Attorney sentenced to jail for aiding terrorists. Enjoy!

[Evil One]

I hope Lynne Stewart enjoys prison as much as she is enjoying playing the martyr after being sentenced to 28 months in prison for aiding terrorists. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html)

She represented Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

Stewart apparently passed messages between the sheik and top members of an Egypt-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

Oh what a thrill it must have been for her to "stick it to the man" by helping her client pass messages along calling for the murder of others. Perhaps someone should inform her that the 60's are over and that these guys are a little more dangerous than the black panthers.

Yes, I know that Rahman was handled as a law-enforcement issue, and is therefore entitled to representation. Had Stewart done that, she would have played her part in the justice system and could have gone back to spouting conspriacy theories and socialist nonsense.

But no. She had to cross the line into actively supporting his cause. Idiot.

[Little Nemo]

I don't really see this as a great victory. The sentencing guidelines for her crime would have given her thirty years. Instead, the judge gave her a 28 month sentence and is letting her stay free while she appeals the decision.

[Oakminster]

Gonna be interesting on appeal. Might reach SCOTUS....

[FinnAgain]

Should've thrown the book at her. Preferably an unabridged dictionary.
Bitch got off too easy.

[Fear Itself]

Oh what a thrill it must have been for her to "stick it to the man" by helping her client pass messages along calling for the murder of others. Without which it would have never occured to them. :rolleyes:

[Evil One]

Without which it would have never occured to them. :rolleyes:

Are you excusing her behavior?

[Fear Itself]

Are you excusing her behavior?Is that what sarcasm sounds like to you? I was mocking your hyperbolic description of the effect of her actions. You apparently find it politically convenient to stoke the "Terrorists will gitcha if you don't watch out" hysteria promoted by the right wing. She broke the law, but I don't equate her with her clients.

[Hamlet]

Gonna be interesting on appeal. Might reach SCOTUS....I'm not sure what the issues are going to be. From the very little I looked it, it seemed a pretty cut and dried case, without a whole lot of issues. While I think her sentence was way too lenient, she's an accomplice, so the 20 years the government asked for was too much. Still, she's guilty, from what I've read, and everything I know about her makes her out to be one of the most annoying people in the world. I'm pretty sure annoying is not a statutory enhancer, but maybe it should be.

[Miller]

What exactly was in the notes she passed along? The article didn't say, but it sounded like it was basically, "Kill the infidels," and not, "Kill Joe Smith on Tuesday so he can't testify against me on Wednesday," or "I left the spare C-4 in the jar by the fridge, please use to blow up Lincoln Memorial." I'm not saying that makes it okay, I'm just not seeing the "major blow to terrorism" angle.

[hajario]

She is 68 and has cancer. She may not make it the 28 months anyway. She made some statement about how she is "ill and elderly" and how tough prison will be.

My 70 year old step-mother who incidentilly survived two bouts with breast cancer would slap you upside the head if you called her elderly.

[Richard Parker]

It seems pretty obvious that she got 28 months because she's a 67-year-old grandmother with cancer whose "material support" of terrorism was being present at a conversation between two arabic-speakers and releasing a press statement (a statement which Reuters then released to Arab newspapers and is not tied to any violence or specific crimes).

What she did may have been wrong, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it stretches the limits of the law to call it "material support of terrorism." It's certainly not a stretch to say that she shouldn't be given 20 years for it.

Also, much of the evidence obtained for her conviction was gained by warrantless eavesdropping on attorney-client exchanges that should be confidential. This eavesdropping, part of the Special Administrative Measures passed after 9/11 may violate the 6th Amendment. So there may be grounds for further appeal.

[chorpler]

It seems pretty obvious that she got 28 months because she's a 67-year-old grandmother with cancer whose "material support" of terrorism was being present at a conversation between two arabic-speakers and releasing a press statement (a statement which Reuters then released to Arab newspapers and is not tied to any violence or specific crimes).

I'm confused. Could somebody explain precisely what she did?

[Richard Parker]

She released to Reuters a statement saying that the Sheihk was "withdrawing his support for a ceasefire that currently exists."

