This is what I know about the case. An attorney friend has sent me information from other sources so this is what I am snipping, copying, and in some cases distilling for this email. If anyone knows where this material is in error please let me know.
1. The jury found Stewart guilty on five counts of defrauding the government, conspiracy, and providing support for terrorism.
2. A problematic aspect of the Stewart prosecution is how far the definition of support for terrorism was stretched. Stewart never provided any financial support, weaponry -- or any other concrete aid -- for any act of terrorism. No act of terrorism is alleged to have resulted from her actions. Stewart's supposed support for terrorism instead consisted of aiding her client in 2000 by giving a press release to Reuters News Service in Cairo, Egypt, and of being present when her co-defendants allegedly aided her client in writing a series of letters in a language NOT know by Stewart.
3. The government claimed that her continued representation was a ruse so that she could aid the Sheik in getting messages out to his followers, members of the Islamic Group, an organization tied to terrorism. In particular Stewart violated the prohibition on outside contacts in two ways. First, it alleged in 2000, she released to Reuters News Service a statement from the Sheik to his followers saying that he was "withdrawing his support for a ceasefire that currently exists" with respect to violence that his followers in Egypt were engaged in (the cease-fire was declared after 58 tourists were slain in Luxor, Egypt, in a bid to win the sheik's release). The government charged that the press release was a veiled message for the shiek's followers to engage in violence. Reuters ran a story about the statement in Arab newspapers.
4. No actual act of violence, terroristic or otherwise, has ever been linked to either the letters to the Sheik's followers, or the statement by the Sheik given to Reuters.
5. In 2000, the Justice Department said that visits could resume if Stewart would agree to certain restrictions on their meetings, these restrictions are known as Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). Pursuant to regulations enacted in 1996, these restrictions can be placed on a federal prisoner's communications or contacts with the outside world. The SAMs prohibited Stewart from having any contact with her client that the Department of Justice deemed to be outside the scope of "legal representation" and prohibited Rahman from having contact with anyone outside prison walls except his wife. The SAMs specifically restricted his access to the media.
6. On October 31, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, secretly amended the SAM regulations - without notice to the public. As amended, the regulations allow the Bureau of Prisons to conduct videotape and audiotape surveillance with respect to attorneys' communications with people in federal custody. No warrant is necessary for the surveillance to occur. Nor is specific notice to the attorney or the client that they will be monitored; according to the regulations.
7. The original terrorism charge against Stewart was unconstitutional, as Judge Koeltl held. Initially, Stewart was charged under a federal statute that prohibited providing "material support" for terrorism - regardless of one's intent in doing so.
8. So the government then indicted Stewart for the same acts again, under another federal statute - one that, unlike the first statute, requires intent. Passed in 1994, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the statute prohibits defines a violation as giving material support to anyone while intending or knowing that the support will be used in connection with any one of a list of violent crimes.
9. What violent crime did the government cite? It claimed Sattar was alleged to have been conspiring to commit terrorism abroad, urging Rahman's followers to kill Jews. But again, no such crimes have ever been linked to the Reuters news release. This time, Judge Koeltl found the statute, as applied, to be constitutional. But in doing so, he interpreted the intent standard to require very specific proof: proof that Stewart knew she was providing resources to carry out a specific violent crime.
10. The "defrauding the government" charge was weak: It was based on the government's allegation that Stewart never intended to abide by the SAMs, as she had agreed to do. But it seems likely that Stewart's intention, instead, was to abide by the SAMs in order to continue to represent her client. Only after seeing how things were unfolding did Stewart decide to violate the order.
So in answer to your question, yes she violated the gag order and released the statement by the sheik "withdrawing his support for a ceasefire that currently exists" but without proof that she intended this act to cause a specific violent crime who cares? Since no crimes followed its release why does it follow that the government is correct in saying it was a "veiled message intending to cite violence"? It doesn't. How can they claim to know Stewart intended all along to violate the order? They can't know that either.
The issue here is not whether Stewart "stepped over the line" from lawyer to criminal co- conspirator, as the jury verdict incorrectly implies. Nor is it whether terrorism fears caused the jury to reach an irrational verdict - as seems to be the case. The larger issue is that those who face terrorism-related charges will now be entitled to a government- crippled defense.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant's right to counsel. The Ashcroft eavesdropping regulations are unprecedented in the way they interpose the government between a client and his or her attorney - and thus violate this right. How can a defendant be expected to speak openly and candidly with counsel, and contribute to his own defense, when the government is listening to every conversation, recording every gesture, following every move?
Hundreds of prisoners alleged to be terrorist combatants sit in cages and cells in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Every one, according to the Supreme Court, has the right to challenge his detention in federal court, through the ancient writ of habeas corpus. What attorneys will risk their licenses --and life in prison --in order to protect their rights? None will and that is what the government wants. Hobbled defenses for criminals it has a weak case against. Everyone should stand opposed to this.
I also think there is a good chance Churchill will be fired. ALL tenured professors will take note of that before they say anything controversial in public. Chipping away bit by bit at the hard won gains made by previous generations. It's creeping pretty quickly in my opinion.
John Thornton