Latest Breaking News

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)

97. Don'tcha know dem terrists speak in code?

Reply to rug (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 2, 2014, 02:59 PM

Jan 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lynne Stewart has been released from prison. [View all] roody Jan 2014 OP

this is from a listserve I am on: Kali Jan 2014 #1

I mistakenly rely on DU for my news. roody Jan 2014 #4

yeah, I get almost all news here too Kali Jan 2014 #7

! rug Jan 2014 #2

Who is donco Jan 2014 #3

She was the defense attorney for Sheik roody Jan 2014 #5

A lawyer who spent her entire career reprsenting the indigent and pushing back. rug Jan 2014 #6

Thank you! Octafish Jan 2014 #142

Criminal defense attorney who was convicted of violating the SAMs her client was under. msanthrope Jan 2014 #10

A Fatwa is a legal opinion. It is not binding to those outside the issuers sphere alfredo Jan 2014 #16

And under his SAMs, he isn't allowed to issue a damn thing. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #20

True. He knew it was forbidden and that it would compromise his lawyer if alfredo Jan 2014 #25

He chose to use her. Terrorists do that sort of thing. She, however, made her choices. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #51

true. He exploited her weakness. alfredo Jan 2014 #95

Her hubris. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #107

Precisely. alfredo Jan 2014 #120

Meh. IMO the government should be more than just barely on the right side of the law... Recursion Jan 2014 #147

An opinion on Islamic law issued by a scholar of Islamic law. merrily Jan 2014 #39

"The message that Islamic Group should reconsider a cease-fire in attacks against the Egyptian merrily Jan 2014 #37

Long live the PATRIOT ACT! soundsgreat Jan 2014 #44

Did the Patriot Act have a time machine? She was convicted of acts prior to its passage. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #46

??? She was convicted after the Patriot Act soundsgreat Jan 2014 #55

Does no one teach civics anymore? Lynne Stewart was convicted of acts that took place before msanthrope Jan 2014 #61

you don't have to repeat yourself *sigh* soundsgreat Jan 2014 #109

Look...when you help your client release a fatwa about killing "the Jews," you can hardly msanthrope Jan 2014 #111

You're siding with Ashcroft - do you feel comfortable with that? nt soundsgreat Jan 2014 #112

I'm siding with the NY grand jury who issued the indictment. msanthrope Jan 2014 #113

The reaching is becoming acrobatic, no? 1000words Jan 2014 #114

Ignoring the "Kill the Jews" fatwa is predictable. But nothing erases that indictment. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #115

Right on - support your pal! He can need it nt soundsgreat Jan 2014 #118

You're certainly not siding with Janet Reno soundsgreat Jan 2014 #117

Why wouldn't communications between her and her client be subject to attorney-client privilege? The Stranger Jan 2014 #75

Privilege can be limited - she agreed to the limits then violated them. Nt hack89 Jan 2014 #80

Privilege can be "limited"? That could only mean waiver. The attorney cannot waive privilege on The Stranger Jan 2014 #82

SAMs are specific restrictions on an attorney hack89 Jan 2014 #85

What the fuck is a "SAM"? The Stranger Jan 2014 #87

Special Administrative Measures. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #89

Special administrative measures hack89 Jan 2014 #90

Not only can the attorney NOT waive the privilege without the client's consent, these "special The Stranger Jan 2014 #122

They are common for terrorism and organized crime prosecutions hack89 Jan 2014 #123

This message was self-deleted by its author The Stranger Jan 2014 #139

If it's an unconstitutional law, then her "breaking the law" is voided. The Stranger Jan 2014 #140

What court ruled it unconstitutional? hack89 Jan 2014 #141

That it is unconstitutional does not require it be ruled so. The Stranger Jan 2014 #156

So the government should void her conviction just because she thinks it unconstitutional? hack89 Jan 2014 #157

