The DOJ says the inmates were all told in advance that their conversations would be monitored.
usdoj.gov
According to the above, if she hasn't been informed, she's not being monitored, Judge Koeltl's refusal to order the Justice Department to do anything notwithstanding. Possibly the DOJ is breaking their own rule, possibly not, I have no idea. They'd be foolish to do that, since it would harm their case.
I am trying to figure out why Stewart should be forbidden from giving her opinion of her client's politics regarding another country.
(You're asking why she was required to sign the agreement she signed, not doubting she signed it. Having signed it, she's legally bound by it, of course, unless it can be proved unconstitutional.)
Stewart did not give "her opinion" of her client's politics. She passed on to the terrorists the information that he wanted their terrorist activities to resume. She had agreed not to do that.
She also, as a separate charming act, participated in a press release claiming an "opinion" she didn't have, since she knew it to be untrue -- that her diabetic client's insulin was being withheld. I personally think she should be sued for that slander by the prison physician, but hey.
The basic argument is that lawyers don't get to aid and abet terrorist activities in the course of defending individual terrorists. That's not their job under the constitution. The argument further takes the position that the terrorists do not themselves, with or without their attorneys' assistance, have a First Amendment right to continue their participation in terrorist acts from their cells any more than do imprisoned thieves or stalkers or blackmailers or members of the Mafia get to continue in their criminal specialties from behind bars. |
