Lynne Stewart only gets 28 months for aiding terrorists
Lawyer Gets Prison Term in Terrorism CaseLynne F. Stewart, the firebrand lawyer who was charged as a terrorist for helping a client in prison on terrorism charges to communicate with his followers, was sentenced today to 28 months in federal prison, far less than the 30 years the government had sought.
“I still believe it was justifiable — but perhaps not in the way that I did it,” Ms. Stewart said in an interview with The New York Times before her sentencing. She was speaking of her actions in June 2000 to violate strict prison rules, known as special administrative measures, by publicizing a message from the sheik to his militant followers in Egypt.
There was never any question during the eight-month trial that Ms. Stewart had broken the rules by releasing the sheik’s statement, which said he no longer supported a cease-fire by his followers in Egypt.
But in his remarks, the judge demonstrated that he did not believe Ms. Stewart represented the threat the government described.
There was “no evidence that any victim was in fact harmed” by her actions, the judge said. He cited her 30-year career as a government-appointed lawyer to “the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular.”
“It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service not only to her clients but to the nation,” he said, adding that she did not choose her cases to become wealthy. -----------------------
Whoop-dee-freaking-do. Lots of people don't choose careers that will make them wealthy -- does that mean we should give them a free pass on terrorism?
The thing I hate about internet news sites, as I just discussed with one of my co-workers, is the fact that WHILE I'm posting this blog, the wording changes on the New York Times article. Five minutes ago, this same article described the sheik as "urging" his militant followers to end the cease-fire... now it just says he let them know he no longer supported the cease-fire. Wording is everything, and heaven forbid the American people
really know what kind of danger this woman was dealing with here.
Since there was no evidence that anyone was harmed as a direct result of Ms. Stewart's actions, maybe we should change all of our laws around. Maybe, the maniac that walks into a federal building randomly shooting around people shouldn't be punished as long as no one is hurt. Hey, in fact, if the maniac is an elementary school teacher, we should actually praise him, because after all, he does a great service to the children of his community, and he didn't choose his career for wealth.
It's one thing to act as a defense attorney for terrorists -- it's another thing completely to aid them in their jihad.
After the hearing, a beaming Ms. Stewart spoke outside the courtroom, where dozens of her supporters and reporters had been waiting for her.
“This is a great victory against an over-reaching government,” she said, holding a bouquet of flowers she had been handed. That's disturbing.
How I learned that not all old white men are evil
Last night, Howard Coble spoke to the UNCG College Republicans. And all I really have to say about it is, I have a new favorite congressman.
I'm usually not a big fan of people who get elected year after year after year, because it usually means they're getting elected simply because their name is so well known. With this thinking, I never gave Coble a chance; never bothered to find out where he stood, or even why he is so popular in Greensboro. Besides, it's not like he's my congressman, so why waste my time? Just another old, white, male, habitual politician.
I guess last night I learned not to judge a book by its cover. When Howard Coble entered the room, he went up to every single person, shook their hand, and asked what high school they attended. He then proceeded to tell each of us what our high school mascot was. I was so sure he HAD to get one person's wrong, even to the point where, when he told me I was a "cougar", and defiantly responded, "Nope!... oh wait... yeah, I am..."
Okay, sure, I had heard he was charismatic. But when he got to the front of the room and announced that most Republicans didn't like his stance on a lot of issues (and furthermore, he didn't care), I refused to believe it. There is no way, I told myself, that a North Carolina Republican would have gotten re-elected so many times by NOT following the party lines.
He began his speech by laying out what voters had informed him were the most important issues in this year's midterm elections: Iraq, immigration, and enery. Starting with Iraq, he stated without hesitation: "I think it's time to get out of Iraq."
My ears perked up.
He went on about how everyone thought invading Iraq would be a great idea a few years ago, but he described out post-entry strategy as sloppy.
"I don't think there even was one," he continued. "And maybe part of that is my fault for not asking enough questions."
Representative Coble went on to say he actually
did ask a great deal of questions at the time, such as "What's going to happen to us when we get there?" He remembered speaking with an Iraqi man only months before we made out move, and the man begged him to help his country, to get Saddam out of power. Coble asked the man, "If we do go over there, and if we do throw out Saddam, are your people going to thank us, or attack us?" He said at that point, the man looked to the ground and admitted that he couldn't be sure. "That's what scared me," Coble told us.
People who accuse him of wanting to cut and run aren't seeing the big picture, according to Coble. "We've been there for over two years, that is NOT cutting and running." He continued to say that he didn't think it would be wise to immediately pull out tomorrow, but he didn't want our troops to be stuck there eternally.
I was disappointed in his immigration stance. He informed the group that he was glad we had approved the 700 mile fence along the Mexican border. I'm still wondering why they think that waste of money would do any good whatsoever, but no one asked me...
He also talked about how our local businesses would all go under if we deprived them of the cheap labor, which is why we need a guest worker program. This should include, he added, a clause that makes the employers offer a health care plan, since their medical bills fall on the tax payers' shoulders when they can't afford to pay for hospital vists and such.
On the topic of energy, Coble stated that even though he routinely urges people to take public transportation, he realizes we are addicted to oil. However, our two largest suppliers are friendly -- Canada and Mexico. From there, the future is bleak, with our next biggest contributors being Saudi Arabia (a convenient friend) and Venezuala (whom he described as being "in bed with Castro"). He said he has consistantly voted in favor of drilling at Anwar and in the gulf, and even though that would only produce one million barrels a day, that would be a step in the right direction.
