Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:31 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Flimsy evidence?

Showing a picture of Ossama bin Laden during a trial that had nothing to do with him spoke of extreme desperation. Why do that if the evidence was sufficient to put her away? Fact is, Ashcroft had only been able to convict exactly one other human being on terroism charges, although this was his main job - so, yes, they were desperate.

Quote:

They have numberous wiretaps of Stewart on tape.

The reason for the indictment was the press conference, though.

Quote:

And she definitely breached the SAM. Nor was it unconstitutional. In fact it was perfectly legal. As your own link in the orginal post (threat to America) shows that the DOJ was granted these powers to wiretap.

Ashcroft claimed these powers but they have not been tested for their constitutionality. We're looking at a major dislodge in the previously-unassailed right of privacy between attorney and client. This is a massive change in the way justice is practiced in America, and those who say 9/11 has not resulted in any loss of civil liberties to Americans are shown how deeply and severely incorrect they are by this case.

Quote:

As for lawyers being cowards, it doesn't sound like it scared Ramsey Clark (as you pointed out). Nor does it seem like it's scared the organization that Stewart is affliated with (more on said organization later. ) How is this not a response?

Well, you're referring to very exceptional lawyers who make a habit of defending those whom no one else will defend, people who take Clarence Darrow as a role model far more than Clarence Thomas. Michael Tigar, the man who defended Lynne, also defended Timothy McVeigh, and his goal was not to set the madman free but just to save him from gas chamber.

Incidentally, Lynne's own goal with regard to Rahman was similar, not to make him a free man but to get the best situation possible, so she pled him guilty and cut a deal - which was also why she continued to represent him long after all his appeals were done, to keep trying to get himthe best deal possible : he wanted to be sent back to Egypt (ironic, actually, since this is one of the countries we send prisoners to for "rendition," knowing they will face torture) and a lawyer who serves her client keeps his name in the public eye as well as possible he will not be forgotten and therefore to keep his interests secured .

Quote:

YOU said that this bothered you "..for the obvious reasons that pertain to free speech and the right of people to know things-..."

Yes, I think I said that ... it bothers me to see people sent to jail for giving a press conference. Free speech means not only that people have a right to say something but that I have a right to hear it. I'm a selfish man and I resent people who take away my right to hear things, even things I don't especially want to know.

Quote:

I pointed out that one lawyer does not make this case. Had you been able to point to several such instances, I (hard as this may be to believe) would have very likely agreed that this is a worriesome trend. But one lawyer does not make a trend or case for such a thing happening. That is all I was trying to say here.

You seem to to be saying that it's okay for the govt to persecute exactly ONE person for their beliefs and their willingess to do a job on behalf of unpopular folk being accused ... how many do you need before you think it's worth noticing? Five? Ten? Twenty? A hundred?

There are more than a half a thousand human beings held in Guantanamo and the same kind of SAMs apply to them. Some of them have lawyers now - only because the Supreme Court (finally) said they ought to get them if they can - and those lawyers are working for free under difficult conditions. A lot of the prisoners have been on a hunger strike since around late August. One reason you don't know much about that is that the lawyers are not allowed to tell the world outside what their clients are going through.

You say this is unimportant because ONE lawyer has been convicted? Many more have to try to do their jobs under these restrictions.

One more thing : SAMs are not laws. They are rules, something a little like "no smoking in the boy's room" in high school. These rules were not concocted by Congress or any elected official, but rather handed down by administrative fiat from Ashcroft On High.

Lynne Stewart does not look dangerous to me, and the judge who let her free on bail must have fel the same way. No one died, was injured or even was at threat because of her press conference.

Quote:

The charge was thrown out in at least one court - why do you think this happened? Do some reading and get back to me ... happy to talk then

.And the charge was upheld in the second court. It depends on the judge, prosecutor and jury. If the prosecutor can not make the case or convince the jury, it doesn't matter what evidence he has.

You forgot to do the reading I suggested, didn't you?

In America, we have a thing called "Double Jeapardy," which means you cannot be charged twice for the same crime, The federal law she was later charged with was a different one, one that required proof of intent. Thing is, intent is hard to prove - it requires you go right inside the mind of the accused, read her mind and try to prove that her actions had a specific motive. How can anyone do that?

Well, that's why the pictures and tapes of bin Laden were shown at her trial. Osama supports the guy she defended, here and he is on tape saying it. And look, here's his picture, and there is Lynne Stewart ... now, go off and deliberate, and while you do, we'll leak the name of the holdout juror.