She was present when other co-defendants helped the Sheik compose letters that served as communications to his followers (in arabic).

[Firebringer]

She deserves everything she get's. Like with Cops I think Lawyers who break the law as part of their job and abuse rights given to them by the state should be punished far more harshly than the average Joe due to the breach of trust element.

She of all people should have known she needed to be careful. Must admit though idea of evesdropping on lawyer client conferences strikes a bit of a sour note with me.

[Evil Captor]

Let's see, so cancerous granny was present at a conversation between arabic speakers she probably shouldn't have been at, and she released an innocuous letter. Oh, yeah, she's a fiend alrighty. You with the torches and pitchforks are doing the right thing alrighty, yup, yup.

Look I know you're mad at the frickin' sheik but her lawyer sounds like she was just doing her job. TAke a chill pill, the lot of you.

[Ike Witt]

Look I know you're mad at the frickin' sheik but her lawyer sounds like she was just doing her job. TAke a chill pill, the lot of you.
Chill? She broke the law, plain and simple. Why should anyone chill, other than granny of course?

[Loopydude]

I don't think there's any way to view her actions as anything but a severe breach of conduct and the law, and I find her pathetic attempts to express a sense of contrition (I'm just too compassionate for my own good! Spare me!) rather nauseating. That said, I just don't see her as a bona fide "terrorist sympathizer". I see her as an anti-establishment idiot of the highest order who only focuses on the idea of a nice old blind guy getting hassled by The Man. I think should have gotten a stiffer sentence, and should have had to serve the time of her appeal behind bars, but the full 30 years would have been a misapplication of the full weight of the law, as it was intended.

[ralph124c]

RE:Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks . I understand this guy is an egyptian national, living (illegally) in the USA-why can't we DEPORT this SOB? he is currently a guest opf the US taxpayers-why can't we ship him back to Egypt? The actions of this country never cease to amaze me-we allow this worthless POS to stay here, then we wonder why we get attacked. Now we have to provide lawyers so that he can defend his "right' to stay here and call for the deaths of Americans. I say, send him to some arabic country, where he can meet with an unfortunate "accident". :D

[Kimstu]

The actions of this country never cease to amaze me-we allow this worthless POS to stay here, then we wonder why we get attacked. Now we have to provide lawyers so that he can defend his "right' to stay here and call for the deaths of Americans.

Um, Omar Abdel-Rahman doesn't have any "right" to stay here in the US, and I'm sure he'd be only to happy to leave. The reason he's staying here is that he's serving a life sentence in US federal prison for seditious conspiracy.

And yes, as part of the process of putting him in prison, he had lawyers to defend him at his trial. That's the way the US legal system works, y'know? (AFAIK, however, his lawyers were not "provided" by the government; he retained and paid for the services of his own legal team.)

I say, send him to some arabic country, where he can meet with an unfortunate "accident".

If you were arrested on charges of seditious conspiracy, would you be willing to be summarily deported to another country where you could meet with an "accident", instead of receiving a fair trial with a lawyer to defend you? Didn't think so.

Moreover, Abdel-Rahman's followers would be only too delighted if he were released from prison and deported to an Arab country. That's exactly what they've been demanding, in fact. If the US government were foolish enough to send him overseas, I seriously doubt that he'd meet with any "accident" as a result, but a lot of innocent people might.

why can't we DEPORT this SOB? he is currently a guest opf the US taxpayers-why can't we ship him back to Egypt?

Yeah, because it would be so much safer to return him to Egypt where his followers in the terrorist organization Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya are clamoring for his release than to keep him under lock and key here in the US. :rolleyes:

[Loopydude]

I say, send him to some arabic country, where he can meet with an unfortunate "accident". :D

It's quite likely deporting him to Egypt would have been a death sentence. They probably would have tortured him to death, actually, to get whatever they could out of him. The govt. of Egypt doesn't like radicals they can't control. At all.

Given that, there's no way we would have deported him. We at least had some humanitarian standards back then.

[Kimstu]

It's quite likely deporting him to Egypt would have been a death sentence. They probably would have tortured him to death, actually, to get whatever they could out of him.

