NYC civil rights lawyer gets prison for helping terrorists
Updated 10/16/2006 4:46 PM ET
NEW YORK (AP) — Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart was sentenced Monday to 28 months in prison on a terrorism charge for helping a client who plotted to blow up New York City landmarks communicate with his followers, a sentence far less than 30 years prosecutors wanted.
Stewart, 67, smiled as the judge announced he would send her to prison for less than 2½ years.
"If you send her to prison, she's going to die. It's as simple as that," defense lawyer Elizabeth Fink had told the judge before the sentence was pronounced.
Stewart, who was treated last year for breast cancer, was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. She had released a statement by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian sheik sentenced to life in prison after he was convicted in plots to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.
Prosecutors have called the case a major victory in the war on terrorism. They said Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.
In a letter to the judge before her hearing, Stewart proclaimed: "I am not a traitor."
"The end of my career truly is like a sword in my side," She said in court Monday. "Permit me to live out the rest of my life productively, lovingly, righteously."
In a pre-sentence document, prosecutors told U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl that Stewart's "egregious, flagrant abuse of her profession, abuse that amounted to material support to a terrorist group, deserves to be severely punished."
Stewart, in her letter to the judge, said she did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization. She believes the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made her behavior intolerable in the eyes of the government and gave it an excuse to make an example out of her.
"The government's characterization of me and what occurred is inaccurate and untrue," she wrote. "It takes unfair advantage of the climate of urgency and hysteria that followed 9/11 and that was relived during the trial. I did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Dember argued at her sentencing that the case had nothing to with Sept. 11.
"What she was doing was smuggling terrorism messages and smuggling out Abdel-Rahman's responses," Dember said.
About 150 Stewart supporters who could not get inside the capacity-filled courtroom stood outside the courthouse, chanting "Free Lynne, Free Lynne." Some 200 others jammed the hallways outside the courtroom.
"It's not just Lynn Stewart who is a victim, it's the Bill of Rights that's the victim," said Al Dorfman, 72, a retired lawyer who joined the crowd outside.
Stewart was arrested six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, along with Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic interpreter, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a U.S. postal worker. The indictment against them was brought by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002.
Koeltl sentenced Sattar to 24 years in prison. Convicted of conspiracy to kill and kidnap people in a foreign country, he could have been sentenced to life.
"I am not a violent person," Sattar said. "I am a human being. I am an America. I am a Muslim who practices and believes strongly in his religion."
Koeltl said he departed from the federal sentencing guidelines because no one was killed or injured as a result of the crimes and because of Sattar's lack of previous crimes and restrictive prison conditions.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
So you don't find it disturbing that she had violated this order and had no idea what a terrorist was telling his followers?
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
LeninFlux wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
So you don't find it disturbing that she had violated this order and had no idea what a terrorist was telling his followers?
This country is doomed.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that what she did was wrong, the article I read in the Times seemed to imply that she was sorry that she passed along the notes. However, we tend to think that 20 years is excessive for what she is guilty of. If she were utterly unappologetic and ranting about it, then the title 'terrorist sympathiser' might apply, but it doesn't seem terribly accurate in this case.
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
isnt it her responsibility to know what she is doing when shes passing these notes
as a defense lawyer, if youre client is accused of being in organized crime, passes you a note to give to his buddy, and the next day a witness murdered. the next day, you are handed a note to give to his buddy and the next day a witness is murdered, and so on, for two weeks. is that defense lawyer not guilty?
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
isnt it her responsibility to know what she is doing when shes passing these notes
as a defense lawyer, if youre client is accused of being in organized crime, passes you a note to give to his buddy, and the next day a witness murdered. the next day, you are handed a note to give to his buddy and the next day a witness is murdered, and so on, for two weeks. is that defense lawyer not guilty?
Exactly.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that you'd want to know what the content of the notes you were passing along were. But some people think this is part of the ongoing civil rights crucade. What a crock.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
isnt it her responsibility to know what she is doing when shes passing these notes
as a defense lawyer, if youre client is accused of being in organized crime, passes you a note to give to his buddy, and the next day a witness murdered. the next day, you are handed a note to give to his buddy and the next day a witness is murdered, and so on, for two weeks. is that defense lawyer not guilty?
Not unless there is an order from the judge saying that no notes shall be passed to or from the defendant/convict. Not as far as I know, maybe someone can correct me.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:44 pm Posts: 8910 Location: Santa Cruz Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Peeps wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
She was providing diligent defense for her client, and there has never been any evidence presented that she had any idea what the content of the notes passed were either before or after they were passed. In fact, I'm not sure if the content of the messages were even firmly established, merely the fact that messages were passed in conflict with a judicial order for her client to have no contact with the outside world.
She is guilty of violating the order, and should be punished for that. But she has been from day one a scapegoat for the Justice Department's feable attempts to prosecute anyone and everyone however tangentially related to terrorism, because Ashcroft was such a complete and utter fucking failure to ever catch or convict a REAL terrorist.
Thank God the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been thrown out (by that uber-liberal Supreme Court we've got), otherwise the judge would have been forced to sentence an old lady passing notes of unknown content to 20 years in prison.
isnt it her responsibility to know what she is doing when shes passing these notes
as a defense lawyer, if youre client is accused of being in organized crime, passes you a note to give to his buddy, and the next day a witness murdered. the next day, you are handed a note to give to his buddy and the next day a witness is murdered, and so on, for two weeks. is that defense lawyer not guilty?
Not unless there is an order from the judge saying that no notes shall be passed to or from the defendant/convict. Not as far as I know, maybe someone can correct me.
This happened in an episode of Law & Order Seriously. I think the lawyer was arrested.
Not unless there is an order from the judge saying that no notes shall be passed to or from the defendant/convict. Not as far as I know, maybe someone can correct me.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Not unless there is an order from the judge saying that no notes shall be passed to or from the defendant/convict. Not as far as I know, maybe someone can correct me.
dont look at me, i only work at pizza hut
(Secret notes in the pizza box)
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Liberal Judge Gives Terrorist Sympathizer Light Sentence
Oh, come ON. It's really pretty tiring now. Your thread title is preposterous and wildly inacurate.
Well, it's partly my opinion (the Terrorist Sympathizer part), but the rest I stand by as fact.
Funny how views like mine get so "tiring" yet some people relentlessly bash President Bush....that never seems to be deemed as "getting tiring."
Then why don't we focus on the "wildly inaccurate" part?
Alright, lets...
The judge - appointed by President Clinton (who was notorious for appointing hard-nose conservative judges, right?)
Also the fact that the prosecution was pushing for 30 years and was given 2 1/2. That isn't a light sentence compared to what she could have gotten?
Fact, and I quote - "Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law."
What did this lawyer think his notes were about? What his favorite color was?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