"I don't want to be the bearer of gloom and doom," Coble stated as he was wrapping up, "But I do not think this midterm election will be favorable to the party nationally." He attributes this to Iraq, and says the election was headed that way even before the Foley fiasco.
He also thinks subjective hosts on both sides of the political field have damaged the Republican party. Liberal pundits make everything the Republicans do seem completely evil and disasterous, while conservative hosts like to pretend "Baghdad is all roses". The people are smart enough to realize that things aren't going so well over there, so they're more likely to believe the liberal pundits.
Coble went on to say that partisanship at this time in the U.S. House of Representatives is the worst he's ever seen. But is it all bad? I think Coble made the best quote of the night when he told us, "I believe the constituents are best served when the major parties are breathing down each others' necks."
And me? I think the constituents are best served when they have such a wise, attentive representative such as Howard Coble.
When Mark Foley reads, he doesn't use a bookmark... he just bends the pages over!
If I had a nickel for every email, facebook message, or text message I'd gotten regarding Mark Foley and how he's going to be the downfall of the Republican party, I'd have... well, I mean, I'd have like 30 cents. But still, that's six messages too many. But I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
*cue gasps*
Yeah, I said it, and it's something that's been irking me for quite some time now. I'm sick of everyone talking about how Foley is a pedophile, and how different this would be handled if it were a 16-year-old girl involved, as in, he would be in a jail right now had he sent those IMs to a girl.
Are you kidding me? You honestly think they would have been MORE severe on him had he sexually harrassed a girl?
Now is where I'm sure about 80% of you will stop reading, because it's inconvenient for you to read something you don't like. The majority of females in this country, regardless of their age, race, and/or sexual orientation, will be sexually harrassed at SEVERAL times in their lives, and not a damn thing will happen to the harrasser.
That statement didn't come from NOW or any other feminist organization. It came from first-hand experience, and just plain common sense.
When I was 14, there was a 30-year-old (at least) manager at the local Food Lion who used to wait until I was on an aisle by myself and approach me, making sexually explicit comments to me. It was embarrassing, and I never told anyone, I just started requesting we use a different grocery store. The argument could be made that I looked older than 14, but I certainly didn't look 18.
These boys were 16 and 17. I've read the infamous IM conversations that are circulating. The boy in question sure didn't seem offended or uncomfortable by the remarks. In fact, he even started some of the dirty talk. I've been involved in conversations that you don't feel like pushing any further, and you certainly don't lead on the other person like that.
I read that it was pretty much common knowledge that Foley was homosexual, and some of the male pages have now come out and said that he made them feel uncomfortable at times. So how much of that was actually him making unwanted advances, and how much was just their own homophobia?
When an attractive girl gets a job working in any type of office setting, there is always the possibility that she will receive unwanted advances, even if it's something unspoken like a stare. It would be ridiculous if everytime something like that happened, she complained to Human Resources. There are laws to protect a girl who has the guts to do that, of course, but the majority of the time, it goes unsaid.
At the age of 19, I was left alone in the office with my married employer for the first time. He had me come in his office, made small talk with me, and then started making comments and asking questions that I did not feel comfortable discussing with anyone, let alone a (supposedly) happily-married, 40-year-old man. I left his office that day and never came back, never returned any of his calls (or those of anyone else in that office).
My point is, that is the correct way you react to unwanted advances. If any of you have read the IM conversations between Foley and this 16-year-old boy, you should know that the tone is clearly consentual.
Furthermore, the way the Democratic Party is handling this news is quite disgusting. They are using this opportunity to frame themselves as the new family-oriented political party, since the Republican Party is so obviously full of pedophiles. But given the fact that we know this information has been "common knowledge" for some time now, what does that say about the Democrats' family values? They are so worried and frightened for the children of America, and yet they hold on to this information until a month before a crucial congressional election. Concerned for the welfare of these pages? Hardly. The Democratic Party is looking out for their own interests, as usual.
But maybe the Democrats are right -- maybe they are the more moral party, in light of this new information. Let's see, in our party we have an unmarried man who sends flirty messages to boys who are at the legal age of consent. Meanwhile, they have a man who is married and has a child receiving oral sex IN THE OVAL OFFICE, who, rather than come clean when caught, tries to argue the semantics of the term "sex" in front of the entire nation. Yeah, that's right, cheat on your wife, completely forget about your daughter, get some on the job from your employees, and lie about it for as long as possible. Great role models, those Democrats.
To pretend that the Foley scandel is any more horrendous than the Clinton scandel is pure homophobia. The only thing that interests Americans so much in this ordeal is that *gasp* a male is hitting on other males!
And the same can be said of those former pages that said he made them feel "uncomfortable". I have no doubt that they knew of his reputation and simply couldn't believe that a gay man WOULDN'T be obsessed with them. These kinds of guys are the same ones who, in a matter of years, will be oogling the sexy secretaries and the pretty interns. They'll do the same things to those girls that they feared Foley was doing to them and won't even think twice.
I say, if we're going to make an example of Foley, we find every single politician in Washington who's ever done something similar to a young page of the OPPOSITE sex and kick them out of government.
Would anyone be left to run America?
