And it should have been longer! Attorney Lynne Stewart was sentenced to 28 months in prison for aiding terrorists.
NEW YORK - A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced Monday to nearly 2 1/2 years in prison — far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted — for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.
But here's a good example of what is wrong with at least some members of the judiciary.
The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between her client and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct."
But in departing from federal guidelines that called for 30 years behind bars, he cited Stewart's more than three decades of dedication to poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients.
That's lovely. Two and a half years for "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct." Nice. Not just criminal, not just severe criminal, but extraordinarily severe criminal conduct, and Ms. Stewart gets only two plus years? Given this judge's phrase one would think this was one of the most heinous crimes he's seen, and she gets this?
Poor clients, sure. Disadvantaged, ditto. Unpopular? Let's see.
Stewart has represented Black Panthers, leaders of the 1960s student activist group Weather Underground, a former mob hit man and a man accused of trying to kill nine police officers.
Terrorists, hired killers, cop killers. Lord knows why they'd be "unpopular." I'm a little surprised that work for these clients would be considered good works that get your jail time reduced.
10/17/06 0615: Others on the story - Michelle Malkin vents her spleen, Jay at Stop The ACLU, Ed Morrissey, Pat Curley, Blue Crab Boulevard, James Joyner, Lorie Byrd
Ms. Stewart was not convicted for defending a client who is an enemy of the United States. She was convicted of aiding and abetting that client's efforts to continue the jihad against Americans and the United States. There is a difference. If anything, this should demonstrate one huge problem with allowing terrorists access to the US criminal justice system. They might end up with a lawyer willing to assist them, and the secrecy of the lawyer-client relationship makes such assistance possible.
Also, do those who commit treasonous acts such as aiding a jihadist normally get their sentence held in abeyance pending appeal? This judge seems to be shy of dealing with her supporters' ire.
