THEY'VE TAKEN THE LAWYERS AND NOW THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU
Randy L. Harrington
August 29, 2006
NEW YORK, NY—Next month 67-year old defense lawyer Lynne Stewart will be sentenced by a federal judge magistrate to between 30 and 40 years in federal prison. She was convicted last year of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, and defrauding the United States government. Her 7-month trial, ended with 13 days of jury deliberations. Her trial ironically took place in the same federal courthouse where the Rosenberg's were tried and convicted for espionage more than 50 years ago. The circle is now almost complete, and we have succumbed to a fascist government run by people who know what's best for us as a nation.
The subject here is not the erosion of our Constitutional rights from Marbury vs. Madison to the passing of the USA Patriot Act—it is more about how right under our noses, without any trickery or slight of hand another of our fundamental rights has been buried while we have the audacity to export our form of freedom all over the world.
Lynne Stewart was doing what she does best. She was representing the most reprehensible, repugnant, unpopular, and dangerous criminal defendant that the world has come to know all to well. Stewart was indicted in March 2002 based upon government eavesdropping between Stewart and her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in 1998-three years before the USA Patriot Act.
Rahman is serving a life, plus 65-year sentence for conspiring to bomb several New York City landmarks and for solicitation of criminal acts of violence against the US military and Egyptian government leaders.
The United States Attorney General in 1997 instructed the Bureau of Prison (BOP) to use Special Administrative Measures (SMAs) for Rahman that would limit his access to mail, the media, the telephone, and visitors.
Stewart who was part of Rahman's defense team, along with other well known attorneys such as former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and she was required to sign acknowledge and accept the SAMs before she was allowed to see, or represent Rahman. Stewart agreed “only to be accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters” and not to “use [her] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman.”
Rahman is not a well liked man in the US. However, as a convicted prisoner in our country he enjoys the full panoply of constitutional rights that all of us enjoy. One of those constitutional rights is the full and unequivocal right to his attorney—to include confidential attorney-client communication, like any other criminal defendant.
The government alleged and convicted Stewart for allowing the Arabic translator to read letters to Rahman regarding Islamic Group matters, and to conduct discussions with Rahman about whether Islamics faithful to Rahman should continue to support a cease-fire in Egypt. Stewart was accused of concealing these discussions from prison officials, and then she announced to the media that Rahman had withdrawn support for the Egyptian cease-fire.
The government took Stewart's actions out of context for the purpose of convicting her. Stewart was a defense lawyer, and it was her very job to do those things that were in the best interests of her client-no matter how unpopular the client is. Stewart was trying to get the 65-year old, blind Rahman transferred to Egypt under an international treaty for the purposes of serving his sentence in Egypt. Up until this point Rahman has been kept in complete isolation in an American prison. The Egyptians, as well as the public forgot Rahman. Stewart used Rahman's withdrawal of his support of the Egyptian cease-fire as a negotiating ploy to demonstrate to the Egyptians that Rahman was still popular among his Muslim supporters. Stewart was charged, and convicted of doing nothing more than what any defense lawyer is required to do by law in the United States.
As a matter of fact, Stewart was not the only one who violated Rahman's SAMs. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a member of Rahman's defense team who signed the SAMs held frequent press conferences, passed on Rahman's statements about Egyptian politics and policies to the media. Clark was never charged, and he testified on Stewart's behalf at trial.
Why was Stewart charged? After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Attorney General John Ashcroft saw that he had nothing to support the political rhetoric about the need for the USA Patriot Act. Ashcroft needed to show the American public—and the world that the United States was actively fighting terrorism, and that nobody would be immune—regardless what the Constitution said—from prosecution, or the wrath of the United States government. Since September 11 the only person arrested and charged with terrorist acts was John Walker Lindh.
