Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 10:39 AM

October 16, 2006
Lawyer Is Due for Sentencing in Terror Case

By JULIA PRESTON
Lynne F. Stewart, the firebrand lawyer known for defending unsavory criminals, now faces the possibility of living out her life like many of them, in maximum-security lockdown in a federal prison.

Today, 20 months after she was convicted on terror charges, Ms. Stewart and two co-defendants who were convicted of conspiring with her will be sentenced in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Prosecutors, arguing that Ms. Stewart repeatedly flouted the law to aid the violent designs of an imprisoned terrorist client, have asked Judge John G. Koeltl to condemn her to 30 years in prison.

That would be a life sentence for Ms. Stewart, who turned 67 last week. Long an abrasive advocate of anti-government causes, these days she is not defiant. She is mournful about what she said were her failures as a lawyer.

Her dread of prison deepened unexpectedly, Ms. Stewart said, during the long period after a jury found her guilty on Feb. 10, 2005, of providing material aid to terrorism. She has recently recovered from breast cancer, but fears it will return in prison.

And if the judge comes down hard, she could be held in solitary confinement with limited visits, the same conditions as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist she was convicted of aiding.

All three defendants have had to wait for sentencing while Ms. Stewart was treated for cancer. She has finished radiation treatments, she said, and her doctors have declared that she is cancer-free. But she worries about the medical care in prison.

“I feel very threatened by it,” Ms. Stewart said. “I know too much about the way they deal with you in prison.”

Ms. Stewart’s sentencing will culminate a case the Bush administration cites as a major counter-terrorism achievement. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who brought the indictment, devoted a full chapter to the case in his new memoir.

Ms. Stewart still denies that she acted to further any violent goals of the sheik,*** a blind Islamic cleric from Egypt who is serving a life sentence for a thwarted 1993 plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Whatever the sentence, her lawyers have said they will appeal the case.

But in documents they submitted to persuade Judge Koeltl to be lenient and give her no prison time, Ms. Stewart is newly remorseful about “ill-advised” moves on behalf of her client.

“I still believe it was justifiable — but perhaps not in the way that I did it,” Ms. Stewart said in a sober interview in a borrowed room in the Manhattan offices where she used to practice law. She was speaking of her actions in June 2000 to violate strict prison rules, known as special administrative measures, by publicizing a message from the sheik to his militant followers in Egypt.

The government’s call for a 30-year sentence jolted her, she said, into deeper self-criticism.

“Stewart’s criminal conduct, which lasted more than two years, was both extremely dangerous and devious,” two assistant United States attorneys, Andrew Dember and Robin Baker, wrote in their sentencing motion. Her actions, they said, “should be offensive to those actually zealously defending criminal defendants within the bounds of the law.”

There was never any question during the eight-month trial that Ms. Stewart had broken the rules by releasing the sheik’s statement, which said he no longer supported a cease-fire by his followers in Egypt. Another defendant, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, 47, a Staten Island postal worker, was convicted of negotiating with the militants by telephone to promote an end to the cease-fire.

The government wants a life sentence for Mr. Sattar. It is seeking 20 years for Mohamed Yousry, the Arabic translator who was convicted of helping Ms. Stewart smuggle Mr. Abdel Rahman’s messages out of prison.

These days, Ms. Stewart says, what stings is that she agrees with some of prosecutors’ claims about her faulty legal work.

In her trial testimony, she said she believed that she could stretch the prison rules because she regarded them as unconstitutional. But the argument was weak because, as prosecutors noted, she never made a formal legal challenge.

She said that she completely misjudged how prosecutors viewed the sheik and the leeway she could take in defending him, as terrorism became an increasing threat to the United States. “To me, the sheik was part of the demonized other,” she said, “part of a continuum” with other violent radicals she had defended more successfully, including members of the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.

She admits that she became too close to the sheik, insisting it was because of his deteriorating health and sanity after years in solitary confinement, not any affinity with his Islamic fundamentalism.

“I ignored any warning signs,” Ms. Stewart said. “I led with my heart instead of my head and thought it would be all right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/ny...mp;oref=slogin

As Abe might say, she was a fuzzy headed liberal and used her fuzzy heart to do her fuzzy thinking and now she will have to learn the hard way.

Let's hope you fuzzy haired posters take note!

***A USEFUL IDIOT

art_director · Oct 16, 2006, 10:44 AM

Another week of trolling by marden...

