No Defense (Lynne F. Stewart represented leader of the Islamic Group a terrorist organization)

NY Times ^ | February 17, 2005 | ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

[Former Military Chick]

I have mixed feelings on the Judges commentary. We are entitled to our own opinions. Just cannot wrap myself around his reasonings. Any one else have a thought on his article?

[DTogo]

The Judge was on O'Reilly tonight and Bill mopped the floor with His Honor's excessively full head of hair.

[Texas_Jarhead]

He made this argument on BOR tonight. Interesting exchange but I think the judge is wrong when he equates an LEO's telling a lie to a perp the same as committing a crime.

[dts32041]

Is judge N advocating the constitution as a suicide pact?

[Peach]

And while I was out I see that freepers uncovered the little tidbit that Soros funded her defense.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This woman and her client were obviously dangerous and if she violated judicial ethics, she should spend time in the cell next door.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

My reaction exactly. If this kind of surveillance were not allowed - Al Qaeda would construct network nodes by intentionally getting key people into prisons in the US.

[goldstategop]

Lawyers are not above the law. A zealous defense of client does NOT give you the right to act as an advocate for breaking the law on your client's behalf or endangering others. There's a wonderful The Practice episode in which attorney Bobby O'Donnell gets prosecuted for betraying a confidence he learned from his D.A girlfriend Helen Gamble that resulted in the death of two police officers. The point is while you have a duty to represent a client, you don't have the right to put others in harms' way while doing so.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[dts32041]

Anybody hear what F. Lee Levin has said about this little matter?

[italianquaker]

I listen to his commentary alot and am really convinced he is an a-s

[JLS]

I saw the Judge on tv tonight too. I am glad to read his views in print now. I think he is wrong on a number of points:

1. It is laughable for any Judge to complain about another part of government usurping the powers of Congress to legislate. Had judges not done this for the last 70 year, then what he is complaining about would look far more outrageous. So even if he is right on this point, he only has his fellow judges to blame.

2. About there being no precident for a lawyer to be prosecuted for breaking prison rules, sorry but the fact that prior to 9-11 attorneys were treated differently than the rest of us was wrong not a reason to continue that special treatment. Certainly attorneys for terriorist should not be treated differently than the rest of us if as visitors we broke prison rules. We don't want these guys communicating with their followers even more than we don't want mafia guys running their organizations from prison.

3. There is no first ammendment issue here. She was allowed to speak. Just like anyone who choose to speak she risked breaking tort or criminal law when she spoke. The first ammendment does not free you from slander case law nor does it free you to conspire to commit terriorist acts or murder.

4. I am sympathetic concerning the issue of convicting her on lying to the US government. I certainly have problems with two parties having a discussion, the government agent lies and the private citizen response with a lie and the citizen is then guilty of a crime.

I guess it will come down to whether or not listening in on attorneys and clients meetings in prison is ok or not. I would guess that prison officials might be allowed to do so IF no information about appeal strategy etc were communicated to the prosecutor. This is sort of a catch 22. If a third party is able to hear an attorney client meeting, then the priviledge is void. Thus if they knew they were being taped, which apparently they did, it was not a priviledge conversation?

[Truthsearcher]

1. That it is dangerous for Judges to usurp power doesn't mean it's okay for the executive branch to do the same thing.

2. If the government wants to prevent attorneys from passing messages, they could very well put her under surveilance while outside of jail.

3. The issue is whether they should have been listening to the conversation to begin with. I would contend no, absent crossing a threshold where they believe that a threat of a dangerous is immediate and serious, and a court order (much like a search warrant).


The problem is they should be allowed some privileged communication. If they had notice but on the other hand are never given a chance to talk in confidence, then the notice is meaningless.

I am certainly no fan of the leftist like Stewart, but the end does not justify the means. Our founding father warned against trading liberty for security, and I think this is just such an instance.

[GeronL]

If she is guilty of what she is accused of, it is treason and she can get the death penalty. I think she should become hamburger meat and sold in Tehran but I can live with death for a traitor

[BCrago66]

I don't really know the history here, but I can fake it via Google, regarding the murder of Thomas Becket:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/becket.htm

"Earlier, while in France, Becket had excomunicated the Bishops of London and Salisbury for their support of the king. Now, Becket remained steadfast in his refusal to absolve the bishops. This news threw King Henry (still in France) into a rage in which he was purported to shout: "What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest."

That line - "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest" - has been used to illustrate the point that solicitation to murder need not be so explicit, along the lines of "Go kill John Smith next Thursday." And I don't think the good Judge Napolitano would argue that solicitation to murder is protected by the 1st Amendment.

So the Judge's argument that Lynn Stuart's press conference, in which she participated in or actualized the Sheikh's solicitation to murder (while knowing the consequences), is protected by the 1st Amenment, is wrong.

[jra]

Hmmm...so will the NYT carry water for Judge Napolitano when he's advocating ending unlawful recounts in gubernatorial elections?

Doubt it.

[scoastie]

well, I see, once again, that Soros' money bought another loss..

[NoJoke]

Witch ought to be burned at the stake.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

We are in a new situation, facing non-uniformed combatants who can wield the weapons of mass destruction. IMO, and in as much as I admire Judge Napolitano, I must respectfully disagree with him. The problem we now face is that current law does not adequately address the current threat.

Furthermore, Judge Napolitano seems to be IMO far too sympathetic to attorneys, who should be culpable under sedition laws which, along with other laws protecting national security (treason?) seem to have been woefully ignored in the recent past.

I agree with Judge Napolitano, however, that attorney-client conversations should not be eavesdropped, with the caveat that the attorney should be obligated to disclose any information that could prevent future terrorist attacks.

In Stewart's case, she has no case. A more vile creature could not easily be found in the USA. She had been aiding vermin who want to detonate nuclear weapons on our soil. She should be hanged by the neck until dead. The carcass should be banned from burial on US soil.

[scoastie]

no joke! She has actively advocated the overthrow of the US govt......there is a line that crosses over from free speech to sedition..she crossed it...she signed an agreement and deliberately slinked on it...

[Former Military Chick]

wow, I will need to stay up and watch when it replays .. the Judge usually is on the mark. We may in the end agree to disagree.