It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Okay, I'm no expert on this subject.. But..

Surely everyone has the right to legal representation. Correct?

Now it is not up to the lawyer what to plead. The lawyer can only defend their client on the grounds of which the client decides to plead. Hence, if the client pleads not-guilty, then the lawyer can advise not to, however still has to then defend their client from the point of view of not-guilty. The only thing this incurs, is if they are found guilty, their sentence will be likely extended because they initially pleaded not-guilty.

Surely lawyers are not held accountable for this?

If your client wants to plead not-guilty, then you have to go with it, you can only 'advise' them not to.

So what's the big deal?




posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
@shaunybaby:

Everything you said is true, but I'm at a loss as to what it has to with the this story. Lawyers have the right to speak with their clients while jailed, but they don't have a right to pass messages from jailed people back and forth from their criminal organizations.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

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]


shots I merely responded to Nygdan with his own source. If you want to bring up the credibility, do it with him because he refereneced it from the start, I just used the article he used to debunk his comments.

Also it's said she fowarded the statement to reuters. Where the proof otherwise? If you can show me proof she contacted some known terrorists and not Reuters news, then I will change my story.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
@shaunybaby:

Everything you said is true, but I'm at a loss as to what it has to with the this story. Lawyers have the right to speak with their clients while jailed, but they don't have a right to pass messages from jailed people back and forth from their criminal organizations.


alright now Im fed up with it, provide proof that it was from criminal organizations. Show me the proof, not some accusation from the prosecution, I want actual proof. I can bet it doesnt exist considering she got 2 1/2 years rather then 20 or 30. The fact is that she most likely did foward the message to Reuters news that he was no longer responsibile for the people who followed him. He clearly states that he is in no position to say whether or not any ceasefire is agreeable now. He clearly states that they should decide themselves because they know best. I hardly see that as telling terrorist to attack anything. It has nothing to do with terrorism.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I seriously can't believe some people here, how the hell can you say she gets what she deserved and bang her up for life? she could of got 30 years, thats more than murderer's, rapists etc. It's quiet shocking that people want to throw away someone else's life just because of a new law thats been past, just because you've never been in that position urself, I couldnt even imagine how I would feel being told that you could spend the rest of your life in prison because I made a mistake of aiding someone who I was working for in court.

Basically this shows that if a person hasn't been convicted yet asks his lawyer if he/she could tell there family/friends they love them, how they are or what there current situation is, could be deemed a crime? Very very dangerous path this way of thinking is leading to, in no time we will be back in time 300 years.

Also what the hell is a terrorist anyways? terrorist is a opinion depending what side your seeing it from.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
She got 28 months for aiding and abetting a terrorist.

Is that too much?

This thread started out with many assuming the worst and leveling all sorts of claims against the administration and American justice.

Do any of the apologist think she didn't get a fair sentence?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
She got 28 months for aiding and abetting a terrorist.

Is that too much?

This thread started out with many assuming the worst and leveling all sorts of claims against the administration and American justice.

Do any of the apologist think she didn't get a fair sentence?


Where does it say she got 28 months for aiding and abetting a terrorist? Did you here the vedict of what she was found guilty of? She wasn't found guilty of all counts apparently or she would be doing a good deal more time.

I guess a lawyer that releases anything to the press is aiding a murderer, or a rapist, or a drug user. Just because she released something to the press does not mean she was aiding a terrorist. By these standards we should be charging the white house with criminal charges, I mean who do you think gives the media those videos of osama and such? The white house releases those videos to the media, and that means they must be aiding terrorists. In fact the white house is even more guilty because they put out the videos that tell people to attack where this lawyers statement only said that he no longer could be a leader.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
This is the article that I read:

NYC civil rights lawyer gets prison for helping terrorists


Stewart...was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists.


I won't haggle over semantics.

Is 28 months too much for "providing material support to terrorists?"


[edit on 2006/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   


You have voted grimreaper797 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


Thanks for bringing this to our attention, this is rediulous...

Everyone who comes to close to the truth is immediately incarcerated, nice.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is the article that I read:

NYC civil rights lawyer gets prison for helping terrorists


Stewart...was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists.


I won't haggle over semantics.

Is 28 months too much for "providing material support to terrorists?"


[edit on 2006/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]


and by their wacky semantics, the whitehouse is more guilty then this lawyer is. providing material support to terrorists? How, she released a statement to a news agency regarding the fact that her client was no long the leader of whatever he was leading because he was no longer in such a position. The white house releases videos of osama and other terrorists telling people to kill non believers around the world and to launch more terrorist attacks. They aren't "providing material support to terrorists?" why the double standard?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I'm not sure why you insist on bringing up the White House in this discussion. The issue is not the administration, but the sentence received by this convicted felon. Whatever the perceived sins of the administration, is the sentence of 28 months for providing material support to terrorists too severe, especially when the maximum sentence could have been thirty years?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Good point there, Grady.

Question though: Thirty years?! Thats all? No firing squad? My how times have changed....



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not sure why you insist on bringing up the White House in this discussion. The issue is not the administration, but the sentence received by this convicted felon. Whatever the perceived sins of the administration, is the sentence of 28 months for providing material support to terrorists too severe, especially when the maximum sentence could have been thirty years?


28 months for doing what she did is too severe. Im saying she didnt "provide material support to terrorists". If she did, thats a different story. what she did was leak something to the press. There was no call for a terrorist act, or anything like that. It was a simple statement made by a terrorist, which was leaked to the press. 28 months is a bit extreme for a leak, but some would agree that to stop leaks in court cases they should get jail time. But to be quite honest, I dont see her crime as providing material support to terrorist, so I cant say whether or not her sentence was too severe.

