Attorney gets 28 months for aiding terrorists (1 Viewer)

[akyron]

NEW YORK (AP) -- "A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced Monday to nearly 2½ years in prison for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.

The sentence, handed down at the end of a lengthy hearing, was far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted.

Lynne Stewart, 67, smiled, cried and hugged supporters after U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl imposed the 28-month sentence.

The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between the sheik and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct."



Law Center


Meh. She got off easy. All lawyers should be required to do a little time anyway as part of their legal education. ACLU lawyers more than most.

 

[akyron]

Why wasnt she charged with treason?

 

[Kandahar]

Why wasnt she charged with treason?

Probably because it's extremely difficult to get a conviction for treason.

 

[Cammie]

I think she should have been charged with treason, but I'm sure the fact that she is a 67-year-old woman with breast cancer weighed heavily on her sentencing.

 

[akyron]

I think she should have been charged with treason, but I'm sure the fact that she is a 67-year-old woman with breast cancer weighed heavily on her sentencing.

I agree. In this case justice was not blind.

 

[Kandahar]

You can't get convicted of treason unless two people witnessed you committing the treasonous act, or unless you openly confess.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Holding prisoners incommunicado is unacceptable in the first place. The fact that she was charged with anything-- much less sentenced-- is absolutely disgraceful.

 

[Patrickt]

He wasn't being held incommunicado. He communcated with his wife. Do you think Timothy McVeigh should be able to communicate freely with groups that agree with what he did? Regardless, the time for her to object was when she was told of the restrictions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

He wasn't being held incommunicado. He communcated with his wife.

The article doesn't say that.

Do you think Timothy McVeigh should be able to communicate freely with groups that agree with what he did?

Yes, he should have been. And as far as I am aware, he was. Prisoners have their communications monitored-- and sometimes filtered-- but with the exception of their victims and their victims' families, they're not prevented from communicating with anyone they please.

And they are most certainly allowed to use their lawyers as messengers and as their representatives in the press-- which would mean that she is professionally obligated to do exactly what the article claims she did.

Regardless, the time for her to object was when she was told of the restrictions.

Object, be removed from the case, and allow the government to continue its unethical conduct? No, I do not think she was obligated to do so.

 

[akyron]

Holding prisoners incommunicado is unacceptable in the first place. The fact that she was charged with anything-- much less sentenced-- is absolutely disgraceful.

Despite Crackdown, Islamic Group Keeps Killing

Egypt's largest militant group


Nah. She should not have been giving orders to the Islamic group from the Blind Shiek. Especially orders to dismiss a current ceasefire.

 

[akyron]

He communcated with his wife. Do you think Timothy McVeigh should be able to communicate freely with groups that agree with what he did?

It was a bit more than that. She was delivering statements to IG from their leader to ignore a ceasefire and start killing again.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I think she should have been charged with treason, but I'm sure the fact that she is a 67-year-old woman with breast cancer weighed heavily on her sentencing.

That didn't stop her from commiting the crimes.....

SHould have got the 30 years..... Maybe at 90 she'll have better sense

 

[Deegan]

It's lawyers like this woman, who give lawyers everywhere, a bad name!

Just look at the laundry list of scumbags she has represented, she is using the law to poke her finger in the eye of justice, it's a sick power trip, under the guise of defending civil liberties.

What of the civil liberties of those victims her clients have taken?:roll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

to the left wing of the democratic party,

shes a freakin hero.

 

[akyron]

What of the civil liberties of those victims her clients have taken?:roll:

Representing the victims does not fit the political agenda apparently.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Nah. She should not have been giving orders to the Islamic group from the Blind Shiek. Especially orders to dismiss a current ceasefire.

Unless they were specific orders to attack, she was not in the wrong. Ordering the group to stop honoring a cease-fire is a legitimate communication between her client and his associates-- which he could just as easily have conveyed by press release, which she would also have been obligated to issue at his request.

 

[Deegan]

Unless they were specific orders to attack, she was not in the wrong. Ordering the group to stop honoring a cease-fire is a legitimate communication between her client and his associates-- which he could just as easily have conveyed by press release, which she would also have been obligated to issue at his request.

And that is exactly why we needed the law that was signed today, to stop this nonsense once and for all. Terrorist don't have the same rights the rest of us have, this country is not going to end up like Italy, when they fought organized crime.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

And that is exactly why we needed the law that was signed today, to stop this nonsense once and for all. Terrorist don't have the same rights the rest of us have...

You walk a dangerous road. Who gets to decide who a "terrorist" is, and why are we allowed to apply this definition before a conviction is granted by the courts?

No. You are absolutely wrong here, and by your support of these actions you are encouraging the death of American liberty and the most basic foundations of the American republic. You are giving the Federal government the authority to arrest people on suspicion of terrorist activities, to detain them in secret and without outside contact, and then to prevent any inquiry into having done so.

And yet... noone will call you anti-American for this.

 

[Deegan]

You walk a dangerous road. Who gets to decide who a "terrorist" is, and why are we allowed to apply this definition before a conviction is granted by the courts?

No. You are absolutely wrong here, and by your support of these actions you are encouraging the death of American liberty and the most basic foundations of the American republic. You are giving the Federal government the authority to arrest people on suspicion of terrorist activities, to detain them in secret and without outside contact, and then to prevent any inquiry into having done so.

And yet... noone will call you anti-American for this.

This relates to terrorists found on the battle field, and will be handled by the military, then a judicial process, then on to the torture rooms. We tried it your way, and this moonbat showed us all why we can't trust lawyers with national security. Now you might want terrorists to have the names of the people testifying against them, and then put them, and their families in danger, but I don't, the congress does not either.

The constitution is not a suicide pact!

 

[akyron]

Unless they were specific orders to attack, she was not in the wrong. Ordering the group to stop honoring a cease-fire is a legitimate communication between her client and his associates-- which he could just as easily have conveyed by press release, which she would also have been obligated to issue at his request.

She should have gotten 30 years.

"stop a cease-fire"


The blind shiek was incommunicado for just that reason.
She incited his followers as she promised not to do.

 

[akyron]

on suspicion of terrorist activities,

They seem to have both been convicted in a court of law.
Proof is in the pudding and a requirement for that to occur.