The Lynne Stewart Case

[MrAeroMan]

Here's the story.See Story Here
What's funny is the National Lawyers Guild says this is an infringement of The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but says nothing about how that relates to her passing communications onto people that he was forbidden to communicate with. She even signed a document stating she would refrain from doing such yet she's whining because she was prosecuted for breaking the law and an agreement that she promised to abide by.

Yet when we see the lefts view we see stuff like this:

Elaine Cassel's view from Counter Punch Pretty much says she may have broken the law but she should have just been reprimanded instead of convicted and serving prison time.

Or this one Find it here.

CNN reports is like this.
See CNN's Account

Fox News reports it like this.
See Fox's Account

"The judge said there was ample evidence she had smuggled messages between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization _ messages he said could have had"potentially lethal consequences."But the judge noted no one was harmed as a result."
I've got to remember that if I'm ever charged with attempted murder.
Hey judge, sorry for the mistake but hey, no harm done. No one was harmed as a result so can you have these shackle thingy's taken off me and let me go home and catch a flick with the family?
I might have a chance if I'm talking to a judge appointed by a liberal like Judge John Koeltl was in 1994 by our buddy Bill.

So if you want to know how Libs are going to deal with terrorists here you go.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I do not have a problem with Lynne Stewart's conviction or sentencing. She clearly made poor choices when she communicated to the followers of the Sheik.

I do, however, have a problem with the way the U.S. gov't "spied" on Lynne Stewart. After 9/11 John Ashcroft and Assistant Attorney General Viet Dingh announced the new measures that would be applied to the then-existing SAM Orders. These new measures were unlike anything that had come before it. Previously, the U.S. gov't could apply "wiretapping" tactics on attorneys AFTER approval by a federal judge. This would require probable cause, a standard used in many areas in which the gov't is about to infringe an individual's personal freedoms.

Here, under the newly morphed SAM Orders, the gov't is able to apply wiretapping and other spy methods whenever they feel like they have a REASONABLE suspicion. This is a much easier standard to meet; furthermore, they do not need the approval of a judge before the order is applied. The funny thing is that the Executive Order appears to allow the gov't to listen to communications just to determine whether there is a reasonable suspicion in the 1st place... it is a win/win for the gov't!

Lastly, the gov't will always be reasonably suspicious, as they are dealing with a suspected criminal with SAM orders.

Although I think the gov't needs to have access and means to go after terrorists and those who aid them, I think the gov't overstepped their boundaries on this one.