NationStates Jolt Archive

A lawyer and translator who worked with the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman has been convicted of sending messages from the al qaeda linked terrorist to his followers. She had been warned not to do this before. Now she's looking at some two and a half years in prison.

Personally I think her illicit communications may have placed people's lives at risk. She, in my mind, is a traitor to the USA and a willing member of Al Qaeda. Personally I think she should have life in prison alongside her beloved Sheik.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10088275/detail.html

2.5 years eh? i guess its not that big a deal to aid convicted terrorists.

im a soft hearted liberal. i would have given her 20 to life in federal prison. (do they DO indeterminate sentences in federal prison?).

Traitor? Hah! That distingtion rarely comes to civilians. And she got to do a lot better then that, to commit treason. Besides has she sworen an oath to the US? Besides the one you are forced to do in school?

Its not that big a deal to aid convicted terrorists. Mostly, most of the time. It depends on who calls who terrorist, and who called who opressor.

And one last thing; you have the right, by international law. To take up arms against an occupant. Regardless of who they are.

Traitor? Hah! That distingtion rarely comes to civilians. And she got to do a lot better then that, to commit treason. Besides has she sworen an oath to the US? Besides the one you are forced to do in school?

Its not that big a deal to aid convicted terrorists. Mostly, most of the time. It depends on who calls who terrorist, and who called who opressor.

And one last thing; you have the right, by international law. To take up arms against an occupant. Regardless of who they are.

SO who's occupying the US? Egypt? Attempted kidnap and murder are not terrorism? Aiding and abetting such actions are not criminal?

Traitor? Hah! That distingtion rarely comes to civilians. And she got to do a lot better then that, to commit treason. Besides has she sworen an oath to the US? Besides the one you are forced to do in school? So you're saying she's not a traitor on a technicality? So what? She broke the law and got off with a slap on the wrist. She deserves life in prison.

Its not that big a deal to aid convicted terrorists. Mostly, most of the time. It depends on who calls who terrorist, and who called who opressor. She broke US law by aiding a terrorist organization. You don't think it's a big deal? I hope her actions lead directly to the deaths of whoever you care about.

And one last thing; you have the right, by international law. To take up arms against an occupant. Regardless of who they are.The blind sheik was behind the bombing of the WTC in the 1990s. We weren't occupying anyone. He attacked on our soil for the sole purpose of furthering the aims of Al Qaeda. Learn the facts before you mouth off.

A lawyer and translator who worked with the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman has been convicted of sending messages from the al qaeda linked terrorist to his followers. She had been warned not to do this before. Now she's looking at some two and a half years in prison.

Personally I think her illicit communications may have placed people's lives at risk. She, in my mind, is a traitor to the USA and a willing member of Al Qaeda. Personally I think she should have life in prison alongside her beloved Sheik.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10088275/detail.html

Hopefully that's what it'll turn out to be: a life sentence. The fat traitorous old hag should only leave prison feet-first. And maybe she'll have a few fun dates with prison guards and soda bottles in the meantime :D

So a traitor is always doing something "ïllicit"
So explain to me how a war can be legal?

So a traitor is always doing something "ïllicit"
So explain to me how a war can be legal?

Well, despite the desires of so many people, there really are no laws regulating nations other than the laws that regulate a prison yard when the guards aren't looking. With nations might makes right. A war is legal if one or both of the participants are strong enough to do what they want without worrying about retribution from the rest of the world.

Hopefully that's what it'll turn out to be: a life sentence. The fat traitorous old hag should only leave prison feet-first. And maybe she'll have a few fun dates with prison guards and soda bottles in the meantime :D

Wow … She defiantly was aiding a criminal, I think deserving MUCH more jail time.

But this sort of sentiment is disgusting

Well, despite the desires of so many people, there really are no laws regulating nations other than the laws that regulate a prison yard when the guards aren't looking. With nations might makes right. A war is legal if one or both of the participants are strong enough to do what they want without worrying about retribution from the rest of the world.
no,they are no laws,despite the UN,genova en over illusions.
a war is stepin on your nose when it wants to.
Or when ever you want to...
So simple is it.

no,they are no laws,despite the UN,genova en over illusions.
a war is stepin on your nose when it wants to.
Or when ever you want to...
So simple is it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
anybody can get a light sentence.
or no sentence at all
or even sentence but still actief.
even get 23b years for burning cars,





it is not a treasonous behavior,
Hell, he doesn't believe in it

Well Dubya is getting away for treason, so why not let other people offf easy on the charges:rolleyes:

Well Dubya is getting away for treason, so why not let other people offf easy on the charges:rolleyes:

Shut up...for the love of God, shut up.



