[Mb-civic] LYNNE STEWART'S CONVICTION HURTS US ALL

[Barbara Siomos]

I was wondering IF anyone would bring this up. Imagine all of the innocent people of varying nationalities and religions that will suffer now because a lawyer is afraid... (get that a-f-r-a-i-d) to take on a client and dared to speak the truth.... Oh where is our freedom of speach since Asshcroft?

peace,
barbara

-----Original Message-----
From: ean at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:20:32 -0800
To: ean at sbcglobal.net
Subject: [Mb-civic] LYNNE STEWART'S CONVICTION HURTS US ALL

NY human rights attorney Lynne Stewart was brought up on charges by 
Ashcroft and co. of aiding and abetting terrorism in regards to her 
representation of the man convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center 
bombing.  Human rights advocates and attorneys and civil rights 
proponents across the land were dismayed and aghast and Ashcroft's 
action...but when after a 7 month trial Ms. Stewart was convicted another 
blow was struck to America's "freedoms."  The jury, which deliberated for 
13 days, was evidently cowed by the threat of terrorism, and there were 
reports that several of the women jurors cried openly indicating they had 
given in to the majority against their better judgement.  Important for us to 
know about this trial and its implications....and to hope that the appeals 
court will overturn....mha atma

http://www.counterpunch.org/bergen02112005.html


LYNNE STEWART'S CONVICTION HURTS US ALL

Another Bedrock Right Obliterated

By Jennifer Van Bergen

In a shocking jury verdict today, a tireless watchdog for liberty was
convicted of violating special administrative prison rules and of
providing material support to terrorists.

Only a few weeks ago, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow told the 
jury
in his closing statement that Lynne Stewart "thought she could blow off
the rules that apply to everyone else because she's a lawyer, and she's
above the law.

She said, 'I think my client is more important than the law. My cause is
more important that the risk to lives of innocent people.'"

This is a complete distortion of the woman I have come to know. The 
woman
who, when her husband became angry at a heckler during her speech at a
small rally, told him the man was only exercising his rights to free
speech--he had a right to disagree with her.

The woman who is as courteous to the man next to her at the podium, who 
is
declaring that the ACLU--which, remember, stands for the American 
CIVIL
LIBERTIES Union -- is a communist organization, as to those who thank 
her
for coming.

A woman who put herself endlessly and courageously on the front lines to
defend the rights of those who were under-represented, unrepresented,
disenfranchised, or disregarded: those whose voices are suppressed or
silenced.

Lynne Stewart never ever thought she could blow off the rules that apply
to everyone else. She never thought she was above the law. She never
supported or endorsed terrorism. Nor did she ever intend to provide
material support to terrorists.

The words she spoke to her client were meant for her client alone and the
one who has violated rights here is the Department of Justice. They
violated something so sacred that it can hardly be spoken without somehow
losing the value of it: they violated the attorney/client privilege. The
DOJ violated this privilege by listening in on her conversations with her
client, which they then took out of context and tried to make into a
monstrous thing.

But is anyone prosecuting them for this violation? No.

The DOJ has violated something more, as well. They have violated the 
right
of an accused to have zealous counsel represent them. This right is so
fundamental that our Framers put it in the Bill of Rights: the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.

The DOJ has violated the last vestige of democracy: the judiciary, by
using this system to destroy one of the watchdogs of liberty, our criminal
defense lawyers. Without criminal defense lawyers, who will protect us
from government incursions of our rights?

Now, the idea of a convicted terrorist having any sort of privilege is
perhaps unfathomable to a jury. But that privilege is considered
sacrosanct and we all have it, we all may call upon the attorney/client
privilege because without it, we have no defense attorneys, we have no
defense, and we have no witnesses to government abuse of our rights.

Lynne continued to believe in her client's innocence, and to declare that
evidence against him was fabricated by our government in order to secure
his conviction.

Has this fact come out anywhere? Has any newspaper revealed that the
client Stewart represented was convicted on fabricated evidence? Have any
of them investigated the charge? Has the Department of Justice
investigated it? No?

Why not?

Well, as far as I know, Lynne never brought this charge out to the press
during her trial. But it was certainly known to the DOJ. And if it is true
that her client was convicted on fabricated evidence, what does it mean
that she is now convicted because of her representation of him?

The New York Times writes today about Stewart's conviction: "The
government never showed that any violence ever resulted from Mr. Sattar's
calls or from any action by Ms. Stewart or Mr. Yousry; there were no
victims in the case.

The Islamic Group never cancelled the cease-fire, which remains in effect
to this day. The defendants were never accused of plotting any terrorism
in the United States. The evidence showed that Ms. Stewart had had 
nothing
to do with writing or issuing the fatwa."

AND: "Ultimately the jury appeared to have been persuaded by the fact 
that
Ms. Stewart, a lawyer, had clearly violated the legal letter of the prison
rules."

Violated the legal letter of prison rules? A violation of an
administrative measure is not a crime. Do you sentence an attorney to
twenty years in jail for not following a regulation?

Surely we all know how magic tricks work. It is sleight-of-hand.

This day, while I do not want to believe that the prosecutors themselves
maliciously prosecuted Stewart, the best I can believe is that they have
blinded themselves with their own zeal. But I have seen prosecutors and
government officials declare what they should have known were untruths
about the law, what I knew were untruths and if they didn't know they were
untruths, they could only have been ignorant of the law.

This day the Justice Department has done a great injustice, not just to
Lynne Stewart, but to our entire system of justice, to our country, and to
our democracy. I fear the upshot of this event and can only hope the
members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals are able to maintain their
clear-headedness in the face of the deep-seated fears of terrorism we all
share and the huge barrage of innocuous and irrelevant evidence they will
have to review.

Lynne Stewart's conviction does not only hurt the bar; it hurts us all.

[Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D., is the author of "The Twilight of Democracy:
The Bush Plan for America" (Common Courage Press, 2004). She has 
written
and spoken extensively on civil liberties, human rights, and international
law. She is currently organizing a major Forum on Dissent Since 9/11 in
Miami from March 11-13, 2005.]


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option 
D - up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone 
forwarded you this email and you want to be on our list, send an 
email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell