Seattle Journal for Social Justice Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 51 May 2003 Defending the Right to Defend Lynne Stewart Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj Recommended Citation Stewart, Lynne (2003) "Defending the Right to Defend," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 51. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol2/iss1/51 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 85 Defending the Right to Defend1 Lynne Stewart AN ACTIVIST LAWYER Probably about twenty years ago now, the National Lawyer’s Guild2 had a tee shirt. The front of the tee shirt read, “Join the Conspiracy,” and the back read, “The Lawyers are more Dangerous than the Bomb Throwers.” I don’t think the Guild is selling that tee shirt anymore, and I think you understand the reasons why. These days, it is all too easy to be placed into a conspiracy. Clearly the Bush administration fully believes that the lawyers are more dangerous than the bomb throwers, whether they represent plaintiffs in personal injury cases or defendants in criminal cases. The Bush administration insists on streamlining the criminal justice system into a true juggernaut that moves without resistance, doing exactly what the administration thinks should be done. This varies greatly from our notions that an accused—any accused— is entitled to a lawyer that will provide her a full and vigorous defense. When I was arrested,3 one of the reporters asked, “What is the issue here? Is it that Attorney General Ashcroft can just arrest anyone, anytime, anywhere?” And I said, “Well, that may be true, but the issue here is, when Ashcroft does this, will there be any lawyers left to call?” My case is really about the activist lawyer and whether the activist lawyer has become a detriment, an impediment, or a burr in the machine of criminal justice. My case is about defending the right to defend. It is about the activist lawyers. And it is about the lawyers who refuse to take direction from the government as to how a case shall be conducted—the lawyers who listen instead to their clients. An activist lawyer represents not just a human being with a given history, but also a politic the client needs to preserve as part of her defense, as part of her persona. 86 SEATTLE JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE THE CLIENT’S STORY I was asked to visit Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.4 He is the man with the red turban who is usually pictured next to the first bombing of the World Trade Center.5 Most people automatically assume he is connected to this bombing; such is the power of the media today. That picture of him with his dark glasses and beard, standing next to the smoking towers, is indelible in the minds of most people. But he was never accused or convicted of that bombing. He was, however, accused of and later convicted of a different conspiracy, one that was in most part founded on the work of an informant employed simultaneously by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Egyptian Intelligence.6 The fact that there was no alleged conflict of inter- est here should give you pause. It is antithetical to American ideals if the United States has become the apologist for a regime such as Hosni Mubarak’s7 in Egypt, while enlisting the FBI to protect the regime by arresting and convicting its political opponents here in the United States. When the Sheik was first accused in 1994, Ramsay Clark8 asked me to visit him. The Sheik needed a lawyer. The Sheik had elected to represent himself. Everyone thought it was a bad idea for a person who does not speak English, who is blind, and who has very little familiarity with the American justice system to go pro se. The Sheik had represented himself in Egypt and had won. But this is not Egypt. So, I went down to see the Sheik, came back, and said to Ramsay, “I can’t do this case.” He asked, “Why?” And I responded, “Because I am a preparation freak. The other lawyers have had two years to prepare this case.” There were thousands of tapes. There were tapes made by the government. There were FBI reports. It took us two SUV loads to move everything from the other lawyer to me. I could not possibly be ready in six weeks because when I go into a case, I have to know more than the government knows. I have to know the case so well that there are no surprises and so I am not playing catch-up every night as I prepare. CIVIL LIBERTIES POST-SEPTEMBER 11 Defending the Right to Defend 87 So, I said to Ramsay, “I just can’t do it. It’s impossible.” Then I learned why a person becomes the Attorney General of the United States. Ramsay sat me down and said, “Lynne, when you see a baby in a burning house, you can’t say, ‘I don’t have my fireman’s boots, I don’t have my fireman’s hat.’ You just have to rush in there and save the baby, regardless of what you think, because you are the best person to do it.” After about three or four hours of similar arguments, I agreed to take on the case. I tried it for ten months, then waited for the outcome. The Sheik was convicted. He was ultimately sentenced to sixty-five years plus life. The Sheik is an elderly, blind man who speaks no English. He was first sent to Springfield Medical Facility, then later to Rochester Medical Facility in Minnesota. About a year after the trial, regulations called Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) were imposed on the case.9 SAMs are basically prison regulations, but the way the government used the SAMs against the Sheik was unparalleled.10 The Sheik was allowed one phone call a week to his lawyer and one phone call a month to his family. No visitors were allowed, except blood relatives who lived in Egypt and could not get visas to come to the United States. The Sheik was not allowed a radio of any kind, even though Rochester has an Arabic news radio station. Not Al-Jazeera, but pre-Al- Jazeera.11 Of course, the Sheik could not receive mail because he was blind and unable to read it. He received audiotapes, but they had to be screened by the FBI with delays usually up to six months. He was not allowed to mix or mingle with fellow inmates. He was not allowed to go to prayers on Friday, as is recommended by his Muslim faith. Except for contact with his lawyer, he was in essence totally isolated, buried in the middle of Minnesota. VOLUME 2 • ISSUE 1 • 2003 88 SEATTLE JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE THE LAWYER’S STORY I was arrested about a year ago today. On the day of my arrest, the Sheik was still residing in the Minnesota facility. In New York, my husband, Ralph Poynter, and I were in our usual mad rush to get out of the house in the morning. “Do I have this? Do I have that? Go back upstairs and pick up this.” I heard Ralph talking out in our front yard. We live in Brooklyn. Houses in Brooklyn have stoops in front where city people sit outside in the summertime and watch the world go by. But on that morning, Ralph was standing on the stoop, and in the front yard there were about six or seven law enforcement officers. I immediately knew they were law enforce- ment—you cannot do criminal defense work for thirty years and not be able to spot a cop when you see one. I heard Ralph say, “I don’t see a warrant. I don’t see anything that looks like a badge to me.” Because Ralph has been known to get arrested at a PTA meeting, I thought, “uh-oh.” I moved to the stoop, and said, “Ralph, Ralph, don’t make it worse. Calm down, we’ll have you out by lunchtime.” At this point, an FBI agent turned and said, “We’re not here for him. We’re here for you.” Well, I tell you, I was flabbergasted that morning. I was flabbergasted and later very angry, because I knew that I had done nothing. I knew I was innocent. I was so angry that when I got in front of the judge it didn’t seem enough to me to just murmur “not guilty” in the way an openly repentant defendant usually does, and so I said emphatically, “NOT GUILTY.” One of the miscalculations Attorney General Ashcroft made was that you cannot practice law in New York City for thirty years without gaining colleagues, friends, and associates, who have seen you in court, co-counseled with you, discussed cases, or shared endless hours in the attorney visiting room. When we went to court that day, the courtroom was filled with lawyers; some wearing Rolexes, some dressed in Armani, and others wearing CIVIL LIBERTIES POST-SEPTEMBER 11 Defending the Right to Defend 89 corduroy pants and pullover sweaters. The support was really over- whelming. At least five people came up to Ralph and said, “She’s not staying in jail, not even for one night.