This woman is a piece of crap- she should get a life sentence in afghanistan.

She'll lose all that weight and her cancer will probably leave her too.

A little info ...

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Congress has, at times passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807 (See Burr conspiracy), resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed.

After the American Civil War, no person involved with the Confederate States of America was tried for treason, though a number of leading Confederates (including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) were indicted. Those who had been indicted received a blanket amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson when he left office in 1869.

Several people generally thought of as traitors in the United States, including Jonathan Pollard, the Walker Family, Robert Soblen, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were not prosecuted for treason, but rather for espionage. John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" fighter in Afghanistan, was also thought of as a traitor by many. However, instead of being tried for treason, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder US nationals, aiding the Taliban and terrorist offenses relating to Al Qaeda, even though he joined the Taliban during the period before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

A lawyer and translator who worked with the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman has been convicted of sending messages from the al qaeda linked terrorist to his followers. She had been warned not to do this before. Now she's looking at some two and a half years in prison.

Personally I think her illicit communications may have placed people's lives at risk. She, in my mind, is a traitor to the USA and a willing member of Al Qaeda. Personally I think she should have life in prison alongside her beloved Sheik.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10088275/detail.html


She used "9/11 hysteria" as her defense? bold move and it obviously worked.

some fool in that article claimed she and the Bill of Rights were victims. How the hell...?

She should be in Guantanamo. I think the Judge should undergo heavy scrutiny with this decision.

anybody can get a light sentence.
or no sentence at all
or even sentence but still actief.
even get 23b years for burning cars,
But treasonous behavior is burning cars.
A light sentence is burning people who still believe.
You can't light a burning car with belief because he dosn't want it.





it is not a treasonous behavior,
Hell, he doesn't believe in it
But the treason is already lit up. He isn't there anyway.

I call BS on the OP.

While agreeing that Ms. Stewart had flouted the law and deceived the government by breaking prison rules to publicize the sheik’s messages, Judge Koeltl broadly rejected the prosecutors’ portrayal of her as a serial liar and terrorist conspirator who would be a danger to society if she remained free.

Instead, he focused on her past service as a lawyer. “She has represented the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular,” Judge Koeltl said, adding that Ms. Stewart had demonstrated “enormous skill and dedication” in her legal work and earned little money from it.

“It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service not only to her clients but to the nation,” Judge Koeltl told a crowded but hushed courtroom.


The judge pointed out that Ms. Stewart would lose her license to practice law as a result of her conviction and sentence, which he said was a form of punishment, and that she is barred from having any contact with Mr. Abdel Rahman. He said the chance that her crimes would recur was “nil,” and noted there had been no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of her actions.

Three cheers for a wise and just judge.

I call BS on the OP.

While agreeing that Ms. Stewart had flouted the law and deceived the government by breaking prison rules to publicize the sheik’s messages, Judge Koeltl broadly rejected the prosecutors’ portrayal of her as a serial liar and terrorist conspirator who would be a danger to society if she remained free.

Instead, he focused on her past service as a lawyer. “She has represented the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular,” Judge Koeltl said, adding that Ms. Stewart had demonstrated “enormous skill and dedication” in her legal work and earned little money from it.

“It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service not only to her clients but to the nation,” Judge Koeltl told a crowded but hushed courtroom.


The judge pointed out that Ms. Stewart would lose her license to practice law as a result of her conviction and sentence, which he said was a form of punishment, and that she is barred from having any contact with Mr. Abdel Rahman. He said the chance that her crimes would recur was “nil,” and noted there had been no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of her actions.

Three cheers for a wise and just judge.

Her actions could endanger the lives of innocent people. She acted as a messenger for terrorists who attacked the USA unprovoked. In my book that makes her a terrorist and I think she got off very light.

Her actions could endanger the lives of innocent people. She acted as a messenger for terrorists who attacked the USA unprovoked. In my book that makes her a terrorist and I think she got off very light.

Well, I suppose thats why you arent a judge?

Well, I suppose thats why you arent a judge?

