Frank, There is a near universal principle of law shared by all modern societies called "accomplice liability" in common law countries. The principle is that the accomplice is liable for the (foreseeable or intended) crimes committed by his accomplices. Conspiracy is the classic form of accomplice liability. The basic idea is that if, for example, I am a Mafia boss, and I order the killing of a witness, thereby agreeing to the killing, I am liable for murder -- effective a participant in murder. (This is also solicitation, another form of accomplice liability.)
The relevant point here is that the Sheik was convicted of conspiracy to murder, commit terrorost acts, and the like, and from a legal point of view it makes no difference that he did not fire a gun or press the detonator. He is legally (and if guilty, as the jury believed, and I agree, morally) as much an actual participant in the acts he conspired to do as his co-conspirators.
No doubt you will dismiss this as mere bourgeois legality.
--- frank scott <frank at marin.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> "...Her client is possibly the most notorious
> prisoner in this
> country-- a bomber of the World Trade Center who is
> still alive --..."
>
> how dare she defend him, or anyone else like him!
>
> though this is the first i've heard that he was an
> actual participant in
> the bombing...
>
> or was it like bill clinton being a "bomber" of that
> pharmaceutical
> plant...?
>
> now if lynn stewart defended him, would she be a
> credit to the
> profession?
>
>
>
> fs
>
> ___________________________________
>
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