VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her!
SIR BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGE #2: She looks like one.
CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
SIR BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.
THE WITCH: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch!
SIR BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.
THE WITCH: They dressed me up like this!
CROWD: We didn’t! We didn’t…
THE WITCH: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.
SIR BEDEVERE: [lifts up her false nose] Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
SIR BEDEVERE: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
CROWD: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
—scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail�
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Some fifty years removed from the anti-communist crusade of the early 1950s and more than three centuries after the infamous Salem witch trials, America again finds itself riddled with fear and hysteria, prepared to purge or punish any and all suspected of being, supporting, or associating with the latest incarnation of evil, the terrorists. While there is ample reason to feel afraid and angry, given the horrifying events of 9/11 and all that has transpired since, history would strongly suggest that such emotional responses rarely make for sound public policy and, indeed, can present a danger unto themselves. Howsoever difficult, a society that aims to be just and open must strive to steer with steady, rather than quaking, hands. Reason and prudence—not terror and vengefulness—must guide the policies and practices of this nation, lest it fall under the sway of demagogues or the mob.
Yet fall it seemingly has, as evidenced by the case of Lynne Stewart, a civil rights attorney who was unfortunate enough some years ago to have been appointed to provide legal representation to an alleged (and subsequently convicted) terrorist, Sheik Omar Abdel Rhaman, and later was tarred with the same brush—charged and convicted in February of 2005 for providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government, and conspiracy. Although the case is somewhat complicated (in part because it involved government eavesdropping on attorney-client communications), Stewart was essentially found guilty of providing Reuters News Service with a statement from the Sheik to his followers in Egypt, a release of information that the government had prohibited. For this so-called material support and assorted other questionable offenses, prosecutors want Stewart—who just celebrated her 67th birthday and has recently been treated for breast cancer—to serve up to 30 years in prison. She is scheduled to be sentenced next week.
Writing in FindLaw last year, Elaine Cassel, an attorney and professor of law, offered a review of the facts of this case and noted her concerns about the manner in which the government obtained evidence against Lynne Stewart and their zealous prosecution of her:
The eavesdropping on attorney-client communications that led to this prosecution would have been unimaginable before September 11….This eavesdropping has a serious cost in inhibiting defense attorney’s ability to zealously represent their clients. This cost is of a constitutional dimension: The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel cannot be served while the government is a third party present at attorney-client meetings.
Another problematic aspect of the Stewart prosecution is how far the definition of support for terrorism was stretched. Stewart never provided any financial support, weaponry—or any other concrete aid—for any act of terrorism. No act of terrorism is alleged to have resulted from her actions. [full text]
Nonetheless, it appears the government wishes to make an example of Ms. Stewart and punish her with what could amount to a life sentence. In another day and age, not so distant, she might very well have faced stoning or electrocution. Listen closely, and you can hear the echoes of such eras, mingled with the rapid drumming of fearful hearts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For more on the case of Lynne Stewart:
• N.Y. lawyer’s case prompts debate on Bush tactics (Reuters: 10/12/06)
• The Lynne Stewart Trial (The Nation: 2/17/05)
• The Lynne Stewart Guilty Verdict: Stretching the Definition of “Terrorism� to Its Limits (FindLaw: 2/14/05)
Kmareka.com 
Now this is truly warped, even for you David. Lynne Stewart provided an avenue for a terrorist to communicate with his fellow terrorists in the Middle East. Her client is guilty of killing Americans in the first WTC bombing and planning to kill many more by blowing up NYC tunnels. Your analogy to the Salem witch trials is faulty, as Ms. Stewart is actually guilty. She broke the law and put her own countrymen in grave danger.
The 6 Americans killed ranged in age from 34 to 61. Four worked for the Port Authority, another was a purchasing agent, and the final a salemen. Over 1,000 more Americans were injured.
It is disturbing that your sympathies are with those who wish to do our nation harm.
my favorite line from that script, and my 12 year old son’s is, .. “well, I got better…”
But Dave, really, we just voted to get rid of the right of Habeaus Corpus, so what else does it matter?
I like the scene from star wars 3 ” so that is how democracy dies…… to the sound of thunderous applause.”
Hey, Mike, why are you hiding behind the Right(wrong?)RI moniker?
Last time I heard from you, you were telling the RIFuture guy that he deserved to have his laptop stolen.
Given that intro, which is strangely appropos to my comment, I have a couple of questions for you.
1) Does the US abide by the rule of law?
2) Or do we put it aside when it’s convenient?
3) Are there indiviuals who are immune to the rule of law?
4) Is it legal to break the law to enforce the law?
5) If so, who gets to decide?
6) Do you believe the ends justify the means?
7) If so, who gets to decide when?
And these are not trick questions, and most of them are simple yes/no answers. I legitimately want to know what you think. (Aside from the fact that you believe certain individuals deserve having their possessions stolen, which you’ve already demonstrated. I thought that’s what conservatives call “taxes.”)