Alison Dellit
With tears in her eyes, radical lawyer Lynne Stewart braved reporters on the steps of the New York Courthouse in which she had just been convicted of conspiring to aid terrorists on February 10. "I hope this will be a wake-up call that you can't lock up the lawyers ... You've got to let them operate. And I will fight on. I know what I did was right", she said. The 65-year-old is facing between a 30- and 45-year prison sentence.
Stewart's conviction on all counts, met with gasps from the those in the courtroom, has set a terrifying precedent. Arabic translator Mohammed Yousry and paralegal Ahmed Satter were convicted on similar charges, and Satter was also convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and kill in a foreign country.
Stewart's charges stem from her work defending the "Blind Sheikh", Omar Abdul Rahman, who is serving a life sentence on terrorism-related charges. Rahman is the spiritual leader of Gamaa Islamiya, which was responsible for bombings and assassination attempts in Egypt before declaring a ceasefire in 1998.
The US has imposed "Special Administrative Measures" on Rahman, which prevent him from communicating with anyone other than his lawyers or his wife. In order to represent him, Stewart had to sign her agreement with these orders.
The prosecution alleged Stewart broke the SAMs by facilitating Rahman's communication with his followers in Egypt, through allowing him to communicate with Yousry on non-legal matters, and, most importantly, because of a press release Stewart issued in June 2000 announcing that Rahman had withdrawn his "personal support" for the ceasefire.
In a February 11 interview with radio show Democracy Now!, Stewart explained why she had decided to issue the press release: "It was considered important to the handling of this case that this press release be made to keep him as a figure on the world stage. If we lost that, we would not have any bargaining power ... I had no notion of this kind of consequence ... it was the right thing to do for the client."
Two days later, Stewart issued a further press release saying Rahman was "questioning" the ceasefire, not urging its abandonment. Neither release had any discernible effect on Gamaa Islamiya.
In the same interview with Democracy Now!, Stewart's lawyer Michael Tigar explained why Stewart signed the SAM: "She had two choices. She could say, 'This is unconstitutional, I will sue the USA and maybe in four years I can see my client', or she could ... interpret the document in a way that says we get to do our job."
One of the biggest issues in the case is the right of privileged communication between client and attorney. In order to build a case against Stewart, the US government wiretapped Stewart's meetings with her client, as well as Satter's home phone. Believing strongly that Rahman was entitled to keep his legal strategy secret, Stewart at times recited gobbledook while Yousry spoke with Rahman, so prison guards could not hear. This became key evidence that Stewart had facilitated illegal communication.
There is no allegation that Stewart passed information on, except through that press statement. There is no allegation that she conspired to kidnap or kill. Satter's charges related to phone conversations he had with Rahman's Egyptian followers in Arabic. The judge ruled that the prosecution did not have to reveal who was going to be kidnapped or killed, or even in what country.
The trial has been a mammoth event. Stewart's indictment was publicly announced by then attorney-general John Ashcroft in April 2002, and her conviction was hailed by his successor Alberto Gonzales as a "clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them". In contrast, former attorney-general Ramsey Clarke testified in Stewart's defence.
During the seven-month trial, the prosecution attempted to portray Stewart as sympathetic to terrorists, based on her history of left-wing and civil-liberties activism. Stewart will appeal the case based on some of the more provocative prosecution tactics, including a courtroom showing of a video of Osama bin Laden praising Rahman.
The jury deliberated for two weeks. When the verdict was announced, three jurors were in tears, one almost unable to respond when polled by the judge, and another obscuring her face as she said "guilty".
While the US government has attempted to intimidate lawyers from taking on unpopular clients before, nothing has reached this scale. If the verdict is not overturned, Stewart will almost certainly spend the rest of her life in jail. She has already been disbarred for life.
Stewart has been a thorn in the side of the government for years. In the 1980s she successfully represented Larry Davis, who defended himself with a gun when a crew of drug-dealing New York cops tried to kill him.
In the Democracy Now! interview, Tigar highlighted the impact this case will have on lawyers in the US: "Every lawyer who wants to represent somebody at Guantanamo, every lawyer who wants to represent somebody being held by the United States under such conditions, is being asked to sign various agreements. 'I agree my meetings won't be confidential. I agree I'll do this, I agree I'll do that.' From time to time some of them may feel, as a matter of interpretation as Lynne did in good faith, this can't possibly mean that I can't do this. [This verdict will have] a chilling effect on a profession — only a minority of whose members are willing to shoulder the obligation to represent the oppressed."
From Green Left Weekly, February 16, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.