-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.
No, I'm not saying to denounce her for her actions, or that's what I'd say. But I do think what she did undermined the ability of other lawyers to access their clients. By violating the agreement she made in exchange for that access, she basically proved that a promise by a lawyer not to circumvent communication rules is not worth the paper it was written on. That is bad for the rights of the accused, who need legal counsel in a world where that right is endangered.
You can call it "blaming the victim" but the victims are a lot of clients who need representation. Yes, and the fact that Stewart thinks that dissidents in Cuba and other countries should rot in jail without similiar legal due process decreases my sympathy, although that doesn't alter my belief that evesdropping on a lawyer talking to a client is a bad thing and should invalidate her conviction.
My question is the left making her a poster child for the problems with Bush's war on terrorism. There are literally thousands of other people whose rights have been violated in the last few years, whose names should be on the front pages of the New York Times. Lynne Stewart is getting a disproportionate share of left organizing around these issues. So my critique is of the deployment of activist resources.
Nathan Newman