Wednesday, January 18, 2006
I have no interest in defending Lynne Stewart or Ramsey Clarke, but this story of the translator caught in the middle ought to give one pause. It's difficult to trust any narrative offered by the Washington Post these days, and whether the subject of the story, Mohammed Yousry, does himself believe in violence or not is irrelevant -- terrorists have no shortage of Western allies living vicariously through them -- but if this story is to be believed, it looks like the government has reached a bit here, or is in the process of punishing someone for not being cooperative (the sub-text not emphasized in the article), either way, this article bears a look.
Washington Post: Translator's Conviction Raises Legal Concerns
This was their conclusion:
"Yousry is not a practicing Muslim. He is not a fundamentalist," prosecutor Anthony Barkow acknowledged in his closing arguments to a jury in federal district court in Manhattan earlier this year. "Mohammed Yousry is not someone who supports or believes in the use of violence."
Still, the prosecutor persuaded the jury to convict Yousry of supporting terrorism. Yousry now awaits sentencing in March, when he could face 20 years in prison for translating a letter from imprisoned Muslim cleric Omar Abdel Rahman to Rahman's lawyer in Egypt...