Quote:

Many a guilty party has gone free because of this. Because the charges were thrown out does NOT MEAN THAT STEWART WAS INNOCENT. For all we know they may have been thrown out on a techicality or some glitch in the proceedings.

You did not read the links provided to you. Looking forward to your return after you have done so. My prediction is that eventually the appeals process will toss this one out. The case allows for too many precedents that will be dangerous to the legal system in America in the future.

For the record, never said she is innocent - there's still a lot about it that is not in the public record, and it's not for me to say. What I did say is that it appears she was uhjustly prosecuted, and specifically targeted - and so far nothing you or anyone else I have read has changed that ntion.

Quote:

The link works fine. Did you actually read it or are you just guessing?

I read it, and like a lot of the links you provide, I found it quite disturbing for reasons I won't go into now, but which will be famililar to you from previous discussions. I'll pass on it again at the moment, mainly because it was disturbing enough that I don't want to look at it again so recently. (Clue : There is more than just a little thinly-discguised hate scattered around that website, TUM ... look at it again.)

Quote:

It talks about Stewart's organization(the National Lawyers Guild) and Stewart. The last paragraph is the one about Bin Laden. As for the NLG they still support Stewart as the last paragraph also shows.

They offer no evidence for what they say, and therefore neither have you. Lynne Stewart has been a Marxist for decades, so this is nothing new - it's what I'm talking about when I say she is being persecuted for her political beliefs. Being a Marxist is not against the law in America, or it wasn't until recently, not since Edaward Murrow took McCarthy down and did to him what he needed to have happen -and, yes, it's why we are better than China and Iran.

I don't care much for Marxism myself, but I get annoyed when the govt tries to keep me from hearing what poeple say who do not like that one bit.

I'm still looking for a place where Ossama bin Laden has been shown to be aware of Lynne Steart, let alone express support. Get back to me whn you can give me that.

Looking at the links now. While I am doing that, I must take exception to the "thinly disguised hate" comment. The article I linked to made no such comments, only discussed the Guild's political aims and membership. Care to provide a specific quote so that we can all see an example of this "hate"? Thanks.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

The paragraph you mentioned as being at the end made an assertion about Ossama being a "notable backer" of Lynne Stewart. It provided a link that goes to a few paragraphs about Dan Rather and and a few more about Martha Stewart, but no video of bin Laden speaking of her, highly or otherwise. That's where I got the crack about Martha earlier, by the way.

As for my opinions about the site as a whole - that's what I called "thinly-disguised hate," TUM - click around a bit and see what they say about the Southern Poverty Law Center: The SPLC regularly engages in fear-mongering to raise funds for its various campaigns. There are not many in America who have done more to combat racist hate speech and hate crime than Morris Dees and this organization. What they have to say about Lynne Stewart - uncorroborated assertions of support from OBL, a link that claims to go to a video of him but does not - has to be viewed through the lens of their bias ...

And, sure, I'll say it : deceit.

And hence my discomfort at having to look at it, despite the fact that you have shown me links in the past that express similar kinds of racist subliminality - once again, thank you for disuading me from a midnight snack, as this stuff really does turn my stomach into a small maelstom of disgust, and while the gf does still think my ass is cute, she might like it better if it were smaller, so I didn't really NEED that ham sandwich ...

I could make a very long list of points I have raised here that both you and Joo have completely ignored. After you are done reading the links posted, take a moment and refer to a few of them, same me the trouble of having to list them again as I did before ...

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

The May 2000 Prison Visit

Quote:

j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf��s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, ��Good for them.�� STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they ��may be futile,�� because it is ��very, very crucial�� that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the ��Muiahadeen�� (Jihad warriors).

k. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY read Abdel Rahman an inflammatory statement by Taha that had recently been published in an Egyptian newspaper.

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things,

Quote:

SATTAR��s letter informed Abdel Rahman that SATTAR��s communications with specified Islamic Group leaders had become ��semi-constant�� over.the past year, arid asked Abdel Rahman, ��If there is anything, please notify.�� In addition, SATTAR's letter asked Abdel Rahman to endorse ��the formation of a team that calls for cancellation of the peace initiative or makes threats escalates things.��

m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as ��chocolate�� and ��heart attack.�� STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could ��get an award for�� her acts of

Quote:

o
. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

Quote:

On or about October 4, 2000, SATTAR called Yassir A1-Sirri, a co-conspirator not named as a defendant herein, and read to him a fatwa to be issued under Abdel Rahman��s name entitled, ��Fatwah Mandating the Killing of Israelis Everywhere,�� which A1-Sirri agreed to revise and disseminate.

