Sheikh's lawyer to be sentenced

[Pure]

What's appropriate for Ms. Stewart? It is against US law to 'materially support' a terrorist organization.

Blind Sheik's Lawyer Faces Sentencing

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
The Associated Press
Monday, October 16, 2006; 10:38 AM
Washington Post

NEW YORK -- In a letter to the judge, civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart proclaimed "I am not a traitor."

She acknowledged that she zealously tried to save a blind Egyptian sheik from life in prison for plotting to blow up New York City landmarks. But she argued that the government's characterization of her was wrong and took unfair advantage of the "hysteria that followed 9/11 and that was re-lived during the trial."

On Monday, that judge was to decide whether Stewart, 67, should join her former client behind bars for enabling him to communicate with his followers. Prosecutors asked for the maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who she represented at his 1995 trial and who was sentenced to life in prison for plots to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

In court papers, prosecutors told U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl that Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished."

Stewart, whose sentencing was delayed after she was diagnosed with breast cancer last year and underwent treatment, asked the judge for mercy.

"The government's characterization of me and what occurred is inaccurate and untrue," she wrote. "It takes unfair advantage of the climate of urgency and hysteria that followed 9/11 and that was re-lived during the trial. I did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization."

Mixed with her trademark defiance _ "I am not a traitor" _ was a measure of contrition. After some soul searching, she wrote, she had concluded that a careless over-devotion to her clients _ "I am softhearted to the point of self-abnegation" _ was her undoing.

Stewart was arrested six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, along with Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic interpreter, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a U.S. postal worker.

Prosecutors argued that Stewart blatantly broke rules designed to keep the blind cleric from inciting violence among his followers, and Koeltl upheld her conviction. The judge rejected her claim that Abdel-Rahman was engaging in protected speech when he expressed his opinion about a cease fire by Islamic militants in Egypt that Stewart passed along in a 2000 press release.

Stewart and Yousry were both convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Stewart also was convicted of defrauding the government and making false statements for breaking her promise to abide by government rules to keep the sheik from communicating with his followers.

Sattar was convicted of conspiracy to kill and kidnap people in a foreign country and could face life in prison. All three were to be sentenced Monday.

At least one lawyer, Elizabeth Fink, wrote to the judge on Stewart's behalf, calling the government's position "draconian, inhumane and ludicrous."

Outside the federal courthouse Monday, about 150 Stewart supporters who could not get inside the capacity-filled courtroom chanted "Free Lynne, Free Lynne."

As she entered the courthouse, Stewart shouted to them "I love you" and "I'm hanging in there."

"It's not just Lynn Stewart who is a victim, it's the Bill of Rights that's the victim," said Al Dorfman, 72, a retired lawyer who was among the Stewart supporters standing outside.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The job of an attorney is to provide a rigorous representation for his/her client. Now it seems the Bush Administration is taking that to mean if the client is found guilty (correctly or incorrectly) the attoney is equally guilty. This is another example of the lies and hysterical coverup of the disposal of guaranteed human rights coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[Darkniciad]

Uhm... Judge John G. Koeltl was a 1994 Clinton appointee. I don't think that qualifies him as a Bush drone.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Amazing!

 

[Pure]

as i understand the law, you can say, "I hope hamas wins over israel, and i'll cheer them on." that is free speech. what you cannot do is "materially aid" Hamas. the ordinary meaning is, for example, giving them money; or, PERHAPS, as one fellow was accused, giving a militant group an internet site on which they can message each other.

i'm not entirely clear, but it seems that, after promising NOT to help the Sheikh communicate with his followers, she carried a message from the Sheikh to them, something like, "You should not approve the ceasefire that was just negotiated." or maybe even. "You must keep fighting."

so it seems to me, she broke her word as a lawyer and deserves a severe reprimand from the Bar association--maybe even a suspension of the right to practice, say, for a year. the government alleges that her broken word, is 'defrauding the government' and warrants prison.

 

[Pure]

reply to dark

dark Judge John G. Koeltl was a 1994 Clinton appointee. I don't think that qualifies him as a Bush drone.

