<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman04032008.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman04032008.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><b>Apri1 3,
2008<br><br>
</font><h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5><b>Targeting
Defense Lawyers<br><br>
<br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">
Lynne Stewart's Long Struggle for
Justice</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5>By
STEPHEN LENDMAN<br><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size=6 color="#990000">O</font>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>n April 9, 2002, Attorney General John
Ashcroft made a symbolic visit to "Ground Zero." While in New
York, he held a well-publicized press conference at the US Attorney's
Office and used the occasion for an indictment. Four individuals were
named on charges of conspiracy and materially aiding a terrorist
organization. One of them was long-time civil rights lawyer Lynne
Stewart. On the same day, FBI agents arrested her at her home and
illegally seized documents there and from her office that are protected
by attorney-client privilege.<br><br>
In July 2003, Federal District Court Judge John Koeltl (a 1994 Clinton
appointee) dismissed the original charges for being
"unconstitutionally void for vagueness" and because they
"revealed a lack of prosecutorial standards." Nonetheless,
Stewart was symbolically reindicted on November 22, 2003 (the 40th year
anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination) on five counts of aiding
and abetting a terrorist organization under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.
Specific charges included:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>* "conspiring to defraud the United States;<br><br>
<dd>* conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist
activity; <br><br>
<dd>* providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity;
and<br><br>
<dd>* two counts of making false statements."<br><br>
</dl>Stewart was also accused of violating US Bureau of Prisons-imposed
Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) that included a gag order on her
client, Sheik Abdel Rahman. These measures are imposed on some prisoners
to forbid discussion (even with an attorney) of topics DOJ claims are
outside the scope of their "legal representation." It's all
very vague, does more to harass and obstruct justice than protect state
secrets, yet Stewart was forced to accept them to gain access to her
client. <br><br>
In her case, police state-type attorney-client monitored conversations
provided the basis for her indictment. However, engaging in this practice
stretches the limit of the law, gives DOJ sole authority to decide how
far and for what purpose, and in this instance egregiously overstepped it
by charging defense counsel with aiding and abetting terrorism for
representing her client as required.<br><br>
At former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark's request, Stewart agreed to
join him as a member of Rahman's court-appointed defense team. He was
convicted in his 1995 show trial and is now serving a life sentence for
"seditious conspiracy" in connection with the 1993 World Trade
Center Center bombing despite evidence proving his innocence. <br><br>
However, in what's now common practice, the government's case related
more to his affiliations and anti-western views than specific evidence
presented. Rahman was connected to the Egyptian-based Al-Gamaa
al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) - a 1997 State Department-designated
"Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Ironically in the 1980s, he
was handled much differently as a "valuable (CIA) asset" for
his influential role in recruiting Mujahadeen fighters against the
Soviets in Afghanistan. It was no accident that he got a US visa, green
card and State Department-CIA protection for as long as he was valued.
When he wasn't, he became a target along with Lynne Stewart who
represented him at trial.<br><br>
Stewart's charges were trumped up, outrageous, and likely first time ever
instance of a defense attorney in a terrorism case facing
terrorism-related counts - for doing her job as the law requires and that
renders attorney-client confidentiality sacrosanct under our criminal
justice system. No matter, if convicted, she faced a possible 30 year
sentence. <br><br>
In America's "war on terrorism," her precedent-setting case is
chilling, and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael
Ratner, explained it: Its "purpose....was to send a message to
lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it's dangerous to do
so." It's also an effort to exploit the current atmosphere, incite
fear and suspicions, stifle dissent, and make it just as risky for anyone
with openly critical views of government policies. In Police State
America, we're all Lynne Stewarts.<br><br>
At the time of her indictment, her attorney, Michael Tigar, explained
what was at stake:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>"This case (still ongoing) is an attack on a gallant,
charismatic and effective fighter for justice (and has) at least three
fundamental faults: (it) attack(s) the First Amendment right of free
speech, free press and petition; (it) attack(s)....the right to effective
assistance of counsel ....chills the defense....(and) the 'evidence' in
this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations,
private attorney-client meetings, faxes, letters and e-mails. I have
never seen such an abuse of government power." In America's
"war on terrorism," many other defense attorneys can cite
similar instances of lawlessness and injustice today.<br><br>
</dl>However, in targeting Stewart, DOJ may have gotten more than it
bargained for. Whatever the outcome, her case shamed the government, gave
her worldwide recognition, made her a powerful symbolic figure, and
elevated her to iconic stature. For her honor, devotion to principles,
and lifetime of service to society's most abused, she deserves it and
more. <br><br>
Throughout her 30 year career, she never shunned controversy or her
choice of or duty to clients. She represented the poor, the
underprivileged and society's underdogs and unwanted who never get due
process unless they're lucky enough to have an advocate like her. She
knew the risks and understood the state uses every underhanded trick
possible to convict these type defendants and overwhelm, outspend and/or
discredit their counsel doing it. <br><br>
Nonetheless, she did what the American Bar Association's Model Rules
state all lawyers are obligated to do: "devote professional time and
resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of
justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot
afford or secure adequate legal counsel."<br><br>
Defending Sheik Rahman was especially risky, and Stewart knew it. His