I don't see how we could have deported him to Egypt in any case, as he was expelled from Egypt after his trial for conspiracy in the Sadat assassination (even though he was acquitted).

Since then, he was mostly living in Afghanistan (working with the Islamist mujaheddin, and the CIA btw, in the fight against the Soviet occupation) until he was sent to New York to organize jihadists in the US.

Sure, let's deport Abdel-Rahman back to Afghanistan! There are lots of his followers there who'll be real happy to see him, too!

[Loopydude]

I don't see how we could have deported him to Egypt in any case, as he was expelled from Egypt after his trial for conspiracy in the Sadat assassination (even though he was acquitted).

Kind of a tangent, but wouldn't the aquittal make him deportable? I would think that the Egyptians might have been happy to have him in one of their prisons, squeezing whatever they could out of him before he died of it. Surely he knew things about people still in Egypt they would have been eager to learn. Of course, he might have been a bit too hot of a potato if a more anonymous prisoner could provide the same info. under duress.

[Richard Parker]

I don't think there's any way to view her actions as anything but a severe breach of conduct and the law, and I find her pathetic attempts to express a sense of contrition (I'm just too compassionate for my own good! Spare me!) rather nauseating. That said, I just don't see her as a bona fide "terrorist sympathizer". I see her as an anti-establishment idiot of the highest order who only focuses on the idea of a nice old blind guy getting hassled by The Man. I think should have gotten a stiffer sentence, and should have had to serve the time of her appeal behind bars, but the full 30 years would have been a misapplication of the full weight of the law, as it was intended.

I don't necessarily disagree with this analysis, but I think it is worth considering just how much of a stretch "material support for terrorism" really was in this case.

She was convicted under a statute which defines "material support" as "means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials" (18 U.S.C. Section 2339A).

The statute also requires that she intended or knew the act would harm people and that people actually died as a result of her actions.

The prosecution argued that the support she provided was personnel (i.e. herself). That's pretty ridiculous. I also do not see anywhere in the written opinion that outlines how she met the last two elements.

[ralph124c]

Kind of a tangent, but wouldn't the aquittal make him deportable? I would think that the Egyptians might have been happy to have him in one of their prisons, squeezing whatever they could out of him before he died of it. Surely he knew things about people still in Egypt they would have been eager to learn. Of course, he might have been a bit too hot of a potato if a more anonymous prisoner could provide the same info. under duress.
Couldn't we fit this guy with some kind of radio transponder/homing beacon? that way, we send him packing..to Afghaniostan..where he meets up with all his old buddies. Then BINGO, the device sends out a signal to a helicopter gunship, which launches a HELLFIRE missile! The rest is..history! :D

[Kimstu]

Kind of a tangent, but wouldn't the aquittal make him deportable? I would think that the Egyptians might have been happy to have him in one of their prisons, squeezing whatever they could out of him before he died of it.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Egypt will be willing to take him back at present. Things were somewhat different back in the days of the ceasefire between the Egyptian government and the Egyptian Islamic militant organizations back in 1999 (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/446/eg7.htm):

Abdel-Rahman is in poor heath, suffering from diabetes and heart disease. Efforts are being made by his followers and lawyers to secure his release for health reasons and have him deported to Egypt.

Interior Minister Habib El-Adli, in an interview with the Al-Ahram newspaper last month, said that he did not oppose Abdel-Rahman's return to Egypt if, and when, he was released from the US prison.

"This is a very positive initiative because it opens the door for the return of the sheikh -- a door that has been closed for several years," Montasser El-Zayyat, Abdel-Rahman's Egyptian lawyer, told Al-Ahram Weekly. The former interior minister, Hassan El-Alfi, had strongly opposed the sheikh's return or even allowing his family to leave the country to visit him. Under El-Alfi, the passports of Abdel-Rahman's wife and son were withdrawn.

El-Zayyat said that El-Adli's position is in tandem with the Al-Gama'a's commitment to a cease-fire initiative, made in 1997 by leaders incarcerated in Cairo, and supported by the cleric. "In this atmosphere of calm, the sheikh would like to come home as an Egyptian citizen," El-Zayyat added.

