Lynn Stewart to become next Political Prisoner

Lynne Stewart Found Guilty; Faces Up to 45 Years in Jail by NYC IMC
10 Feb 2005 In a blow to the ability of lawyers to defend clients suspected of terrorism, a jury in Manhattan today found radical lawyer Lynne Stewart guilty of aiding terrorists.

She was found guilty on every charge as were co-defendants.

Many of the harshest charges against Stewart were originally dismissed, but in a surprise move, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft filed new charges against the lawyer.

from the AP: "A veteran civil rights lawyer was convicted Thursday of crossing the line by smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients -- a radical Egyptian sheik -- to his terrorist disciples on the outside."

In a development on Feb. 8 that may provide grounds for an appeal of the verdict, members of the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO), a right-wing terrorist organization, posted fliers on the Manhattan courthouse door calling for Stewart's death.

From the Archives: Aschroft Files New Charges || Democracy Now Interview Lynne Stewart Guilty; Faces Up to 20 Years in Jail

The jury has been deliberating off-and-on over the past month in the case of Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene. The jury deliberated 13 days in all.

Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.

The trial focused attention on the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior by a lawyer. Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases.

The jury also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of plotting to "kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country" by publishing an edict urging the killing of Jews and their supporters. A third defendant, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Sattar could face life in prison and Yousry up to 20 years.

www.lynnestewart.org

 

So that dude is convicted for that...

Yet this is perfectly acceptable?
This country is so fucked.

 

What do you expect in a country whose citizens sit by and let a transparently criminal administration of liars and corporate-backed fraudsters (not to mention outright war criminals) hold themselves unaccountable to any rule of law whatsoever as they paint others as "terrorists" and criminals.

The irony is painfully tragic for our nation's future.

 

the most pathetic thing is that despite how utterly transparent the corruption has become, so many Americans STILL believe that Bush is an honest person, and that his administration regularly practices honesty towards the american public. Many STILL believe this!

 

How can people be so blind? Like you mentioned, I'm almost starting to think that they aren't even bothering to disguise their intentions, the public is so ignorant they just accept what they are given.

 

So it could be said they have nobody to blame but themselves......unfortunately Bush makes decisions that affect people in other countries who didn't have a say on his re-election.

 

It's not as though those of us here had any say either though, and I doubt Kerry would be any better anyway.

 

At Bush's Republican National Convention in New York City last summer, close to a million protesters descended on the city...who's numbers broke records for any prior convention in U.S. history. The same at last month's Inauguration in D.C.

Note to Non-U.S. citizens: First, don't assume that the majority of American people support this administration. The opposition here at home is louder and more energized than it's been in decades. Second, the info about the record-breaking numbers of protesters at these 2 events was gathered through American alternative media ONLY. These record numbers were NOT reported in the U.S. mainstream media, and certainly not on TV. Now what kind of media is that? I want to hear non-American people's views on this.



Here's a much more detailed account of the Lynn Stewart case:



Ann Schneider writes the People's Lawyer column for The Indypendent and is a longtime member of the National Lawyers Guild. She followed the Lynne Stewart case closely and writes that the government's vendetta against Stewart was "a thoroughly opportunistic affair" that has done great harm to the 6th Amendment right to an attorney.
Radical defense attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted yesterday on five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government . Her co-defendant translators, Abdel Sattar and Mohammed Yousry were also convicted on all charges. The diverse jury of 12 with four alternates reached their verdict after 11 days of deliberations. Ms. Stewart faces up to 35 years in prison after being convicted of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Sentencing will take place next month under the newly loosened federal guidelines.

Stewart’s law office was raided on the day of her arrest, April 8, 2002. Among the items seized by the FBI were her client files, topical files and her Christmas card list. The prosecution of Ms. Stewart and her co-defendants consumed eight months and cost an estimated 21 million dollars.

The key evidence against Ms. Stewart was the surveilled attorney-client conferences that took place in May 2000 in a Minnesota prison where Ms. Stewart’s former client, Sheik Abdel Rahman, was incarcerated. These conversations were intercepted via a FISA warrant, available to the government upon an assertion that the conversations pertain to foreign intelligence. Those interceptions show that Ms. Stewart and the Sheik were discussing the political situation in Egypt as well as the conditions of his confinement. Given the few hours of time allowed them by the prison authorities, Stewart and her translator Mohammed Yousry prepared an agenda while in flight to Rochester so that as a result, most of the discussions were in Arabic with Yousry ascertaining the Sheik’s wishes after informing him of what Stewart decided in her professional judgment the Sheik ought to know. Ms. Stewart was recorded saying “I’m just making covering noises,” and “I could win an academy award for my performance.” Ms. Stewart suspected the guards circling around the conference room were listening in on a strategy session, and that they would break it up if they saw Stewart wasn’t having a back-and-forth translation with the Sheik. Evidently, she wasn’t paranoid enough to suspect the entire conversation was being videotaped from above, as it was.

Discussion of political affairs and listening to letters from his followers violated the terms of the Special Administrative Measure imposed upon the Sheik after his 1993 conspiracy conviction in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing.

For Sheik Rahman, who speaks only Arabic and is blind, the SAM resulted in his being held virtually incommunicado. The prosecution admits Ms. Stewart was forced to sign a document agreeing to obey these restrictions as a condition of visiting him in prison. (While such measures arguably impose greater punishment on a defendant, no court has ruled them unconstitutional. They have been in regular use since 1996 when the Department of Justice issued a prison regulation permitting them for inmates they designate as dangerous.) Sheik Rahman’s SAM became effective once it was read to him in jail – in English. There is no access to court to challenge the restrictions once applied.

