By Christine Kearney NEW YORK, Oct 12 (Reuters) - The case of a New York attorney convicted of aiding terrorism has prompted debate among U.S. lawyers about whether the Bush administration wants to scare them away from representing terrorist defendants. Lynne Stewart was convicted in February 2005 of helping a client smuggle messages to militant followers and is to be sentenced on Monday. She faces more than 15 years in prison. "Her case is an example of the way in which the government is equating individuals who represent terrorists with terrorists themselves -- that language of 'if you're not with us you're against us'," said Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "It's a scare tactic," she said. "It is worrisome that attorneys might become less able to represent out of fear of being prosecuted." But Fordham University Law Professor James Cohen says Stewart "unquestionably broke the law" and the case would not deter other lawyers representing terrorism-related suspects. Tagged as both heroine and radical leftist, Stewart, 67, is the only U.S. lawyer to be indicted on terrorism charges. Since her 2002 indictment, she has spoken at rallies, endured a seven-month trial, been convicted, undergone treatment for cancer and become the subject of a documentary called "Who's Afraid of Lynne Stewart?" Stewart says the case was brought as a message to lawyers. "This case also has a bigger meaning - about how the Bush administration uses every opportunity to wave a terrorism flag and frighten people into subservience," she told Reuters in a telephone interview. A Department of Justice spokesman declined comment. AFTER SEPT. 11 Stewart was convicted of helping her imprisoned client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, to contact the Islamic Group, which the government lists as a terrorist organization, with messages prosecutors said could have ignited violence in Egypt. Abdel-Rahman was found guilty in 1995 of conspiring to attack U.S. targets in a plot prosecutors said included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Stewart's supporters say the government has taken a harsh approach to anyone deemed to be aiding terrorism regardless of any clear link to such activity. "There is no question ... that the government's view of her conduct was markedly different seen through the lens of a post-Sept. 11 era," said one of her attorneys, Jill Shellow-Lavine. "Her case sets a horrible precedent." Lawyer Edward Wilford, who has represented several terrorism defendants, said many post-Sept. 11 cases "are not about actual acts of terrorism being planned or having occurred but rather are designated to raise the specter of terrorism in the United States." Heather Tasker, a spokeswoman for the New York U.S. Attorney's Office, declined comment beyond noting that the government's sentencing memo denied Stewart's case had a "chilling effect" on attorneys. At the time, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Stewart's conviction sent "a clear, unmistakable message that this department will pursue both those who carry out acts of terrorism and those who assist them with their murderous goals." Stewart said she was initially "flabbergasted" at being indicted, but now "regretted a certain level of carelessness" in reading a statement issued by the cleric to a Reuters reporter in Cairo. "But to think I was going to be indicted as part of a conspiracy to aid terrorism never crossed my mind," she said.
