I heard this one on NPR too, and it was mightily unclear to me that they had any evidence that the lawyer KNEW what the 2 arabic speakers were discussing. But they didn't just listen in on attorney-client conversations, which would be reprehensible. They obtained a COURT ORDER to eavesdrop, which is OK in my book. Had they (lawyer et al.) not been breaking the rules, they would have had nothing to fear from the eavesdropping. I did gather, however, that the lawyer was also talking about issues that were banned from conversation, even if she wasn't specifically passing info to and from the Sheik and the Egyptian terrorists, so she IS, apparently, guilty of that, if not of fomenting terrorism as may be the interpreter. I did not hear anybody say that they thought she'd participated in the fomenting, just had broken the rules of what was a permissible topic of conversation (the case, period, apparently). Now, whether it's OK to limit what lawyers can talk about with incarcerated clients is another question.