Charges Against Terrorist’s Lawyer

Re “U.S. Lawyer Accused of Aiding Imprisoned Cleric in Terror Plot,” April 10: After reading about attorney Lynne F. Stewart and her representation of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the convicted terrorist, I have to ask the burning question: Is this lawyer, by virtue of the accusations of passing communications to the Islamic Group, a co-conspirator in terrorism? And if so, should one ask: Where do we have to draw the line of lawyer-client confidential communication?

The bitter irony to all of this is that she and her client will be protected by our Constitution and our system of justice. Some other lawyer will probably get her off.

This is very hard for me to understand, let alone swallow.

Greta A. Wanyik

Long Beach

*

Re Stewart: I can’t help but think I’m watching history unfold for future social studies classes. This is a case for the textbooks: the Justice Department versus the Constitution. Hollywood can’t do better than this.

For all you historians, I think the big picture is even more interesting.

Since the Magna Carta, the trend has been to govern only with the consent of the governed. We’ve seen monarchies evolve into democracies. Having reached a peak in the cycle, with the African independence movement, we accept a gradual return to the equivalent of monarchies. I wish I could come back in a hundred years and witness the signing of a second Magna Carta.

Anthony Pereslete

Culver City