Scary: The Lynne Steward case

Remove all ads!

Renowned and remarkable U.S. lawyer Lynne Steward got convicted of five felonies, will be disbarred and faces up to 30 years in jail. She represented Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, not exactly a sympathetic character. He is the leader of the Islamic Group, a terrorist organization that plotted the assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Not remarkable, wouldn't there be the reasons why she was convicted - that she allegedly provided material aid to terrorism and lied to the government - and that I find highly dubious.

Likely, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation.
That however would be unethical: The ABA's Code of Professional Conduct demands zealousness of lawyers. It also mandates that lawyers make their services available to unpopular causes. Stewart was fulfilling both duties

More on that in the links below:

FOX commentator Andrew P. Napolitano: "No Defense"; quite remarkable, an excellent article.

Find Law's Elaine Cassel: "The Lynne Steward case: When Representing An Accused Terrorist Can Mean The Lawyer Risks Jail, Too" with the nice quote:

Find Law's Elaine Cassel: "The Lynne Stewart Guilty Verdict: Stretching the Definition of "Terrorism" To Its Limits"

[ March 08, 2005, 11:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

She knew the law -- she knew the line. She crossed it. Here is another article explaining this:

Sheik's U.S. Lawyer Convicted Of Aiding Terrorist Activity

To quote a couple of paragraghs:

One more attorney off the streets....

 

But since when is it a criminal offense to make a public statement on behalf of her client?

To quote Andrew P. Napolitano

Think again. I fear Mr. Gillers missed the point.

 

Read that second paragragh of the quote by Napolitano again. And again. Until what Ms. Stewart did really sinks in -- she notified the followers of a radical religious leader that he does not support a cease fire.

Wow. She just declaired open season to his followers. THAT'S an act of terrorism.

 

It is beside the point to ask wether she deserves it or not. I really couldn't care less.

The point is if it was a criminal and wether the limitations she had to oblige to were constitutional.

Major difference that got lost here, and one of the reasons I'm happy we have no jury trial in Germany.

 

Right BTA.

But what I *can* see is that it would in my country be unconstitutional if the attorney general would demand lawyers to sign agreements that in case of violation get the sentenced on felony charges.

Criminal offenses require a law by the parliament here, by the representatives of the people, and I would be very much surprised if it is any different in the U.S. after they had this concerns about absolutism and kings.

This a really fundamental constitutional concern.

This here was something else, a mere agreement with federal authorities, on guidelines by Mr. Ashcroft - and not by a law that went through the senate. There was no judge issuing a gag order, or no jury for that instance.

So what I miss is a parliamentary law as a basis for punishment - eventually we're talking about something like up to 30 years, not to mention that she would be disbarred, all very serious stuff. I just can't find it.

 

Hmm, this is a problematic thing you have shown here... Ms. Steward did apparently break the law, but the problem was how "legal" was the rule imposed on her, and could she defend her client effectively given those conditions? There is a jury deciding the case, so any advocate who is not able to try to use the press to influence the jury is at a significant disadvantage. Under that rule (related to free speech) announcing that the sheikh no longer supports a ceasefire to the press might be a somewhat low trick, but is not exactly unconstitutional.
It would be interesting to make the comparison with the Nurenberg Trials. Anyone feel up to it?

 

I'd say Nuremberg has problems of its own and a very different focus, so I suggest to leave that to another thread.

 

@Tal. Didn't you know, if you protest here the terrorists win. And you're unAmerican. And you'll burn in hell. Because America is perfect.

What I don't understand is how that bastard and his followers got elected again. It's disgusting. Expect to see a lot more of this kind of crap.

 

@ ragusa: what I meant was analyzing the rights and behavior of lawyers who defended people with great moral guilt ascribed to them in a court that was dominated by an organization (the alliance) that was antagonistic to the defendants.
I am aware there are many differences but I wanted to focus on the role of the "devil's advocates."

 

US Code are laws made by the US Congress (the parliamentary law basis your looking for). Stewart was convicted of violating 19 USC 2339A - Providing Material Support for Terrorists.

Hence, this is not a fundamental constitutional concern. She was tried and convicted of violating a US Code. Period. Whether or not the law is unconstitutional will up to the Supreme Court at some time in the future.