y. On or about October 5, 2000, the fatwa appeared on the web-site operated by A1-Sirri. The fatwah called on ��brother scholars everywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimous atwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews, and to kill them wherever they are.�� The fatwah further urged ��the Muslim nation�� to ��fight the Jews by all possible means of Jihad, either by killing them as individuals or by targeting their interests, and the interests of those who support them, as much as they can.��

z. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, YOUSRY told STEWART that Abdel Rahman did not want his attorneys to deny that he had issued the fatwah urging the killing of Jews around the world and the targeting of the interests of those who support them.

aa. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, STEWART told YOUSRY that she could not deny that she had issued the press release in June 2000, and that her position was that Abdel Rahman ��is going to get his message out no matter what.��

She was trying to help Rahman get his message out.

Rahman had no business being able to communicate with his followers.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:15 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

The Bobster wrote:

[
As for my opinions about the site as a whole - that's what I called "thinly-disguised hate," TUM - click around a bit and see what they say about the Southern Poverty Law Center: The SPLC regularly engages in fear-mongering to raise funds for its various campaigns. There are not many in America who have done more to combat racist hate speech and hate crime than Morris Dees and this organization. What they have to say about Lynne Stewart - uncorroborated assertions of support from OBL, a link that claims to go to a video of him but does not - has to be viewed through the lens of their bias ...

And, sure, I'll say it : deceit.

...

I've done that and just a few things. The fear-mongering was their claim of 346 hate rightwing groups in the U.S.A. which was based on no studies. Laird Wilcox a man who has actually done research on such groups, says there is only about 50.

Alexander Cockburn (who is a noted leftwing journalist by the way) also took issue with the SPLC for such claims.

Again when the FBI (and they should know) reported 7,489 hate crimes for one year, the SPLC claimed "...we think there's really more like 50,000 hate crimes out there each year." Again they failed to produce any studies showing this. Not surprising as we shall see in a moment.

As for deceit they accused a Macon State college professor "of being a former leader of the knights of the KKK" This was later revealed to be completely false.

Now as for the surprise. Throughout their entire history they have never spent more than 31% of their budget on actual programs. Guess that's why they don't rely on studies, they don't want to spend the money.

And it's only gotten worse. In 2003 89% of their budget went towards fundraising and administrative costs and only 11% towards actual programs. Yes they've bankrupted a few KKK organisations, but they could do much more with what they have. Instead the few people at the top are getting obscenely large salaries and spending on actual programs is down.

Conclusion: It started off with good intentions and actually did some good work. However it seems to have really gone off the rails. Surely with all the money it's been making it could afford to spend more than a mere 11% on actual programs? And what's with those huge salaries? Most people who are true social activists would take a pay cut and funnel that money into programs (leading by example).

But Morris Dee's comment about hustling shows that he's lost any social conscience whatsoever and for him it's all about money. (Last paragraph)

Now that indeed is heave-worthy and makes one lose their appetite.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:41 am Post subject: Re: Lynne Stewart ... Who the Bejeezus is SHE?

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

What they have to say about Lynne Stewart - uncorroborated assertions of support from OBL, a link that claims to go to a video of him but does not - has to be viewed through the lens of their bias ...

And, sure, I'll say it : deceit.

...

I googled Laird Wilcox and he seems to be a guy who has written a couple of books and sells them through his internet website, one of which seems to be called "Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes In America." No sign of credentials or indications of him being any kind of expert, and nothing like the track record of a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

There's a strong whiff of bias about him as well - for a site such as discoverthenetwork to pull him out of a hat to use against an august organization like the SPLC bespeaks a palpable agenda, and that agenda would hardly be construed as one seeking the betterment of black people in America.

I'll say it again, they provided a link implying evidence of a video of bin Laden giving support for Lynne Stewart. No such evidence is shown, and you spent possibly as much as a half an hour out of your life recounting the article I had already given a link to, a link which I gave not as further data about the woman we are discussing but rather to show that in addition to posting false info on their site re Ms Stewart (apparently, YOU believed it) but they are also wrong about some other things as well.

Get back to me when you have some evidence that Ossame bin Laden ever spoke in support of Lynne Stewart. You said this, and my request for you to support it came from a sincere desire to learn something I might not know ... what I have learned is something I already knew, that The Urban Myth needs to be a little less credulous in his sources.

