Why do some think that bad-mouthing your country, or defending bad people, or disrespecting government officials automatically makes you a hero? Bah!!
I’m so sick of it, especially after some of the witless signs and slogans I’ve seen at anti-war rallies. I can easily see the pitfalls of the war–I was against it from the start. But how does that translate into disrespecting the president and wringing one’s hands, crying about how evil the bad ol’ USA is.
Why should we honor Lynne Srewart? She who once said that “we shouldn’t take the terrorists’ acts personally.” Bah! Think of the embarrassment if the school honored her and then she was eventually convicted! Double bah!
Personally, I’m more amazed at how CUNY Law graduates are described as having, in the NYT’s article’s words, “a mediocre success rate at the bar examination”, as low as 50%. What are they doing at CUNY Law if not figuring out how to pass the bar examination!
These CUNY students and professors can’t possibly approve of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Yet, they show support for Stewart, who is accused of abetting terrorists. :wally :wally :wally :wally
Their feeling seems to be: anything anti-US is good. It’s like am adolescent rebelling against his parents.
C’mon, people. We’re talking New York City here. We’re talking CUNY.
Do you people know about CUNY? The liberalest, left wingest, commie lovin’est, Republican hatin’est, capitalist-despisin’est, power-to-the-peoplest, fight-the-powers-that-be-est, down-with-the-mannest institution that there ever was. Supported in large part by our tax dollars.
A part of me hopes she gets the award after all. Then just watch the backlash! I bet the sale of some of those CUNY buildings will go a long way in putting a dent in our city’s budget hole. Hahahahahahah! Triple the tuition or sell the campuses, I say! Hahahahahahah!
Are you suggesting that tax dollars should only support the flag-wavin’est’, Bush-lovin’est, queer-hatin’est, red-baitin’est, bible-thumpin’est, tax cuttin’est, anti-abortionist, gun totin’est instutions of high learning? Or are you just against public education is general?
I don’t know where you’re getting the bad-mouthing of the country or the disrepecting government officials from, as neither linked cite has anything to do with that. As for defending bad people, that’s what lawyers do in our system. We’re supposed to go with the assumption that the people are good until we proven they’re bad.
Once again, what does this have to do with anything? The students nominated her for public interest lawyer of the year, not “the lawyer with the best anti-war slogan of the year.”
I’m not sure if she’d be in my top 5,000 for the award, but “we” aren’t the ones who are honoring her. It’s the students of the school, who apparently have traditionally made the selection. A school that prides itself on things like free speech issues is not dealing with this very well. A simple “The students make the selection, we just announce it” or “The selection is not a sign of endorsement by the administration and faculty of CUNY” would have done the trick.
Of course not, on both counts! As I’ve stated before, it isn’t that some college would do this that impresses me, but, rather, the mediocre performance of the students of CUNY Law on the bar examination. Isn’t the point of law school to learn the information needed to pass the bar?
I was merely providing a little background as too my unhappiness with the outlook that some have towards the war & Bush. That one is entitled to one’s opinion is beyond dispute; my argument is that espousing ridicule of Bush or the U.S. in general is going to generate some negative response, and I’m tired of people saying that the negative response is some sort of McCarthyite hysteria, therefore making themselves out to be First Amendment saints. And I think that is part of the motivation for the desire to honor Stewart. Baloney!!
I agree with the first part, and I have a great respect for defense attorneys. But Stewart seems to take a perverse pride in defending everything from mafia hitmen to terrorists. As to the second part, just becuase there is a presumption of innocence in a courtroom, that doesn’t mean that there is a presumption of innocence outside the courtroom. If you are assaulted by your spouse, you don’t have to tell your friends, “He (or she) is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”
True, but it is reflective of what Stewart and the far left are all about–a deep-seated hatred for our system. They pine for a Stalin or a Castro to mouth socialist niceties, and they don’t care a whit for reality.
