As far as the US government is concerned, though, the charges against Lynne Stewart are inextricably tied up with the status of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's speech. Look at the superceding indictment at <http://www.lynnestewart.org/IndictmentSuperceding.pdf>, and you will see that the prosecution begins by repeating the case against Rahman, seeking to establish, in the eyes of the jury in the case of Stewart and her co-defendants, that he is the charismatic leader of a terrorist conspiracy and that any statement of his concerning the use of force threatens to induce an act of terrorism. The first eleven pages of the superceding indictment discuss nothing but Rahman, even though he is not a defendant in this case. The government's imposition of Special Administrative Measures, which Stewart was accused of violating, was also based upon the same rationale: "The stated purpose of the SAMs was to protect 'persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury' that could result if Abdel Rahman were free 'to communicate (send or receive) terrorist information'" (<http://www.lynnestewart.org/IndictmentSuperceding.pdf>, November 19, 2003, p. 11). The government's case against Stewart makes much of the following acts: her enabling Rahman to dictate "letters to [translator Mohammed] YOUSRY _indicating that_ he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire" (<http://www.lynnestewart.org/IndictmentSuperceding.pdf>, p. 19); and her release of "a statement to the press that quoted Abdel Rahman as stating that he 'is withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists'" (<http://www.lynnestewart.org/IndictmentSuperceding.pdf>, p. 20). The main theory in which the indictment is framed is that such acts -- enabling Rahman's communication with persons other than his immediate family members, his attorneys, and their translator -- constituted both a conspiracy to provide material support to terrorist activity and provision and concealment of it, given the nature of his social position and status of his words.
That being the case, the defense in the Stewart case is obliged to argue against the government's interpretations of who Rahman is and what his words -- at least the ones at stake in this case -- meant.
Among other things, Michael Tigar questioned the government's inchoate characterization of Rahman (<http://www.lynnestewart.org/StewartMtnDismissMemoSupport.pdf>) and made an argument that the Rahman's speech in question was not "a command to pick up the guns," evidenced by the fact that "[n]obody picked one up":
<blockquote>Then Ms. Stewart on the 14th of June 2000 talks to Mr. Salaheddin and says that the Sheikh withdraws his support for the initiative or cease fire or whatever, withdraws his support.
Let's take it that indeed those are the exact words that she said. Let's understand the context in which the Sheikh is told in prison that the government has once again started killing people and summarily executing them and taking hostages, and minors are being tried by military courts and so on.
What does that lead to, your Honor? The government promised us that we were going to get a command to pick up the guns. Nobody in Egypt interpreted it as a command to pick up a gun in the sense that nobody picked one up. The first thing that happened was that Montasser al-Zayyat and the brother in prison said that can't be impossible. Six days later there is a clarification where the Sheikh says, I'm not supporting this thing anymore, but I certainly didn't cancel it.
And then in one of these wonderful vindications of John Stewart Mills, a theory of freedom of expression, more speech does the job. Because in fact the questions that Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was quoted by Ms. Stewart as raising leads to a reaffirmation of the initiative. That's the First Amendment.
<http://www.lynnestewart.org/rule29.html></blockquote>
The argument is valid, whether or not Rahman was actually a seditious conspirator against the United States and a solicitor of the murder of Hosni Mubarak before his conviction and imprisonment. However, if jurors believed what the government said about Rahman and thought that anything concerning violence mentioned by him must always be an order for his followers to commit an unlawful act of violence -- as at least some of the jurors in the Stewart case appeared to fear -- it would be hard to persuade them to think otherwise in this particular instance. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>