Quote:

Alexander *beep* (who is a noted leftwing journalist by the way) also took issue with the SPLC for such claims.

Alexander Cockburn is not a journalist and I don't know anyone who believes this. He is a pundit, the left's version of Rush Limbaugh, but (only a little) more polite. He has opinions and publishes them and people buy certain publilcations because they want to read those opinions. Mr Laird seems to be presenting himself as "researcher," though again, I have not yet found anyone except your website and his that thinks he is qualified to call himself this.

Quote:

Now that indeed is heave-worthy and makes one lose their appetite.

I'm to risk irony that might fly right by your head by saying that the very biased account you presented, and which came from the site you linked to, is precisdely what did make me feel ill when I read it a few nights ago.

I was sincere before when I asked you to educate me about bin Laden speaking in support of Ms Stewart - his sympathy for her may or may not be true but I have yet to read anything that was credible that attempted to show it. Your site claims to make the attempt, but it does appear to be - I'll use the word again - deceit, as there is nothing in the link related to what it claims.

To reiterate, TUM, your site provided a link that claimed to tell of a video from Ossama, but that link did nothing of the sort, and instead contained a referenc eto Martha Stewart. I still find it very humorous that you would fall for this.

If you still think what you said is true, please come back with something real and true.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:53 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

She was trying to help Rahman get his message out.

Rahman had no business being able to communicate with his followers.

The message he sent was that he is no longer to be considered a party in decision-making. This is just what the govt intends by incarcerating him. Her jury was shown pictures of Ossama bin Laden. At least one juror has claimed confidentiality was breached and that this had a role in her vote. Say something about this.

Honestly, I'm disappointed. You have for weeks and months used the name of Lynne Stewart as a stick to beat over the head of Cindy Sheehan, calling Stewart all kinds of vile things and going further than merely implying but actually stating once or twice that a friendship with such a person indicates shared ideology and shared goals - you never tried to support that, by the way, and now when I did a little work to actually LEARN about Lynne Stewart, I was very disturbed that I had not done so earlier.

You have said many times that American civil liberties have not eroded due to Geo Bush's GWOT, and this woman's case cites a VERY glaring example of just how much they really have. The right of privacy in communications between clients and their attorneys has been part of our tradition for a long time - this IS a civil liberty and Lynne Stewart shows us it is gone.

And after citing learned men and women offering their oopinions on this case and how it can affect the legal system, you offer nothing in rebuttal, just a weak sort of "I don't think so."

You have mentioned Lynne Stewart so often in regard to Cindy Sheehan, even posted pictures of the two women standing in the same room (though not at the same time) so I really thought you would have the goods to put up a serious fight over her. I seem to have been wrong about that.

After reading a lot on both sides, it really does look like Lynne Stewart was targeted, and that her case was a message - Alberto Gonzales used the very words, of course, published in all the mainstream press just as he wanted them to be - and that the entire matter gives us a reason to pause and have some concern.

Thanks for mentioning Lynne stewart to me, Joo. Wish I had donne this research weeks ago.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject:

Fact Lynne Stewart helped Rahman get a message to his followers. She had no business doing that. She helped him conspire to get a message out to his followers. The US is still one of the most free societies in the world. Becuse of the govt rules the US got Lynne Stewart helping Rahman get a message out to his followers . They also caught Stewart conspiring to help Rahman to get his message out to his followers. Fact Cindy Sheehan compares Stewart to Antonis Finch. What Finch did was noble what Stewart did was shameful. Fact Cindy Sheehan thinks the insurgents are freedom fighters.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Fact Lynne Stewart helped Rahman get a message to his followers. She had no business doing that.

She gave a press conference, and the message was addressed to the public at large. Lawyers hold press conferences as part of helping their clients. Therefore it was exactly her business.

Quote:

The US is still one of the most free societies in the world.

True, but we are slipping ...

Quote:

Becuse of the govt rules the US got Lynne Stewart helping Rahman get a message out to his followers .

It was a public press conference. The video and audio surveillance was not necessary to "get" her.

Quote:

Fact Cindy Sheehan compares Stewart to Antonis Finch. What Finch did was noble what Stewart did was shameful.

That's a matter of opinion, yours. Atticus Finch was a fictional character, by the way. Incidentally, I've read a lot of Cindy Sheehan by now, and that single appearance together at SF State is the one and only time the two woman appear to have met, and I have never seen Cindy refer to Lynne in any way at all elsewhere.

You have gone on and on about how these two women are good friends and support each other. There's just nothing to it.