case was so high-profile, it made her a target, and she remains one
today. It was the beginning of her long struggle (six years and running)
that included a battle against breast cancer that's now in
remission.<br><br>
Her trial played out in the same Foley Square courtroom where Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg were unjustly framed, convicted and sentenced to death in
April 1951 on charges of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. It was
an earlier time of hysteria when "communism" was the
"threat," national security again the issue, and, in Stewart's
case, she's the victim.<br><br>
Her trial was a travesty and gross miscarriage of justice with echoes of
the worst type McCarthyist tactics. Inflammatory terrorist images were
displayed in court to prejudice the jurors, and prosecutors vilified
Stewart as a traitor with "radical" political views. In fact,
she always embraced the rule of law with equity and justice for everyone
under it. Nonetheless, prosecutors falsely accused her of saying violence
may be justified to overthrow oppressive governments and claimed she
advocated regime change in Egypt under its president, ruling despot, and
close US ally Hosni Mubarak.<br><br>
In addition, just days before the verdict, the extremist pro-Israel
Jewish Defense Organization put up flyers near the courthouse displaying
Stewart's home address, threatened to "drive her out of her home and
out of the state," and said she "needs to be put out of
business legally and effectively." Prosecutors ignored it. It was
all part of a government-orchestrated scheme inside and outside the
courtroom to heighten fear, convict Stewart, and tell other defense
attorneys to expect the same treatment if they represent
"unpopular" clients.<br><br>
It worked on the jury, and on February 10, 2005 (after a seven month
trial and 13 days of deliberation) Stewart was convicted on all five
counts. Key now would be sentencing for a decisive DOJ victory. If gotten
it would seriously weaken First Amendment free expression rights and
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It would also destroy fundamental ones under Section 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment that guarantees all US citizens won't be deprived of their
right of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws." <br><br>
In addition, it would challenge the landmark 1963 Supreme Court Gideon v.
Wainwright decision that affirmed defendants' Sixth Amendment rights
"in all criminal prosecutions (to) the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury....to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense."<br><br>
October 17, 2006 was Stewart's sentencing date. Prosecutors asked for 30
years and hoped getting it would set a precedent. Instead, the same Judge
Koeltl, who dismissed Stewart's first indictment, again defied DOJ. He
sentenced Stewart to 28 months, let her remain free on bail pending
appeal, implied it might be overturned as a gross miscarriage of justice,
effectively rebuked the government, and handed them a major
defeat.<br><br>
The trial ended with Stewart proud and vindicated. Next came her chance
for a full exoneration before the US Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit three judge panel. Defense attorney Joshua Dratel represented her
on January 29, 2008 in a packed courtroom of mostly Stewart supporters
with many others denied admittance for lack of space.<br><br>
Dratel's job was to convince the court that Stewart had First Amendment
protected speech rights to release her client's statement to his
followers and other interested parties. He also cited Judge Koeltl's
unconstitutional use of US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, 2339 (a)
relating to "harboring or concealing terrorists" because he
"failed to abide by his promise to impose a specific intent
requirement" when he charged the jury.<br><br>
In addition, Dratel argued that evidence against Stewart amounted to no
more than three meetings with her client over a two year period. He
further said that she was charged for "isolated and sporadic
conduct" in an alleged plot where no "violent acts were planned
or occurred," and, in fact, there was no plot.<br><br>
In response to one judge's question about her allegedly saying Rahman
withdrew his support for a cease fire, Dratel stated the "cease fire
was not abrogated. It remained in effect." He insisted that Rahman
merely said it was time to "reevaluate" the cease fire because
of the Egyptian government's oppression and recalcitrance. Dratel
stressed that with no intent to "incite imminent unlawful conduct or
violence," the First Amendment protected Stewart's
statements.<br><br>
So does the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision
that overturned Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute. The Court ruled that
government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or
law violation and only can do so in instances of directly inciting
"imminent lawless actions." Dratel referenced the
"Brandenburg standard" that's the law of the land and under
which Stewart was within her rights.<br><br>
Assistant US attorney in the Southern District Anthony Barkow, who was
part of the prosecutorial team, argued for the government before a
potentially sympathetic court. It's at a time two-thirds of all federal
judges are from or affiliated with the extremist Federalist Society. It
advocates rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies;
opposing reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights and
environment protections; and subverting justice in defense of privilege.
<br><br>
This is what Stewart is up against as she awaits the decision that can go
either way in an age of police state justice. Under New York state law,
she was automatically disbarred, and the state Supreme Court's Appellate
Division denied her petition to resign voluntarily. Adding insult to her
unjust conviction, it ruled that "federal convictions provide a
proper predicate for automatic disbarment." <br><br>
It was the fourth injustice against a woman who spent a lifetime
advocating for society's most disadvantaged. It followed two falsified
indictments, a kangaroo court proceeding, and an unjustifiable conviction
on all counts. Combined they represent an outrageous miscarriage of
justice. <br><br>
An appeals verdict is due any time, and legions of Stewart supporters
hope justice delayed won't be denied to her. She deserves full
exoneration, readmittance to the state bar, and to be able again to
represent society's most unwanted who need her advocacy and remain
hopeful. So does everyone who respects the law at a time it's being
desecrated.<br><br>
Stephen Lendman</b> lives in Chicago and can be reached at
<a href="mailto:lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net">
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net</a>. <br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>