Terrorists and Their Lawyers.
The trial of activist attorney/terrorist co-conspirator Lynne Stewart began yesterday. Stewart conspired to relay messages between convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman and his organization in Egypt. A court order prohibited Rahman from communicating with the outside world. Stewart apparently thought a court order shouldn't stop her from passing on instructions from Rahman to an Egyptian journalist for publication that instructed his group to resume terror attacks.

NY1 has the story here. Base10 gets a kick out of this headline in the Times, "U.S. Prosecutor says Lawyer Aided in Terror." Maybe, just maybe, the jury will say it too. Yesterday's Times story on the matter, linked to here, claims that defense attorneys are concerned that the Bush administration is eroding the right to counsel.

The case has caused an uproar among defense lawyers, many of whom see the charges as an effort by the Bush administration to scare them and chip away at civil rights in the name of combating terrorism.

Base10 may have missed that day in law school, but he's pretty sure that right to counsel does not include the right to communicate with terrorist organizations in violation of court orders.

Much has been made by commentators about the effect of this case on attorney/client privilege. But that is not really the point. Any communication passed on by Stewart is by definition no longer privileged. By focusing on this issue, the left tries to make this case into an abridgment of civil liberties (blamed on Bush and Ashcroft, of course). Lynne Stewart can try to hide behind her attorney status, but the lesson here should be that attorney status does not confer immunity in these cases. After the press release described above, 53 people were killed in Luxor, Egypt after Rahman's terrorist group attacked them. Base10 suspects a jury will feel the same way.
- posted by Base10 @ 10:30 AM