Defending Defending

The recent upsurge in debate about whether Justice Dept. lawyers will be able to serve their country unbiasedly (brought to our attention by the so-called "Keep America Safe" organization) after representing alleged al-Qaeda terrorists plays at a much deeper level than just foreign policy or partisan politics.
Stephen Jones, a man not unfamiliar with unpopular clients, contributed an important perspective to the discussion this past Saturday (see essay).
In sum, Jones asserts that the tenor of Cheney's attack is out of step with our country's founding principles (John Adams famously represented British soldiers, i.e. foreign enemies, in the Boston Massacre) and that underneath its surface lies the implication that these lawyers believe in their clients' cause(s).
However, Jones doesn't stop there. What is at the root of these accusations is a belief that is not reserved simply for lawyers representing enemy combatants, but lawyers representing any despicable client (or better said, clients who have committed despicable acts). As alluring as it is to proclaim judgment on the obviously (or seemingly?) guilty rather than to give them their day in court, we must as rational, cautious people pursue the process in earnest on both sides.
Over the course of the next month or so I will offer various reasons why this is important and ultimately necessary.
For the moment, I'd simply recommend the Jones reading to whet your appetite.