White House accused of intimidating media, lawyers

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18671796.htm

NEW YORK, June 18 (Reuters) - A leading American lawyer accused the White House on Friday of intimidating reporters, attorneys and judges who question the Bush administration's "relentless pursuit of power."

The lawyer, Michael Tigar, made his comments during a pre-trial hearing involving his client Lynne Stewart, a civil rights lawyer charged in a terrorism case. The hearing centered on arguments by news organizations hoping to quash government subpoenas aimed at forcing reporters to testify at the trial.

Giving his support to news organizations, Tigar said that even in the best of times, the "independent voice" of the media and lawyers was always in danger.

"But these are not the best of times. Under the Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld administration, the independent press and the independent bar have been in particular danger," Tigar said in an impassioned voice.

"This administration has tried to intimidate, manipulate, harass, and if necessary punish any independent voice that questions its relentless pursuit of power," he said.

more

[gratuitous]

1. Terribly sad that this is LBN somewhere

We've been talking about it for years!

[geek tragedy]

2. Ashcroft sucks and everything

but that in no way justifies what Lynne Stewart did. She's a criminal and a fan of mass murdering terrorists. She can go to hell.

[gratuitous]

6. And you base your considered opinion on . . . what?

I'm not trying to flame you, but if you're going by what the prosecutors and the current corrupt administration are saying, you should know that they might be lying to you.

Ask Brandon Mayfield about 100% fingerprint matches and slam dunk prosecution cases.

[geek tragedy]

8. She went in front of the press

and made his announcement for him. She was helping him direct his terrorist operation. It violated the terms of his imprisonment.

I will grant that Ashcroft's involvement does give one pause, but from everything I've heard they have the goods on her.

[gratuitous]

16. Stewart made her statement in June 2000

After an admonishment from the Clinton administration, she signed another agreement with the Justice Department. Ashcroft didn't bring his indictment until April 2002, nearly two years later. What had Stewart done in the intervening time? She hadn't violated her agreement with the Justice Department again, and the matter seemed resolved back in 2000.

What did she do? Well, she certainly represented a lot of people that the current administration doesn't like, and before they figured out how to deprive people of their constitutional and treaty rights to counsel, Stewart made prosecutions of unpopular targets difficult. Had she broken the agreement again? She had not. So, why was she charged two years later?

I'm sure it couldn't have had anything to do with her law practice. I'm just not sure what it might be. But I'm content to see what hare-brained rationales come out.

[geek tragedy]

22. From what I've heard

she also brought in an "interpreter" who acted as a go-between the good Sheikh and his followers in Egypt. She would be talking at a loud voice to distract her guards while the Sheikh and his "interpreter" would exchange information.

Such behavior is outside the practice of law and completely unacceptable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Yes, that's what Ashcroft says she did

But even if the interpreter did that it would go to the criminal intent of the interpreter...so far no proof has been offered that she had knowledge or arranged for it to occur.

[geek tragedy]

25. If she was distracting the guard

that certainly leads to a strong inference of intent.

Especially since the "interpreter" was there to translate conversations between her and the good Sheikh.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Yeah and that's ALL very subjective and subject to PROOF

If you're going to invoke the law as your litmus test, then speculating that that is what she did..just because it MIGHT be what happened hardly fulfills the burden....what was her motive?

[geek tragedy]

27. I don't need Ashcroft to tell me

about the press conference.

And given that people here assume that aWol is behind every crime committed on the planet, I'm entitled to form an opinion on her guilt. I'm not a freaking jury.

It is also clear that she is deeply sympathetic to the good Sheikh and his repulsive cause.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Can you please CITE an ounce of evidence to support yourself?

Where are you getting your information from? Where did you hear this? In my view, this whole case is nothing more than Ashcroft TRYING to undermine the USSC by pretending it's not in society's interest to allow defendent's to be represented.

Her sympathy seems to STEM from the constitution which LIMITS the power of the state and affirms the rights of the defendent when accused of a crime.

Are lawyers that take up the cases of KKK members deeply sympathetic to the cause, or simply performing a service required by the constitution...via ensuring a fair trial?

[geek tragedy]

32. An attorney's representation

does not include conveying orders from a CONVICTED terrorist mastermind to to his followers. She is not acting as his attorney when she did that. And she most certainly did that.

Which is why this subpoena issue for these reporters is so dumb.

All they're being asked to do is get on the stand and say "I didn't lie in my article."

