Terrorist or freedom fighter?
Veteran defense lawyer Lynne Stewart responds to federal terrorism charges

By Camille T. Taiara

Lynne Stewart is a fourth-generation American and a grandmother of seven. She is also lead attorney for Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a leader of fundamentalist Gama'a Islamiyya (Islamic Group) who was convicted of conspiracy for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and plots to blow up several New York landmarks. Eight years after the sheikh's conviction, Stewart now faces charges of providing material support to a terrorist organization.

In April 2000, Stewart issued a press release to Reuters at the sheikh's request questioning whether a year-old cease-fire brokered between the I.G. and the Egyptian government was working, and arguing that Egypt was continuing its crackdown on members of the I.G.

The government accused Stewart of breaking the terms of the Special Administrative Measures agreement imposed on her client that, among other things, restricted their communications to issues related to the sheikh's legal representation.

But the government did not press charges against Stewart. Nor did it forbid her from continuing to communicate with Abdel Rahman. Instead, unbeknownst to her, federal agents began recording all phone conversations and visits between the sheikh and his legal team.

Two years later, on April 9, 2002, the feds indicted Stewart, a veteran defense attorney who has represented political defendants for 30 years, and three colleagues for acting as conduits between the sheikh and the I.G. Their trial is slated to begin January 2004 in the Southern District Court of New York.

Stewart's supporters say the charges against her have a chilling effect on lawyers' willingness to represent defendants facing terrorism-related charges – and threaten to turn back the clock on basic constitutional rights to free speech and attorney-client privilege. Critics argue that such measures are justifiable when faced with grave threats to national security.

The Bay Guardian interviewed Stewart June 16 while she was visiting the Bay Area on a speaking tour. Following are excerpts of the conversation.

Bay Guardian: Tell me about the charges you're facing of materially aiding a terrorist organization.

Lynne Stewart: We have a philosophy in the law that a law can't be vague. It can't be so that you don't know whether you were breaking the law or not. That's our contention, that nobody knows what "materially aiding a terrorist organization" means. If you bought milk for babies in Iraq, was that aiding terrorism when Saddam [Hussein] was there? Is it now? If you're contributing to what you thought was an educational organization bringing schoolbooks to Palestine, is that aiding a terrorist organization? We also challenged how they designate a terrorist organization.... The government can say it believes the I.G. is a terrorist organization. It can't say you can't talk about them [or] lobby against its decision.... That basically is what has been happening here. They've made criminal my right to speak on the sheikh's behalf. One thing I want to be very clear on is that this is not a question of Islamic fundamentalism. This is not a question of terrorism. This is a question of the American system of justice and how it's going to function. This is a question for all Americans, posed by their government, in the form of this indictment against me.

BG: How would you respond to people who say, look, Sheikh Abdel Rahman conspired to cause the death of countless people, including innocent civilians? Under these circumstances, it's reasonable to ensure that his messages, which might prompt terrorist acts, don't get out, either directly or indirectly.

LS: First of all, the First Amendment says speech is not a criminal act unless it's accompanied by action. Second, we do not punish people for "if this could have happened." ... Actually Ashcroft, at a press conference, was asked: So if [Stewart] made the press release, what happened? He said nothing happened. And of course there has been no violent act by the I.G. since 1997. [The press release was issued] in 2000. It is now 2002. So to me, it is a political act by our government that's based on the policy decision to protect [Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak [by removing] his chief opponent off the world scene.... You can say that, yes, as a preventative measure, you can delimit people from speaking. But then how far do you go with this? Can we say, "Don't speak out at a rally"? Should Mumia not have a right to speak out in his defense?

BG: Does the USA PATRIOT Act play a role in the case against you, or is it all based on prior laws?

LS: It is based on Clinton administration law. But in my view they would not have brought this prosecution probably before Sept. 11.

BG: Do you believe that passing a message from your client to the outside world is in keeping with your role – not overstepping your bounds – as Sheik Abdel Rahman's legal representative?

LS: My job is to keep this client public, to make him have a persona, to not allow a government to bury him because they don't like his point of view.... It opens the door for consideration as to whether or not [the U.S. and Egyptian governments] might [eventually] effectuate his repatriation.... He would certainly rather be in an Egyptian jail. He's completely cut off from his people here.... You know, if I had been arrested in 1982, I could have been charged with aiding that terrorist Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress. The ANC was on the terrorist list. It's about who the government decides is the enemy. And that changes. So how can we base prosecutions on that political assessment if it changes as it's changed within the last 20 years? [Twenty years ago,] we would've gotten a pat on the head for helping Saddam [Hussein], because that was their boy.

E-mail Camille T. Taiara