But now that Abdel-Rahman has questioned or condemned the ceasefire, it's not clear to me that Egypt would be willing to take him back even if the US would release him. As you say, he's a pretty hot potato, and I think it could be a serious threat to Egyptian stability to have him locked up in an Egyptian prison. And if he died under torture in an Egyptian prison...fan, meet shit; shit, fan.

[Oakminster]

What she did may have been wrong, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it stretches the limits of the law to call it "material support of terrorism." It's certainly not a stretch to say that she shouldn't be given 20 years for it.

Also, much of the evidence obtained for her conviction was gained by warrantless eavesdropping on attorney-client exchanges that should be confidential. This eavesdropping, part of the Special Administrative Measures passed after 9/11 may violate the 6th Amendment. So there may be grounds for further appeal.

I agree. I think the"material support of terrorism" charge may not stick on appeal. Also interested to see how the Court will address the "Special Administrative Measures" when considered in light of attorney client privilege, and possibly even under the First Amendment. I'd like to read the briefs on appeal....

[Loopydude]

And if he died under torture in an Egyptian prison...fan, meet shit; shit, fan.

Interesting thoughts, and I tend to agree based on your arguments.

[Loopydude]

The prosecution argued that the support she provided was personnel (i.e. herself).

I thought she "ordered" the interpreter to hand-deliver the messages.

[Richard Parker]

I thought she "ordered" the interpreter to hand-deliver the messages.

Even if this were so, how would this make the statute more applicable?

[Gary Kumquat]

Sorry, but could someone explain what it is she did that was aiding a terrorist?

From the New York Law Journal

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?hubtype=TopStories&id=1161002124640

"Her most "potentially lethal" action, Judge Koeltl said, was in June 2000, when she read a press release to a reporter indicating that the sheik was withdrawing his support for a "cease-fire" or cessation of attacks against the Egyptian government. "

I'm not at all sure I follow how a lawyer reading out a press release from their client is aiding a terrorist?

[Loopydude]

Well, at least three people (sheik, her, interpreter) is a conspiracy, no? That does look like someone providing "personnel". And was she not aware of the content of those messages? Did those messges not involve acts of violence? Did she not at least entertain the possibility they could lead to bodily harm?

It's quite clear she knew she was breaking the law (though obviously not the trouble she was getting herself into with this one). Considering her actions in the most generous possible light, it was an act of civil disobedience related to what she felt was a constitutional issue. Those who commit such acts, I rather think by definition, ought to be prepared to do some time. 28 months for her ethical breaches alone seems pretty light, if you ask me.

[chorpler]

It's quite clear she knew she was breaking the law

Could you expand on this, for somebod who hasn't followed the case in the news?

[chorpler]

Also, why does this remind me so strongly of an episode of Law and Order?

[Richard Parker]

It was an episode of Law & Order titled "Open Season."

[Loopydude]

Could you expand on this, for somebod who hasn't followed the case in the news?

She signed off on the special administrative measures she violated, did she not?

[chorpler]

She signed off on the special administrative measures she violated, did she not?

What?

[chorpler]

It was an episode of Law & Order titled "Open Season."

Ah, yes. Except the lawyer there was young and hot.

[Loopydude]

What part of SAM is not understood?

[Frank]

RE:Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks . I understand this guy is an egyptian national, living (illegally) in the USA-why can't we DEPORT this SOB? he is currently a guest opf the US taxpayers-why can't we ship him back to Egypt? The actions of this country never cease to amaze me-we allow this worthless POS to stay here, then we wonder why we get attacked. Now we have to provide lawyers so that he can defend his "right' to stay here and call for the deaths of Americans. I say, send him to some arabic country, where he can meet with an unfortunate "accident". :D
ralph, ralph, ralph. You can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you seem, can you? I mean, can you?

You're remembering to breathe and everything, right? Eat, shit, drink, masturbate - all of that?

[Leaper]

Ah, yes. Except the lawyer there was young and hot.

Actually, she was quite middle-aged. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271165/)

But still hot, depending on your personal standards.

