"The jurors’ mining of the evidence, he said, convinced them that Ms. Stewart was aware that one militant from Abdel Rahman’s organization in Egypt, the Islamic Group, planned to foment terror attacks using a message from the sheik that Ms. Stewart released.
Juror 8 said the jurors found that Mr. Taha had used the sheik’s words to recruit at least one Egyptian militant to start plotting an attack."
====
She should have been convicted of treason and sentenced accordingly.
There was PLENTY of evidence that she was aware that her actions help terrorists plot attacks against Americans. The article gives a lot of details.
Can she practice again when she walks?
I would hope that the government now indicts her for perjury and tries the case about 1500 miles away from the Al Qaeda judge that sat on the bench during this last travesty of justice.
where is the outrage?
People just go and accept this -- this will just encourage other terrorist sympathizers, since they will face virtually no punishment.
Of course we have no way of knowing, but the percentages (90+% in most polls)say that a professor from one of the prominent East Coast schools is probably a liberal by persuasion.
For him to come forward like this, if he is indeed a liberal, brings to mind that a liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet.
The surprise is that it's in the NYT. All power to Julia Preston.
What an embarassment. Lynne Stewart went to my college. But then, so did Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intel Committee
There was no excuse for such a light sentence.
I am a little surprised that the Times published this article, though, because I'm sure the odious Lynne Stewart is one of their golden girls. So to speak.
The judge's conduct in this case needs to be reviewed.
I notice there is no actual quote of the juror saying that he "gained respect for the judge," which makes me wonder if the author of this piece just read that into his comments.
The juror insisted that the looming figure of Mr. bin Laden had no impact on the jurors, who were repeatedly instructed he had no role in the case.
“The judge told me he had no part, so he had no part,” Juror 8 said. “And 11 other people agreed. We did not go off reservation.”
This is interesting. The judge lied to the jurors by claiming that Osama Bin Laden "had no part" in the case:
Juror 8 said the jurors found that Mr. Taha had used the sheik’s words to recruit at least one Egyptian militant to start plotting an attack.
“She smuggled Taha’s message in,” Juror 8 said. “She smuggled Rahman’s reply out. She was told that violence would occur, and she had a second press conference to reinforce the first. No person who was opposed to violence would conduct themselves in that manner.”...
...Juror 8 said the militant, Rifai Taha, a fugitive convicted terrorist, emerged as a major and very chilling figure in the trial. Prosecutors showed a videotape of Mr. Taha sitting with Osama bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks, calling for violence against Americans.
The definition for what constitutes "involvement" in a case are way to narrow for the American justice system to be anything but a sad and tragic joke.
Enough to make your blood boil . . .