Lynne Stewart in her own words

The following is excerpted from an interview that Lynne Stewart did with Pacifica’s Democracy Now just prior to her imprisonment. She explains key features of her case.

LYNNE STEWART: I represented Sheikh Omar at trial—that was in 1995—along with Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara. I was lead trial counsel. He was convicted in September of ’95, sentenced to a life prison plus a hundred years, or some sort—one of the usual outlandish sentences. We continued, all three of us, to visit him while he was in jail—he was a political client; that means that he is targeted by the government—and because it is so important to prisoners to be able to have access to their lawyers.

Sometime in 1998, I think maybe it was, they imposed severe restrictions on him. That is, his ability to communicate with the outside world, to have interviews, to be able to even call his family, was limited by something called special administrative measures. The lawyers were asked to sign on for these special administrative measures and warned that if these measures were not adhered to, they could indeed lose contact with their client—in other words, be removed from his case.

In 2000, I visited the sheikh, and he asked me to make a press release. This press release had to do with the current status of an organization that at that point was basically defunct, the Gama’a al-Islamiyya. And I agreed to do that. In May of—maybe it was later than that. Sometime in 2000, I made the press release.

Interestingly enough, we found out later that the Clinton administration, under Janet Reno, had the option to prosecute me, and they declined to do so, based on the notion that without lawyers like me or the late Bill Kunstler or many that I could name, the cause of justice is not well served. They need the gadflies.

So, at any rate, they made me sign onto the agreement again not to do this. They did not stop me from representing him. I continued to represent him.

And it was only after 9/11, in April of 2002, that John Ashcroft came to New York, announced the indictment of me, my paralegal and the interpreter for the case, on grounds of materially aiding a terrorist organization. One of the footnotes to the case, of course, is that Ashcroft also appeared on nationwide television with Letterman that night ballyhooing the great work of Bush’s Justice Department in indicting and making the world safe from terrorism.

The course of the case followed. We tried the case in 2005 to a jury, of course sitting not ten blocks from the World Trade Center, and an anonymous jury, I might add, which I think went a long way to contribute to our convictions. And all three of us were convicted. Since that time, the appeals process has followed. The appeal was argued almost two years ago, and the opinion just came like a—actually like a thunderclap yesterday. And to just put it in perspective, I think, it comes hard on the heels of Holder’s announcement that they are bringing the men from Guantanamo to New York to be tried.

Government Death Panels

Trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street, trillions in corporate profits - but money for the aged poor is off the table. The government is cutting Social Security increases for the elderly. Yes we do have death panels Mrs. Palin. As the aged poor will choose between food and medication. Welcome to change you can believe in.

Time to Spread the Pain

It is criminal that we have let a few bear the burden for our wars. These broken soldiers who have been deployed three, four, and five times to the wars are suffering from stress disorders, brain injuries, wounds, and death. If these wars are truly legitimate and are making our country safer, we should all be required to bear the burden. The politicians are fearful that a draft would put the war into all our lives and finally bring the people to judge whether they believe these wars are worth the cost. No deferments for the wealthy. Maybe when rich children start coming back in body bags, things will change.

The Hypocrisy of "Right to Life"

The people who claim that all human life is sacred and focus on abortion rights really don't care that much about human life. They choose the abortion issue because it is convenient and easy to pretend to have the moral high ground on human life. Where is their commitment to those who die from not having health insurance, lack of food, lack of medical research, or war.

What about the estimated 22,000 (Institute of Medicine 2006) Americans who die annually because they do not have health care? The "right to life" people could easily afford to provide health insurance for these 22,000 for pennies a day. But, they do not.

We live in a world where 1 in 6 people - 1.2 billion - do not have enough to eat. An estimated 80,000 people a day worldwide die of starvation from hunger, lack of clean water, and easily treatable diseases. Yet, they are allowed to die, day after day, year after year. The "right to life" people have the financial ability to end this massive die-off. The UN estimates that it would cost 195 billion a year to feed the hungry. Conservatively assuming there are 30 million people in the U.S. who profess right to life, it would cost $6,500 per person. But, they turn their backs. If they were really committed to life, they would donate this money instead of pursuing their materialistic lifestyles.

Stem cell research is another area of hypocrisy. What about the people who would be kept alive by the results of this research? Don't they have a right to life? If a fertilized embryo in a fertility clinic is going to be discarded, wouldn't it be better for humanity to make use of this genetic material? This issue, as are many, is not black and white but gray. Stem cell research may destroy life in a way but also save it.

