An Interview With Michael Tigar, by Michael Tigar.
Q: Who are you and why do you think you can represent Lynne Stewart?

A: I have been a lawyer for more than thirty years. I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley, and from its Boalt Hall School of Law. Along the way to law, I was a printer's apprentice, day camp teacher, restaurant worker and radio journalist (for Pacifica Radio). I have written six books on legal subjects, more than one hundred law review articles, and have taught law at several universities. I have represented all sorts of clients: Chicago Eight defendants, Seattle Eight defendants, H. Rap Brown, Angela Davis. During the Vietnam War, I represented Cesar Chavez's son Fernando in his draft refusal trial, and also Rosalio Muņoz, leader of the Chicano Peace Movement. I represented many other draft and war resisters. I have also represented Kiko Martinez. My work has taken me to other countries as well, and I worked with the African National Congress in the anti-apartheid struggle. I have worked on several cases in the effort to bring to justice the Chilean military junta and its sponsors. All of this work was a kind of preparation for the current struggle. Today, I am also a law professor at Washington College of Law, American University, where I teach a seminar on human rights law. In this clinical program, students are working on cases involving international human rights, including a suit on behalf of the Chagossian people, and a suit against Henry Kissinger for the assassination of Chilean General Rene Schneider. I am married to Jane Tigar, with whom I practice law. I have three children, Jon (a judge in California), Kate (physician and professor of community medicine in Houston in Texas), and Elizabeth, a freshman at Oberlin College. Many of my articles are available on-line, including one on criminal law for Monthly Review. My latest book, Fighting Injustice, is available at amazon.com, and at www.ababooks.com.

Q: OK. You appear qualified. Why are you representing Lynne Stewart?

A: First, she asked me. This was a great honor. She well knows that her case will be avidly followed by the media, and that it involves some of the most important issues facing us today. She also knows my philosophy - this case is not about me, or about any of the other lawyers. It is about Lynne Stewart, her struggle and her freedom. For me, this case represents an opportunity to confront the Bush/CheneyAshcroft effort to destroy human rights and scare the country into lurching to the right.

Q: What are you doing about those issues?

A: When Lynne first asked me to help, I met with leaders of the New York criminal bar, in an effort to gain their support. The first thing that ought to strike someone about this case is that it is an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice. I was heartened by the support from many of these lawyers, but disappointed by the failure of some to see that the case affected them and their lives. These few lawyers thought it bad that Lynne was being prosecuted essentially for communicating ideas and information, but also said that what Lynne was doing was not central to the lawyers' function. Nonsense, I say. The entire legal profession ought to be standing up and shouting about this case. Lynne represents a political defendant in a high-visibility proceeding. This defendant has expressed important and relevant religious and political sentiments in the current struggle for human rigthts in the Middle East. You can agree with him or not, but no informed person doubts that he is a major political and religious figure, and so regarded by millions of people. It is said that Lynne Stewart publicly identified with her client's ideology to some extent. If that is true, so what? I am amazed that lawyers do not see the way in which almost all of them identify every day with their client's ideologies. The boardrooms, golf courses, and other haunts of the rich and powerful are full of lawyers and clients who share ideas about how society should be organized. More deeply, Lynne Stewart knew that representing her client would require more than filing briefs and arguing the law and the facts in court. She struggled to prevent the government from isolating him from his friends and family in ways that were much harsher than for ordinary prisoners. She saw that his release might well come about as the result of political pressures, and her work reflected that understanding. She was an effective advocate at all levels, and some lawyers to whom I have spoken fail to see this point because their view of client service is entirely too narrow. When we look into history, we see that the public and political work done in Boston by John Adams and James Otis in the 1760s was a direct precursor of the American Revolution. In New York City, in 1735, Andrew Hamilton's defense of the colonial newspaper editor John Peter Zenger was, as a signer of the Declaration of Independence said, "the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." After I talked to some lawyers, I have spoken out in public. I don't do a lot of this, because this is Lynne's case and not mine, and lawyers have obligations not to try their cases in the media. Also, I am not going to give away our defense strategy. It is, however, clear that this case has at least three fundamental faults: First, it is an attack on the first amendment right of free speech, free press and petition. When you read this indictment, you will see that Lynne Stewart is being attacked for speaking and helping others to speak. Ignore the sensationalist allegations about what others did. The attack on Lynne is an attack on her right to speak and her right to help others speak. Already, the law under which she is being prosecuted has been held unconstitutional on this very ground by a judge in California. Second, this case is an attack on the right to effective assistance of counsel. The indictment, announced in a blaze of publicity by General Ashcroft himself, seeks to chill the defense bar. The government's theory would sharply limit the rights of lawyers to practice their profession and to represent their clients. Third, the "evidence" in this case was gathered by wholesale invasion of private conversations, private attorney-client meetings, and private faxes, letters and e-mails. I have never seen such an abusive use of governmental power.

Q: What is the time schedule here?

A: It is hard to tell. We need time to go through the intercepted materials, and to research and write our legal arguments. Judge Koeltl has signed orders appointing our team as counsel. He will set a schedule on August 29.