[News] First They Came for Lynne Stewart ...

[News at freedomarchives.org]

 From AxisofLogic.com

United States
First They Came for Lynne Stewart ...
By Marjorie Cohn
Feb 15, 2005, 21:55

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

     -Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

     Now they're coming for the lawyers, and we must all speak out.

     Last Thursday, after 13 days of deliberations, prominent New York 
civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, providing 
material support to terrorists, and defrauding the United States 
government. Her 7-month trial was held in the same federal courthouse where 
the Rosenbergs were tried for conspiracy to commit espionage more than 50 
years ago. Stewart faces between 35 and 45 years in prison.

     Stewart was indicted in March 2002. The indictment was based on 
governmental monitoring of conversations between Stewart and her client, 
Shiek Omar Abdel Rahman, which occurred two and a half years before the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

     Rahman is serving a life plus 65-year sentence for conspiring to bomb 
several New York City landmarks and soliciting crimes of violence against 
the U.S. military and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

     Beginning in 1997, the Bureau of Prisons, at the direction of the 
Attorney General, imposed special administrative measures (SAMs) on Rahman, 
limiting his access to the mail, the media, the telephone and visitors.

     Stewart was obliged to sign an affirmation agreeing to be bound by the 
SAMs, before being allowed to see her client. She agreed "only to be 
accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate 
Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters" and not to "use my meetings, 
correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between 
third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman."

     The government charged that Stewart allowed the Arabic translator to 
read letters to Rahman regarding Islamic Group matters, and to conduct a 
discussion with Rahman regarding whether Islamic Group should continue to 
comply with a cease-fire in Egypt. It also alleged that Stewart concealed 
those discussions from prison guards, and announced to the media that 
Rahman had withdrawn his support for the cease-fire, in violation of the SAMs.

     Stewart denied these allegations, and testified that she believed in 
good faith that relaying Rahman's statement calling for more consultation 
about the Egyptian cease-fire did not violate the SAMs. She said she was 
trying to have Rahman transferred to Egypt to serve his sentence by keeping 
him visible. Rahman is old, blind, does not speak English, and has been 
kept virtually incommunicado in a federal prison in Minnesota.

     Her good-faith belief, Stewart tesfitied, was based on actions of 
former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, another of Rahman's attorneys. 
Clark also signed these SAMs, held press conferences, and conveyed Rahman's 
statements about Egyptian politics to the press. Yet, Clark was never 
prosecuted.

     Clark, who testified for Stewart at her trial, told Amy Goodman of 
Democracy Now!, "I don't know of anything that Lynne did that I didn't do." 
He said, "This case would never have been brought except for the fear 
generated, and the advantage that the Bush administration was taking of it, 
by the events of September 11, 2001. In ordinary times and circumstances, 
it would be recognized that everything that Lynne did was exactly what an 
effective attorney representing a client zealously would be obligated to do."

     At a 2002 conference, Stewart noted, "Usually if one breaks a Bureau 
of Prisons edict, one is told one can't visit the prison again, or one gets 
some sort of administrative slap on the wrist of some kind. One does not 
usually get indicted for aiding a terrorist organization."

     Why did the government wait so long before indicting Lynne Stewart? 
According to Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the National Lawyers 
Guild, Stewart was a "prime target for the Attorney General, who needed 
desperately to show that the Justice Department was actively fighting 
terrorism."

     When Stewart was indicted, John Ashcroft had arrested only one person 
since September 11 - John Walker Lindh. "By indicting Stewart," noted 
Boghosian, "Ashcroft effectively sent the dual message that he could indict 
other lawyers who represented clients with unpopular beliefs and that such 
clients do not deserve defense."

     The same day Bush signed the USA Patriot Act into law, General 
Ashcroft announced an interim amendment to the Bureau of Prisons 
regulation, which took effect five days later, without the usual public 
comment period. It permits the Department of Justice (DOJ) unlimited and 
unreviewable discretion to eavesdrop on confidential attorney-client 
conversations of persons in custody, with no judicial oversight and no 
meaningful standards. It applies not only to convicted inmates, but to all 
persons in the custody of the DOJ, including pretrial detainees, material 
witnesses, and immigration detainees who have not been accused of any crime.

     At a 2002 convention of the National Lawyers Guild, Stewart expressed 
alarm at what her indictment portends for the future of the attorney-client 
privilege and criminal defense. She said, "This is about protecting the 
right to defend. Once the attorney-client privilege is lost, there is no 
right to defend as we know it." Speaking about the government's monitoring 
of her conversations with her client, Stewart stated, "The question you 
should be asking is not what I was doing in that room, but what was the 
government doing in that room?"

     During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the 
perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal 
surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political 
viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. 
Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in "red-baiting."

     Since September 11, those who question government policy have been, 
and will continue to be, branded "terrorist." Even though "terrorism" was 
not an element of any of the offenses with which Lynne Stewart was charged, 
and Osama bin Laden was not part of any of the charges, the prosecution was 
permitted to bring bin Laden's name into the trial.

     A written threat from the Jewish Defense Organization was posted on 
the door to Stewart's home after 10 ½ days of jury deliberations in the 
trial. It referred to a message purporting "to reach out so the jurors 
understand what she is. And that's been done." The message gave Stewart's 
home address and said she "needs to be put out of business legally and 
effectively." It threatened to "drive her out of her home and out of the 
state." If this message did reach any jurors who were sitting on the fence, 
it may have pushed them over to the guilty side.

     Stewart told Amy Goodman, "These SAMs said you know, 'If you break 
these regulations, you may be cut off from your client.' That was our 
greatest concern, that we would be cut off from the client. The idea of 
prosecution never entered our minds." Stewart continued, "I believe with my 
mind and heart that it was the right thing to do."

     Lynne Stewart's indictment, and conviction, will also chill attorneys 
from taking on cases of unpopular clients. "The purpose of this 
prosecution," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for 
Constitutional Rights, "was to send a message to lawyers who represent 
alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do so."

     Stewart's attorney, Michael Tigar, does not blame the jury for this 
injustice. "We have all in our lifetimes seen well-meaning juries get 
caught up in the media-dominated government rhetoric of their time, based 
mostly on fear," Tigar said after the verdicts were announced. "I do not 
criticize these jurors. I have every confidence this verdict will be set 
aside."

     Lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees are being asked to sign 
agreements that their consultations with their clients will not be 
confidential. Tigar told Amy Goodman, "The only way that we will ever get 
to the bottom of the American concentration camp abuses at Gitmo and Abu 
Ghraib is if the lawyers for these prisoners are permitted to tell their 
stories to the world. If the government can shut off that communication, 
which they have attempted to do over and over and over again, these 
activities will continue in secret."

     It is essential that people feel safe in these perilous times. But, as 
Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a 1995 
opinion, "It cannot be too often stated that the greatest threats to our 
constitutional freedoms come in times of crisis." The confidential 
relationship between attorney and client sits at the heart of our criminal 
justice system. We must zealously guard it or we will all be at risk.

<http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021505A.shtml>http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021505A.shtml

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20050216/1859263a/attachment.htm>