"Lawyer to Radicals May Face Prison Term"

[GreenPartyVoter]

NEW YORK (AP) - She's already a grandmother of 14, a cancer survivor and a former civil rights lawyer who took on radical clients others considered toxic.

Lynne Stewart will soon find out if she will be forced to assume another role - prison inmate.

"I couldn't tell you I'm not stressed," Stewart said about her Monday sentencing in a Manhattan terrorism case. "I'm very concerned."

Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to impose a 30-year term for what they described in court papers as Stewart's "extremely dangerous and devious" conduct to help an Egyptian terrorist leader communicate with followers.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20061015/D8KP90Q80.html

[Hubert Flottz]

1. Trust Bush...

He wouldn't abuse his new power would he?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Of course not

[readmoreoften]

2. I believe she helped her client contact his wife about his well-being.

I don't remember the full case, but I remember that it maintained that Lynne Stewart helped her client deliver a letter to his family or something along those lines. The state said abstract hints on how to pull off a terrorist attack theoretically could have been included. Lynne Stewart is a big lefty. This is no doubt an attack on her ideology. I hope she doesn't go to jail for 30 years over nothing...and I hope I don't get put on a list for saying so!

[Dick Diver]

3. Nice story but Edward Everett Horton is dead...

The Nation acknowledges the facts of the case:

The case against Stewart was fairly straightforward. She represented Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, now serving multiple life sentences for conspiring to blow up several Manhattan bridges and tunnels. Rahman is barred from any contact with the outside world beyond his immediate family and attorneys. As his lawyer, Stewart signed an agreement not to transmit messages from him to unauthorized people. In June 2000 she violated that agreement. After meeting with the sheik, Stewart called Reuters to say that he had withdrawn his personal support for a cease-fire then in place in Egypt. Two days later she issued a clarification explaining that the sheik "did not cancel the cease-fire," but "left the matter to my brothers to examine it and study it because they are the ones who live there and they know the circumstances better than I."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050307/cole

The article goes on to argue that the charge the government brought was not commensurate with her actions, and that the charge that she signed the agreement with intent to violate it was a "stretch." However, no mention of sending a message to his "family." While acknowledging differing views on Stewart's culpability, it's important to argue facts and not fiction.

[readmoreoften]

5. That's why I qualified my statement as "I believe" and "I think I remember

I heard her speak one time for 15 minutes, maybe two years ago. I don't have a "nice story" and I'm not "arguing the facts" about anything. My post was something along the lines of "oh yeah, I remember hearing about that". I had thought that Lynne Stewart was communicating a message to family though. I guess my impression was wrong.

[Dick Diver]

6. Well, yes and no...

You did say "I don't remember the full case,..." but then you say "but I remember..." Moreover, after your semi-qualified statements, you say "This is no doubt an attack on her ideology." (emphasis mine)

So, what you seem to be saying, is that you remember it was something to do with delivering a letter to his family (which, of course, was incorrect), but, whatever the case was, guilty or not, you're sure this is a politically motivated attack on Stewart based upon her ideology (paraphrasing).

Lynne Stewart relayed this terrorist's (and there seems to be no doubt about that) messages to his followers to reject a cease-fire in their war against the Egyptian government. And she did this knowingly, after signing a statement that expressly forbade her from doing any such thing. While she was quite defiant after her conviction, a letter from her to the judge in the case and read, in part, on CNN this morning acknowledges these facts. Thirty years is too good for her.