Despite all of the justification of the war on terror by the invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq Ashcroft has never indicted or charged Osama Bin Laden for acts of terrorism and murder in the United States. Stewart made an ideal target because people don't like lawyers, and Stewart had been a thorn in the side of the Department of Justice for years. Ashcroft sent a clear, and undeniable message in his indictment of Stewart—if you are a lawyer, and you represent an unpopular cause, or client whom the government does not feel should be defended then the Department of Justice will hunt you down, and prosecute you.
Ashcroft's actions are particularly reprehensible from a constitutional perspective. The same day that Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (if the Patriot Act would have existed before Stewart was charged then it would have been easier to shut her down) Ashcroft sent orders to the Bureau of Prisons that five days after his orders new prison regulations would become effective that permitted the Department of Justice unlimited, unregulated, and unreviewable authority to eavesdrop on any confidential attorney-client conversation of any person in custody, regardless of whether or not they had been convicted of any criminal activity.
Terrorism is a very real danger as we can see from the attacks of September 11, 2006. However, the Bush administration has made every effort to use the threat of terror to erode the basic principles of constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Bush administration first tried to imprison people at Guantanamo Bay without due process of law (granted the detainees were suspected terrorists, they still enjoy the rights granted under the Constitution to any detainee, unless they are Prisoner's of War, then they can be held under compliance with the Geneva Conventions), and the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do it. Then the current administration engaged in domestic spying programs, and possibly violated financial confidentiality laws, only to be subjected to further scrutiny by our courts. The USA Patriot Act is a response that plays on the fears of the American people against terrorism. When we sacrifice the freedoms granted to us under the United States Constitution, or allow one branch of the government to exercise exclusive control over our liberties, and dictate to us what is in our best interests then the terrorists have won the war on terror. If this is going to be the case then we should bring our brave troops home from Iraq, because we have proven in the streets of America that our unique form of democracy does not work.
It is the fear instilled by an administration that seeks to destroy our basic freedoms that have led to the conviction of 67 year-old Lynne Stewart who was doing her job as a defense lawyer. As American's we should be speaking out, and fighting tyranny wherever it exists, whether it comes from one political party or the other. Patrick Henry once said “Give me liberty or give me death.” But a more appropriate statement was made by Martin Niemoller in 1945 in the last stanza of his poem about the Fascists in Germany, “Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
SOURCES/CONTRIBUTORS: AP; US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US BOP;
Copyright 2006 Randy L. Harrington. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Republication or redistribution of this Article, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Randy L. Harrington.
The subject here is not the erosion of our Constitutional rights from Marbury vs. Madison to the passing of the USA Patriot Act—it is more about how right under our noses, without any trickery or slight of hand another of our fundamental rights has been buried while we have the audacity to export our form of freedom all over the world.
Lynne Stewart was doing what she does best. She was representing the most reprehensible, repugnant, unpopular, and dangerous criminal defendant that the world has come to know all to well. Stewart was indicted in March 2002 based upon government eavesdropping between Stewart and her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in 1998-three years before the USA Patriot Act.
Rahman is serving a life, plus 65-year sentence for conspiring to bomb several New York City landmarks and for solicitation of criminal acts of violence against the US military and Egyptian government leaders.
The United States Attorney General in 1997 instructed the Bureau of Prison (BOP) to use Special Administrative Measures (SMAs) for Rahman that would limit his access to mail, the media, the telephone, and visitors.
Stewart who was part of Rahman's defense team, along with other well known attorneys such as former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and she was required to sign acknowledge and accept the SAMs before she was allowed to see, or represent Rahman. Stewart agreed “only to be accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters” and not to “use [her] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman.”
Rahman is not a well liked man in the US. However, as a convicted prisoner in our country he enjoys the full panoply of constitutional rights that all of us enjoy. One of those constitutional rights is the full and unequivocal right to his attorney—to include confidential attorney-client communication, like any other criminal defendant.
The government alleged and convicted Stewart for allowing the Arabic translator to read letters to Rahman regarding Islamic Group matters, and to conduct discussions with Rahman about whether Islamics faithful to Rahman should continue to support a cease-fire in Egypt. Stewart was accused of concealing these discussions from prison officials, and then she announced to the media that Rahman had withdrawn support for the Egyptian cease-fire.
