Share This Page

Shed no tears for Lynne Stewart

| Sunday, April 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The jihadists' favorite American lawyer, Lynne Stewart, reportedly has stage 4 breast cancer. Her radical friends — ranging from the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” and “Workers World” to Pete Seeger, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal — want her freed from jail. There's only one decent response to the Lynne Stewart Fan Club's criminal-coddling demand:

No, hell, no.

The way liberals tell it, this harmless grandma got thrown in the slammer by Big Bad Bush merely because she was “distributing press releases on behalf of her jailed client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.” Leftover agitator Dick Gregory is now on a hunger strike until the feds order the “compassionate release” of the left's sweetheart “political prisoner” and she “receives medical treatment in the care of her family and with physicians of her choice.”

Stewart's apologists claim she was prosecuted “to intimidate the entire legal community so that few would dare to defend political clients whom the state demonizes and none would provide a vigorous defense.”

Allow me to smash the world's smallest violin to bits. Stewart is no martyr, no heroine. She's a menace to peace-loving society who illegally conspired with killers.

Stewart was convicted in 2005 of helping terrorist Rahman — the bloodstained Blind Sheik — smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.

Rahman had called on Muslims to “destroy” the West. He issued bloody fatwas against U.S. “infidels” that inspired the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1997 massacre of Western tourists in Luxor, Egypt, and the 9/11 attacks.

The Middle East Quarterly described how Stewart created “covering noises” for the Blind Sheik's translator to evade the communications ban: “On some surveillance videos, Stewart could be seen shaking a water jar or tapping on the table while (the translator) and the sheik exchanged communications that were then later disseminated to the sheik's followers ... .”

After receiving a paltry initial sentence of 28 months for abetting terrorism, the disbarred civil rights attorney was re-sentenced to 10 years in the slammer. A federal panel of judges excoriated her for her sickening arrogance. “From the moment she committed the first act for which she was convicted, through her trial, sentencing and appeals,” Judge Robert Sack of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, “Stewart has persisted in exhibiting what seems to be a stark inability to understand the seriousness of her crimes.”

This case remains a shining example of just how dangerous it is for America to give foreign-born jihadists the full panoply of American constitutional rights and all the attendant benefits of a civilian trial. Stewart's treacherous collaboration with the Blind Sheik endangered — and cost — innocent lives.

Stewart remains unrepentant. She called 9/11 an “armed struggle.” Upon her initial sentencing, she boasted that she could serve the term “standing on her head.” After she was convicted of aiding and abetting Rahman, she told an interviewer she “would do it again.”

Now she wants mercy, medical comforts and freedom? This messenger gal for murderous barbarians made her prison bed.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.