A post by Maynard

I’ve bumped this up yet again because a NY judge has ordered the ‘compassionate release’ of terror lawyer Lynne Stewart.

A federal judge has ordered the release of Lynne Stewart, a terminally ill former defense lawyer convicted of assisting terrorism…

Why do we show compassion for monsters like this? Is this another of Obama’s slaps in the face to the current Egyptian government, and a love note to the terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood?

Previously posted:

I’ve bumped this old post in light of the Obama administration’s shocking decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a New York civilian court. Does anyone remember what happened the last time we tried this? Also, see David Horowitz’s editorial, “The Worst Decision by a US President in History”:

The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan — a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive. (BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.)

Does anybody remember Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman? He was the blind Egyptian cleric who was associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was plotting numerous additional bomb attacks, which were thankfully prevented by his 1993 arrest and 1995 conviction. So we left him to rot in jail, and that was that.

Not quite. The Sheik was represented by radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who was always ready to defend the constitutional rights of the scum of the earth. As part of her services, Stewart carried secret communications from the isolated Sheik Abdel-Rahman to his followers between 1997 and 2002. These included instructions to initiate a campaign of terror in Egypt. Last year Stewart, along with two others, were convicted of conspiring to materially assist terrorists. Her sentencing is next month, and she is, of course, claiming hardship due to age and infirmity. And as you can imagine, she is receiving encouragement and support from the usual suspects.

Certain classes of evil people must simply vanish away into a pit, never to be heard from again. Yes, this gives a dangerous degree of power to the government. But when there is danger on every path, we must choose between trusting the American government and trusting the Lynne Stewarts of the world.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. mac38 says:

    Are you suggesting that certain people should be denied due process of law and our government be allowed to determine which? Could it be that maybe we rely too much on the government already? Maybe we as individuals should take more responsibility. Our legal system is imperfect even if it is the best in the world. There is vigilante justice for those that slip through the legal cracks, why didn’t someone take care of this themself? Why do we need to give the government this “dangerous degree of power” when as individuals we already have it?

  2. benning says:

    Trusting to the likes of Stewart is like accepting the character witnesses for Alger Hiss.

  3. rodger says:

    In flagrant delicto – or caught “redhanded”.

  4. helpunderdog says:

    If ever there was a case for the death penalty, this would be it. For convicted murderers who continue to commit heinous crimes even when behind bars, death is the best solution. And Stewart should be sentenced to treason and convicted in a similar fashion.

  5. echosierra says:

    U.S. laws don’t apply to enemies caught in a war, no matter how assymetrical the fighting may be. The Geneva Convention does not require you try them under your home country’s laws, which is why they can be shot on site on a battle field, or in house to house street fighting, or when spotted by a Predator Drone. They give up those rights when they take up arms as part of an organized body that wages open war against military and civilian targets. The country attacked then has the right to engage them in combat and kill them. People captured during such engagements, including spies caught in the process of sabotage on our own shores, have always been tried by military tribunals. (E.G. The German saboteurs caught in the U.S. during WWII.) Since their initial capture these terrorists/mercenaries were treated under Geneva Convention rules, so much of the evidence they provided may be inadmissable in Civilan court, and Obama has set them up to actually continue an infinitely long appeals process that might not be settled until he is out of office. Which may be exactly what he wants.

  6. trevy says:

    “The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy”

    Exactly, that’s the point. Duh One and Eric Holder tried to directly at the CIA, and that didn’t work. So, they’ll get to them through the back door.

  7. thierry says:

    let’s cut to the chase, buy him an ice cream cone and send him to bermuda.

    we need a constitutional amendment barring lawyers from holding public office. like wealth, elected offices need to be redistributed among different occupations.

    eric holder needs to be removed….. hello…. paging congress and the senate….please pick up the pink courtesy phone….perhaps it’s time to start doing something besides destroying the country and shredding the constitution for dear leader.

  8. CO2aintpoison says:

    Can we discuss treason, real treason? Are we allowed? I mean…what else IS this crap? From the wikipedia: “In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation.

    Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].” In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.”

    I suppose if he were brought up on charges of treason, THEN he would say he wasn’t a citizen so this doesn’t apply to him….boy, wouldn’t that just be the devil’s nut.

  9. Alain41 says:

    And on the flip side of treating law abiding citizens as terrorists: Washington DC, which just shot Santa Claus, has a new law; you must reregister your firearms with police and get fingerprinted or your weapons will be permanently seized and you can be arrested for possession of unlicensed firearm.


  10. Alain41 says:

    Putin doesn’t treat terrorists like criminals but there’s still concern over terrorist attacks at the Sochi Winter Olympics. Good NY Post article by a former U.S. Special Ops helicopter pilot who contributes to the Moscow Times, on the intersection of Putin, Sochi, and the terrorists. http://nypost.com/2014/01/04/winter-is-coming-terrorists-putin-and-the-hubris-of-sochi/

    Sochi winter Olympics start 1 month from now, Feb. 7, 2014. Official site: http://www.sochi2014.com/en/

You must be logged in to post a comment.