Her sentence may be a bit severe for leaking what she should have to the press, because she signed an agreement. But I dont think its a completely outragous when it comes to leaks like that. She knew it was wrong to leak any statement, from any person whether a terrorist or a murder. She signed an agreement saying she would say anything outside of immediate family, and she broke that agreement by leaking a statement to the press. So if 2 1/2 years is the punishment for that, then so be it. Terrorist charges have little to do with it in my eyes, because there was nothing terrorist about it other then her client was a terroristand was being tried for it.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Here's my knuckle draggin' Ammo troop opinion on the whole schmiel. As part of the Shiek's sentence he was not allowed to communicate with anyone but lawyers and immediate family. She knew this but decided that it was some how of higher moral standing to release the message the Shiek gave her to pass on to Rueter's.

Here's my beef with her actions: could this action lead to further act of terrorism anywhere by followers of the Shiek? The answer is yes. She should be put in a room every day for 18 hours a day with a TV playing videos or displaying pictures of the victims of those terrorist crimes she furthered for the next 28 months. No newspapers, radio, books, mail from friends or family. Same with the Shiek or any other terrorist captured and convicted. Let them see the lives of the human beings they destroyed. Cruel and unusual, Yes I hope so but then again so is killing people who don't agree with your religious, political, or social beliefs.

Here's my beef with the US govt policy of towards terrorism and its leaders: instead of draggin' this schmo halfway around the world, putting him through what is basically a show trial to prove how civilized(?) and just we Americans are to the world, he should have been turned over to Egyptians who had a prior claim on him anyway or he should have been allowed to escape from the plane without a parachute from about 40k feet over the Atlantic. The money spent to feed,clothe and gaurd his hateful ass for the rest of his life would be much better spent on ammunition to defend our country, feeding a starving child or develop a new form of energy to power our world.

There is absolutely nothing our govt can do to change the hearts and minds of extremists followers of Islam. Setting up a democracy in Iraq isn't going to change that. We have to think in the long term. The best way to defeat terrorism is through human intelligence. People on the ground, eyes and ears open. When someone is found out to be knowingly aid a terrorist group, they need to quietly disappear for a very long time.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
crgintx
I could not agree with you more. I must say though that I hope that John Kerry and some of the other Democrats are next for their daily aiding of the terrorist on the various pro terrorist news networks that beam their message to Osama.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Perhaps one of the more reasons for the judge to come out with this verdict was actually bases in her comments, beside passing messages to terrorist.

"The September 11 terrorist attacks on America were an "armed struggle" like Hiroshima and Dresden. I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are placed in a position of having no other way."

www.academia.org...

"I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people's revolution."

www.findarticles.com...

"I don’t believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."

www.frontpagemag.com...

"To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050210/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial_5

Yeah she most be a terrorist, she talks to much.


[edit on 17-10-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx

here's my beef with her actions: could this action lead to further act of terrorism anywhere by followers of the Shiek? The answer is yes.


no it could not. simply because there was no call for any terrorism. This guy simply told his followers he is no longer in charge and no longer is in position to make any decisions for them, or say what is or isn't agreeable since he is no longer there. How is that leading to acts of terror? directly, it doesn't. Indirectly it doesn't matter. Indirectly the president saying "we need to combat terrorism in iraq before we are unable" may have cause terrorist attacks because how some guy in the mid east interpreted it. We don't hold that against him though.

as for the rest of your post, Ive responded to it before with other people and don't have the time currently to retype it all.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

She should be put in a room every day for 18 hours a day with a TV playing videos or displaying pictures of the victims of those terrorist crimes she furthered for the next 28 months. No newspapers, radio, books, mail from friends or family.


Sorry, but i find it disgusting, this is torture. Who are you to order torture against someone who done nothing to help terrorists?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

She should be put in a room every day for 18 hours a day with a TV playing videos or displaying pictures of the victims of those terrorist crimes she furthered for the next 28 months. No newspapers, radio, books, mail from friends or family.


Sorry, but i find it disgusting, this is torture. Who are you to order torture against someone who done nothing to help terrorists?


Do you know something we don't? Any message broadcast by the Shiek could have been speciifc instructions to his followers hence he is held in silence. She violated this order knowing that it could further endanger not only the lives of American citizens but some poor brainwashed young man or woman who the Shiek has convinced that a suicide bomb attack is the only way to strike at the infidels which probably includes you!

As I see it today, the writers of our US constition made two glaring ommissions when writing the Bill of Rights: a victim's right of redress and the right to privacy. The Shiek has openly admitted that he ordered the '93 bombing of the WTC. What do you think his punishment should be?

Lynne Stewart is a self-righteous prig! She openly flaunts disdain for the very judicial system that she uses to further her beliefs and causes. If i gave a murderer $50 dollars to flee from justice and he kills again, I would be punished as aiding and abetting a fugitive and would have probably got a lot longer sentence than 28 months. How is that different than what she did? At least one person who lost a loved one in a the '93 attack should have spoken for the victims of the Shiek's terrorist organization. As I stated earlier, let the punishment fit the crime.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Look, she didn't helped the Sheik to commit terrorist act, neither she helped him to give orders to do terrorists act, read the last grimreaper's post above. And i don't care, torture is bad and I would never accept that someone is tortured.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join