The issue is not whether she deserved to be punished for a breach of the law. She has already been disbarred and sentenced to prison time. The issue is whether she deserves to die in jail for actions that resulted in not the slightest harm to anyone. Plus, the government was taping conversations between an attorney and a client. Intended or not, the effect will surely be to make attorneys think twice before taking on the representation of any Guantanamo detainee. The Feds have gone after criminal defense attorneys for many, many years. It didn't begin with the War on Terrorism. It began with the War on Organized Crime and continued with the War on Drugs. It amounts to a War on the Constitution.
You're right: Clinton-appointed, Sonya Sotomayor-endorsing former Yale Law dean Guido Calabresi and Clinton-appointed, Ricci v. Destefano-serving, press-defending Robert Sack are obviously conservative activists hellbent on subverting our first amendment rights. And smuggling a message from a terrorist organization into a lockdown facility to be read by the convicted head of said terrorist organization, then helping to convey a message back to said terrorist organization that "permission is given to fight, because they are wronged ... and verily God is most powerful for their aid", after signing statements acknowledging restrictions (put in place under Clinton) against conveying communications designed to prevent exactly this sort of message, then lying about it, under oath, should absolutely be protected first amendment speech. This is just like what Hitler did, that one time.
@Astigmatism: Yeah, I'm all "power to the people," and as a lawyer myself, don't like the thought of lawyers being sent to jail for specious reasons. But she blatantly violated government restrictions on her representation and then lied about it. Any lawyer that has ever represented anyone in federal court, criminal or civil, knows you do not fuck with the feds like that. She wasn't naive; she was stupid.
It is incredible for anyone to suggest that she is "naive." She is a longtime activist and attorney; she knows what she can and cannot do. She was allowed to meet with this client specifically conditioned on not passing messages to anyone, including media (uh, ya think maybe the point of giving it to the media was to get it to those who'd be waiting to hear?). The message in question was an exhortation to his followers to resume terrorist operations. She was the conduit for direction from a leader to his troops.
Her sentencing was delayed for over a year (back in 2005!) due to her illness and the need for treatment of it, so your comment with respect to that is purely disingenuous.
Ok, ok. Let's be real here. She didn't exactly pass on her client's "thoughts" on the cease fire, she relayed to a reporter that he was withdrawing his support, a bit different and it indicated his political position. Also, the real issue here is that they felt she lied under oath. The Federal Government is not tolerant of one thing..being lied to (see Martha Stewart). She lied or played dumb about not knowing the restrictions on contact..I have to call some BS on this. Why she would think it is okay to speak with reports about an ongoing case like this in the first place is beyond me.
@econdave: From a 2007 NYTimes article: Her main regret was having been unaware that the government was secretly taping her conversations with Mr. Rahman, she said.
That's only slightly less stupid than saying her main regret was getting caught.
I really thought that this Stewart business would be dropped once Bush was out of office.
Maybe the JD is thinking that they would be better off with Stewart in jail rather than allowing her to open a big ol' can of lititgation whoop-ass on them for trampling on everyone's civil rights for short of 8 years.
She is a pain in the ass, but certainly not one to abet terrorists.
My favorite part of all this is assholes like Peter King saying we shouldn't be trying these people in New York because it makes New York a terrorist target. Uh.... ?
Also. Where were idiots like him when dudes like Ramseh Yousef were on trial here? Oh, I guess he only reads the memos about terrorists who kill more than 2,000 people at a pop.
One last point. I can't see how executing these guys is a punishment. If I were them, it'd be exactly what I'm hoping for. Let's see - the next 50 years rotting in solitary confinement in a maximum security federal prison, or a quick martyrdom that takes me to my 72 virgins? Hmmm, tough choice there.
I'm not necessarily against the death penalty because it's barbaric (though it is), I'm mostly against it because it's just not a very tough punishment against people who clearly don't care about human life to begin with, including their own. #headlines
This should have happened years ago. Our criminal justice system is one of the many things that sets us apart from the world's many authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes. If indeed we were attacked for our freedom, it's manifested in our willingness to have an open and transparent court system, not our $3 toasters.