Quote:

Fact Cindy Sheehan thinks the insurgents are freedom fighters.

Fact : Ronald Reagan called his murderous friends the Contras "freedom fighters." It's possible that Ron had the early stages even then during his presidency, and it's possible that Cindy uses hyperbole sometimes - who doesn't?

Again, what is quite clear is that Lynne Stewart was targeted by the DOJ in order to send a "message," and it also seems clear that you have said things about Cindy and Lynne Stewart that aren't true.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

The May 2000 Prison Visit

Quote:

she supports Abu Sayaf

She tells that the Rahman could be free from prison if the govt of Egypt is changed.

therefore Rahaman has an incentive to see a govt change.

Quote:

k. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY read Abdel Rahman an inflammatory statement by Taha that had recently been published in an Egyptian newspaper.

Stewart in the precence of Yousry Rhaman gets info from an Egyptian newspaper.

Stewart and RHamen know the feelings of the group.

Quote:

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things,

SATTAR��s letter informed Abdel Rahman that SATTAR��s communications with specified Islamic Group leaders had become ��semi-constant�� over.the past year, arid asked Abdel Rahman, ��If there is anything, please notify.�� In addition, SATTAR's letter asked Abdel Rahman to endorse ��the formation of a team that calls for cancellation of the peace initiative or makes threats escalates things.��

Stewart urges Yousry to read the leader.

The group wants to know Rhmans feelings.

Quote:

m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as ��chocolate�� and ��heart attack.�� STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could ��get an award for�� her acts of

Stewart concels that Rahamn is getting info from Yousry fact from prision guards

Stewart mentions that the guards are close

Stewart insructs Yousry to look like he is just translating. when in fact he is reading.

Stewart is helping Rhaman get info from his groups.

o

Quote:

. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

Rhaman says that he doesn't support the cease fire.

While Stewart tries to hide this.

Quote:

Rahman gives a Fatwah for attacks

Quote:

y. On or about October 5, 2000, the fatwa appeared on the web-site operated by A1-Sirri. The fatwah called on ��brother scholars everywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimous atwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews, and to kill them wherever they are.�� The fatwah further urged ��the Muslim nation�� to ��fight the Jews by all possible means of Jihad, either by killing them as individuals or by targeting their interests, and the interests of those who support them, as much as they can.��

the fatwah appears

Quote:

z. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, YOUSRY told STEWART that Abdel Rahman did not want his attorneys to deny that he had issued the fatwah urging the killing of Jews around the world and the targeting of the interests of those who support them.

Yousry tells stewart that he does not want his lawyers to deny that he has issued the call for attacks.

This is the same method that Stewart used too.

When she said something like

I do not deny that he doesn't support the ceasefire.

Quote:

aa. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, STEWART told YOUSRY that she could not deny that she had issued the press release in June 2000, and that her position was that Abdel Rahman ��is going to get his message out no matter what.��

Stewart tells him of what she can do to to get his message out.

She was trying to help Rahman get his message out.

Rahman had no business being able to communicate with his followers

Quote:

She gave a press conference, and the message was addressed to the public at large. Lawyers hold press conferences as part of helping their clients. Therefore it was exactly her business.

she gave a press conference that helped that terrorists hatemonger communicate with his followers.

And she said that she could do this for him.

Quote:

True, but we are slipping ...

still doing pretty good especially for a nation at war.

Quote:

It was a public press conference. The video and audio surveillance was not necessary to "get" her.

a press conference where she was giving Rahamans opinon.

About the second part who knows but Lynn Stewart is guilty.

Quote:

they were at a moonbat rally and what she said was terrible. what stewart did was not honorable.

Quote:

You have gone on and on about how these two women are good friends and support each other. There's just nothing to it

.

Sheehan supports Lynn Stewart.

Quote:

the contras fought against other bad guys.

the cold war was a just cause.

The sandanistas weren't the good guys infact they supported left wing "contras"

Quote:

Again, what is quite clear is that Lynne Stewart was targeted by the DOJ in order to send a "message," and it also seems clear that you have said things about Cindy and Lynne Stewart that aren't true.

how is it clear.

what is clear is that she conspired to help Rahman get his message out.
and she helped him get his message out.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

She gave a press conference, and the message was addressed to the public at large. Lawyers hold press conferences as part of helping their clients. Therefore it was exactly her business.

she gave a press conference that helped that terrorists hatemonger communicate with his followers.