They were developed for mafia trials Recursion Jan 2014 #150

Communication regarding his legal issues is...communication outside those matters is not. msanthrope Jan 2014 #83

It is. The government can't ask her what he told her. Recursion Jan 2014 #146

The Special Administrative Measures are bullshit, as are the CMUs. rug Jan 2014 #77

Tell me...what specific SAMs was the sheik under that you think were unjustifiable? nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #84

All of them. rug Jan 2014 #91

Don'tcha know dem terrists speak in code? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #97

Shockingly, one does not have a constitutional right to continue criminal activity msanthrope Jan 2014 #101

Shockingly, some people are just peachy with SAMs. rug Jan 2014 #104

Rug...some people need SAMs because they refuse to stop their criminal behavior. Mob bosses, gang msanthrope Jan 2014 #108

Both Ms. Stewart and her client agreed to the terms 1000words Jan 2014 #86

The SAMs were imposed. Acquiescence to coercion is not agreement. rug Jan 2014 #92

And you, as if she had a gun to her head 1000words Jan 2014 #94

Given that this guy was blind and buried deep in maximum security pretrial, rug Jan 2014 #105

Amen. mahannah Jan 2014 #8

From what I've read customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #9

She did..the 2nd circuit's opinion is devastating. But, she's near death apparently. msanthrope Jan 2014 #11

Jose Padilla was repeatedly tortured and his mind forever messed up for less 1000words Jan 2014 #13

Jose Padilla wasn't her client. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #15

Of course not, Padilla was not allowed counsel. 1000words Jan 2014 #19

No one said he was? merrily Jan 2014 #34

An opinion, even a judge's opinion, is not hard evidence. merrily Jan 2014 #38

Sure...if I were a Stewart supporter I'd dismiss that opinion's inconvenient recitation of facts, msanthrope Jan 2014 #52

Yeah, it's not like she had bad counsel. n/t customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #53

I am pleased. There is no reason she roody Jan 2014 #12

Hopefully customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #14

Most intel has a short shelf life. alfredo Jan 2014 #17

Oh, please. merrily Jan 2014 #40

Please yourself customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #54

I'm more worried about being struck by lightning. truebluegreen Jan 2014 #78

Lighting doesn't care customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #132

Pretty poor aim, if you ask me. truebluegreen Jan 2014 #134

Crazy terrorist wants to kill Americans and Jews, film at 11. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2014 #158

According to the government, OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #18

According to a jury, Stewart did, too. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #22

Is that really the issue that the jury was asked to decide? merrily Jan 2014 #35

Yes. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #50

Does helping them include representing them? The Stranger Jan 2014 #76

It was the defense the representation that got her sent to jail. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #126

Your post doesn't make any fucking sense. The Stranger Jan 2014 #137

That's not what she was convicted for customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #133

She wasn't? The Stranger Jan 2014 #138

Let's all keep in mind who was the defense council for the Redcoats of the Boston Massacre.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #21

It wasn't her legal defense of Abdel-Rahman that landed her in prison. 1000words Jan 2014 #23

Exactly what did land her in prison? Do you know exactly what the notes that she passed on said? merrily Jan 2014 #41

I haven't the slightest idea what was on those notes 1000words Jan 2014 #43

Maybe. merrily Jan 2014 #45

The overt act was her quoting him in a media interview Recursion Jan 2014 #148

Of course. But the attorney who colludes with a client in breaking the law is despicable. msanthrope Jan 2014 #24

Considering this is something that happened during the Bush Era it makes you wonder. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #26

Not at all...she's on tape, laughing about the USS Cole bombing. The 2nd circuit opinion msanthrope Jan 2014 #27

The Bush bastards regularly fabricated stuff. We all know that. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #29

But not a time machine. The Clinton DOJ had her, on videotape.....you should read the msanthrope Jan 2014 #30

Did you catch all of the restrictions they put on her when meeting with her own client? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #32

