The conviction of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart signals that America's democratic space is shrinking. Sharif Kouddous reports from New York On 10 February, a federal jury in New York City convicted long-time civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart on five counts of conspiring to aid terrorists and lying to the United States government in one of the most closely-watched cases since 9/11. The conviction carries serious ramifications for the US legal community and set a chilling precedent for defence lawyers around the country who fear the Bush administration's aim is to discourage them from representing unpopular clients. There is little dispute about the facts in the case. Stewart represented Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for conspiring to bomb several New York City landmarks and soliciting crimes of violence against the US military and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. In 1997, the government imposed special administrative measures (SAMs) on Abdel- Rahman that barred him from any contact with the outside world beyond his immediate family and attorneys. Stewart was obliged to sign the affirmation agreeing to be bound by the SAMs before being allowed to see her client. In June 2000, she violated that agreement. After meeting with Abdel-Rahman, Stewart called Reuters and read a press release that Abdel-Rahman had dictated to his interpreter, Mohamed Yousri. In the statement, the sheikh said he was withdrawing his personal support for a ceasefire that his organisation, known as the Islamic Group, had observed for three years in Egypt. Two days later, she issued a clarification explaining that the sheikh "did not cancel the ceasefire", but "left the matter to my brothers to examine and study because they are the ones who live there and they know the circumstances better than I." The ceasefire was never cancelled and no acts of violence were ever linked to the statement. Nearly two years later, amid the charged political landscape of post-9/11 America and the launch of the Bush administration's "war on terror", the US Justice Department started targeting Stewart. In April 2002, Attorney-General John Ashcroft personally announced a five-count indictment against her that included charges of "conspiracy to aid terrorists" and "defrauding the US government". It was the first time the federal government had prosecuted a defence attorney in a case linked to terrorism. Also charged were Ahmed Sattar, a postal worker who acted as a paralegal for Abdel-Rahman, and translator Yousri. In July 2003, Judge John Koeltl dismissed two of the terrorism counts saying they were "unconstitutionally vague" and revealed "a lack of legal standards". Undeterred, the Justice Department filed similar charges against Stewart four months later under a different federal statute. The new indictment alleged that by passing on Abdel-Rahman's message, Stewart had conspired to provide "material support" in abetting conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. This time around Judge Koeltl found the statute constitutional, and the case went to trial. "This is a case about a jail break," said Federal Prosecutor Christopher Morvillo in his opening statement. "Not your typical jail break where a prisoner is freed to once again walk the streets. It is a different type of jail break but one the evidence will show was equally dangerous." Morvillo told jurors Abdel-Rahman's "words and speeches were as dangerous as weapons". The seven-month trial featured very few witnesses as the government's case was based primarily on transcripts from more than 85,000 secretly recorded audio and video clips of meetings between Stewart and her client as well as the home phone of Abdel-Sattar. The government was able to bypass the attorney-client privacy privilege and eavesdrop on Stewart's prison visits with Abdel-Rahman by obtaining a secret warrant through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Stewart's attorney, Michael Tigar, unsuccessfully argued that the surveillance regulation was itself unconstitutional and the evidence therefore inadmissible in court. During the trial, the prosecution offered background evidence that critics claim was primarily used to inflame the jury. Shortly before the anniversary of 9/11, it played a tape of Osama Bin Laden expressing his support for Abdel-Rahman. The prosecution also introduced evidence of the USS Cole bombing and of the 1997 massacre in Luxor in which 58 tourists were killed -- none of which had anything to do with Stewart's actions. From the beginning, Stewart maintained her innocence. Testifying on her own behalf, she said that the Reuters press release was part of a legal strategy to "zealously represent" her client and keep him in the public eye. The panel of anonymous jurors deliberated for 13 days over a four-week period. They returned with a sweeping verdict: "Guilty on all counts." Some jury members visibly struggled with the decision. One cried as the verdict was read and could barely speak when the judge polled her. Another juror held her hand to her face. As the word "guilty" was again and again repeated in the wood-panelled courtroom, Stewart lowered her head and covered her face with her hands. Abdel-Sattar and Yousri were also convicted on all charges. "When you put Osama Bin Laden in a courtroom and ask the jury to ignore it, that's asking a lot," Stewart told reporters after emerging from the courthouse. "I think everyone who has a sense that the US needs to protect the constitution at this time understands that struggle. And this case could be -- I hope it will be -- a wake up call to all of the citizens of this country and all of the people who live here that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their job. You've got to let them operate. And I will fight on. I'm not giving up. I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right." Stewart faces up to 35 years in prison, in essence a life sentence for the 65-year-old grandmother. Her sentencing is set for 15 July and she remains free on bail until then. Because she was convicted of a felony, she was immediately disbarred, ending a career in law that spanned four decades. "Nobody ever imagined until George Bush became president and John Ashcroft attorney-general that these kinds of consequences would be poured down on a lawyer," Tigar said in an interview with the national radio and television programme "Democracy Now!" Stewart's conviction was immediately hailed as a victory by Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales, who said it "sends a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals." The attorney-general, who has gained notoriety for his advocacy of torture in post-9/ 11 America, may be right. Stewart's conviction does indeed send a clear and unmistakable message. As she herself said in an interview on "Democracy Now!" the day after her conviction. "Lawyers will now conduct cases with an eye over their shoulder to make sure they're supporting the government's case. In other words, no challenge, no client-centred defence will take place if you're thinking all the time, 'what am I going to do if they indict me like they did with Lynne Stewart.'" This does not bode well for the thousands of men and women held in US prisons seeking their fundamental right to counsel -- from the US to Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib and beyond.
