SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (99884)2/11/2005 10:52:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) of 793759
 
As I said earlier, people like Stewart had got so used to defying the Government under the guise of "liberal" that they thought they could help the terrorists and get away with it.

Powerline - Convictions: good and bad

I sat next to Lynne Stewart at the National Lawyers Guild convention PATRIOT Act panel at which we both spoke in October 2003. Stewart had nothing of substance to say about the Act; she merely held herself out before a sympathetic audience as Exhibit A in John Ashcroft's alleged war on the Constitution. In "Face to face with Lynne Stewart," I summarized her remarks as follows:

Stewart referred several times to 9/11 as providing the "pretext" or "excuse" for snuffing out idealistic "activists" such as she. Her indictment, she acknowledged, was not brought under the PATRIOT Act but, according to Stewart, it resulted from the same "aura" of hatred directed at Islam in the wake of 9/11. Stewart never once acknowledged the reality of the war against the United States or the peril that those such as her client the blind sheik pose to it. Stewart's conclusion articulated her theme in the old Guild tradition, accusing the Bush administration of accomplishing the "usurpation [of civil liberties] by voracious corporate government."

Stewart spouted the traditional Marxist blather of the National Lawyers Guild while purporting to speak on behalf of constitutional rights that Marxists detest. The charade is of a piece with her (and her supporters') protestations regarding the infringement of the attorney-client relationship that Stewart betrayed by making herself the willing tool of a terrorist client in his desire to promote terrorism.

Stewart's lies to the government in connection with the prison meeting with her client represent the falsity and bad faith that permeate her case. In a work of literature Stewart's lies would constitute synechodeche, the rhetorical device in which a part stands for the whole.

When I saw Stewart in the fall of 2003, she appeared complacent about the charges against her and confident that she would prevail at trial. She herself had bamboozled juries on behalf of guilty clients frequently enough that she may well have believed she would escape unscathed. Her conviction seems to me a milestone in the war on terrorism.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News