Wouldn't we all like to live in a world where all children are born, able to be fed, and cared for. But, we do not.All of us would agree that abortion is not an acceptable method of birth control and that the frequency of abortions should be reduced. Yet, the "right to life" sector refuses to back methods that have been proven to reduce abortion - education and access to birth control. The Bush administration's edict to fund only abstinence programs, in order to appease this group, caused more unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence programs do not work. Education and access to birth control programs do. It doesn't cost a penny to say stop abortion. But, it would really show your commitment to life by shelling out thousands for education and birth control programs. If you believe in life, then why not?

Where were the right to life people when the Bush administration attacked the country of Iraq? His devastating decision has caused the deaths, injuries, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And yet, these are the people who voted to elect Bush. Sure, they were manipulated by the issues of gay marriage and abortion. But, how do they reconcile the killings of an attack on a country that did not attack us? Aren't the Iraqis human? Isn't their life sacred?

If the people who read this truly believe life is sacred, they can demonstrate this by confronting these issues. Protest and vote against a candidate who would espouse an illegal and immoral attack on a country. Fight and vote for a national healthcare system that covers all. Contribute and advocate for programs that end world hunger and teach and distribute birth control. Yes, these issues are costly and difficult. But, if you believe life is sacred, you can find a way.

Kirk plays stupid politics

Mark Kirk's (R-IL) political game to cement right wing voters is both foolish and expensive. Kirk's plan for stiffer penalties for high potency pot would throw more resources into the failed war on drugs. Dear Rep Kirk, if you have not been paying attention, stiffer sentences will not solve the problem. The United States has a higher percentage of it's citizens in prison than any other nation on earth. Putting more people in jail for a longer period will not solve the problem. Should we have made stiffer penalties for more potent moonshine during prohibition? Right. Marijuana should be legalized, regulated and taxed. Problems with children and drugs are more complicated than longer sentences. Poverty, abuse, and neglect are the fuels of the fire. Address these issues, Mr. Kirk, and you will have done something.

The Blood of Dead Americans

The recent health care hearings run by senator Baucus were a sham that showed our Congress is really owned by corporations like big pharma and not the people. The failure to not have even one voice for single-payer health care on the panel shows that the Senator and his cabal are in the hip pocket of corporate health. Those of us who support single-payer were reduced to being represented by brave members of the audience who spoke out against this omission. They were duly arrested. All of the other industrialized nations of the world have a nationalized system of health care. It is estimated that 22,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance (Institute of Medicine 2006). Senator Baucus, you have the blood of dead Americans on your hands.

Obama shows his true master

Those of you who were naive enough to think that things were going to change in this plutocratic miasma of D.C. have to take a good look at what is transpiring. President Obama has decided to give those that committed torture the big pass. His mantra of looking forward is so pathetic. Maybe we should let all the murderers out because we want to look forward. You either believe in the rule of law and justice or you do not. At best you let criminals free and destroy our image in the world. At worst you pave the way for a future generation of fascist world.
First there was the promise of getting all the troops out of Iraq and the "all combat troops" but leaving a "residual force" three card monte. Now we are going to let the murderers, kidnappers, and torturers go because we are looking forward.
All that change and hope and promise.

More children for a mother who already has 6 hurts us all

The recent birth of octuplets to a mother who already had six kids brings to the fore the irresponsible behavior and selfishness of some parents. Every day on planet earth, an estimated 40,000 children die of starvation. Many experts believe that our planet is past the point of sustainability for the population that now exists. Many of the planet's maladies - global warming, starvation, crime, pollution, etc. - can be linked directly to over population. But, you say, there is plenty in America. What cost does the planet pay by a society that has 5 per cent of the population and consumes 30 percent of the planet's resources? A child born in America puts a larger strain on the planet's resources than one in underdeveloped countries.
In a perfect world, anyone should be free to do anything. But, when the freedom of one affects the freedom of another, we have to compromise. Should a society deny an unsafe person a driver's license? Should a free society deny a person the ability to burn leaves in his yard? Or build anything he wants on his property? The answer we have come to is yes, the society can deny these freedoms for the good of all. In the same way, we must recognize the need to curb population growth for the good of all.
The process must start with the education of children and the open access to family planning and contraception.

Arrest Karl Rove

Ex-president George W. Bush enjoyed touting how we were a democracy dedicated to transparency in governing and that made us superior to despotic governments on the planet. The refusal of Karl Rove to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee makes that statement a bold face lie.
Sure, there is precedent that the President has the right to receive private advice from his advisers. But, the investigation has nothing to do with advice to the President. It has to do with the Justice Department using it's power to punish political foes.
Rove has the right to not answer questions that involve advice to the President or questions that would incriminate himself. He does not have the right to deny the subpoena of the Congress and answer questions that do not fit into these categories.
If we do not pursue these charges, we set a dangerous precedent. The Congress has the Constitutional authority to conduct oversight. If they are denied this right, any Executive branch official can refuse to testify on grounds of executive privilege FOREVER.