I know I'm not fit to be a judge, but I'm entitled to my opinion on this evil **** and I'm going to share it with NS.

I know I'm not fit to be a judge, but I'm entitled to my opinion on this evil **** and I'm going to share it with NS.

your opinion or the evil ****? :confused:

Their friendship, along with Stewart's counsel, continued after Rahman was imprisoned at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. That is where Stewart, a self-proclaimed "radical activist attorney" who supporters argue is no more than a kindly 62-year-old grandmother, crossed the line into criminality. Throughout 2000, FBI agents, working under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), secretly videotaped Stewart's legal visits with Rahman and wiretapped telephone conversations between the two. Due to federal authorities' concerns over Rahman's attempts to issue fatwahs and direct further the Islamic Group's activities from prison, Stewart had to agree to a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) in order to gain access to him. The SAM meant that Stewart could only talk to Rahman about legal matters and barred her from conveying messages from the Sheikh to anyone in the outside world, including his family, friends and the media. The SAM did, however, allow an Arabic translator, Mohammed Yousry, to accompany Stewart on her visits with the Sheikh.http://www.discoverthenetworks.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=861

She had been warned not to transmit the Sheik's fatwas and communications to terrorists and she went ahead and continued such behavior. Her actions are likely responsible for deaths in Egypt and could have led to deaths over here.

your opinion or the evil ****? :confused:

Is that she's a traitor and a terrorist and should be locked up for the remainder of her life.

Is that she's a traitor and a terrorist and should be locked up for the remainder of her life.

No. I was asking whether you were going to share...

Oh, nevermind. :confused:

No. I was asking whether you were going to share...

Oh, nevermind. :confused:

OK, now I'm :confused:

I hope her actions lead directly to the deaths of whoever you care about.

You're hoping for the deaths of innocents because of an indviduals political stance?

You're hoping for the deaths of innocents because of an indviduals political stance?

Well I get pissed god damn it! Actually all I really want is for the guy who tried to support Stewart to suffer. I figured the deaths of his loved ones would accomplish that, but you're right, they're probably innocent. I'll change my wish to a slow and painful case of bone cancer. Better?

This is a good example of why I should never hold any government office. I'd go to war at the drop of a hat and end up killing a shitload of innocent folks because somebody like Ahmedinejad or Bin Laden pissed me off.

OK, now I'm :confused:

I should have written, "What are you going to share with NS - your opinion or the evil ****?" I think you thought I wrote, "Your opinion OF the evil ****?" What I wrote was, "Your opinion OR the evil ****?"

I was joking. It's not funny now. :(

http://www.discoverthenetworks.com/individualProfile.asp?indid=861

She had been warned not to transmit the Sheik's fatwas and communications to terrorists and she went ahead and continued such behavior. Her actions are likely responsible for deaths in Egypt and could have led to deaths over here.

I could have shot a man today, should i be locked up for attempted murder? Also, with her transmitting messages, Do you suppose new organizations are traitors as well for broadcasting al-qaeda tapes, which could possibly send messages to sleeper cell in the western world?

Shut up...for the love of God, shut up.



This woman is a piece of crap- she should get a life sentence in afghanistan.

She'll lose all that weight and her cancer will probably leave her too.



I don't feel like shutting up. Besides, I can voice my opinion on any manner I wish to. Don't like what I have to say? Ignore me.

I could have shot a man today, should i be locked up for attempted murder? Also, with her transmitting messages, Do you suppose new organizations are traitors as well for broadcasting al-qaeda tapes, which could possibly send messages to sleeper cell in the western world?

This is a little different. She directly sent instructions from the spiritual leader of a terrorist organization to his followers. It's not like the news broadcasting a message that might contain coded instructions it's more like an al qaeda operative carrying messages directly from Osama to a terror cell.

This is a little different. She directly sent instructions from the spiritual leader of a terrorist organization to his followers. It's not like the news broadcasting a message that might contain coded instructions it's more like an al qaeda operative carrying messages directly from Osama to a terror cell.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them(1), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort(2). No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


1)http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.82.020
To constitute levying war against the state an actual act of war must be committed. To conspire to levy war is not enough. When persons arise in insurrection with intent to prevent, in general, by force and intimidation, the execution of a statute of this state, or to force its repeal, they shall be guilty of levying war. But an endeavor, although by numbers and force of arms, to resist the execution of a law in a single instance, and for a private purpose, is not levying war.