Yes..and she could have challenged those restrictions. Instead she chose to perjure msanthrope Jan 2014 #47

Or someone who didn't take it seriously because she knew it was a show trial. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #60

If she didn't take it seriously, then she shouldn't be practicing law. What msanthrope Jan 2014 #62

We have a "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality in the United States..... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #63

She deserved a stiffer sentence, because she knew better. As an attorney, I will tell you msanthrope Jan 2014 #64

She was a political prisoner. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #65

No she wasn't. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #66

Come on. If we started locking up unethical lawyers there would be no room for prisoners. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #67

There's a difference between unethical and criminal. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #68

They would have given her LIFE though. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #69

But she didn't get life and now she's free Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #71

Did you see the report on "Democracy Now!"? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #72

Yes, I've read it. And???? Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #74

When I see Issa locked up than MAYBE you'll have a case. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #79

It wasn't me that had a case, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #81

LOL!!! Okay,...I'm sure they'll get right on that shit. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #93

LOL!!! Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #96

They sure make time for a lifelong civil rights attorney. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #99

To be fair, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #100

Or pushed to have the case reviewed. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #102

There's that too. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #103

Had she been, I think more reputable lawyer's associations would have mounted a defense msanthrope Jan 2014 #70

I'll just let that last post hang out there for all to see. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #73

Even assuming that the context supports the statement, laughing about the USS Cole is not a crime. merrily Jan 2014 #36

No...but facilitating your client's violation of SAMs while laughing about the Cole is. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #49

Can you post a link to the tape, on which she is "laughing about the USS Cole bombing"? ronnie624 Jan 2014 #151

the links to the Second Circuit opinion and the superseding indictment msanthrope Jan 2014 #152

I didn't have an argument. ronnie624 Jan 2014 #153

Dude...you've already been given the links in the thread. I can't msanthrope Jan 2014 #154

Lol. n/t ronnie624 Jan 2014 #155

When she took the oath, she intended to violate it? merrily Jan 2014 #42

Yes...that is what she did. Your defense of her seems to be scattershot and ill-reasoned. msanthrope Jan 2014 #48

People aren't free to break laws and rules they view as unconstitutional. Personal opinions geek tragedy Jan 2014 #59

Good! burrowowl Jan 2014 #28

I love Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! mc51tc Jan 2014 #31

Wish whatever time she has left is peaceful. hrmjustin Jan 2014 #33

Don't give a shit if it's peaceful HERVEPA Jan 2014 #127

Like Michael Vick, she committed a crime but has served her time (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2014 #56

Unlike him, she would never hurt a dog. roody Jan 2014 #57

just help disseminate a fatwa related to killing people. No harm there I guess. HERVEPA Jan 2014 #128

Well, I'm glad to hear she's out. struggle4progress Jan 2014 #58

This is the first I'd heard of her. JoeyT Jan 2014 #88

quite right reddread Jan 2014 #135

She should not have been in prison Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #98

Well, when you knowingly violate the law, Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #106

Would she have been prosecuted by a Gore administration? Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #110

I'm pretty sure the "Kill the Jews" fatwa would have been dealt with in the same way. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #116

Objection. Ireelevant and immaterial. Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #119

In the interests of fairness and consistency: 1000words Jan 2014 #121

Not at all Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #125

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but your post implied ... 1000words Jan 2014 #129

You understood correctly, but . . . Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #130

Essentially, we are in agreement. 1000words Jan 2014 #131

Overruled. nt msanthrope Jan 2014 #136

This message was self-deleted by its author Jack Rabbit Jan 2014 #124

Releasing her is a mistake. She should stay in prison for helping terrorists. Pterodactyl Jan 2014 #143

Releasing her is the right thing to do. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #144

She wasn't currently being held for helping terrorists NobodyHere Jan 2014 #145

Yes. Her appeal reduced the "aiding" charge but added a perjury charge. Recursion Jan 2014 #149