Lawyers and would-be lawyers beware: You could go to jail for defending a client unpopular with the government.

That is the lesson that Lynne Stewart is learning the hard way. After seven months of trial, Stewart has been convicted of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government, among other things. She faces up to 30 years in jail.

But her most grievous crime of all seems to have been her willingness to defend unpopular clients. Her list of clientele includes a Mafia hit man, a man accused of trying to kill police officers, and a blind Egyptian sheikh convicted of terrorist activities—Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. It is on his account that she has been accused and convicted of aiding terrorism.

In 2000, Stewart contacted a reporter in Cairo to whom she communicated a message from Abdel Rahman. It is true that she signed a form stating she would not pass along any messages from Abdel Rahman. But she did not believe (and she still does not) that she was communicating any messages from Abdel Rahman to his supporters in Egypt. To Stewart, her actions were a method by which she could convey her client’s political views. This is, admittedly, a very thin and tenuous line that Stewart has tried to walk on; the government is right to prosecute her for her actions. But does she deserve to go to jail for 30 years? After all, no terrorism or violence came about because of the communication that Stewart had with the reporter. Stewart should have been tried and held accountable for not honoring the statement she signed. In no way did she aid terrorism, and therefore, she should not be convicted of that crime.

Whether you believe that Stewart crossed the line or not, her conviction has set a dangerous precedent. Defense lawyers have intently watched the months-long proceedings, knowing that the decision affects them as well. Many will now think twice before defending a client accused of terrorism—not just about the case and the client, but about how much they are willing to give to the defendant.

Her conviction also raises questions about post-9/11 trials. While Stewart was being tried for actions she committed during 2000—in the defense of a man not connected to 9/11 in any way—al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks were constantly brought up by the prosecutors. The trial occurred only two blocks from Ground Zero, and some of Osama bin Laden’s videos were shown to the jury. Playing on the post-9/11 fears of the jury is believed to have been one of the main reasons for Stewart’s conviction.

But where does this leave us? Why is the trial of one lawyer being so closely watched and contemplated?

With hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees winning the right to a trial and many Americans being accused of terrorism, there will be a high demand for defense lawyers. But the government has sent a stern message to those lawyers willing to take up the challenge: defend an alleged terrorist, and you may find yourself accused of aiding terrorism, disbarred, and facing up to 30 years in prison.

Stewart plans to appeal her conviction. Let us just hope that her next trial is a fair one—one that is not saturated with post-9/11 fears. More than just her life is riding on it.

Hebah M. Ismail ’06, a Crimson editorial editor, is a Near Eastern languages and civilizations concentrator in Quincy House.