One of the many reasons I don't blindly follow news reports is that you need to look at several reports in order to get the full story. The stories quoted above each give a biased view -- it takes serious research to see beyond the spin.

 

What she did was nothing more than telling this killers followers that it was ok to go back to murdering innocent people.

 

First of all, in July 2003 Federal District Court Judge John Koetl dismissed the original two terrorism charges against Stewart, aiding and abetting terrorism, as "unconstitutionally void for vagueness" and because they "revealed a lack of prosecutorial standards."

But seemingly the Justice Department wanted her locked up badly, so they decided to try again.

Soon after, she was accused of

• conspiring to provide material support to the conspiracy to kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country
• conspiring to conceal and disguise Abdel Rahman’s service as personnel to prepare for and carry out that conspiracy
• providing and concealing material support to the conspiracy to kill and kidnap

Now just look on what she did. And she issued a press statement on behalf of her client.

The position she spoke out was not her position but that of her client. It probably was aimed at a group that might conduct violent acts, but she by no means aided them, not even materially, much less conspired to kill and kidnap.

Her influence can't have been greater than that of a report on TV news reading one of Bin Laden's statements or showing it on tape.

So where's the conspiring? Where's the material aid?

On February 10, 2005 the New York Times wrote about Stewart's conviction:

That much for "telling this killers followers that it was ok to go back to murdering innocent people"

It seems to me they seek to make an example of Lynne Stewart. While I do not want to believe that the prosecutors themselves maliciously prosecuted Stewart, the best I can believe is that they have blinded themselves with their own zeal.

And what about the defrauding? As I probably didn't make clear - the point of defrauding for violating the Special Administrative Measures (SAM): Stewart's other crime, was talking out loud.

In order to meet with Rahman, the government made her sign a document, which included changes made by John Ashcroft to Bureau of Prisons rules after 9/11. It applied all sorts of restrictions on what she could say on behalf of her client, and allowed the government to eavesdrop on her conversations with Rahman – something she was not allowed to tell him.
So, according to the jury, she violated the SAM by talking loudly while her client was talking to someone else so the cops couldn't eavesdrop. Stewart's violation of the SAM is also the basis for the fraud charges.

The fact that this case ever got past the first preliminary hearing ought to be shocking to all Americans. How are lawyers supposed to represent clients if they can't talk to them in private?

Any violation the agreements would be insubstantial if the SAM agreements are unconstitutional. The question is justified if they are still constitutional or in violation of Amandment VI

What is left of it when you restrict an attorney so that you render him unable to do his job? I wonder how an efficient defense could be possible with the gvt listening to, thus, providing the prosecution with the attorneys defense strategy.

Taken to the extreme the gvt's listening in in conversations with a terrorists defense attorney could be used by the prosecution against the terrorist, and the attorney could be called as a witness of the prosecution.

The SAM measures imposed by the Justice Department have restricted the ability of lawyers to comment publicly on the treatment of the clients or the facts concerning their defense - All this, while the prosecution has unlimited access and freedom to give press conferences and issue statements.

The right to the assistance of counsel is central to the guarantee of a fair trial. This is at risk.

 

I must respectively disagree with some of these sentiments I see here. Consider this excerpt from the article:

She repeatedly signed documents that said she would not, "use my meetings" with the sheik to pass messages to anyone else, "including, but not limited to, the media." So there was no doubt that she understood what restrictions were in place.

Then she turns around and hands a message to the Cairo media. I see some merit it contesting the constitutionality of the SAM in the first place, but provided that the SAM's validity is upheld, I see little wiggle room for Stewart on this issue.

 

Well, I can't really say anything concrete without knowing the exact facts, but signing a formal promise you don't intend to keep is something you don't do unless... I don't know... innocent life is at stake and there's no other way? I mean, it's so gross. A specific crime called "defrauding the US government" sounds like police state crap. It should give any constitutionalist, defence lawyer or civil rights lawyer creeps.

The fact alone that she spoke for her client is nothing to warrant more than fine, let alone 30 years of prison. However, if she really passed a message withdrawing the support for the truce, chances are she really deserves it. Think about all the lives put in danger.

I think both she and the government have crossed the line.

Speaking of Nuremberg... the font that the Department of Justice is using (click for picture) also gives me creeps. Ever seen it anywhere?