John, a very reasonable conservative, is troubled by the article:

...the report is troubling, because the tone of the story seems to lean towards one of guiltless accomplice. Granted, the prosecutor in the case disagrees. I want more info on this.

The trial transcripts and most legal documents are available here. The defense protion of Mr. Yousry's trial begins here on page 8704. For an outline of Yousry's portion, go here to page 2210.

If you are not familiar with the case, it's about New York criminal defense attorney Lynne Stewart, who represented an imprisoned jailed sheikh who had been found guilty in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. In a nutshell, there was a gag order imposed by the Bureau of Prisons. She may have violated it when she held a press conference at which she announced her client was calling for the end of a ceasefire between his Islamic fundamentalist faction and the Egyptian Government. As a result of her statement about the Sheik calling for the end to the ceasefire, she was charged with aiding a terrorist organization. [The Superseding Indictment is here.]

Much of the evidence against her and the translator came from taped conversations she had with her client at the jail.

More than 85,000 audio recordings of voice calls, faxes and computer transmissions were made by the government during its seven-year investigation as it worked to build a case that Stewart and the three men were conduits for the sheikh to his terrorist followers, and helped him, among other things, to communicate to them his desire for a resumption of terror attacks.

Here is some reaction to the verdicts, particularly to the threat this prosecution poses to all lawyers - and those working with them.