Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05
Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05
I like hearing both sides of an issue. I sometimes despair of the shape of civil rights in our country. BUT, this is not a lawsuit about civil rights, no matter who tries to say it is. When I read this page, I came away wondering why (and how) on earth a lawyer who is reportedly great at handling cases, would get herself locked up. This site tries to make her out as some kind of martyr. There are martyrs in the US right now, people who have been locked up just because they fit a description and not because they haven't broken any laws. I've read cases about several of them. Many are doctors, pursued so that the "War on Drugs" will look like it's being won. Others are editors, computer experts, etc. Nearly always you can find an internet page about them, proclaiming FREE (insert name here). Many times its legitimate. Many other times it's not. This is one of those times.
Here is the quote from the page:
"We have very sad news. Lynne Stewart was found guilty on all counts Thursday February 10. All defendants in the case were found guilty on all counts. We must continue our fight to FREE LYNNE STEWART!
Lynne told reporters: 'We are not going to give up,' a tearful Stewart said outside court. 'We're going to fight on. This is the beginning of a larger struggle.
I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right….I see myself as a symbol of what people rail against when they say that civil liberties are eroded,' she said, her voice breaking with emotion. 'We don't live in the same America we lived in even three or four years ago.
'We will all wake up one morning to hear someone say guilty and be placed in jail," she said. "I hope this verdict will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this great country that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"
Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The problem is that there is WAY too much information left out. What did she do? What was she charged with? Why are we left to sort out the truth if we are supposed to believe that she is innocent?
A quick search brings up an article in the Washington Post. "She was found guilty of trying to cover up secret conversations between Rahman and his followers and violating federal regulations by publicly announcing in 2000 that the cleric had withdrawn his support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian government and the Islamic Group -- a fundamentalist organization that carried out terrorist attacks on tourists and police officers." I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a lawyer or a judge or a policeman or a person off the street or even the President, being an American citizen carries with it the responsibility of obeying the laws of the land. And flaunting the law can lead to punishment.
" "We all believed it was our role to keep him on the world stage," Stewart told The Washington Post last year. "His word matters. And he wouldn't be the first man accused of terrorism who is later released from prison when times change."
This strategy, and Stewart's decision to smuggle out the sheik's message advocating the end of the cease-fire, troubled legal ethicists from both ends of the political spectrum.
Steven Lubet, director of Northwestern University's program on advocacy and professionalism, dismissed much of Stewart's defense. "There is nothing about 'vigorous defense' that requires a lawyer to facilitate her client's political goals," he said in a statement. "This case has nothing to do with zealous defense."
Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, added that Stewart comes from a long tradition of radical defense lawyers who stop at little in defense of their clients. But he noted that few go so far as Stewart.
"I don't think most lawyers would take these risks,' he said. 'Her conduct, when she crossed the line, was bold.'"
I like hearing both sides of an issue. I sometimes despair of the shape of civil rights in our country. BUT, this is not a lawsuit about civil rights, no matter who tries to say it is. When I read this page, I came away wondering why (and how) on earth a lawyer who is reportedly great at handling cases, would get herself locked up. This site tries to make her out as some kind of martyr. There are martyrs in the US right now, people who have been locked up just because they fit a description and not because they haven't broken any laws. I've read cases about several of them. Many are doctors, pursued so that the "War on Drugs" will look like it's being won. Others are editors, computer experts, etc. Nearly always you can find an internet page about them, proclaiming FREE (insert name here). Many times its legitimate. Many other times it's not. This is one of those times.
Here is the quote from the page:
"We have very sad news. Lynne Stewart was found guilty on all counts Thursday February 10. All defendants in the case were found guilty on all counts. We must continue our fight to FREE LYNNE STEWART!
Lynne told reporters: 'We are not going to give up,' a tearful Stewart said outside court. 'We're going to fight on. This is the beginning of a larger struggle.
I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right….I see myself as a symbol of what people rail against when they say that civil liberties are eroded,' she said, her voice breaking with emotion. 'We don't live in the same America we lived in even three or four years ago.
'We will all wake up one morning to hear someone say guilty and be placed in jail," she said. "I hope this verdict will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this great country that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"
Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The problem is that there is WAY too much information left out. What did she do? What was she charged with? Why are we left to sort out the truth if we are supposed to believe that she is innocent?
A quick search brings up an article in the Washington Post. "She was found guilty of trying to cover up secret conversations between Rahman and his followers and violating federal regulations by publicly announcing in 2000 that the cleric had withdrawn his support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian government and the Islamic Group -- a fundamentalist organization that carried out terrorist attacks on tourists and police officers." I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a lawyer or a judge or a policeman or a person off the street or even the President, being an American citizen carries with it the responsibility of obeying the laws of the land. And flaunting the law can lead to punishment.
" "We all believed it was our role to keep him on the world stage," Stewart told The Washington Post last year. "His word matters. And he wouldn't be the first man accused of terrorism who is later released from prison when times change."
This strategy, and Stewart's decision to smuggle out the sheik's message advocating the end of the cease-fire, troubled legal ethicists from both ends of the political spectrum.
Steven Lubet, director of Northwestern University's program on advocacy and professionalism, dismissed much of Stewart's defense. "There is nothing about 'vigorous defense' that requires a lawyer to facilitate her client's political goals," he said in a statement. "This case has nothing to do with zealous defense."
Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, added that Stewart comes from a long tradition of radical defense lawyers who stop at little in defense of their clients. But he noted that few go so far as Stewart.
"I don't think most lawyers would take these risks,' he said. 'Her conduct, when she crossed the line, was bold.'"
posted by Teeg | 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home