Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
5. you don't know anything about the case.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 03:27 PM
Apr 2013
In 2000, I visited the sheikh, and he asked me to make a press release. This press release had to do with the current status of an organization that at that point was basically defunct, the Gama’a al-Islamiyya. And I agreed to do that. In May of — maybe it was later than that. Sometime in 2000, I made the press release.

Interestingly enough, we found out later that the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno, had the option to prosecute me, and they declined to do so, based on the notion that without lawyers like me or the late Bill Kunstler or many that I could name, the cause of justice is not well served. They need the gadflies.

So, at any rate, they made me sign onto the agreement again not to do this. They did not stop me from representing him. I continued to represent him.

And it was only after 9/11, in April of 2002, that John Ashcroft came to New York, announced the indictment of me, my paralegal and the interpreter for the case, on grounds of materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of the footnotes to the case, of course, is that Ashcroft also appeared on nationwide television with Letterman that night ballyhooing the great work of Bush’s Justice Department in indicting and making the world safe from terrorism.

I think I should have been a little more savvy that the government would come after me. But do anything differently? I don’t — I’d like to think I would not do anything differently, Amy. I made these decisions based on my understanding of what the client needed, what a lawyer was expected to do. They say that you can’t distinguish zeal from criminal intent sometimes. I had no criminal intent whatsoever. This was a considered decision based on the need of the client. And although some people have said press releases aren’t client needs, I think keeping a person alive when they are in prison, held under the conditions which we now know to be torture, totally incognito — not incognito, but totally held without any contact with the outside world except a phone call once a month to his family and to his lawyers, I think it was necessary. I would do it again. I might handle it a little differently, but I would do it again.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/18/exclusive_civil_rights_attorney_lynne_stewart

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Does that mean DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #1
you don't know anything about the case. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #3
actually,it is up for anyone to read DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #4
you don't know anything about the case. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #5
so in other words DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #6
that's not what happened. and you don't know anything about the case. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #7
chanting a mantra DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #8
that beign said DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #2
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Political prisoners in th...»Reply #5