abstract" ?
Of course I defend her right to say it. I've even-- to repeat myself -- said that the evesdropping on her meetings with clients violate the right to counsel and the whole case against her is based on weak evidence. ie. I think she's innocent of the charges.
But as I said at the beginning, IF she had done what is alleged-- actively use her position as an attorney to facilitate illegal terrorism -- then there would be nothing wrong with the indictment. Big IF, but people can't seem to separate the principle from the case at hand, and why that makes it all messy, since many Lynne Stewart defenders jump from saying she's innocent to saying that even if she did what is alleged, she should still not be prosecuted.
Nathan Newman