Okay, let me give it a final shot.

Jonathan writes, in part: “Again, [Stimson] suggested that private firms should be punished for representing individuals in legal procedings against the government in which courts have determined the individuals have a right to acccess to counsel. Say all you want about whether there should be any judicial process or right to counsel in the first place, but once that right attaches, it is wholly inappropriate for government officials to act in any way that would compromise this right.”

With all due respect, this is not a “right to counsel” issue. These lawyers are volunteers. They have volunteered to put their reputations, the reputations of their firms, and any consequences that flow from that on the line. These are not court-appointed counsel. If they want to represent the enemy to advance their political agenda, or receive accolades from certain corners of the bar, that’s all well and good. But drawing attention to what they are doing, whether by a government official or a columnist, is perfectly fine.

I honestly don’t get the problem here. Jonathan is conflating two arguments, i.e., right to counsel and criticism of counsel. Let me take this one step further. If a government officials says, “I would encourge the public not to do business with a lawyer or law firm that represents detainees at GITMO,” that doesn’t deny the enemy counsel, either. There are untold numbers of lawyers who would still volunteer for this mission and, as I said, if there weren’t, the enemy would receive court-appointed counsel.

There is no ethcial violation. There is no lack of representation. As I said before, the real issue here is that some of these white-shoe firms don’t want attention drawn to them as they want to burnish their liberal credentials in certain circles and fly below the radar with their paying clients.