Civil rights attorney sentenced as a terrorist (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial;_ylt=Aq86rWxaln1QftrAk4XEHoKs0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)
I'm having a flashback to Blackadder, season 1. The "Witchsmeller Pursuivant" where Edmund Blackadder is accused of being a Witch and his legal representative, Lord Percy, gets accused of being a witch too, obviously, because he's representing a witch. :p

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/one_witchsmeller.shtml

Except she actually did commit a crime. Go figure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502150746.asp

ore information.

http://www.meforum.org/article/887

The most important part is here:

On January 17, 1996, a federal court in New York sentenced Abdel Rahman to life in prison. In April 1997, the government blocked his access to the outside world because of fears that his terrorist connections remained active. Stewart signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice not to pass information to or from her client, except that which was legally necessary. Since the sheikh had already been convicted and had exhausted his appeals...

.... Stewart herself gave to the Reuters news service in June 2000 in which the sheikh announced his withdrawal of support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian Islamic Group and the Egyptian government.[12] The truce had been in place since 1997, just after his followers in Egypt had opened fire on tourists at the Temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor, killing 58 foreigners and 4 Egyptians.[13] Subsequently, high-casualty Islamist terrorism resumed in Egypt on October 7, 2004, with a series of bombings that killed 34 in and around the Egyptian Sinai resort of Taba. On July 23, 2005, three bombs exploded in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 64.

Government investigators searching Stewart's law offices found a draft of the sheikh's fatwa that bin Laden later said inspired him.[14] In it, Abdel Rahman enjoined his fellow Muslims everywhere to kill Americans, even children, "to treat them with brutality," and to "drown their ships, shoot down their airplanes, kill them on earth, in the sea or in the sky, kill them everywhere you find them" in order to obtain his release from U.S. prison.

Stewart doesn't sound much like a Blackadder character to me.

If her client were a firebrand evangelical Christian prophet(a la Koresh or Jim Jones) and his philosophy included bombing abortion clinics or synagogues...

...would you be more or less sympathetic to the lawyer's plight?

If the lawyer was smuggling out information and instructions to his followers.

Except she actually did commit a crime. Go figure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502150746.asp

ore information.

http://www.meforum.org/article/887

The most important part is here:


Stewart doesn't sound much like a Blackadder character to me.

I would have to know more about what happened before I could condemn the government here. On its bald face, yes, it looks particularly disturbing, suggesting that merely representing those who are terrorists are at risk of prosecution (a very dangerous precedent), however a cursory look at the facts at least renders some mitigation and must force folks to at least seek more information before they make a decision. Granted, none of you freaks will do that, you'll just shoot from the hip based solely on if you hate Arabs more than you fear the destruction of our civil liberties.

I would have to know more about what happened before I could condemn the government here. On its bald face, yes, it looks particularly disturbing, suggesting that merely representing those who are terrorists are at risk of prosecution (a very dangerous precedent), however a cursory look at the facts at least renders some mitigation and must force folks to at least seek more information before they make a decision. Granted, none of you freaks will do that, you'll just shoot from the hip based solely on if you hate Arabs more than you fear the destruction of our civil liberties.

hmm. the facts as I have seen them are that she was defense attorney for a convicted terrorist who was put by the authorities in a communication blackout for fear that he would continue to steer his followers towards violence. The woman read a statement of his to a public audience.

I do not know if it is legal or not to prevent a convicted criminal to speak his thoughts, but I assume it is and that means the woman broke the law.
It is however a bit of a stretch to get from there to 'willfully aiding and abetting terrorism'.

In other words, I am of mixed feelings about this case. I can see where she broke the law, but I can also see that the terrorism brand was brought down rather eagerly. Reading government conspiracies into that, though, is also a bit of a stretch. So mainly I remain confused about the whole issue.


Eri

I think there's only one way to resolve this... does she float?

hmm. the facts as I have seen them are that she was defense attorney for a convicted terrorist who was put by the authorities in a communication blackout for fear that he would continue to steer his followers towards violence. The woman read a statement of his to a public audience.

I do not know if it is legal or not to prevent a convicted criminal to speak his thoughts, but I assume it is and that means the woman broke the law.
It is however a bit of a stretch to get from there to 'willfully aiding and abetting terrorism'.

In other words, I am of mixed feelings about this case. I can see where she broke the law, but I can also see that the terrorism brand was brought down rather eagerly. Reading government conspiracies into that, though, is also a bit of a stretch. So mainly I remain confused about the whole issue.


Eri
That's it in a nutshell. The Justice department banned all comminication from him. (During the Clinton administration) Her visits to him were contingant on that no messages were passed unless it pertained directly to his case. All the messages she's being cited for had nothing to do with his case and were passed after all of his appeals were exhausted.

Technically she wasn't convicted as a terrorist, but for providing material support to a terrorist conspiracy. Something there is no doubt that she did. It's also worth mentioning that she was convicted by a jury and not some military tribunal.

From the news article it seems that she aware of the illegality of her actions, the terrorist connection, and all the potential consequences. I'm not sure she deserves any sympthy.

hmm. the facts as I have seen them are that she was defense attorney for a convicted terrorist who was put by the authorities in a communication blackout for fear that he would continue to steer his followers towards violence. The woman read a statement of his to a public audience.

I do not know if it is legal or not to prevent a convicted criminal to speak his thoughts, but I assume it is and that means the woman broke the law.
It is however a bit of a stretch to get from there to 'willfully aiding and abetting terrorism'.

In other words, I am of mixed feelings about this case. I can see where she broke the law, but I can also see that the terrorism brand was brought down rather eagerly. Reading government conspiracies into that, though, is also a bit of a stretch. So mainly I remain confused about the whole issue.


Eri

That in and of itself would be particularly disturbing. However, I was under the impression that some statements and documents of his that were not public ended up in the hands of his followers via her. If that is the case, then she clearly broke the law and the law is not unreasonable.