Here's a snippet from a NYT article about this traitor:

<snip>
As Stewart got to know her new client, she came to see him as a fighter for national liberation on behalf of a people oppressed by dictatorship and American imperialism. She came to admire him personally too, for his honesty, his strength of character, his teasing humor.
''I've made up my mind,'' the sheik would say. ''I'm going to marry you, and that will solve everything.''

''And what do women get if they fight in jihad?'' she would ask.

''Eternity in paradise with whichever of your husbands you like best.''

''Husbands? That's all we get?''

Stewart threw herself into the case with the passion for which she was known in criminal-defense circles. At trial she tried to convince the mostly black jury that the sheik was not an unfamiliar figure to them. ''He has advocated for the suffering of his people at home, in Egypt,'' she said in her opening argument. ''He has advocated by any means necessary, and that is not acceptable to this government.'' Prints of John Brown's home and grave hang in her office, and in her summation she invoked his spirit. But this time Stewart misjudged her audience. When the jury returned with a conviction, she wept.

<snip>

<snip>
Then in May 2000, at a meeting with Stewart in the federal prison in Rochester, Minn., the sheik dictated a statement to his Arabic translator, Mohammed Yousry, calling for an end to the cease-fire between the Islamic Group and the Egyptian government. The statement was phoned to Islamic Group leaders by Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a Staten Island mailman and follower of the sheik who had worked as a paralegal on the case. The sheik's followers in Egypt doubted the statement's authenticity -- until Stewart herself, in violation of the SAM's, held a press conference a few weeks later to confirm that Abdel Rahman advocated withdrawal from the cease-fire.
<snip>

<snip>
Three days earlier, a supposedly sealed affidavit for a search warrant had turned up on the Court TV Web site thesmokinggun.com. It contained excerpts from her taped prison conversations with the sheik. The information was damaging: Stewart, the translator Yousry and the sheik seemed to be enjoying tricking the guards into thinking that she and the sheik were having a lawyer-client conversation, when in fact the sheik was dictating a statement to Yousry. At one point she joked that she should get an acting award. We went back inside. In the elevator, Stewart wondered aloud whether the Center for Constitutional Rights might be withdrawing from her defense ''because they get a lot of their support from Zionists. Well, from Jews, who aren't all Zionists, but some of them are.''
<snip>

<snip>
But this warmhearted woman took the slaughter of innocents with a certain coldbloodedness. The U.S. is constantly at war around the world and shouldn't expect its acts to go unanswered, she says.
The Pentagon was ''a better target''; the people in the towers ''never knew what hit them. They had no idea that they could ever be a target for somebody's wrath, just by virtue of being American. They took it personally. And actually, it wasn't a personal thing.'' As for civilian deaths in general: ''I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place, they're in a nightclub in Israel, they're at a stock market in London, they're in the Algerian outback -- whatever it is, people die.'' She mentions Hiroshima and Dresden. ''So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are sort of placed in a position of having no other way.''
<snip>

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. how about a link to the snippet...The NYT would never lie

except for maybe Judith Miller who didn't think it was her job to confirm the veracity of what the government was telling her...oh yeah and Jason what's his name...oh yeah...and Iraq has WMD's.....take it to the bank. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

42. Wrong subject, never mind. n/t

[gratuitous]

29. Hold it . . .

We're going from your categorical statement of fact ("she's a criminal") to a far more subjective statement ("from what I've heard"). In any event, even if the government is able to prove, well whatever it is they're trying to prove, I fail to see why they're subpoenaing reporters. That certainly looks like an intimidation tactic -- not to mention something they've been so far quite reluctant to do in other investigations.

Considering the "airtight" cases that the government has previously brought (Mayfield, Padilla), the facts you describe hardly amount to a sufficiency to say that Stewart is a criminal who loves terrorists. Who was the interpreter? What was said? What sort of "distraction" is being alleged? What sort of information, if any, was passed? What knowledge did Stewart have before, during or after the sessions with her client and the interpreter? Are there any actions, crimes if you will, that can be directly and solely traced to what Rahman and the interpreter talked about? Are there tapes of their conversations, or is this the surmise of the guard? Is the government taping attorney-client conversations? Mercy, that's a lot of questions, isn't it? Sorry. Sometimes I get started, and don't quite know where to leave off.

In any event, why don't we give the justice system a crack at sorting this out before making unfounded statements about a person's character?

[geek tragedy]

33. See my posting of the New York Times article.

There's a reason why the government wants that to get in. She's a damn traitor.