She gave a press conference, as lawyers often do on behalf of their clients. What the terrorist hatemonger communicated is that he was no longer to be considered part of the process, and his followers need to discount him, and as I said before, this is the goal of the US govt in locking him up anyway.

You have said elsewhere that Lynne Stewart was a "supporter" of this man. While it may or may not be true, she was also his lawyer, and her actions were consistent with what lawyers do on behalf of their clients - and when lawyers fail to do their best for their clients, they are subject to sanctions not only from their professional colleagues but from the legal structure as well.

You mentioned Lynne Stewart in a couple of threads about Cindy Sheehan, called her a "terrorist supporter" and tried to imply that Cindy was also ... Joo, why did you NEVER mention even once that she was Rahman's lawyer?

Quote:

It was a public press conference. The video and audio surveillance was not necessary to "get" her.

a press conference where she was giving Rahamans opinon.

The "opinion" she offered from him was that his followers ought not to wait to hear his opinions any more - that is all.

Quote:

they were at a moonbat rally and what she said was terrible. what stewart did was not honorable.

Opinion offered as fact. What Lynne Stewart did has been described in links I gave by very respected legal minds as being consistent with what lawyers do to serve the best interests of their clients.

While were at it, WHY did you never mention, in any of your posts about Lynne Stewart, that she was a lawyer acting in defense and trying to obtain the best interests of her client? Why did you omit this knowledge from your posts that showed her speaking at SF State and showed signs you asserted were on the walls there - it was a small thing to have to note in the course of pursuit of reality ... why did you fail to do so?

Quote:

You have gone on and on about how these two women are good friends and support each other. There's just nothing to it

.
Sheehan supports Lynn Stewart.

If you want to use Lynne Stewart to show that Cindy is a threat to America then you have to show that Lynne Stewart is a threat first - as I looked into this, I discovered that it is Lynne Stewart's prosecution (perhaps persecution) that constitutes the threat to America.

Next you would need to show that Cindy shares some opinions with Lynne Stewart that the rest of us might call evil - in fact, Lynne Stewart's opinions are in some ways disagreeable, but in no way evil - and you never ONCE tried to show a coherent similarity in the opinions of the two women.

Finally, if you want to say that Cindy supports Lynne Stewart then you really DO need more than present a single paragraph of complimetary speech spoken exactly once at a single particlular place among the hundreds of places Cindy has spoken to and written of ... you do not do that, because the one instance is all that is shown in the public record.

Regardless, Cindy's comparison to the lawyer in To Kill a Mockingbird is apt, because Stewart was a lawyer taking on an unpopular case in a difficult time of history and located in a VERY difficult place to get real justice ... and what happened to Stewart later shows this to be true, because it appears that her trial was not done fairly, and that not only was it politically motivated (Ashcroft needed a terrorsim conviction) but politics was extruded into the trial itself - I mean, really, what business does a picture of Ossama bim Laden have being shown to a jury in a trial of a woman who defended a man convicted years before 9/11?

Quote:

the contras fought against other bad guys.

It is undeniable, however, that the Contras were also bad guys ... why is it okay for Reagan to call them "freedom fighters?" Why is it bad for Cindy to use the term to describe some othe bad guys?

Quote:

how is it clear.

It is clear because Alberto Gonzales has said that her conviction was intended to "send a message." I already quoted that. And I have explained already in this post the things you said about these women that are not true.

Lynne Stewart does not agree with The Bobster on many things - she was made a target by a corrupt govt of demogagues, though,and that was her real crime.

Hey, Joo, Ramsey Clark has claimed he did the very same things Lynne Stewart did. Why was he not charged with anything?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/uslstwrt111903sind.html

The May 2000 Prison Visit

j

Quote:

. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf��s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, ��Good for them.�� STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they ��may be futile,�� because it is ��very, very crucial�� that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the ��Muiahadeen�� (Jihad warriors).

she supports Abu Sayaf

She tells that the Rahman could be free from prison if the govt of Egypt is changed.

therefore Rahaman has an incentive to see a govt change.

Quote:

Stewart in the precence of Yousry Rhaman gets info from an Egyptian newspaper.

Stewart and RHamen know the feelings of the group.

Quote:

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things,

Quote:

Stewart urges Yousry to read the leader.

The group wants to know Rhmans feelings.

Quote:

Rhaman says that he doesn't support the cease fire.

While Stewart tries to hide this.