P: the judge has not given a sentence. the prosecutor has asked for 30 years. i don't think Jenny made any statement about the judge at all. nor have i. and who appointed him is immaterial, so far as we know.

we're commenting on the sentence the US federal prosecuter wants. and it's not too big a stretch to think that the admin has an influence over what the prosecuter is calling for (i.e., blood).

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Did I even mention the Judge?

Judges are required to rule on those cases placed before them using the guidelines handed them by the law and by "public morality". The judge in this case has not ruled at all.

The prosecuter, on the other hand, is bound by nothing but the instructions of his masters in Washington DC. If throwing out the Bill of Rights to please them is needed, then so be it.

That's what's wrong with this country these days.

 

[Darkniciad]

Without knowing the exact nature of the remarks she passed on, in full, there is no real way to make a determination on this to me.

There is a line where it goes beyond overzealous consideration for a client and steps over into aiding and abetting. Whether that was her intention or not, common sense should tell someone with the education of a lawyer that passing on inflammatory orations from a charismatic leader to his zealot followers isn't a wise course of action.

Even if I knew those remarks in full, and judged them to be over the line, I would still have to determine just how much I believed the lawyer that she was blinded by her consideration of her client to the ill-considered nature of her actions. If she really does come across as purely naive, light or no sentence ( although the Bar should take action ) Odds are she's learned a valuable lesson from all of this, and she's going to suffer for the mistake anyhow.

Monkey wrench for many - What if it were a charismatic wakko fringe christian fundie cult leader the likes of a David Koresh on trial?

EDIT: As to the judge, my point was that all the evidence presented is going through a judge who certainly can't be classified as an agent of the current administration. There have been numerous rulings on evidence by him throughout this praised by those who believe the lawyer should not even be on trial. To get to this point, the prosecution's efforts have been filtered through someone who is not automatically inclined to grant the prosecution whatever they want.

What is a prosecutor's job, except to go for blood? The assumption is, when they bring it to trial, that they have the evidence to prove the defendant guilty. Their job is to seek the proper punishment for that crime, and barring some plea bargain, what they seek is almost always to the extent allowed by the law.

I'll plead ignorance on whether the current administration has expanded the possible length of sentence for such a crime.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe what we are missing here is this:

Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who she represented at his 1995 trial and who was sentenced to life in prison for plots to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

Why did it take 10 years to bring this case? Why did they wait until after 9/11? It appears she did no harm under the Clinton Administration.

As I recall, there is something in the Constitution about a "fair and speedy trial" or am I looking at the Pre-Bush version?

 

[Darkniciad]

The trial was only seven months. That is speedy by current standards. The motivation to bring the charges after 9/11 certainly smells of political motivation, but shady things like that happen every day. In the end, it is the judge and jury that decide whether to buy the prosecution's presentation.

Just found this:

A 65-year-old mother of four and grandmother of 12, Stewart is a self-proclaimed political radical who told the jury she has advocated violent "revolution of the people that overthrows institutions."

Stewart, a lawyer for more than 30 years, has represented controversial clients before Rahman, such as the Black Panthers and mafia figures.

That tells me she obviously knew exactly what she was doing. Lock her up.

 

[Guest]

 

[Darkniciad]

We still don't know what message she passed on. Disbarment, yes. Jail? I don't think so.

True, if it was a general statement filtered through her, it doesn't really qualify. If she delivered a manifesto from him, that's a whole different ball of yarn.

Judging by what I'm reading about her, she probably stood on a soapbox and repeated his every word full of fire and brimstone, though.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

God. I advocate violent revolution of the people that overthrows institutions when the institutions are abusive and unjust. Does that mean I should be tried for "harbouring aid to terrorists"?

 

[R. Richard]

Blind sheik's lawyer gets 28 months

NEW YORK - Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart was sentenced Monday to 28 months in prison on a terrorism charge for helping a client who plotted to blow up New York City landmarks communicate with his followers, a sentence far less than 30 years prosecutors wanted.

Stewart, 67, smiled as the judge announced he would send her to prison for less than 2 1/2 years.

