[lbo-talk] Lynn Stewart convicted of aiding terrorists

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 11 09:20:29 PST 2005


This is blaming the victim, Nathan, and piling on irrelevant distractions. It really sounds like you're saying, she asked for it and we should flush her and forget her as an embarassment. Or denounce her for her actions. And you forgot to mention her apologetics for Stalinism.

There is no question that Stewart violated the gag order. The question is whether that is tantamount to material aid to terrorism and defrauding the government, and deservesa criminal conviction and a potential 20 years in the slam.

The point about Stewart getting a hearing as opposed to the Gitmo detainees is utterly irrelevant, what's your point? That it's OK to railroad someone if they get a hearing? The Rosenbergs got a hearing too. (Don't start on how Julius was guilty, probsbly, yes, but he was also framed and should not have been executed, and Ethel was just framed and innocent). The Scottsboto defendants got a hearing. Sacco and Vanzetti got a hearing.

Whe right to counsel issue in this case is Stewart's -- she had the best, Michael Tigar, maybe the best lawyer in the country. It's the chilling effect on whether other lawyers will be willing to take on clients the government designates as terrorists. Yes, I know the sheik is an actual terrorist. But the govt is using athat label pretty freely these days, prosecuting ordinary crimes under anti-terrorist laws.

I shouldn't have to say this to you.

I have to pay my Guild dues, thanks for reminding me.

jks

--- Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
> sean sullivan wrote:
> >Lawyer Is Convicted of Aiding Terrorists
>
> -Damn, ever feel like the walls are closing in?
>
> I think there were serious problems with this
> trial-- the use of tapes from
> confidential lawyer conversations with clients being
> a primary examples --
> but Stewart had a full trial, the best lawyers on
> her defense, and a
> bluer-than-blue jury in New York City. The jury
> deliberated for almost two
> weeks, so there was no rush to judgement.
> Hopefully, she will be able to
> contest the use of a chunk of the evidence used in
> her trial on appeal and
> force a new trial, but the point is that she will
> have an appeal.
>
> Contrast this with detainees who can't talk to their
> lawyers, prisoners
> being sent to other countries like Egypt for proxy
> torture (see this week's
> NEW YORKER), and immigrants deported without trial.
> Those are the real
> civil liberties crises this country is facing.
>
> Yes, the government wants to get political lawyers
> like Lynne Stewart, but
> when Stewart violated a promise that in exchange for
> access to convicted
> terrorists, she wouldn't publicly disclose any
> message the Sheik to the
> public, she helped justify the refusal by the
> government to give suspected
> terrorists the right to counsel. If Stewart had
> disclosed that her client
> was being tortured or his rights were being
> violated, that would have been
> appropriate, but she chose to convey exactly the
> kind of information -- a
> message to his followers -- that the restriction was
> supposed to prevent
> and which had nothing to do with the Sheiks own
> legal case.
>
> There are lawyers fighting to get the right of
> counsel for a range of
> people around the country and the world. Stewart's
> actions are going to
> be Exhibit A for the government in demonstrating why
> lawyers can't be
> trusted with that access.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list