@Buttafooco: Since it specifically mentions the 9/11 fiends, I think you already know the answer. No need to try and ruffle feathers.
If you were kidding, or being sarcastic, I apologize, but when it comes to things like this, some people like to stir the pot and I feel like that's what you were trying to do. #headlines
@Topheel: if you've accidentally come across any of my posts, you'd realize almost all of them take a sarcastic/humorous slant. In this case, it was purely sarcastic, given the blatant racial undertones of many stories that comes via the NY Post.
Sometimes our feathers become ruffled as a result of the insecure winds blowing through them. #headlines
I can't believe I'm saying this, but part of me was waiting for the NYPost response. It was always going to be ridiculous, dramatic & insane. Why do I enjoy that?
For what it's worth, I'm often disappointed by justice system, but I also believe in it. I can't imagine that Holder & the Obama Admin would have ever made this move unless they felt they could win in a legitimate, legally substantiated way. Call me naive, but there are too many well-educated lawyers in this admin - including Obama - to convince me otherwise.
Regardless, assuming - which I am - they're fucking guilty & not just raving lunatics who actually want credit for (there are not really words) what happened that day, I want to seem them convicted legitimately & face the consequences. Which hopefully will be getting attacked by other inmates in whatever prison they're put in. Or execution.
But on point on story, in the next years, I can't wait to see if the NY Post goes all "NYers can face anything" or the "Terrorists shouldn't be brought back to the city they attacked." Personally, I feel & hope they go the former. #headlines
11/19/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Her sentencing was delayed for over a year (back in 2005!) due to her illness and the need for treatment of it, so your comment with respect to that is purely disingenuous.
11/19/09
Now I feel like an idiot for promoting a comment above. I should stay out of controversial threads where I haven't closely followed the story.
11/18/09
11/18/09
For some reason, Stewart thought she was above the law. She has no one but herself to blame.
11/18/09
That's only slightly less stupid than saying her main regret was getting caught.
[www.nytimes.com]
11/18/09
11/18/09
Maybe the JD is thinking that they would be better off with Stewart in jail rather than allowing her to open a big ol' can of lititgation whoop-ass on them for trampling on everyone's civil rights for short of 8 years.
She is a pain in the ass, but certainly not one to abet terrorists.
11/15/09
Also. Where were idiots like him when dudes like Ramseh Yousef were on trial here? Oh, I guess he only reads the memos about terrorists who kill more than 2,000 people at a pop.
One last point. I can't see how executing these guys is a punishment. If I were them, it'd be exactly what I'm hoping for. Let's see - the next 50 years rotting in solitary confinement in a maximum security federal prison, or a quick martyrdom that takes me to my 72 virgins? Hmmm, tough choice there.
I'm not necessarily against the death penalty because it's barbaric (though it is), I'm mostly against it because it's just not a very tough punishment against people who clearly don't care about human life to begin with, including their own. #headlines
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
If you were kidding, or being sarcastic, I apologize, but when it comes to things like this, some people like to stir the pot and I feel like that's what you were trying to do. #headlines
11/15/09
Sometimes our feathers become ruffled as a result of the insecure winds blowing through them. #headlines
11/15/09
If you need to say this out loud, you fail. #headlines
11/15/09
11/14/09
I greatly enjoyed this. From Tumblr's TopherChris: topherchris.tumblr.com. #headlines
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
For what it's worth, I'm often disappointed by justice system, but I also believe in it. I can't imagine that Holder & the Obama Admin would have ever made this move unless they felt they could win in a legitimate, legally substantiated way. Call me naive, but there are too many well-educated lawyers in this admin - including Obama - to convince me otherwise.
Regardless, assuming - which I am - they're fucking guilty & not just raving lunatics who actually want credit for (there are not really words) what happened that day, I want to seem them convicted legitimately & face the consequences. Which hopefully will be getting attacked by other inmates in whatever prison they're put in. Or execution.
But on point on story, in the next years, I can't wait to see if the NY Post goes all "NYers can face anything" or the "Terrorists shouldn't be brought back to the city they attacked." Personally, I feel & hope they go the former. #headlines
11/15/09
:D #headlines
11/14/09