"The Al Qaeda Seven"

I'd heard about the controversial "Al Qaeda Seven" ad from Keep America Safe, but I didn't get around to watching it until earlier today:



I actually find the ad a bit distasteful and overblown. Although I have strong feelings on the what the status of detainees in Guantanamo should be, I have enough respect for the importance of process to recognize that we need to have talented, ethical legal experts vigorously making the strongest case for each side. (This is essentially the sentiment that Ted Olson expresses in the article that I've embedded at the bottom.) Consequently, although I would never advocate for a detainee myself, I think it's wrong to attack lawyers who "represented or advocated for terrorist detainees," as the ad does.

However, there are two relevant issues that the ad raises. The first is that these lawyers are now working for the Department of Justice. (Indeed, that's the point of the ad.) In effect, some of the same people who argued cases against the government are now responsible for arguing cases for the government. At a bare minimum, that's a bit disconcerting, in the same way that it would be troubling if a mob lawyer were in charge of investigating organized crime. As I said above (and as Olson writes below) you need to have the strongest arguments made on both sides. Perhaps these lawyers are perfectly capable of arguing both sides, but you have to wonder about how enthusiastic they actually are about defending government policies.

Furthermore, some of the lawyers who have represented Guantanamo detainees have engaged in deplorably behavior that legitimately raises questions about who their sympathies lie with. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (which was co-written by a co-founder of Keep America Safe) documents some of the more appalling instances. I don't wish to summarize the article, but it's well worth reading, and it provides examples of lawyers who have violated major rules and caused significant breaches of security at Guantanamo. The ad oversteps when it condemns all lawyers who have represented detainees, but had it instead targeted the lawyers discussed in the Wall Street Journal article, the criticism would have been far more justifiable.


olsen -