See also this:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lynnestewart1.html

[gratuitous]

34. I saw whatever it was you posted

But after Jayson Blair and Judith Miller, I'm afraid I'd have to ask for something a little substantial than simply your alleged copy-and-paste job of a purported article from the Times. Got a link?

I also saw several quotations attributed to Stewart, but no indication of where they came from, their context, or anything else. A text, as we all know, without a context is a pretext. However, on that basis, you're willing to convict her of treason. I certainly hope you're not on any juries where my firm practices.

[geek tragedy]

35. I paid for the Times article.

You'll need to pay yourself if you don't want to rely on me. It ran in the New York Times magazine on 9/22/02. You can find it at your library.

As I noted above, check out thhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lynnestewart1.html

I imagine when they play those tapes, it's lights out.

[gratuitous]

37. No problem, post the link

I have a subscription to the Times online, so I can read the story for myself. You could at the very least tell us who wrote the article. Why are you hiding it?

Anyway, I went to The Smoking Gun. My goodness, an FBI affidavit! Certainly looks all official and everything. Just like the FBI affidavit here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0525041mayfield1.html

That one against Mayfield turned out to be a pack of lies, stoked by the Bureau's antipathy toward Mayfield's religion and his client list. Disturbingly parallel to what is happening to Stewart. There is all this compelling "evidence," but no overt actions, no criminal intent, nothing that actually happened, but it is indisputable that Lynne Stewart has represented people the government doesn't like.

At least to this point in our country, that's not a crime, even if a person really, really, REALLY wants it to be.

[geek tragedy]

38. No criminal intent? No overt action?

Read the affidavit. It's all there.

But, if one just IGNORES the evidence that doesn't support one's argument, I guess you can make that argument.

Now, those tapes may not exist, and this agent may get nailed for perjury.

But, if that affidavit reflects what's on those tapes, it's an open and shut case.

Re: The Times article, are you trying to discredit it or demanding to see it? As I said, September 22, 2002 New York Times Magazine. George Packer. 4810 Words. Go to your local library. Or do a search at the Times using: "lynne stewart" Pentagon "better target" sheikh.

[BeHereNow]

40. GT, I am having De ja vu here...

Your posts on this threads are eerily
similar in tone to the ones you made to me
on another thread...did you take a wrong turn
on the internet highway?
BHN

[gratuitous]

46. I did read the web page

Unfortunately, the actual affidavit in its entirety is sealed. Convenient. And hardly persuasive evidence.

I referred you to another affidavit, one in its entirety by the same FBI. Did you read that affidavit? Just say no, because I know you didn't. That case seemed "open and shut" too. Until, of course, all the allegations turned out not to have any substance. Brandon Mayfield was released and the FBI had to issue a rather craven apology; it's too bad my tax dollars are going to pay the settlement to Mr. Mayfield, but as far as I'm concerned, if the J. Edgar Hoover Building has to be renamed the Brandon Mayfield Building or Perjury Central, it's exactly what the government has coming to it.

FBI affidavits are still not "evidence," even if you really want them to be. Sometimes, they lie. Not, of course, that they have any reason whatsoever to engage in a vindictive campaign against an attorney who keeps derailing their railroad jobs.

[BeHereNow]

47. Check your PM

BHN
:hi:

[gratuitous]

48. Thanks

And :hi: back atcha.

[geek tragedy]

49. Affidavits not evidence?

Affidavits are evidence, at the summary judgment stage anyway. Of course, what really counts is what's on those tapes. But, you seem to be assuming that the affidavit does not reflect what is on those tapes. While I have no great confidence in the FBI, I doubt very much that they would falsify a transcript of a tape which would be played in front of a court.

And I did read the Mayfield affidavit. So, sorry to knock that one down. Should I have quoted the fourth word of the second full paragraph to convince you?

However, that the Mayfield affidavit was riddled with errors is irrelevant to whether this affidavit is filled with errors. Of course, it's possible, but I highly doubt that.

[gratuitous]

50. Ha ha!

Thanks. You've been highly entertaining.

Be sure to clap loud and believe real hard, or Tink gets it!

[geek tragedy]

51. Sorry you have to resort to insults.

Good luck in your law practice, and check up on your CLE classes for the use of affidavits in court proceedings!

[gratuitous]

52. See? Just what I was talking about

Number 1: I didn't "insult" you. You've taken care of that quite handily with no assistance from me.

Number 2: I'm not a lawyer, and never said I was. I'm going to feel real badly if it turns out that English isn't your first language, but then, you've been so bellicose even that may not be a defense.

