25 November 2009By
Stephen Lendman
On November 20, New York Times writer Colin Moynihan
broke the news headlining:
"Radical Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terrorist Is
Jailed," then saying:
"Defiant to the end as she embraced supporters outside
the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Lynne F.
Stewart, the radical lawyer known for defending
unpopular clients, surrendered on Thursday to begin
serving her 28-month sentence for assisting
terrorism."
Fact check:
Stewart did what all attorneys should, but few, in
fact, do - observe the American Bar Association's
Model Rules saying all lawyers are obligated to:
"devote professional time and resources and use civic
influence to ensure equal access to our system of
justice for all those who because of economic or
social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal
counsel."
Also to practice law ethically, morally and
responsibly to assure everyone is afforded due process
and judicial fairness in American courts. Sadly and
disturbingly, Stewart was denied what she did for
others heroically, unselfishly, and proudly. More on
that below.
Stewart (prison number 53504-054) is now jailed at:
MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY 10007
Betrayed by American Justice
For 30 years, Stewart worked heroically to defend
America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted, never
afforded due process and judicial fairness without an
advocate like her. Where others wouldn't go, she
defended controversial figures like David Gilbert of
the Weather Underground, Richard Williams of the
United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of
the Black Liberation Army, and many more like them.
She knew the risk, but did it fearlessly and
courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002
for:
-- "conspiring to defraud the United States;
-- conspiring to provide and conceal material support
to terrorist activity;
-- providing and concealing material support to
terrorist activity; and
-- two counts of making false statements."
She was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons
Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that included a
gag order on her client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. When
imposed, they prohibit discussion on topics the
Justice Department (DOJ) rules outside of "legal
representation," so lawyers can't discuss them with
clients, thus inhibiting their defense.
At former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark's request,
she joined him as part of Rahman's court-appointed
defense team. In his 1995 show trial, he was convicted
and is now serving a life sentence for seditious
conspiracy, solicitation of murder, solicitation of an
attack on American military installations, conspiracy
to murder, and conspiracy to bomb in connection with
the 1993 World Trade Center attack despite evidence
proving his innocence on all charges.
The DOJ's case wasn't about alleged crimes. It
reflected his affiliations and anti-western views.
Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa
al-Islamiyya - a 1997 US State Department-designated
"foreign terrorist organization." In the 1980s,
however, he helped the CIA recruit Mujahadeen fighters
against the Soviets in Afghanistan. For his work, he
got a US visa, green card, and State Department-CIA
protection as long as he was valued. When no longer,
he was targeted along with Stewart.
Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and
according to the Center of Constitutional Rights
Michael Ratner:
sent "a message to lawyers who represent alleged
terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."
Her attorney, Michael Tigar, called it:
"an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective
fighter for justice (with) at least three fundamental
faults:
-- (it) attack(ed) the First Amendment right of free
speech, free press and petition;
-- the right to effective assistance of counsel (by)
chill(ing) the defense; (and)
-- the 'evidence' in this case was gathered by
wholesale invasion of private conversations,
private-attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and
e-mails; I have never seen such an abuse of government
power."
Her 2004 - 2005 show trial was a mockery of justice
with echoes of the worst McCarthy-like tactics.
Inflammatory terrorist images were displayed in court
to prejudice the jury, and prosecutors vilified
Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views.
In addition, days before the verdict, the militant
pro-Israeli Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers
near the courthouse displaying her address. It
threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of
the state," and said she "needs to be put out of
business legally and effectively."
It was part of the orchestrated scheme inside and
outside the courtroom to heighten fear, convict
Stewart, and intimidate other lawyers to expect the
same treatment if they dare represent unpopular
clients effectively.
