Originally Posted by RightinNYC
Cutting against this analysis is the argument that lawyers often defend even unpopular and unlikeable clients in order to preserve an important principle. In that well-worn narrative, lawyers bravely stand against the tide of popular opinion to vindicate a principle, not to help a particular client.
I believe this is their true motivation due to the Bush administrations penchant for propagandizing the war on terror. (They are still touting the Los Angeles Library Tower as proof water-boarding is effective when it has been totally debunked.) Given that, lawyers strongly believing in the rule of law would not want to see the Bush administration run these kangaroo courts, obtaining guilty verdicts, in order to justify how they prosecuted the WOT. Their involvement would assure that any guilty verdict was rendered according to law not because:
So, for example, the rules for Hamdan's trial admit hearsay evidence in ways that American courts (both civilian and military) do not. The New York Times reported over the weekend, moreover, that the detainees have not been given access even to the names of the people who will testify against them.A real Guantanamo trial begins. - By Neal Katyal - Slate Magazine
This is completely different from representing White Supremacists.