[chorpler]

What part of SAM is not understood?

Well, first let me say that I wasn't being sarcastic or snarky -- I really was trying to ask what the details of this whole thing are, because this thread is the only place I've heard of the story. But since Richard Parker mentioned that Law and Order episode, I think I have a good understanding of what you meant by "special administrative meaures" and what happened. Let me summarize my understanding of what happened (in real life, that is, not in the L&O episode), and see if I got it right:

Some terrorist got arrested and tried and sentenced to life. At some point, he was put under "special administrative measures," which, if the L&O episode is any guide, means that he basically kept in isolation except for his lawyer; he was prohibited from contacting people, since they were afraid he might set off terrorist attacks or order people killed or something (order people to kill attorneys, in the L&O episode, as I recall).

The attorney, however, thought this was cruel, or something, and helped him sneak a message out to some people -- in the real life case, by giving a press conference where she mentioned that he was withdrawing support for a current cease fire. In other words, she basically said "By the way, the terrorist I represent said that he no longer thinks <whoever it was> should start shooting each other again," which had the potential to set off a wave of violence somewhere (Egypt?).

Also, she was present while he and some other guys composed messages to somebody else, in Arabic. I still don't understand this part; if he was under isolation thanks to the special administrative measures, who was he composing messages with in Arabic, and who were they to?

Now I understand what she did wrong (assuming my understanding above is correct): she knew the guy was supposed to be held in isolation so that he couldn't contact anybody and perhaps order people killed or order terrorist attacks or whatever, but she violated the isolation because she felt it was cruel. As a result, people could have been killed. (Was anybody actually?)

So, is that any of that correct? At all?

[chorpler]

Actually, she was quite middle-aged. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271165/)

But still hot, depending on your personal standards.

Heh heh ... I knew somebody was going to call me on that. I meant young in relation to the real-life attorney, Lynne Stewart. But it appears she's actually not that much younger than Lynne Stewart after all; I had no idea Tovah Feldshuh was 54. Still, she's definitely still beautiful as far as my personal standards go. Look at that IMDb picture. What a hottie.

[Banquet Bear]

...yay! Another conviction in The War Against Terror! So how many convictions has it been since 2001? Three?

[Zebra]

Is that what sarcasm sounds like to you? I was mocking your hyperbolic description of the effect of her actions. You apparently find it politically convenient to stoke the "Terrorists will gitcha if you don't watch out" hysteria promoted by the right wing. She broke the law, but I don't equate her with her clients.


You're either with us or against us.

[rjung]

As someone who hasn't followed this case at all, can someone explain to me what was so dangerous and inflammatory in the messages she passed? The CNN article merely says the messages were the usual "death to infidels" stuff, which IMO is as dangerous as damp toilet paper. Or was there some sort of gag order forbidding the sheik from communicating with anyone that was being violated here?

[lissener]

Does her intent come into it at all? I don't mean it should override all other considerations; but shouldn't be sentenced more if she fully intended to help terrorists commit murder, than if she had no such intention? Or would whatever leniency that engendered by counterbalanced by the extra penalties she deserves for stupidity?

[kaylasdad99]

As someone who hasn't followed this case at all, can someone explain to me what was so dangerous and inflammatory in the messages she passed? The CNN article merely says the messages were the usual "death to infidels" stuff, which IMO is as dangerous as damp toilet paper. Or was there some sort of gag order forbidding the sheik from communicating with anyone that was being violated here?If chorpler's precis is anything to go by, I think you're on the right track with the "gag order" option.

And if that's correct, I have to agree that she was likely in error in making public statements on his behalf. My understanding of the advocate role played by an attorney is that she acts as the client's mouthpiece wrt the facts at issue in the court action, not any little thing he wants to communicate to the world outside the courtroom.

Although ISTM that her violation, in most other contexts, would earn her a contempt of court citation. Do the Special Administrative Measures elevate the limitations on Abdelrahman as being more stringent than a mere gag order, with the violation rising to the level of a felony?

I'd really appreciate anything that a lawyer familiar with the story can tell me wrt whether I'm talking out the side of my shirt...