Sounding more like a first-time caller than a government official, Stimson told a radio interviewer last week that "when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms." Not content to float the idea of a boycott, Stimson, a lawyer too, speculated darkly that although some attorneys representing detainees may be doing so as a public service, "others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that." In an earlier period in U.S. history, that sort of hit-and-run insinuation was called McCarthyism.

Amid condemnation of Stimson’s remarks from the legal profession, a Pentagon spokesman said they "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership." For good measure, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said that "good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases."

Many of the lawyers involved in detainee issues on a pro bono basis say they are motivated by loyalty to the Constitution, which, in their opinion, the administration has sometimes appeared eager to overlook. Advocacy on behalf of due process is generally a form of patriotism and public service. Criminal prosecutors aren’t usually in the business of tarnishing defense attorneys, for good reason, and it’s important that the government maintain the same professionalism when prosecuting the war on terror.