Number 3: Allegations in affidavits are still not evidence, even if you really, REALLY want them to be.

[geek tragedy]

53. Response

1. Snide, condescending remarks about someone being "entertaining" aren't insults? Somebody needs to go back to finishing school.

2. Okay, you said "my firm." I assumed you were a lawyer. I overestimated your education--my bad.

3. Are you parsing legal terms or are you talking about evidence in the general lay sense? In the lay sense, an FBI affidavit is certainly evidence. In the legal sense, an FBI affidavit can also function as evidence. See Carney v. Department of Justice , 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir.) , cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 86 (1994). It can't be used at the trial stage to convict someone, but in preliminary civil proceedings it certainly can be admitted.

[gratuitous]

56. Ha ha Part Deux

An FBI affidavit "can't be used at the trial stage to convict someone." But you've already convicted Stewart of treason on its basis.

Please read your own posts -- you're contradicting yourself, and making no sense. Or is that your intention? Be sure to copy-and-paste all your nonsense, wherever this thread is going to be memorialized with your friends. Though they probably won't be as impressed with your "skills" as you are.

I still find you rather amusing. Your entertainment value is slipping, though.

[geek tragedy]

58. One more before I go for the evening

I am not a jury. I am a private citizen forming an opinion. I am not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. I am not bound by a judge's instructions. I am allowed to consider hearsay evidence like the Times Article. I can rely on whatever evidence (in the lay sense) I wish. I have not convicted her of anything--she is free to go regardless of what I say. I have formed an opinion about her guilt, but that's all I've done.

Do you understand that "evidence" can have multiple meanings? It's unclear what your point is. Are you saying that I'm supposed to limit myself to legally admissible trial evidence in forming a personal opinion?

[BeHereNow]

59. GT...You crack me up!

"I am a private citizen forming an opinion."

Guess what, me too!

I find that the majority of my fellow
'murikkkans are ignorant, arrogant sheeple
bound together in the grips of narcissitic
neurosis and collective UNconsciousness and would
rather numb their brains out with a STUPID sitcom
or one of the various other riduculous past time activities
that pass for entertainment in our sick society,
than read a NON-fiction book.

And that my friend, 'tis MY opinion....
as a "private citizen," of course.

BHN

[Occulus]

62. How many times does it have to happen from the same group

before you'll begin to suspect each and every similar action?

Here's an analogy: I appear to be dealing drugs, one deal a day, on a corner visible to you as you leave for work.

You see this every day.

How many times will it take you before you presume me to be a drug dealer and turn me in?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

41. Oh the sweet irony n/t

[BeHereNow]

43. Why are you being so contentious?

It's as if you are deliberately trying to
start arguments and get people "debating" you,
if you can call what you post a debating technique.
What are you trying to get from these exchanges?
Black and white documentation of ______ about DU?
For _____?
Game's up, the word is out on your agenda.

BHN

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. She's never expressed any support for terrorism and you are literally

getting the government's case against her from Ashcroft...if you say he sucks, then why take your opinion from his case against her?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. I thought you were Mr Rule of Law. What happened to due process? n/t

[geek tragedy]

45. I'm not a jury

I'm not calling for her to be taken outside and shot. I am expressing my opinion that she's guilty. I think OJ is a double murderer. Posting an opinion on a message board and the legal process are two different things.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

54. OJ????? Wow now that's a classic.

That's nice of you not to call for her public execution. From what I can tell you've already convicted her in your mind and declared her a traitor. Because a real traitor like Asscroft said so?

[geek tragedy]

55. I've read the news accounts, the FBI affidavit

which records TAPED conversations, etc.

I have no doubt that she did what she could to help the Sheikh in his jihad. She lost sight of the boundaries between a lawyer and a follower.

Hell, people here (self included) have already convicted aWol and his crew of treason and war crimes.

Just because she's a terrorist-loving radical instead of a right-wing proto-fascist doesn't mean I have to cut her any more slack.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

61. Whatever you say bro.

Hey I have an idea let's come up with silly little labels based for whomever Ashcroft and his Ghestappo designate as ter'ists. Sure, 'cause our wonderful government would never lie. You see others do but never US. THe whole US apparatus has been producing and helping terrorists for as long as I can remember. I hope we're also keepeing track on them and how it all fits in the big scheme of things.

By the way bushie and his crew did commit treason at the very least by leaking a CIA agent's name. At least someone in his inner circle. I mean really, how many people outside of government would have known who she was? As far as this lawyer is concerned I'll reserve my judgment until there is an actual case and real evidence is presented.