"If you send her to prison, she's going to die. It's as simple as that," defense lawyer Elizabeth Fink had told the judge before the sentence was pronounced.

Stewart, who was treated last year for breast cancer, was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian sheik sentenced to life in prison after he was convicted in plots to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

Prosecutors have called the case a major victory in the war on terrorism. They said Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

In a letter to the judge before her hearing, Stewart proclaimed: "I am not a traitor."

"The end of my career truly is like a sword in my side," She said in court Monday. "Permit me to live out the rest of my life productively, lovingly, righteously."

In a pre-sentence document, prosecutors told U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl that Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished."

Stewart, in her letter to the judge, said she did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization. She believes the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made her behavior intolerable in the eyes of the government and gave it an excuse to make an example out of her.

"The government's characterization of me and what occurred is inaccurate and untrue," she wrote. "It takes unfair advantage of the climate of urgency and hysteria that followed 9/11 and that was relived during the trial. I did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Dember argued at her sentencing that the case had nothing to with Sept. 11.

"What she was doing was smuggling terrorism messages and smuggling out Abdel-Rahman's responses," Dember said.

About 150 Stewart supporters who could not get inside the capacity-filled courtroom stood outside the courthouse, chanting "Free Lynne, Free Lynne." Some 200 others jammed the hallways outside the courtroom.

"It's not just Lynn Stewart who is a victim, it's the Bill of Rights that's the victim," said Al Dorfman, 72, a retired lawyer who joined the crowd outside.

Stewart was arrested six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, along with Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic interpreter, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a U.S. postal worker. The indictment against them was brought by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002.

Koeltl sentenced Sattar to 24 years in prison. Convicted of conspiracy to kill and kidnap people in a foreign country, he could have been sentenced to life.

"I am not a violent person," Sattar said. "I am a human being. I am an America. I am a Muslim who practices and believes strongly in his religion."

Koeltl said he departed from the federal sentencing guidelines because no one was killed or injured as a result of the crimes and because of Sattar's lack of previous crimes and restrictive prison conditions.

 

[Darkniciad]

God. I advocate violent revolution of the people that overthrows institutions when the institutions are abusive and unjust. Does that mean I should be tried for "harbouring aid to terrorists"?

This woman comes across as someone riding on the coattails of infamy for her own fame and fortune. She just took it too far this time. She also didn't say anything about "abusive and unjust", so she comes across as a radical - period - with little care for the nature of the institution, just wanting to see it fall.

There's a difference between wanting to see tyrrany brought down, and just wanting to see whoever is in power brought down, because anyone in power is tyrranical to you. That's how this woman comes across.

She put the noose around her own neck in my opinion.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Here is something more recent. As you can see, she is still free while she appeals. Personally, I doubt that she serves a day in prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial

She was convicted of illegally carrying messages from a person in prison to his followers. If it were a Mafia don communicating through a lawyer to his flunkies, it would be the same thing.

 

[Pure]

sweet, that's an interesting and good comparison

She was convicted of illegally carrying messages from a person in prison to his followers. If it were a Mafia don communicating through a lawyer to his flunkies, it would be the same thing.

Such communications are routine, in the Sopranos.

However. NOTE that the mafia lawyer would not be charged with 'materially aiding' a terrorist group. as i understand it, rather for violating a prison regulation, and breaking one's word as a lawyer.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

sweet, that's an interesting and good comparison

She was convicted of illegally carrying messages from a person in prison to his followers. If it were a Mafia don communicating through a lawyer to his flunkies, it would be the same thing.

Such communications are routine, in the Sopranos.

However. NOTE that the mafia lawyer would not be charged with 'materially aiding' a terrorist group. as i understand it, rather for violating a prison regulation, and breaking one's word as a lawyer.

Under certain circumstances, parts of the Mafia could possibly be considered to be terrorist organizations. Certain communications, such as relating to an appeal, would probably be legal, but the ones in question weren't.

