Should a disbarred lawyer convicted of helping terrorist be teaching an ethics class?

Question

A disbarred lawyer convicted of helping her client communicate with terrorists was scheduled to teach at a Long Island, N.Y., law school ethics conference.

Here's the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298141,00.html

Answer 1

Only in America are soldiers spit on and called terrorists yet people like this are welcomed with open arms. Absolutely disgusting. I'm a Muslim and terrorists are no more Muslim than the people on TBN are. I hope there are enough people at that school with colds so they can hock a few loogies where they should. I know I would.

Btw, halocaust deniel is not a pet peeve to Libs. It's the Reps that get their undies in a bunch over it. The Iranian President spoke at a liberal university....ya, that makes sense.

Answer 2

Given that she's scheduled to speak at Hofstra Law School's 2007 Legal Ethics Conference, "Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates." Seems quite appropriate.

Answer 3

I know I might get reemed on this, but I think yes. College classes are about creating an atmosphere of spirited debate and discussion. What better way to create that by having someone, who obviously felt that what she was doing was ethical, teach a ethics class. It'll give the students an oppurtunity to form their own opinion, rather than have some professor who gives examples out of books teach them. Of course, if it was a class on MORALITY...that would be a different thing all together seeing as morality and ethics are two very different things.

Answer 4

1. Its a conference, not a college course.
2. She was convicted in a highly criticized prosecution.

This is noteworthy and she has something to say about the rights of criminal defendants' access to counsel. She has represented terrorists and has been prosecuted by the government for something that no one else was ever prosecuted before. Perhaps you should read more than Fox News to make a fully informed decision.

Perhaps more than any other, this case illustrates how out of hand things have gotten in the "war on terrorism." To inflate its successes in ferreting out terrorism, the Justice Department turned an administrative infraction into a terrorism conviction that, unless reversed, will likely send Stewart to prison for the rest of her life. To make sure the charges would stick, the prosecution tried the case in the most inflammatory and prejudicial way possible, introducing as "background" reams of evidence of terrorism that had nothing to do with Stewart's actions.

The case against Stewart was fairly straightforward. She represented Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, now serving multiple life sentences for conspiring to blow up several Manhattan bridges and tunnels. Rahman is barred from any contact with the outside world beyond his immediate family and attorneys. As his lawyer, Stewart signed an agreement not to transmit messages from him to unauthorized people. In June 2000 she violated that agreement. After meeting with the sheik, Stewart called Reuters to say that he had withdrawn his personal support for a cease-fire then in place in Egypt. Two days later she issued a clarification explaining that the sheik "did not cancel the cease-fire," but "left the matter to my brothers to examine it and study it because they are the ones who live there and they know the circumstances better than I."





Stewart should not have issued the release. Doing so violated the administrative agreement. But it is not a crime to violate such an agreement. In an ordinary case, the lawyer might receive a warning. In an unusual case, the lawyer might be barred from continuing to visit her client (as indeed Stewart was at the time, until she agreed to a new set of conditions). In an extraordinary case, the lawyer might be brought up on disciplinary charges before the bar.
www.thenation.com/doc/20050307/cole

Answer 5

Thats why I am more concerned sometimes with the enemy within our country than the one we are fighting! What really scares me about this is how many cases like this one is out there and we haven't found out about yet? Our education system seems to be comming a tool to use against us! You see this in a lot of the questions concerning teachers that people have wrote in about pushing far out idea's on the kids!

Answer 6

It's not really teaching the class but it's more like a "community service" type thing. She has to do it as part of her punishment. It's like when someone is caught with drugs and made to talk to kids about the dangers of doing drugs.

Answer 7

Well, there was also a Holocaust deny-er (not Ahmadinejad) teaching at a university. I forgot which one, though

I thought universities were predominantly liberal, and I know Holocaust denial is a huge pet-peeve to liberals, so I don't know how the guy gets away with it.

Answer 8

Post-secondary students are responsible for thinking for themselves and weighing the value of different points of view. That includes viewpoints that are unpopular or repugnant.

Answer 9

The story doesn't go into much detail about who these "terrorists" were? Iraqi suicide bombers? Israeli? They did attempt against Egypt so it could be Isarelis. By today's standard, I could be labelled a terrorist if I don't pay off my Nordstrom account on time.

Answer 10

No!

She is a disgrace to her profession and to her country. She has no morals and certainly no ethics worthy of young students to emulate.

nuff said.