The Lynn Stewart Case
Even though I play one in my mind, I am not a lawyer, so I don't think that I fully understand the legal context of this case, however some things seem relatively clear.
Lynn Stewart signed an agreement with the government which clearly stated the limits of her ability to represent the Sheik to the public. Stewart may have decided to violate the "gag rule" in order to test the constitutional parameters of the limitations themselves. We need lawyers who are willing to take this kind of task on. However, when they put themselves in direct violation of the law, then they must do so with the knowledge that, if they lose, they will pay a personal price.
What really sinks Stewart morally, in my mind, is the nature of the information that she chose to communicate. She certainly could have tested the gag rule without informing the Sheik’s followers that he wanted them to return to committing acts of terror in Egypt. I doubt that Stewart is a “bad” person, but her judgment was reprehensibly bad, bad enough that, to my mind, she clearly deserves to be punished. As a baseline, separate from any gag-rule issue, a lawyer should not be protected if they act as a conduit for passing criminal instructions between elements of a criminal enterprise.
As far as the gag-rule issue itself, it seems to me that the government needs to have the ability to gag certain criminals if their ability to communicate poses a demonstrable threat. I imagine that this right is rather clearly established at this point, but I don’t know. If there are not appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the government cannot assert this right inappropriately, then Stewart should have been testing the mechanisms of applying the gag-rule, not helping a terrorist send orders to his troops.
If any real lawyers read this today, I would love to hear your thoughts.