Yah, the "we’ is misplaced, even though I am a New Yorker and a CUNY sudent, and will be attending CUNY law this fall. But I’m not there yet. It’s just when I read stuff like this I ask myself, “What am I getting myself into?”
Put me down with those who donot undertand why she was awarded the honor. A lawyer can and should defend anyone accused of a crime but a lawyer cannot help commit crimes without becoming a criminal. Those students are very irresponsible.
Lynne Stewart should be honored because the students want to honor her, and at CUNY the students choose who the award goes to. She has a distinguished career and has the cojones to defend unpopular people who need lawyers. And she’s been falsely accused of a serious crime.
I love the irony of you whining about people bringing up McCarthyism, but you also accuse her and people like her of being un-American Commies. Do you hear yourself, King Rat? I hate to sound alarmist, but based on some experiences I’ve had lately, I think we are about two steps away from being in the midst of something equivalent to McCarthyism.
No, Governor Quinn, the point of law school is not to learn the information needed to pass the bar. You have to learn most of the information on your own, which basically means you pay for a bar review course. If CUNY kids aren’t passing it’s probably because some of them can’t pay for the course.
The problem with trying to lionize Lynne Stewart is that she’s an idiot politically and acted, at best, in a grossly incompetent matter in the case for which you attempt to make her a martyr.
How a woman who said she has no problem with Stalin throwing dissidents in prison is a hero to civil rights is beyond me. She doesn’t appear to have a very consistent pro-freedom view does she? But, of course, we can excuse Stalin because he was fighting for the people, man!
Aside from her ridiculous politics, her conduct was incompetent. She masked Arabic conversations by inserting random comments. Her big defense is that she couldn’t knowingly aid anything since she doesn’t understand Arabic. That’s fine as far as a legal defense, but as a matter of professional responsibility it’s simply inexcusable. How on earth did she know what she was masking? What if the conversation had been an order to go forward with an attack? Whether or not she thinks the Sheikh is a great guy or not I can’t imagine there’s a single legal ethics professor who wouldn’t tell an attorney not to do this. It’s grossly negligent, not heroic.
I suggest CUNY substitute David Hale as their nominee. Of course, he admires the wrong megalomanical murderous dictator, so I guess he’s not quite as admirable as Ms. Stewart. The CUNY students can pick who they want, but that doesn’t mean the administration has to approve it, unless you can show me something to the contrary. It’s disingenuous to say that a school must accept what the students request. You might want it to be that way, but that’s not the way things work. If the students chose a speaker who glorified rape CUNY could say no because it’s a school function and what happens at a school function reflects on the school.
And, chula, I assume you have some sort of cite for the proposition that the horrible pass rate is due to money issues.
Please explain how she’s been “falsely accused”- from what I understand she was caught on tape trying to mask illegal conversations (the shiek giving commands to his terrorist followers) between the shiek and the interpreter. Are you claiming the taped records don’t exist or are incorrect? Stewart never makes such a claim, only that she doesn’t think that they were obtained fairly or she was ignorant (something that is refuted by the shiek’s tape-recorded testimony). You can defend “unpopular people who need lawyers” without breaking the law.
Stewart was a terrible choice- lawyers have enough problems with being viewed as amoral pond scum without trying to honor someone as morally bankrupt as her.
Yup, I’m all for lawyers defending scum but totally against lawyers becoming scum. If you break the law, I don’t care if you are a lawyer or not. In fact, if you are a lawyer I will probably consider it an aggravating circumstance as your duty is to uphold the law, like a police officer and other public officers.
This is a silly comment. Those might be the mechanics of the award choice, but it does not mean that the students made the right choice. Nobody believes they should be denied the right to choose a person to honor (though hopefully no taxpayer money is going to honoring this woman who is worth slightly less than pond scum). Rather, we are criticizing the choice the students made. If they had decided to honor Hitler (not to Godwinize, but just as an example), would people be wrong in saying “Hey, that seems like a pretty disgusting idea”?