Letter to Malone Telegram re Lynne Stewart, by Peter Kivic © 2009

Letter to Malone Telegram

To the Editor:

One of our most accomplished local citizens has just been sent to prison - evidently, for just doing her job. l, for one, do not understand this action.

Lynne Stewart has been a well-known defense lawyer; for years she has been carrying out a necessary legal role for which other lawyers were either unqualified, or too timid, to attempt: providing unpopular, sometimes downright repugnant, and often obviously guilty, accused criminals with the legal advice the Constitution requires they have when going to court.

It was in this capacity, fourteen years ago, that she was brought into a case by Ramsey Clark to represent Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, (the ''Blind Sheikh"), accused of being the ringleader of the Islamist terrorists who carried out the first, unsuccessful, attack on the World Trade Center. After his conviction, Rahman's three lawyers continued to provide legal advice as he wound up his personal legal affairs, a normal thing for a lawyer to do.

Three years later, the Federal government, in a very unusual move, cut off all communications between the Sheikh and the outside world, and the lawyers were ordered to stop providing this prisoner assistance in this regard. Considering the order of dubious legality and a clear violation of the prisoner's legal rights, the lawyers continued to provide sporadic legal services, ignoring what they considered an illegitimate government order, of the sort that other lawyers had previously received "slap on the wrist" admonitions for violating.

A couple of years later, the prisoner requested Stewart send a press release to Egypt, where he still had a small political following, telling the remaining members of his organization, in essence, "l quit as your leader; l'm a long-term prisoner and no longer involved in politics. Go find yourselves some other guy." The lawyers saw no harm in this; in fact the action would appear to be just the sort the U.S. government would applaud. The government lawyers made a pro forma objection, but took no other action.

But then, two years after that, 9/11 happened. New Attorney General Ashcroft, under pressure to be seen doing something, evidently decided to single out Lynne Stewart and this press release to make an example: she, her paralegal, and her interpreter were tried as terrorists. After a nine-month trial, they were convicted of conspiring to commit a conspiracy ( - l have no idea what that means - ) and she was disbarred and sentenced to prison.

- ("We don't have Osama bin Laden, but we've got Lynne Stewart!" Ashcroft could now tell his critics.)

And now, fourteen years after the original court case, all the appeals have made their way through the courts, and Lynne, now in her seventies and afflicted with cancer, is going to prison for two-and-a-half years. Considering her health situation and the prison's medical facilities, this may amount to a death sentence. Present Attorney-General Holder could, presumably, review this case, but does not seem interested in doing so.

But for what purpose, l wonder, is this being done? To make John Ashcroft look good? To reassure the general public that the Federal Goverment is on the job? Even the judge in the case admitted that there was a "lack of evidence that any victim was harmed" by whatever, if anything, the defendants did.

Or, might this be a warning to the legal community to be obedient? lt was recently decided that "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Shiekh Mohommed and several other fellow suspected terrorists now being held at Guantanamo will go on trial soon in this same New York City courtroom. Attorney-General Holder has already assured nervous city residents that these men will all be convicted, and that none will be found innocent and released onto the streets of the city. Could there be a message here to the future defense attorneys to not try too hard?



Peter Kivic