>
> I'd like to hear your analysis of why the
> prosecution is a disgrace. My
> understanding is that Stewart is a very highly
> competent officer of the
> court, and that she not only knew the law, but
> signed an order promising she
> wouldn't permit or facilitate political
> communication by her client. She
> admits she did so, for the pretty dumb (if true)
> reason that she somehow
> thought getting her client back in the papers would
> help him. She then
> dictated a speech or manifesto her client passed to
> her. That speech
> withdrew his support for a cease-fire.
>
> How is transmission of that speech not a knowing,
> intended act of helping
> her client call for imminent violence?
>
> I understand the importance of preserving both the
> need to prove mens rea
> and also the strong right to freedom of speech and
> legal defense. But how
> is all this Stewart stuff a disgrace? And why does
> it dampen anybody's
> prospects for a proper defense? The only precedent
> it sets is to show
> defense lawyers they can't violate the political gag
> order in terrorist
> cases. What's so awful about that?
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250