Quote:

Rahman gives a Fatwah for attacks

Quote:

the fatwah appears

z

Quote:

. On or about October 11, 2000, during a telephone conversation, YOUSRY told STEWART that Abdel Rahman did not want his attorneys to deny that he had issued the fatwah urging the killing of Jews around the world and the targeting of the interests of those who support them.

Quote:

Stewart tells him of what she can do to to get his message out.

She was trying to help Rahman get his message out.

Bob how was that Press conference a help for Rahmans defense?

Quote:

is undeniable, however, that the Contras were also bad guys ... why is it okay for Reagan to call them "freedom fighters?" Why is it bad for Cindy to use the term to describe some othe bad guys

The cold war wasn't evil

In Iraq the US isn' the bad guy.

However fighting for Bathism , Khomenism or Bin Ladenism is evil .

anyone who fights for those ideologies is evil.

Rahman had no business being able to communicate with his followers.

Quote:

You mentioned Lynne Stewart in a couple of threads about Cindy Sheehan, called her a "terrorist supporter" and tried to imply that Cindy was also ... Joo, why did you NEVER mention even once that she was Rahman's lawyer

Bob you are desperate.

Quote:

Activist lawyer vows to fight terror conviction
She faces 20 years for smuggling messages from jailed terrorist

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=44790&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:42 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

... events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they ��may be futile,�� because it is ��very, very crucial�� that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the ��Muiahadeen�� (Jihad warriors).

she supports Abu Sayaf

The quote you gave does not support this assertion.

Quote:

She tells that the Rahman could be free from prison if the govt of Egypt is changed.

Her duty as a lawyer is to inform him things that can help him.

Quote:

Therefore Rahaman has an incentive to see a govt change.

Changing the govt of Egypt has always been the goal of this terror group - he has always known he would be better off it that happened.

Quote:

Stewart in the precence of Yousry Rhaman gets info from an Egyptian newspaper.

I think you are speaking of a crime which another person committed and was convicted of. This thread is not about him. I suppose you could start a thread Yousry if you like ...

Quote:

What you are describing is someone who is breaking administrative rules, not laws that were voted on and enacted by elected representatives in a democracy. Her motive in breaking these rules is to help her client - a lawyer's job - not to assist or enable terrorist violence.

In fact, not one acto of violence or terror occurred as a result of Lynne Stewart. If you know of one, please educate me.

Quote:

Rhaman says that he doesn't support the cease fire.

He withdrew support and took himself out of the discussions, leaving it to his followers to decide what to do. He did not advocate any acts of violence and neither did Lynne Stewart.

Quote:

Rahman gives a Fatwah for attacks

Again, Lynne Stewart was completely uninvolved in this. She did not do the things you describe. I don't know what point you are making about her.

Quote:

Bob how was that Press conference a help for Rahmans defense?

Lawyers do more than defend and file appeals. All his appeals had run out and her goal now was to help him get the best situation popssible while in jail. Lawyers do this with convicted clients by keeping their name in the news - it helps to guarantee that the authorities will give him adequate treatment, medical care and such.

Quote:

is undeniable, however, that the Contras were also bad guys ... why is it okay for Reagan to call them "freedom fighters?" Why is it bad for Cindy to use the term to describe some othe bad guys

The cold war wasn't evil

It is true, however, that many bad men existed on both sides who committed evil actions under this aegis. The Contras were very bad men, but Ronald Reagan called them "freedom fighters."

Quote:

In Iraq the US isn' the bad guy.

The US is doing bad things there and lying about the reasons for them.

Quote:

However fighting for Bathism , Khomenism or Bin Ladenism is evil .

anyone who fights for those ideologies is evil.

None of this has anything to do with Lynne Stewart. You need to show some evidence that she believes in these things and has in any way founght for them.

Quote:

Rahman had no business being able to communicate with his followers.

That's your personal opinion and it really needs a judge to decide, since it hinges very strongly on American principles of free speech.

Quote:

Bob you are desperate.

You did not mentyion that she was Rahman's lawyer. Not once.

Quote:

Activist lawyer vows to fight terror conviction
She faces 20 years for smuggling messages from jailed terrorist

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=44790&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

[/quote]
You did not mention even once that Lynne Stewart was working on behalf of a client. Why did try to give a far different impression than what is the truth?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:36 am Post subject:

Bob

Quote:

The quote you gave does not support this assertion.

Quote:

STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf��s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, ��Good for them.�� STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they ��may be futile,�� because it is ��very, very crucial�� that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the ��Muiahadeen�� (Jihad warriors).