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

Another week of trolling by marden...

I'm trying to help show some of you the right path.

art_director · Oct 16, 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by marden

I'm trying to help show some of you the right path.

Maybe you should work on 'the nuts.'

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

Maybe you should work on 'the nuts.'

I can only drop the seeds at your feets. Who picks them up and plants them, who just eats them and who walks by and leaves them there is not up to me.

art_director · Oct 16, 2006, 10:54 AM

At your 'feets'?

Have you stopped taking your meds again?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by art_director

At your 'feets'?

Have you stopped taking your meds again?

dcmacdaddy · Oct 16, 2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by marden

I'm trying to help show some of you the right path.

Still with the messiah complex, eh Abe? Leading us on the path to righteousness as if it was up to you to save the world. HA!

I think art_director is right on this one; You've gone off your meds. And it is the middle of the month, which is when you would get extra-weird in all your previous incarnations. This leads me to ask, "Do you forget to take them or do you get a couple weeks of feeling good and then decide you can try going without them?" I am guessing it is the latter circumstance.

The meds are prescribed to you for a reason, Abe, please take them consistently and as directed by your doctors. They will help you feel better.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Still with the messiah complex, eh Abe? Leading us on the path to righteousness as if it was up to you to save the world. HA!

I think art_director is right on this one; You've gone off your meds. And it is the middle of the month, which is when you would get extra-weird in all your previous incarnations. This leads me to ask, "Do you forget to take them or do you get a couple weeks of feeling good and then decide you can try going without them?" I am guessing it is the latter circumstance.

The meds are prescribed to you for a reason, Abe, please take them consistently and as directed by your doctors. They will help you feel better.

You should work for the government then you could know every time Abe has a BM and get PAID for it, too! Or you could start an online radio station, WABE. All Abe, all the time!

Or an Abe-zine with all of Abe's zany exploits. I bet you could convince besson3c to start a sister publication, MojoNOW!

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 11:32 AM

Jealous that you will have to forever live in Mojoab's shadow?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Jealous that you will have to forever live in Mojoab's shadow?

Off topic!

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by marden

Off topic!

I find your answer very revealing!

dcmacdaddy · 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

Jealous that you will have to forever live in Mojoab's shadow?

It is kinda messed up, isn't it. One manifestation of abermojarden's presence on MacNN is jealous of another manifestation of his presence. Yet, they are all manifestations from the same person. Pretty whacked if you ask me.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 11:38 AM

Whacked? You've been in Brooklyn too long already

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I find your answer very revealing!

Never mind what you may or may not find in my posts. Maybe you should work on trying to find your way home after getting drunk at the corner bar every night.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by marden

Never mind what you may or may not find in my posts.

I sense apprehension! Art thou sweating a little?

Originally Posted by marden

Maybe you should work on trying to find your way home after getting drunk at the corner bar every night.

Obviously I already have, since I'm here gaining insight from each post you make.

Ron Goodman · Oct 16, 2006, 11:45 AM

You see Marden, that's the way it's supposed to work here. People do something wrong, they get charged, have a trial with competant representation, and if found guilty, are punished. She wasn't grabbed off the street, tortured, sent to a secret prison in Estonia or someplace, and made to disappear with no way to appeal or challange the charges brought against her, just because Shrub labeled her an "enemy combatent' in "the war against terror".

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

You see Marden, that's the way it's supposed to work here. People do something wrong, they get charged, have a trial with competant representation, and if found guilty, are punished. She wasn't grabbed off the street, tortured, sent to a secret prison in Estonia or someplace, and made to disappear with no way to appeal or challange the charges brought against her, just because Shrub labeled her an "enemy combatent' in "the war against terror".

Yes, Ronnie. That's the justice system 101 version.

You can't even imagine the realities of the battlefield and that's why you can't understand why the letter of the law doesn't always keep pace with the realities of life.

Remember, laws were made for man and SOCIETY.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I sense apprehension! Art thou sweating a little?

Obviously I already have, since I'm here gaining insight from each post you make.

Getting a little more intoxicated by my mardenesquely strange brew, as it were?

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Getting a little more intoxicated by my mardenesquely strange brew, as it were?

A foul stench, yet I do not turn away.

itai195 · Oct 16, 2006, 01:31 PM

28 month sentence. You must be pretty disappointed, abe.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

A foul stench, yet I do not turn away.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by marden

A picture of you and your bitch?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

28 month sentence. You must be pretty disappointed, abe.