 

[Pure]

hi sweet pretty
Under certain circumstances, parts of the Mafia could possibly be considered to be terrorist organizations.

i don't disagree, here, especially if you consider Italy and the assassination of prosecuters; but has the Mafia ever been so considered by the US gov?

the other problem: what the fuck is a 'terrorist organization'?, which brings up "what is terrorism?" iirc correctly, official US definitions essentially say, it's NON state entities using violence and intimidation against civilian populations *for causes of which the US disapproves.*

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Heck, guys, let's not get anally retentive about silly things like justice, fair trials and legality.

As of today we've got the spanking new Military Commissions Act, so we can ship her off to Cuba, use non-standard interrogation , not give her access to proper legal representation and keep any evidence secret.

Should speed up trials and improve conviction rates.

And we call North Korea a rogue state! At least there you can use your Amex card to play a hand of Texas Hold'em online.

I know, I'm just a cynic.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

what the fuck is a 'terrorist organization'?, which brings up "what is terrorism?" iirc correctly, official US definitions essentially say, it's NON state entities using violence and intimidation against civilian populations *for causes of which the US disapproves.*

Doesn't this cover the two main political parties?

 

[Pure]

well, i think bs and persuasion--slander and mudslinging--are more typical methods of the political groupings. BUT let it be said that when gays really get out of line or in your face, physical bashing is thought to be necessary.

perhaps you'd call the threat of 30 years in the fed. pen [the present sentence the prosecutor wanted] or a zillion years at Gitmo 'intimidation'; but then again you are pussy who doesn't realize that the Bill of Rights was never meant to protect *really bad* people.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

hi sweet pretty
Under certain circumstances, parts of the Mafia could possibly be considered to be terrorist organizations.

i don't disagree, here, especially if you consider Italy and the assassination of prosecuters; but has the Mafia ever been so considered by the US gov?

the other problem: what the fuck is a 'terrorist organization'?, which brings up "what is terrorism?" iirc correctly, official US definitions essentially say, it's NON state entities using violence and intimidation against civilian populations *for causes of which the US disapproves.*

In the USA, the Mafia has never been considered to be an INTERNATIONAL terrorist organization but some of their activities come quite close to terrorism. Especially I am referring to the "protection" racket. They tell business owners "Give us money or we will beat you up and burn down your business" or words to that effect. If somebody refuses, they do suffer those responses, causing others to pay up. As far as I can see, those beatings and burnings come very close to the usual definition of terrorism.

I also believe a terrorist organization does not have to be unconnected to a nation. Hezbollah, for instance, is a terrorist organzation that is sponsored by Syria and Iran. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is the elected government of a quasi-nation. It's a known fact that suicide-homocide bombers were subsidized by Saddam. Serbia sent terrorists against rebellious parts of Yugoslavia. Terrorists operating in Darfur and sometimes Chad are sent out by the government of Sudan. Even some of the activities of the CIA might be considered to be terrorism, but don't expect me to describe any.

As for saying for causes of which the US disapproves, that doesn't mean much. Everybody disapproves of murder and arson and rape and kidnapping, all methods that are used by terrorists.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Heck, guys, let's not get anally retentive about silly things like justice, fair trials and legality.

As of today we've got the spanking new Military Commissions Act, so we can ship her off to Cuba, use non-standard interrogation , not give her access to proper legal representation and keep any evidence secret.

Should speed up trials and improve conviction rates.

And we call North Korea a rogue state! At least there you can use your Amex card to play a hand of Texas Hold'em online.

I know, I'm just a cynic.

The woman in question did get a fair and legal trial. It is very much against the law to aid a terrorist organizatiion in carrying out their activities, and that is what she did. Even so, she's out on appeal now and will probably never serve a day in prison.

 

[Pure]

hi sweet and pretty

It is very much against the law to aid a terrorist organizatiion in carrying out their activities, and that is what she did.

i believe the law says 'materially aid.' supposing the message she helped carry to the Sheikh's followers was 'don't accept the ceasefire,' how is that *material* aid?

suppose i call up hamas and say, 'hey you guys are doing a great job lately; i hope you take up arms, again, soon,' would that be 'free speech' or 'material aid.'? if the latter, how long should i go to jail for?