The prosecution showed that certain overseas bombings were done with a demand to free the Sheik or avenge his 1993 conviction. But there was no evidence that the Sheik ever called upon his followers to commit violent acts to win his release. The pivotal contention was that Ms. Stewart, with one or other of her two translators, issued a press release on the Sheik’s behalf in June 2000, withdrawing his support of a ceasefire then in effect between the Egyptian government and Islamic militants. In the press release, admittedly conveyed by Stewart to Arabic news sources, the Sheik asked the Islamic Group (IG) to reconsider the cease fire (referred to as the peace initiative) in light of the fact the Egyptian government was still jailing Muslims without trial. But the words of the so-called “fatwa,” only said “Abdel Rahman withdraws his support for the cease fire.” The defense says it is a call for the IG to discuss the matter in Egypt and make a democratic decision about how to proceed. To the prosecution, it means “resume firing.” In the end, the IG decided to maintain the ceasefire despite Rahman’s opinion.

The prosecution admitted in its closing argument that Ms. Stewart played no role in the fatwa issued in the Sheik’s name that called for the killing of Jews everywhere in revenge for Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Instead, they blamed Abdel Sattar for issuing that without the Sheik’s permission.

Ms. Stewart testified her aim was to get the Sheik transferred to Egypt, despite the lack of a treaty between the two countries. In this, she was following in the role established by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark who also issued many press releases on behalf of the Sheik after his conviction without running afoul of the SAM. Clark testified that he had traveled to Egypt several times on the Sheik’s behalf, working in diplomatic circles for the Sheik’s return. Apparently, Ms. Stewart believed that informing the Arabic press about the Sheik’s reconsideration of the cease-fire might influence the Egyptian authorities to take him back. In his summation, her attorney Michael Tigar said “What makes sense is that you want your client to have constructive engagement with somebody on the other side. “

The weakness of the government’s case is shown by their repeated reference to Ms. Stewart’s “consciousness of guilt” as shown by her June 2000 confession to Sattar’s spouse that (taped on Sattar’s phone- her office was never tapped, they say), “I don’t think I can hide this [press release] from Pat Fitzgerald.” Fitzgerald did withdraw Ms. Stewart’s visiting privileges when he learned about the press release. But her visiting privileges were restored six months later after she signed a new SAM, negotiated on her behalf by her attorney Stanley Cohen. If her conduct in issuing the press release was criminal, why was she not arrested until 2002, and why did the government restore her right to act as the Sheik’s attorney? And where is any evidence of harm coming to any person as a result of the Sheik’s statement?

The government charges Stewart with defrauding the government by intentionally violating the SAMs. Prosecutor Anthony Barkow, who got the last chance to address the jury in his rebuttal to Tigar’s closing statement said “It doesn’t matter whether the government was actually misled, just whether the government could have been misled” by her promise to abide by the SAMs.

The trial revealed that Ahmed Abdel Sattar’s phone had been tapped for seven years, as he relayed some 90,000 phone calls from Egypt and Afghanistan about the Sheik’s physical condition in jail. Sattar, in turn, claimed his only aim was to assist a political refugee fleeing repression in Egypt, and that he was not a member of any organization.

Defendant Mohammed Yousry, up until the arrest, was an adjunct professor at York College, part of the CUNY system. He is a non-practicing Muslim who has translated in the past for network news. The American Assn of University Professors issued a 33-page report in November finding that Yousry’s termination violated academic freedom.

The selective prosecution of a courageous, politically-principled defense attorney and her two translators turns out to be a thoroughly opportunistic affair, commenced with great violence to the attorney-client privilege, and designed to serve the publicity needs of the John Ashcroft Justice Department and the Bush war on terror. Meanwhile, the defendants are preparing their appeals. Stewart/Sattar/Yousry remain free on bail. See also:
http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/LynneStewart0205.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/1545229


NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS FOR A NATIONAL DAY OF OUTRAGE IN RESPONSE TO LYNNE STEWART VERDICT

Organize for Thursday, February 17!

The National Executive Committee of the NLG calls on all Guild chapters to organize and to take part in local actions as part of a "National Day of Outrage" in response to yesterday's Lynne Stewart verdict, which we see as an attack not only on our cherished colleague and fellow NLG member but also on all members of the legal community who represent unpopular clients and causes. We are calling for this coordinated day of action to be held next Thursday, February 17 in your cities, towns, and, if you are a law student, at your school. We are putting together a list of suggested actions to take and will send this out ASAP. Please begin making arrangements and stay tuned for more information.

This will be just one step in our ongoing support for Lynne Stewart and in defense of all of those who take on controversial cases.

http://www.nlg.org/news/statements/DayOfOutrageLynne.htm
http://www.nlg.org

 

Ah I know most people here didn't vote for him. Whatever about Kerry being any better I don't think he could've been any worse.

 

I give CSPAN credit for covering the protests in NY. They actually covered it non-stop with no comment. Fox only broke in when the dragon started on fire in front of McDonalds. The rest of the mainstream networks didn't say much about it, considering how large a protest it was.

 

i am saddened to hear the news about lynn stewart. this is just the first few baby steps heading towards a fascist state, which i personally believe already exists, though some may not agree. this is a time for action, a time to stand up for our rights! maybe there should be a national protest for the incarceration of lynn stewart. what are the opinions on that? if we do not make a stand, we become endangered of being swept under the rug.

peace & love

 

stickchick, check out www.lynnestewart.org



CSPAN only covers the most liberal (ie. boring) protests. There were so many marches, and festivals of resistance, yet CSPAN only covers the fucking International Action Center speeches (yawn).

The corporate media must come down.

 

I have been forced to go with non-U.S. TV news outlets to see what's going on in the world. I got to see all of the anti-Bush protests in London, Spain, and other places around the world which I never saw on any of the U.S. mainstream TV news outlets.

 

shaggie, I'd advise you to get as many fellow Americans as you can to do the same.