No. I usually agree with those who know more about the situation than what is in the news. If the judge and jury found this to be the right thing, I am in no position to second guess them.

We need to get out of our brains the idea that we must, should or can be the final arbiter on the days' events. There are some things we just can not and will not be privvy to and times when the principles can't even allude to the fact that they have more information than we have.

BTW, I'm not abe.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by marden

BTW, I'm not abe.

You might wanna put that in your sig, like people that get confused for SWG

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

A picture of you and your bitch?

Does my participation help your self flagellation?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

You might wanna put that in your sig, like people that get confused for SWG

Thanks for the suggestion.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 01:48 PM

I think you're the one who's been flagellating. Foul stench, and all that, after all.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I think you're the one who's been flagellating. Foul stench, and all that, after all.

Off Topic

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Off Topic

Too Late

Rumor · Oct 16, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by marden

You should work for the government then you could know every time Abe has a BM and get PAID for it, too!

You get paid for bowl movements?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Too Late

If I report you will you still think it's too late?

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by marden

If I report you will you still think it's too late?

Be my guest.

I have yet to believe a single instance you've claimed to 'report' and you aren't guiltless in matter as you replied several times in the same manner.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

You get paid for bowl movements?

Off Topic

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Be my guest.

I have yet to believe a single instance you've claimed to 'report' and you aren't guiltless in matter as you replied several times in the same manner.

As thread starter I invoke the right to enforce thread integrity and decorum. If I don't who will? If I don't and the thread is locked who suffers? Anyone who wants to discuss this thread topic, that's who.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by marden

As thread starter I invoke the right to enforce thread integrity and decorum. If I don't who will? If I don't and the thread is locked who suffers? Anyone who wants to discuss this thread topic, that's who.

You might want to consider being consistent before you start invoking rights.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

You might want to consider being consistent before you start invoking rights.

Leave my bowl movements out of this.

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Leave my bowl movements out of this.

Case in point.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Case in point.

Just ignore me and listen to what I'm telling you, ok?

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Just ignore me and listen to what I'm telling you, ok?

Great, two of your personalities have decided to start talking to me at once.

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Great, two of your personalities have decided to start talking to me at once.

What are you talking about, Willies?

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by marden

What are you talking about, Willies?

Having a conversation with yourselves?

marden · Oct 16, 2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Having a conversation with yourselves?

Do you mind? We're having a conversation here!

Dakar² · Oct 16, 2006, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Do you mind? We're having a conversation here!

Feel free to start posting back and forth.

Sky Captain · Oct 17, 2006, 06:21 AM

Finally. THis case will set the precident that lawers should be held accountable for their clients actions.
When you choose to take on the responsibility of allowing a prisoner to continue plotting their crimes, then you are an accessory.

Just like the case of Brian Nichols. This man continued to plot using a cellphone provided by his defense.
Charge them with aiding and abetting a murderer. Council should choose their actions more wisely.

vmarks · Oct 17, 2006, 09:20 AM

The lawyer was sentenced to 28 months.

That's right: Two years and four months.

I'm not sure the precedent that will be set by this is the one that Sky Captain envisions.

Especially considering the person she conspired with got closer to 28 years. The message is, get your hand comparatively slapped if you're a lawyer.

vmarks · Oct 17, 2006, 09:20 AM

The lawyer was sentenced to 28 months.

That's right: Two years and four months.

I'm not sure the precedent that will be set by this is the one that Sky Captain envisions.

Especially considering the person she conspired with got closer to 28 years. The message is, get your hand comparatively slapped if you're a lawyer.

Sky Captain · Oct 17, 2006, 09:30 AM

I believe lawyers should be liable for the actions of anyone they pleade out of a sentence also.
Get a mollester out of being romoved from society, hold the defense equally liable for any crimes the defendant commits in the future.

This man should be held liable for Duncan killing while out on his dime.

Dakar² · Oct 17, 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I believe lawyers should be liable for the actions of anyone they pleade out of a sentence also.
Get a mollester out of being romoved from society, hold the defense equally liable for any crimes the defendant commits in the future.

That's insane.

So should juries also be liable if someone they find not guilty does something in the future?

Sky Captain · Oct 17, 2006, 09:55 AM

Why not.
Assume responsibilities for mistakes.
That goes for sending an innocent man to prison.