On February 10, 2005 (after a seven month trial and 13
days of deliberation) she was convicted on all five
counts. Under New York state law, she was
automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's
Appellate Division denied her petition to resign
voluntarily. On October 17, 2006, she was sentenced to
28 months imprisonment, but remained free on bond
pending appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
Stewart Ordered to
Prison
The Justice for Lynne Stewart web site (lynnestewart.org)
announced the news. On November 17, the Appeals Court
revoked her bond, upheld the verdict, ordered her
surrender forthwith, but stayed it until November 19
at 5PM to let her attorney file a motion for
reconsideration. It was denied, so she must report to
federal marshals as directed. A November 19
conversation with Lynne and her husband Ralph
confirmed it.
The situation remains fluid, dire, and complicated by
Stewart's battle with breast cancer. She has surgery
scheduled for December 7, unlikely now, but if done in
prison or where authorities direct, it won't be the
quality she deserves.
In its ruling, the three judge panel (John Walker,
Guido Calebresi and Robert Sack) was firm, hostile and
belligerent in upholding the lower court's conviction.
Judge Sack accused Stewart of lying and called for a
longer sentence. "We think that whether (she) lied
under oath at her trial is directly relevant to
whether her sentence was appropriate," he wrote, and
directed District Court Judge John Koeltl to
re-sentence her "so as to reflect that finding." Judge
Walker was even harsher, calling the original sentence
"breathtakingly low." Judge Calabrese said: "I am at a
loss for any rationale upon this record that could
reasonably justify a sentence of 28 months'
imprisonment for this defendant."
They all said Stewart was "convicted principally with
respect to (her violating) measures by which (she) had
agreed to abide," namely SAMs. They rejected her
"argument that, as a lawyer, she was not bound by
(them), and her belated argument collaterally
attacking their constitutionality." They also:
"affirm(ed her conviction) of providing and concealing
material support to the conspiracy to murder persons
in a foreign country (and) of conspiring to provide
and conceal such support....We conclude that the
charges were valid (and) the evidence was sufficient
to sustain the convictions. We also reject Stewart's
claims that her purported attempt to serve as a
'zealous advocate' for her client provides her with
immunity from the convictions...."
"Finally, we affirm Stewart's convictions for
knowingly and willfully making false
statements....when she affirmed that she intended to,
and would, abide by the SAMs. In light of her repeated
and flagrant violation of (them), a reasonable
factfinder could conclude that (her) representations
that she intended to and would abide by the SAMs were
knowingly false when made. We reject the remaining
challenges to the convictions. (We) affirm the
district court's rejection of Stewart's claim that she
was selectively prosecuted on account of her gender or
political beliefs....We therefore affirm the
convictions in their entirety."
They redirected her case to District Court Judge
Koeltl for re-sentencing. The DOJ wants 30 years.
Koeltl originally imposed 28 months, let Stewart
remain free on bond pending appeal, implied his
decision might be overturned because of a gross
miscarriage of justice, effectively rebuked the Bush
administration at the time, and handed it a major
defeat. Her fate is now in his hands, but justice has
already been denied at a time we're all as vulnerable
as she if we dare resist state policies, unchanged
under an administration no different from its
predecessor.
In a November 17 news conference, Stewart said:
"I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to." In
criticizing the Court's decision, she said its timing
"on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from
offshore prison in Guantanamo" suggests that lawyers
appointed to represent them may face the same fate as
she. "If you're going to lawyer for these people,
you'd better toe very close to the line that the
government has set out (because they'll) be watching
you every inch of the way, (so those who don't) will
end up like Lynne Stewart. This is a case that is
bigger than just me personally (but she added that
she'll) go on fighting."
So will her lawyer, Joshua Dratel, who said he'll
pursue it "as far and as long as we can," including a
possible Supreme Court review. The Obama US attorney's
office was silent, effectively affirming a gross
injustice at a time the due process and judicial
fairness thresholds are so low that all Americans risk
the same fate as Lynne.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre
for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and
can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to The Global Research News Hour on
RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US
Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests on world and national issues. All
programs are archived for easy listening.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments