From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Convicted Attorney Lynne Stewart: "You Can't Lock Up the Lawyers"
Lynne Stewart and her attorney, Michael Tigar, join Democracy Now! In our firehouse studio for their first extended national broadcast interview following Thursday's jury decision to convict Stewart on all five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government. The verdict reverberated around the country, especially with lawyers who fear the government's aim is to discourage them from representing unpopular clients. We also speak with one of the witnesses at her trial, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark.
Civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted on all five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the government Thursday in a case that reverberated with defense lawyers around the country.
Stewart was convicted of smuggling out messages from her jailed client - Shiekh Omar Abdel Rahman also known as the blind sheikh who is serving a life sentence on terror-related charges. Most notably Stewart was convicted of helping Rahman contact followers in Egypt with messages that could have ended a cease-fire there and ignited violence. She faces up to 35 years in prison.
Stewart's co-defendants Ahmed Sattar, a postal worker who acted as a paralegal for Abdel-Rahman, and Mohammed Yousry, an Arabic translator, were also convicted of all charges against them.
The verdict was a major victory for the Justice Department and one of the country's most closely-watched cases since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stewart's indictment in April 2002 was personally announced by Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was the first time that the federal government has prosecuted a defense attorney in a terrorism case. Lawyers around the country fear the government's aim is to discourage them from representing unpopular clients.
Yesterday's guilty verdict was hailed by Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales who said the convictions "send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals."
The 7-month trial was held in the same New York federal courthouse where the Rosenbergs were tried for conspiracy to commit espionage more than a half century ago. It featured very few witnesses as the government's case was based primarily on transcripts from more than 85,000 secretly recorded audio and video clips of meetings between Stewart and her client as well as the home phone of Ahmed Abdel Sattar.
The jury deliberated for 13 days before delivering a sweeping guilty verdict. Judge, John Koeltl, set her sentencing for July 15. Because she was convicted of a felony, she will be immediately disbarred. She remains free on bail, but cannot travel outside New York State.
After the verdict was read out, Lynne Stewart emerged from the courthouse with her husband and spoke to reporters gathered outside.
* Lynne Stewart, speaking outside the courthouse, February 10, 2005.
* Lynne Stewart, in our firehouse studio. Go to LynneStewart.org for more information.
* Michael Tigar, Lynne Stewart's attorney. He joins us in our firehouse studio.
* Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General. He testified in Lynne Stewart's case. He also was recently named as one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers.
LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/1545229
Stewart was convicted of smuggling out messages from her jailed client - Shiekh Omar Abdel Rahman also known as the blind sheikh who is serving a life sentence on terror-related charges. Most notably Stewart was convicted of helping Rahman contact followers in Egypt with messages that could have ended a cease-fire there and ignited violence. She faces up to 35 years in prison.
Stewart's co-defendants Ahmed Sattar, a postal worker who acted as a paralegal for Abdel-Rahman, and Mohammed Yousry, an Arabic translator, were also convicted of all charges against them.
The verdict was a major victory for the Justice Department and one of the country's most closely-watched cases since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stewart's indictment in April 2002 was personally announced by Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was the first time that the federal government has prosecuted a defense attorney in a terrorism case. Lawyers around the country fear the government's aim is to discourage them from representing unpopular clients.
Yesterday's guilty verdict was hailed by Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales who said the convictions "send a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals."
The 7-month trial was held in the same New York federal courthouse where the Rosenbergs were tried for conspiracy to commit espionage more than a half century ago. It featured very few witnesses as the government's case was based primarily on transcripts from more than 85,000 secretly recorded audio and video clips of meetings between Stewart and her client as well as the home phone of Ahmed Abdel Sattar.
The jury deliberated for 13 days before delivering a sweeping guilty verdict. Judge, John Koeltl, set her sentencing for July 15. Because she was convicted of a felony, she will be immediately disbarred. She remains free on bail, but cannot travel outside New York State.
After the verdict was read out, Lynne Stewart emerged from the courthouse with her husband and spoke to reporters gathered outside.
* Lynne Stewart, speaking outside the courthouse, February 10, 2005.
* Lynne Stewart, in our firehouse studio. Go to LynneStewart.org for more information.
* Michael Tigar, Lynne Stewart's attorney. He joins us in our firehouse studio.
* Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General. He testified in Lynne Stewart's case. He also was recently named as one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers.
LISTEN ONLINE
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/1545229
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
First they came for the lawyer.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Next they'll come for …
But I'm not a lawyer.
Next they'll come for …
Uh.. they'll come for more terrorist enabling crazies like L. Stewart and yourself?
To "But I'm not a..." above,
They hvaen't come for the lawyers. They've just come for the lunatics who support insane islamic fundamentalist terrorists who intentionally murder innocent people while preaching about holocausting the jews and destroying america
They hvaen't come for the lawyers. They've just come for the lunatics who support insane islamic fundamentalist terrorists who intentionally murder innocent people while preaching about holocausting the jews and destroying america
It's funny how right wing fruit loops surf this site to make ignorant comments---I would not waste the time/energy to go to one of the a.m. radio imitation sites that spew Limbaugh-esque dribble to make a comment, why would someone come here?---Pathetic---get a life
It's about time that "radicals" who support terrorists get a taste of the results. So many people on the hard Left seem outraged that there should be consequences to their actions. Wake up. You reap what you sow. Others in this country will hold you responsible for your actions. No more free passes and no more cheap excuses that you were acting out of "conviction" or "social justice". Sorry, but the rest of us just don't give a damn.
We come here because we want you to know that we read this site. We know what you believe, what you say, what you plan, and what you want for the future. We study your writings, we read your links. You are free to return the favor.
I return the favor, I just don't waste my energy posting on those sites--but I spend some time checking them out, I spend a good 3 hrs. a day just on political stuff, on top of f/t work and 1/2 time school, and rarely post anything out of lack of time, but surely wouldn't bother going to right wing sites and just trying to argue--I'd rather put my energy into positve action-what I do know is that it is this constant, driving home of a simplistic, black and white 'you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists' isn't indicative of intelligence, whereas a nuanced critical view is, I'm not defending some of the stupid shit I see on this site, but in general, what I see on this site is a healthy criticism, rather than a blind/jjingoistic, my prez right or wrong view-- that I see on many(not all) of the 'conservative' sites--when actually to support this administration and call yourself a conservative is quite a stretch---but that's a whole 'nuther conversation---I
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network