Lynne Stewart case: Bill of Rights on trial

The Case of Lynne Stewart. A Justice Department Attack on the Bill of Rights. A National Lawyers Guild Publication. 37 pp. 2005

Lynne Stewart

The pamphlet contains incontrovertible proof of progressive New York attorney Lynne Stewart’s integrity and innocence, and an unanswerable indictment of the U.S. Justice Department.

Shakespeare said, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.” Lynne Stewart says, “You can’t put the lawyers in jail.” The U.S. Justice Depart ment says, “Terrify the lawyers.” The government set out to do this through the prosecution of Stewart, who was appointed by a federal court to represent Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Sheikh Rahman was convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy.

Stewart, who attempted to energetically appeal Sheikh Rahman’s conviction and to alleviate his conditions of imprisonment, was charged with and convicted of “helping terrorists.” Knowing what has happened to Lynne Stewart, an attorney considering representing a client slated for annihilation by the U.S. government must ask: “Should I risk my right to practice law? Am I up for hard prison time?” Only the most dedicated and courageous will take that chance.

The government says, “Terrify the jury.” This was accomplished in more ways than one. It combined Stewart’s trial with that of Ahmed Abdel Sattar, who was the liaison between Rahman, the legal team and his family and supporters in Egypt. In October 2000 Sattar had issued a “fatwa” in the name of the sheikh calling for the killing of Jews. What had this to do with Stewart? Nothing.

But the association was planted in the minds of the jury. The prosecution drop ped the name of Osama Bin Laden more than once, and orated about the bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen, although they made no direct allegations that Stewart had any connections with either.

Why did the wrath of the “patriot” gods strike Stewart? Did she engage in violent acts? Did she advocate violent acts? Did she conspire to perform or advocate violent acts? No, no, and no. Did they accuse her of any of the above? No.

The basis for the prosecution was Stewart’s June 2000 call to Reuters News Service with a news release—no conspiracy or secrecy here—from Sheikh Rah man. The release stated his withdrawal of support for a peace initiative involving the Egyptian government and an Islamic organization in that country, and expres sed the view that the Egyptian people should make such a decision. No violence was advocated, nor did any result.

Sheikh Rahman’s legal team, Stewart and Ramsey Clark, wanted their blind and ailing client, who did not speak or understand English, to be extradited to Egypt to serve his life sentence. Stewart believed that publicity would aid in this effort and the Reuters dispatch would serve that end. In better times, a minor violation like this would perhaps result in a 30-day suspension of her license. In this era of unending assaults on rights and liberties, Stewart, a 65-year-old long-time defender of the poor and defenseless, went through a slanderous trial and now faces a possible 30-year prison sentence.

Two constitutional issues, among others, are cited in the pamphlet: the right of the accused to private consultations with lawyers, and the right of clients and attorneys to execute defense strategy without governmental interference.

Stewart’s sentencing is set for Sept. 23. Her defense team, refusing to be intimidated, will pursue all avenues of appeal. Check for court location and how to contribute, big or small, at www.lynnestewart.org or call 212-625-9696.

Come to court. Support Lynne Stewart. Help turn back the onslaught on long-established rights and liberties.