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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by factfinder38
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.

You obviously confused that my statement was some how pro-BUSH, let me tell you it isn't. He in my opinion is the worst president I've seen in my 44 years of living. The major news networks are controlled by global corporate elites who spoon feed the public what they want you to hear and not what is really going on. Bush is firmly planted in their camp. Bush is doing far more to aid this fake 'war on terrorism' which is nothing more than a naked Middle East power grab for oil to pay back his financial supporters of his family's attempt's to be American royalty.

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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]

We should have unusual punishments for unusual crimes. It's not torture, it's punishment. I don't feel the least bit of mercy should shown towards her. She was a lawyer who knew better.

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:24 PM
From what I have read, Lynne Stewart went against the SAMS agreement she signed, specifically with the Press Statement, but that doesn't appear to be the only thing. It appears that she facilitated a means for Abdel Rahman communicate outside of the "allowed" communications (by way of a translator). She did not directly pass information (aside from the press statement), she simply allowed a third party in under the false pretense it was for translating discussion of legal matters between Stewart and Rahman.

In case any of you want to read the indictment.

Information on SAMS...(also included in the above link)

The Special Administrative Measures zmnosed on Abdel Rahman

Beginning in or about April 1997, United States authorities, in order to protect the national security, limited certain of Ab.del Rahman's privileges in prison, including his access to the mail, the media, the telephone, and visitors. At that time, the Bureau of Prisons (at the direction of the Attorney General) imposed Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) upon Abdel Rahman, pursuant to a federal_regulation (28 C.F.R. § 501.3). The stated purpose of the SAMs was to protect “persons against the risk of death or serious bodily injury” that could result if Abdel Rahman were free “to communicate (send or receive) terrorist information.” Under the SAMs, Abdel Rahman could only call his wife or his attorneys and their translator, could only be visited by his immediate family members or his attorneys and their translator, and could only receive mail after it was screened by federal authorities. In addition, the SAMs prohibited communication with any member or representative news media. More specifically, as of April 7, 1999, the SAMs provided that “[t]he inmate will not be permitted to talk with, meet with, correspond with, or otherwise communicate with any member, or representative, of the news media, in person, by telephone, by furnishing a recorded message, through the mails, through his attorney(s), or otherwise.”

The SAMS specifically provided that attorneys for Abdel Rahman were obliged to sign an affirmation, acknowledging that they and their staff would abide fully by the SAMs, before being allowed access to Abdel Rahman. The attorneys agreed in these affirmations, among other things, to "only be accompanied by translators for the purpose of communicating with inmate Abdel Rahman concerning legal matters." Moreover, since at least in or about May 1998, the attorneys also agreed not to "use [their] meetings, correspondence, or phone calls with Abdel Rahman to pass messages between third parties (including, but not limited to, the media) and Abdel Rahman."

Info on Abdel Rahman (who, btw, is serving a life sentence for...)

"Seditious Conspiracy," which requires only that a crime be planned, not that it necessarily be attempted. His prosecution grew out of investigations of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:28 PM
....I was about to run out of characters...hehehehe

crgintx is right, she definitely knew better. She signed an agreement stating she would not do what she did. It also appears from the indictment that she signed it more than once....

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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]

She knew the restrictions her client had placed on him, as his attorney her place was to gather evidence in order to adequately provide him a defense. Not to play postal service for him. A message to his criminal counterparts letting them know he was no longer in charge and unable to make decisions lets that criminal organization know they need to re-order and perhaps if they were waiting for "approval" on certain plans they could now move forward with their plans. Was she in a position to know if any of these messages were coded?

Yes, there is potential culpability even if it indirectly causes an incident to occur. She knew of the restrictions, knew of her clients criminal connections, even if she had no clue what the message contained it could easily be construed as depraved indifference if a message she carried ordered out an attack.

In the end she got 28 months (not 30 years) which seems fair. The judge apparently looked at the totality of the circumstances and determined this was an appropriate sentence. Sounds fair to me ... she's a lawyer she knows she was in the wrong legally even if she felt she was in the right morally. She should now the difference.

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:28 PM
Anyway, here's an article on the subject.

Good read!

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in