Watch Your Back, Ramsey Clark

Lynne Stewart, attorney for Omar Abdel-Rahman, has been convicted of aiding terrorism by helping the blind sheikh sneak messages out of his prison cell. Stories here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Jarett Decker considered the Stewart case's ramifications last year in Reason.

Comments

[The Real Bill]

This woman is obviously a freaking loon! Drawing implications from this case is silly. Don't break the rules; don't go to jail. I feel so sorry for her going to jail for helping a mass murderer get his evil word out.

[R C Dean]

What she was convicted of has zip zero nada to do with defending her client in court. I see absolutely no civil liberties implications here, any more than I see second amendment issues when someone is convicted of knocking over a liquor store with a gun.

[Jimbo]

For all of you who said that Ayn Rand wrote in caricatures...I present Lynne Stewart. Have you seen and heard the "woman"? It's like she walked off a page to spout "shopworn bromides" and she "smells like cabbage." Jokes aside, she participated in an ongoing criminal conspiracy aimed at the downfall of the US, and she did so with gusto. She's already dressed and groomed for prison, let her rot.

[Anonymous]

You lot don't read, and until you do, be quiet. I have bolded the important part because you missed it, and included surrounding paragraphs for background. This is from Jarett Decker's article.

Had the timing of her actions been different, Stewart could have been charged with violating a little-noticed provision of the PATRIOT Act that makes it a crime to provide "expert advice or assistance" to a terrorist group. Although the Justice Department cannot use that provision against Stewart -- and a California federal judge recently limited its reach -- the department?s court submissions in her case take the position that legal representation of alleged terrorists is a crime under the PATRIOT Act if the lawyer can be portrayed as acting under "the direction and control" of a foreign terrorist organization. The law does not require any intent to further illegal activities, and the Justice Department contends that there is no exception for "good faith" or "bona fide" legal representation.

All lawyers work "under the direction and control" of their clients, within the limits of the rules of ethics. If the Justice Department?s interpretation of the PATRIOT Act is accepted by the courts, any lawyer who represents a terrorism suspect can be charged with a crime if the government claims his client?s directives also represent the directives of the terrorist organization the client is accused of serving. In virtually any terrorism case that does not involve a "lone wolf" defendant, it could be alleged that the defendant is acting on behalf of his organization as well as himself in directing his lawyer (as the government alleges in Stewart?s case).

Did she commit a crime when she violated the restrictions known as "special administrative measures" that said, "Don't let this person talk to anyone else"? Yes. This is clear, and she should be punished for it. The DOJ are not limiting their case to that. They are putting forward a doctrine where anyone who defends an accused terrorist could be prosecuted solely for that otherwise legal defense. The money shot:

Baker specifically rejected any notion that the government would have to prove intent on the lawyer?s part to further illegal activities, because that "is not constitutionally compelled and is inconsistent with the plain text and structure of the statute." Speaking for the Justice Department, Baker concluded that "criminalizing attorney representation" does "not render the prohibition [on material support] unconstitutional." Baker allowed that "Congress could bestow upon attorneys (or others) an express or implied right to act as an agent of a designated foreign terrorist organization in certain circumstances." Any attorney without such a blessing from Congress would be fair game.

Leaving those taken in Afghanistan and imprisoned in Iraq alone, as those are different issues, it is clear that the Bush administration wish to stripped supposed American terrorists of due process, as shown by Jose Padilla. This case shows another erosion of basic rights by the Bush administration, although to be fair the DOJ has been pushing this for years. But it happened under Bush's watch. The right to defense counsel is slipping away. It is limited to terrorists now, but if you think this is where it'll end you're a sucker. Look at the exceptions carved out for the Drug War that have metastatized. Seizing property for accused welfare fraud. Seizing motels because the prices were too low to keep drug dealers out.

Let me restate. This case is not important because she was convicted. She should have been by the facts as I understand them. It is important because the DOJ want to threaten or even prosecute defense attornies for having the wrong client and have stated so in their case against her.

That said, I understand that we have weathered similar assaults on civil liberties in the past, and it would be much harder for them to convict someone under this new legal theory. I don't even think the DOJ is trying to be evil in pushing this, just blind as to their proper role and the point of the adversarial system of law. But until the DOJ no longer claims that "legal representation of alleged terrorists is a crime under the PATRIOT Act", the rule of law is being threatened, and I would expect libertarians and conservatives to understand that.

Hmm. A little extra reading shows that Lynne Stewart and her supporters really aren't helping the issue by muddying the waters with claims of "oppression" without mentioning the violation of the SAM and blaming the PATRIOT Act for her conviction when it didn't matter for her. The FISA warrant used against her while she talked to her client doesn't please me, but she shouldn't have violated the SAM in the first place. Does anyone know if such privileged material is being used elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

The FISA warrant used against her while she talked to her client doesn't please me, but she shouldn't have violated the SAM in the first place. Does anyone know if such privileged material is being used elsewhere?

I was a bit hasty there. I still don't like it, but apparently a seperate firewalled team goes through and removes stuff like that from the wiretaps and such. Seems sufficient.

[kwais]

Anonymous,
You said we don't read, then you wrote a whole book of a post. Care to give us the cliff notes on why you think that this America hating terrorist sympathiser and enabler is not wrong?

[Anonymous]

Not really. If you can't even read what's on the same page, I'm not going to bother.