Terrorism: the law-enforcement approach

[FountainSiren]

<p>Dem’s doing it their way:

…in the case of the terrorism-supporting lawyer, Lynne Stewart. The Clinton-appointed judge sentenced Stewart to a mere two years and four months in prison — radically less than the 30 years that prosecutors sought. And one of those arguing for leniency for Stewart was the assistant attorney general in charge of criminal prosecutions from 1993 to 1995, another Clinton appointee, Jo Ann Harris…Stewart was not charged with treason but with providing material support to terrorists by relaying a message from her client, the blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who had been convicted of a plot to blow up, among other things, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The AP account noted that Stewart’s past clients included “Black Panthers, leaders of the 1960s student activist group Weather Underground, a former mob hit man and a man accused of trying to kill nine police officers.” We’ve often wondered how those who represent murderers keep their own moral compasses from going askew. In her pre-sentencing letter, Stewart spoke of the “emotional mutuality” that arises between a lawyer and a client.

<a href=“http://www.nysun.com/article/41708[/url]”>http://www.nysun.com/article/41708&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[FountainSiren]

<p>…what her clients have in common is that they loathe America–admittedly, a popular stance amongst smarty-pants and malcontents.

It was a case of radical chic and the radical sheik. Yesterday in New York, Lynne Stewart, a self-styled “civil rights” attorney whose past clients include the Black Panthers and Weather Underground, was sentenced to 28 months in prison for illegally passing messages between her imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and his followers in Egypt’s Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the terrorist group responsible for killing 62 mostly European and Japanese tourists in Luxor in 1997. Some of those tourists were beheaded; others were disemboweled. The Sheik was also involved in planning terror attacks in New York, for which he is serving a life sentence… She herself seems to have had few misgivings about her actions: “The government’s characterization of me and what occurred is inaccurate and untrue,” she told the judge. “It takes unfair advantage of the climate of urgency and hysteria that followed 9/11.”
In similar circumstances–albeit with a different defendant–a case could be made for leniency. Ms. Stewart is 67 and recovering from breast cancer. But remorse is also a prerequisite for mercy, and Ms. Stewart shows none, either for her crime or for the arc of a career which flows too naturally from championing the “liberation” movements of the 1960s to the Islamists of the present day. What her clients have in common is that they loathe America.

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009105[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[parent2noles]

<p>Makes you wonder what they’d be like if terrorists were using bombs in American shopping malls. I hope we never find out.</p>

[JHS]

<p>That’s right. This is probably the Bush Administration’s most significant success in prosecuting terrorists: going after a respected (if left-wing) lawyer who is 67 years old and did nothing but help her client communicate – about personal matters, not beheadings – with people in the outside world, as most human being are allowed to do.</p>

<p>Lynne Stewart is an old-time radical lawyer in the mold of William Kunstler (but a lot more dedicated and a lot less noisy about herself). She has spent her life representing fairly reviled (often deservedly reviled) defendants whom regular attorneys would not touch, and she does it for very little compensation. She has a very good reputation for skill and ethics. The federal judges in New York see her in court all the time and know her well. She is an integral part of making the US justice system fair and workable, not a terrorist.</p>

<p>This is a sad, sad example of what Bush et al. think is appropriate to protect us, but they don’t have the guts, the skill, or the organization to do anything better.</p>

<p>FountainSiren, you are always quick as a wink to claim oppressed-minority status for conservatives. It would behoove you to spend a couple minutes thinking about what it would be like actually to have power arrayed against you.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

In an age when courts routinely impose five-year prison terms for drug offenders, and life sentences on former CEOs, 28 months may not seem an appropriate sentence for a terrorist accomplice, especially when the government sought 30 years. Ms. Stewart certainly had the sympathy of the judge, John Koeltl, who praised her as a champion of “the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular.”

What is wrong with these people? How can anyone say that justice is served when the sentences are so disparate? I believe that everyone deserves a strong defense, within our legal system. But for this attorney to assist a terrorist organization has got to be more serious than drug use.</p>

<p>

@JHS

…but help her client communicate – about personal matters, not beheadings – with people in the outside world, as most human being are allowed to do.

How do you know that this is all she communicated? Aren’t there legal procedures regarding communication from a defendant to the outside world? What gives her the right to decide what laws to follow and which to ignore? I think she should be responsible for her decision to break the law.</p>

[CITATION_X]

<p>“…what her clients have in common is that they loathe America–admittedly, a popular stance amongst smarty-pants and malcontents.”</p>

<p>Well stated</p>

<p>Many people still living in a Sept 10th world</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>From the first link,

But it is astounding to see individuals who once held positions of great responsibility in America seek to put the gloss on what she did. America is in the midst of a long and terrible war, one with stakes every bit as large as World War II or the Cold War. It was important for America to press this prosecution, and the leniency of the sentence notwithstanding, the conviction and sentencing of Lynne Stewart sends a signal that convicted terrorists can’t use their lawyers as messengers. It will make Americans safer.

It’s pretty bad when the lawyers are breaking the law.</p>

[JHS]

<p>I was wrong about the exclusively personal nature of the communications. I should have checked first. What she did on one occasion was let the person serving as her translator ask the prisoner about an issue involving relationships between the prisoner’s organization and the Egyptian government, and then announce the prisoner’s position to the media. For most prisoners, that would have been fine, but it violated special restrictions in place on al-Rahman. (Restrictions which the Clinton Administration had sought and obtained.)</p>

<p>It happened, by the way, in May 2000 – 16 months before September 11. The charges were brought, of course, after September 11 (and after an administration change). </p>

<p>Stewart was disbarred over this a while ago. Several of the principal criminal charges against her were dismissed by the judge for legal overreaching, but she was convicted on one count. Obviously, for a 67-year-old with cancer, the 30-year sentence the government was requesting was a life sentence.</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>She should be commended for a life spent helping others in dire legal trouble - for little reward. This perhaps explains her willingness to help her clients…but, to directly violate a judge’s order, well, she’s paying a high and appropriate price.</p>

<p>It’s sad…despite her political leanings (which are not relevant), every citizen is entitled to effective counsel. It’s a loss to the United States in more ways than one.</p>

<p>:(</p>