The government took Stewart's actions out of context for the purpose of convicting her. Stewart was a defense lawyer, and it was her very job to do those things that were in the best interests of her client-no matter how unpopular the client is. Stewart was trying to get the 65-year old, blind Rahman transferred to Egypt under an international treaty for the purposes of serving his sentence in Egypt. Up until this point Rahman has been kept in complete isolation in an American prison. The Egyptians, as well as the public forgot Rahman. Stewart used Rahman's withdrawal of his support of the Egyptian cease-fire as a negotiating ploy to demonstrate to the Egyptians that Rahman was still popular among his Muslim supporters. Stewart was charged, and convicted of doing nothing more than what any defense lawyer is required to do by law in the United States.
As a matter of fact, Stewart was not the only one who violated Rahman's SAMs. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a member of Rahman's defense team who signed the SAMs held frequent press conferences, passed on Rahman's statements about Egyptian politics and policies to the media. Clark was never charged, and he testified on Stewart's behalf at trial.
Why was Stewart charged? After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Attorney General John Ashcroft saw that he had nothing to support the political rhetoric about the need for the USA Patriot Act. Ashcroft needed to show the American public—and the world that the United States was actively fighting terrorism, and that nobody would be immune—regardless what the Constitution said—from prosecution, or the wrath of the United States government. Since September 11 the only person arrested and charged with terrorist acts was John Walker Lindh.
Despite all of the justification of the war on terror by the invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq Ashcroft has never indicted or charged Osama Bin Laden for acts of terrorism and murder in the United States. Stewart made an ideal target because people don't like lawyers, and Stewart had been a thorn in the side of the Department of Justice for years. Ashcroft sent a clear, and undeniable message in his indictment of Stewart—if you are a lawyer, and you represent an unpopular cause, or client whom the government does not feel should be defended then the Department of Justice will hunt you down, and prosecute you.
Ashcroft's actions are particularly reprehensible from a constitutional perspective. The same day that Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (if the Patriot Act would have existed before Stewart was charged then it would have been easier to shut her down) Ashcroft sent orders to the Bureau of Prisons that five days after his orders new prison regulations would become effective that permitted the Department of Justice unlimited, unregulated, and unreviewable authority to eavesdrop on any confidential attorney-client conversation of any person in custody, regardless of whether or not they had been convicted of any criminal activity.
Terrorism is a very real danger as we can see from the attacks of September 11, 2006. However, the Bush administration has made every effort to use the threat of terror to erode the basic principles of constitutional protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Bush administration first tried to imprison people at Guantanamo Bay without due process of law (granted the detainees were suspected terrorists, they still enjoy the rights granted under the Constitution to any detainee, unless they are Prisoner's of War, then they can be held under compliance with the Geneva Conventions), and the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do it. Then the current administration engaged in domestic spying programs, and possibly violated financial confidentiality laws, only to be subjected to further scrutiny by our courts. The USA Patriot Act is a response that plays on the fears of the American people against terrorism. When we sacrifice the freedoms granted to us under the United States Constitution, or allow one branch of the government to exercise exclusive control over our liberties, and dictate to us what is in our best interests then the terrorists have won the war on terror. If this is going to be the case then we should bring our brave troops home from Iraq, because we have proven in the streets of America that our unique form of democracy does not work.
It is the fear instilled by an administration that seeks to destroy our basic freedoms that have led to the conviction of 67 year-old Lynne Stewart who was doing her job as a defense lawyer. As American's we should be speaking out, and fighting tyranny wherever it exists, whether it comes from one political party or the other. Patrick Henry once said “Give me liberty or give me death.” But a more appropriate statement was made by Martin Niemoller in 1945 in the last stanza of his poem about the Fascists in Germany, “Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
SOURCES/CONTRIBUTORS: AP; US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; US BOP;
Copyright 2006 Randy L. Harrington. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Republication or redistribution of this Article, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Randy L. Harrington.
Print
Email