You might be right, or you might be jumping to conclusions. Who knows? I guess we might find out one day when we hopefully get a real AG and not some Crisco annointed, ENRON entangled, campaign finance rules violating, stone titty covering, calico cat fearing jackass. Who can actually perform his duties with some dignity and credibility.

[shoelace414]

3. If the Government thinks

that you should subpoena the press, where is that Valierie Plame subpoena for what's his name from crossfire.

[Spazito]

5. Exactly! I haven't read anything saying the bush admin is ...

promoting the testimony of the reporters and Novak (he's no reporter, imo) in the Plame case. Hypocrisy yet again, no surprise there, sadly.

[truthspeaker]

12. Actually the Independent Counsel in Plame case has subpeonaed reporters

[geek tragedy]

14. Of course

Bush was just eager as heck to get to the bottom of the Plame affair by demanding to know who did it.

[Spazito]

19. Of course he is, that's why he hired a PERSONAL lawyer to advise...

him re the Plame case. I am sure it is to get to the bottom of the Plame case, I am SURE it is, right?

[gatlingforme]

21. Ditto, we just typed at the same time.... LOL

[gatlingforme]

20. hahaha, that is why he consulted a private attorney to make

sure he can find out who did it. Patrick Fitzgerald will get to the bottom of your friend's assertations. LOL

[geek tragedy]

44. Sarcasm alert!

Messed up on the sarcasm tag--didn't know the square brackets made it invisible.

Please read above post as if it were meant in sarcasm. I can't edit it now.

:dunce:

[Spazito]

17. If the bush admin were to be consistent (fat chance) they should be...

encouraging the press to testify in the Plame case seeing as they have, through the DOJ, subpoenaed the press for this one. To me, it is just one more example of their hypocrisy and double standard.

[Bandit]

31. But did they respond?

I seem to remember hearing that the Networks blocked the subpoenas and would not let Russert and (shit, brain fart) I can't remember the other one from testifying.

[uptown ruler]

4. no shocker

that this is true...


Spread the Word
CausePimpingThePeopleAin’tEasy

[struggle4progress]

57. When Representing An Accused Terrorist Can Mean The Lawyer Risks Jail, Too

<snip>
An indictment like Stewart's sends a clear warning to attorneys: Don't represent accused terrorists, or you could be our next suspect.

It may also make conscientious lawyers worry that they will not be able to do their job properly with such clients. A lawyer may wonder if she can be zealous when torn between avoiding her own prosecution and representing his client. ("Zealousness," too, is a duty under the Model Rules). Indeed, a lawyer may be unavoidably caught in a conflict of interest trap with her own client.

The fear of a conflict of interest, in such circumstances, would be a very real one. As the Stewart indictment shows, an attorney can be now charged with aiding and abetting terrorism simply for engaging in everyday acts of lawyering. For example, responding to press queries, unless the subject of court gag orders imposed during trials, is a normal part of being a lawyer in a controversial case. (The lawyer may choose not to speak, but the choice is the lawyer's, not the government's.) Yet for Stewart, it is a crime.

Of course, it is certainly possible Stewart should not have spoken when she did, given the agreement she signed. But that agreement itself may be unconstitutional as a violation of both the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
<snip>
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20021008.html

[struggle4progress]

60. Judge delays decision on reporter subpoenas in terror trial

A federal judge Friday left in place subpoenas issued to three reporters by prosecutors who want them to testify in the upcoming trial of a lawyer accused of conspiring to support terrorists.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl said it would be "some time" before he decides whether to lift the subpoenas _ suggesting the matter may be settled during the trial itself. Opening statements are expected next week.
<snip>

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--terrortrial-subpo0618jun18,0,2658534.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[struggle4progress]

63. Lawyer becomes defendant in terror case

Over three decades, civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart has defended revolutionaries, terrorists and mobsters. But in her most important case yet, the combative attorney finds herself in a new and precarious role: defendant.
<snip>

Stewart, who maintains her innocence, could face up to 45 years in prison if convicted.

"I have to hope that I'll be brave and carry the fight on from the prison if I have to," she said in a recent interview. "They want to make me into a traitor, and I'll just fight forever."
<snip>

At trial, she said she will concede two points prosecutors allege: that she helped the sheik say publicly what he thought about a cease-fire in the Middle East, and that she distracted guards who tried to overhear conversations with the sheik.
<snip>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Terror%20Trial%20Lawyer