Just their kidnappings Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Her duty as a lawyer is to inform him things that can help him.

that is true , but not to give info that could be used for violence.

Quote:

Changing the govt of Egypt has always been the goal of this terror group - he has always known he would be better off it that happened.

Stewart ought not be helping him in the slightest way to futher Rhamans political agenda.

Quote:

she is helping cover up getting info that he is not entitled to.

Quote:

In fact, not one acto of violence or terror occurred as a result of Lynne Stewart. If you know of one, please educate me.

not cause of any precautions she took. that doesn't change the fact that she ought not be helping a terrorist communicate w/ his followers.

Bob

Quote:

He withdrew support and took himself out of the discussions, leaving it to his followers to decide what to do. He did not advocate any acts of violence and neither did Lynne Stewart.

Wikipedia

Quote:

Indeed, the evidence showed that, after Stewart issued the press release, she was told that Rifai Taha, a militant terrorist in Egypt who was associated with Osama bin Laden, viewed the press release as support of Taha's desire to return the Islamic Group to violence. Nonetheless, Stewart released another press release, reaffirming Abdel Rahman's withdrawal of support for the ceasefire.

Again, Lynne Stewart was completely uninvolved in this. She did not do the things you describe. I don't know what point you are making about her.

Quote:

giving info that helps a terror leader communicate with a terror group when they know that the info will be viewed as support for the group to return to violence is not part of her job.

There is no reason for Stewart to give out that info. Why don't you tell how such info aided Rahman's defense , or even ensured that he was treated fairly.

Quote:

The US is doing bad things there and lying about the reasons for them.

the US is doing more good things. other things the US has done are defenseable and/ or at least understandable.

Quote:

None of this has anything to do with Lynne Stewart. You need to show some evidence that she believes in these things and has in any way founght for them.

that was in referces to the contra remark.

in the case of Lynn Stewart she helped a terrorist get a message out to his followers. she also conspired to do it. And there was no legal reason for her to do it. As I said

There is no reason for Stewart to give out that info. Why don't you tell how such info aided Rahman's defense , or even ensured that he was treated fairly.

Quote:

That's your personal opinion and it really needs a judge to decide, since it hinges very strongly on American principles of free speech.

it was decided and that is why she was convicted.

Quote:

You did not mentyion that she was Rahman's lawyer. Not once.

thought it was common knowlege and that info was available in the MSNBC link.

Quote:

Activist lawyer vows to fight terror conviction
She faces 20 years for smuggling messages from jailed terrorist

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/ [/quote]

Bob

Quote:

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=44790&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

[/quote]
You did not mention even once that Lynne Stewart was working on behalf of a client. Why did try to give a far different impression than what is the truth?[/quote][/quote]

thought it was common knowlege and that info was available in the MSNBC link.

indeed the first time I ever heard of her was after she was convicted for defending Rhaman.

[quote]

Quote:

Activist lawyer vows to fight terror conviction
She faces 20 years for smuggling messages from jailed terrorist

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:43 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Bob

Quote:

In fact, not one acto of violence or terror occurred as a result of Lynne Stewart. If you know of one, please educate me.

not cause of any precautions she took.

Is it safe to say that you agree with me that world at large and the cause of peace in that world has not been harmed by Lynne Stewart in any way?

Bob

Quote:

He withdrew support and took himself out of the discussions, leaving it to his followers to decide what to do. He did not advocate any acts of violence and neither did Lynne Stewart.

Wikipedia

Quote:

Is it not true, what I said? Did he - or more to the point, Lynne Stewart - advocate any acts of violence? If I am wrong, please educate me.

Quote:

giving info that helps a terror leader communicate with a terror group when they know that the info will be viewed as support for the group to return to violence is not part of her job.

This is not what happened, though. It was a press conference, and she said that the Sheik wanted to be absent from any considerations among his group of followers.

Quote:

There is no reason for Stewart to give out that info. Why don't you tell how such info aided Rahman's defense , or even ensured that he was treated fairly.

I already did explain about the need for a lawyer to keep her client's name in the media. That's what lawyers do.

Quote:

That's your personal opinion and it really needs a judge to decide, since it hinges very strongly on American principles of free speech.

it was decided and that is why she was convicted.

Do you think she might also have been convicted due to the picture of Ossama being shown in the courtroom? Or perhaps due to the pressure on the holdout juror by being identified as such by members of the court?

Quote:

You did not mentyion that she was Rahman's lawyer. Not once.

thought it was common knowlege

Very lame ... Rolling Eyes

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe