It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lawyer Of Terrorist May Get 30 Years In Prison

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:37 PM
OK...wasn't aware of that. Still, why aren't the KKK in jail then? Don't they advocate the killing of black people, homosexuals and jews?

Spurred on by racial desegregation and the start of the civil rights struggle, Klan activity was on the rise again by 1956, with units springing up in several states. The group terrified Blacks and white civil rights workers with cross burnings, beatings, bombings, death threats, even murder.

Isn't that the same as writting a paper calling for death?

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:38 PM
this is just too much, now loyers will be afraid to deffend their clients.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:40 PM
Ok show me the law she broke. Which law states it is illegal to do what she did? Infact, tell me what she did to begin with. She passed info to some one who we have no idea who it is. How do you know who it is? And the translator is being accused of the same crime, so what messages was he passing around?

I smell BS. The information for the crime is vague, and loose at best. We don't know what the information was, who it was going to, or why. For all we know she broke the law by sending a message to his family to let him know he was jailed. I would personally like to see the law that says this is illegal first off. Second off, why did it take them 10 years to convict her? because Im going to take a wild guess and say those laws that have been passed since 9/11, those controversal laws that they say are breaking the bill of rights, are the reason she can be convicted now. Need some sort of law to convict some one.

What I see here is a lawyer, a civil rights lawyer which cant be too popular amoung the current government, getting smashed with "aiding a terrorist" because they said she passed some sort of information to some person, but Im going to bet that in the means of national security they cant tell us anything more. In actuality its in the means of personal security. They are securing their own behinds from getting completely screwed by people that ARE civil rights lawyers fighting it by legal means.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:50 PM
I also thank all of you people who selectively read for missing an important part. The Prosecutors said that it was a terrorist organization in eygpt, not the facts. The prosecutors simply said

Prosecutors have called the case a major victory in the war on terrorism. They said Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization.

So what the prosecutors say it. They will say alot of things to slant it in their favor. I want to see the EVIDENCE that shows it was a terrorist based group. Funny how earlier in the article it says

She had released a statement by Omar Abdel-Rahman

now released a statement or carried messages to terrorist leaders...hmmm. Something seems off. One sounds like something you would post up from his mouth, which I would think is legal. Why wouldn't you have the right to speak about your own trial? Moussaoui at his court hearing was allowed a statement about the trial, and Im sure of it because I remember him saying how corrupt it all was or something to that extent. She releases a statement by him, and suddenly shes carrying messages to terrorist leaders? I call BS on the prosecutors.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Care to quote where you are getting this information?

She was tried in open court and found guilty of this.

I didn't know that you can go to jail for writting a paper urging murder?

Yea, you can, especially when you're part of an organization that does just that.

Why aren't all members of the KKK in jail? Because they're not Muslim?

Because not all members of the KKK are come right out and say it. when they have their rallies in public, they don't say, 'get a gun and kill the blacks now, yeehaw'. They racist morons, but they keep know that its illegal to openly urge people to specifically commit murder, so they don't openly say it.

I wasn't aware that plotting to kill anyone was a jailable offense

Yes. Conspiracy to Commit Murder can get you in jail.

If I state in anger "I hope you die" to someone...will the thought police come and take me away?

Saying that isn't nearly the same as a conspiracy to commit murder, or urging groups of people to go out and commit murder on specific targets.

Ok show me the law she broke. Which law states it is illegal to do what she did?

Which law states its illegal to give aid to terrorists? Do you really need a citation?

We don't know what the information was, who it was going to, or why.

it was a call to his jihadi subservients to carry out violent attacks in egypt.
Rahman is barred from any contact with the outside world beyond his immediate family and attorneys. As his lawyer, Stewart signed an agreement not to transmit messages from him to unauthorized people. In June 2000 she violated that agreement. After meeting with the sheik, Stewart called Reuters to say that he had withdrawn his personal support for a cease-fire then in place in Egypt.

She also functioned as a go-between for the Rahman's islamic terror group, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, sending messages to Mohammed Yousry, who then passed them on to direct the group's activities.

That group killed nearly 60 tourists in egypt in a single attack, shot up a hotel in cairo kiling 18 greeks, set off a car bomb in pakistan that killed 16 people, tried to assasinate Mubarak, and asassinated a muslim political rights leader and journalist.
[the indictment] alleged that by passing on the sheik's message, she'd offered "material support" in aid of terrorist activity.

And a jury found her guilty of it and a judge has now sentenced her to jail for it. She was also specifically barred, in the first place, from permiting any communication between her client and anyone other than his family and other lawyers. This was because he's a leader of a terrorist organization that carrys out violent attacks. She knew precisely what she was doing, she wanted to help this bastard carry out his mission.

As far as Sattar:
it tried Stewart together with Ahmed Sattar, an Egyptian-born US citizen against whom it had thousands of hours of wiretaps of communications with a terrorist group. Among other things, Sattar had issued a fake fatwa urging followers to "kill [Jews] wherever they are."