2) at the time of the constitution being wrote, I beleive this was meant to keep american citizens from harbouring foreign soldiers, by giving them shelter, money, weapon, etc..

So in that context she is technically not guilty of treason. But I'm not the judge, so i can't decide who and who isn't guilty.

if electricity didn't cost so much here, I'd say FRY her. besides, a traitor to america is doing the world a favour.

if electricity didn't cost so much here, I'd say FRY her. besides, a traitor to america is doing the world a favour.

becase executing someone not guilty of waging war against the US is a good idea:rolleyes:

becase executing someone not guilty of waging war against the US is a good idea:rolleyes:

No, but if she was guilty i'd say she had done the world a favor, ergo not necessary to knock off, but then again thining herd....

No, but if she was guilty i'd say she had done the world a favor, ergo not necessary to knock off, but then again thining herd....

The real criminal is the sheik, he is the one producing the messages, the messenger should never be shot, right?

The real criminal is the sheik, he is the one producing the messages, the messenger should never be shot, right?

And she has provided aid to the enemy by passing the messages, disrupting media recorders so he could talk w/ his cohorts, etc.

The real criminal is the sheik, he is the one producing the messages, the messenger should never be shot, right?

fucking shoot her too! fucking bastards! AAAARGH!

The real criminal is the sheik, he is the one producing the messages, the messenger should never be shot, right?

Of course the messenger should be shot in times of war. You can't let the enemy get updated orders.

Of course the messenger should be shot in times of war. You can't let the enemy get updated orders.

Well technically we are not in war. Only Congress has the ability to formally declare war, and they haven't.

Well technically we are not in war. Only Congress has the ability to formally declare war, and they haven't.

Well maybe that's why she was only facing up to thirty years in prison. I think she should have gotten all thirty and I think that would have been a light sentence.

Well maybe that's why she was only facing up to thirty years in prison. I think she should have gotten all thirty and I think that would have been a light sentence.

Meh, we have our differences there. But oh well. Im tired of talking about this fat broad.

A lawyer and translator who worked with the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman has been convicted of sending messages from the al qaeda linked terrorist to his followers. She had been warned not to do this before. Now she's looking at some two and a half years in prison.

Personally I think her illicit communications may have placed people's lives at risk. She, in my mind, is a traitor to the USA and a willing member of Al Qaeda. Personally I think she should have life in prison alongside her beloved Sheik.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10088275/detail.html

Stupidest lawyer I've ever heard of was a client of a drug dealer he defended. The guy got caught out when he tried to enter a courtroom with a couple of grams in his pocket. This lawyer, though, just took his spot. I don't know what she was thinking, or even if she was thinking, but it was just plain stupid of her to pass along messages like that.

Even law students know enough to avoid even the appearance of aiding and abetting. Probably the main mitigating factor was that her client, according to the court's decision, didn't get anyone killed, and neither did the messages she sent. If she could have been connected to a crime as a result of those messages, she would've gotten a much heavier sentence.

The real criminal is the sheik, he is the one producing the messages, the messenger should never be shot, right?

If this was the case:
In various cases, the "messenger" as it were, would be let off completely. Why? because of a simple concept known as the diffusion of responsibility. Such can be seen with the case of the holocaust; many more poeple were responsible than we'll ever know about, but only a handful were ever properly tried and sentanced, the main reason being that they were following orders.

Though I hastily add that this woman was not necessarily following any orders, can she truely be held responsible directly for these actions? Most of the nazi followers at the time we no more "evil" than you or I, there only difference was that in opinions, in retrospect it's easy to judge, but who's to say who's right and who's wrong?

Yes terroists are screwing america over, I don't deny this; and yes there is no definitive oppressor in this case, however who is to say america were ever in the right? I'm not saying they aren't but im also not saying the are...

What I'm trying to say is that the judge was probably alot more objective than most the poeple here, both sides having motives and justifications that nethier of the other side would sympathize with; 2.5 years may seem a little lenient to many of you here, but using this stance, surely there'd be hundreds of americans also tried for war crimes and acts of terror alot goes on that isn't reported because of agenda setting; the media is rarely a reliable source to use, especially in politics.

(yes this will get me flamed since its my first post but hey, opinions are meant to be voiced right?)