As far as their being any question of these actions being 'harmless'

played a tape of Osama bin Laden expressing support for the sheik. It introduced evidence [...]of a massacre in Egypt in which fifty-eight tourists were killed

You call for the death of people and the cessation of a cease fire, you are commiting a crime, because people will act on it, especially when the person doing the calling is a cleric with the force of religious authority.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:08 PM
Thanks for clearing that up Nygdan. Now that I have seen more evidence against her, I'd have to say she does deserve what she gets.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:36 PM
Ok so he withdrew his support for a cease fire and she called reuters and let them know it. Alright, fine, though I dont see how that wouldn't have gotten out otherwise.

So what I want to know is why was Moussaoui allowed to make statements, but this guy was not? Would there not be an equal threat?

Also this is hardly a "terrorist act", or even Aiding a terrorist. If anything its breaking an agreement to not leak info to the press or anything to that extent.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by grimreaper797]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:46 PM
from Nygdans source:

Two days later she issued a clarification explaining that the sheik "did not cancel the cease-fire," but "left the matter to my brothers to examine it and study it because they are the ones who live there and they know the circumstances better than I."

ok well that part is just a bit for everybody to read so they understand this fully. Nygdan convienently left the part out about how it was immediately clarrified that this wasn't what was said. What was said was that he is no longer in a position to say whether the ceasefire is agreeable or not. Thats hardly calling for an end to a ceasefire. Sounds more like he was giving his followers the responsibility of thinking for themselves because he was no longer there to me.

also from Nygdans source:

Stewart should not have issued the release. Doing so violated the administrative agreement. But it is not a crime to violate such an agreement.

so, until this new terrorist frenzy created by the 9/11 attacks, this was not a crime like I had said. So it is reasonable to say that because of the new terrorist laws, she is being treated differently.

also from Nygdans source:

And the terrorism charge would require showing that Stewart's statement to the press was intended to support a particular terrorist act, when in fact the release did not call for or prompt any such act.

hmm things are coming together aren't they.

was she wrong yes. Should they make it clear to her she shouldn't break an administrative agreement, yes. was there any terrorist act commited? not at all. Let us remember that.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by grimreaper797]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:47 PM
If anyone, lawyer or not, are sending messages to known terrorists, they deserve what they get. All they have to do is remove themselves from the case, that is what I would have done. Then this would have never happened.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
If anyone, lawyer or not, are sending messages to known terrorists, they deserve what they get. All they have to do is remove themselves from the case, that is what I would have done. Then this would have never happened.

reuters news is a known terrorist? and to think, I believed the news that they put out. what a fool of me.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:30 PM
Nygdan, why did you cherry-pick that article? Come on, once you read the rest it does seem like there is being an injustice done to this lawyer. If he was leaving this up to his brother who has taken over then he did not call for a cease-fire. He was transfering his responcibilty for making this desicion.

One if the bigger problems of this world is SPIN, and political correctness. Both of these are creating bad communication, and Nygdan you shamelessly spun that information when you had to have known the truth. As a moderater it seems to me you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that of someone using spin to debunk.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 03:53 PM
Lawyers a constantly interferring in everything, so as far as Im concerned they should all be held to a higher standard. She is getting what she deserves and I dont feel bad for her, once you read all the back story it is plain to see that she was in the grey area, and she knew it and acted anyway.
The world is a better place now that one lawyer is gone, I dont know what you bleeding hearts are all worked up about anyway go save a rat somewhere!

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:17 PM
What a shame all she got was 28 MONTHS :shk:

Stewart gets 28 months on terror charge

edit to add, I missed this part which makes it worse (same Source)

The judge said Stewart could remain free pending appeal, a process that could take more than a year.

Help a terrorist and all you get is what amounts to a slap on the wrist, now that is sending a real strong message. NOT!

[edit on 10/16/2006 by shots]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:19 PM
She was sentenced to 28 months in prison. Much too light in my opinion. She was lucky that she wasn't found in "Contempt of Court", she could be locked up forever on a contempt charge.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by drbennett
I dont know what you bleeding hearts are all worked up about anyway go save a rat somewhere!

Because one day you may be considered a rat. We need to defend everyone from injustice, so that same injustice does not happen to us.

It is so simple, why do people not understand this?

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:32 PM
Wow thats great that she could remain free under appeal. 2 and 1/2 years is too much as far as Im concerned, she should be getting a probation job wise. All she did was mess up on the admistrative agreement. That is at most a slap on the wrist offense since its not a crime. But I guess if she remains free filing for appeal thats fine.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:35 PM
At least she have only 28 months. Still, it's a shame that she's being convicted for no crime-terrorist related. The opened the pandora box. And those who say that she helped a terrorist, read the brillant grimpreaper's analysis.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:42 PM
some people would say I am a rat thats their opinion but dont worry I can take care of myself, that is why America is great, we have the 2nd amendment.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
And those who say that she helped a terrorist, read the brillant grimpreaper's analysis.

Grimereaper based his analysis on an Op/Ed/comment section of the website and not hard reported facts. Hardly what I would call a good source even if it did contain relevant info it was still just an opinion.

The Nation
comment | posted February 17, 2005 (March 7, 2005 issue)
The Lynne Stewart Trial

[edit on 10/16/2006 by shots]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:51 PM
The lady appears to have gotten off rather lightly for what she did. I suspect the judge was worried she might die if he locked her up for a lengthy period.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in