"To be clear, I don’t think the lawyers who represented Guantanamo detainees are some kind of heroes."

Kerr and the entire crew defending the lawyers are saying they have no qualms at all, and that it's not "exceptional" for them to do what they did, and that all the folks who agree with Andy McCarthy are flat wrong to even raise any questions at all about the propriety of those lawyers' decisions to represent the terrorists.

Remember, these folks didn't just sign on to represent some guys accused of a crime. They signed to represent people like Kaleed Sheik Mohammed and others whose guilt and complicity in acts of war levied against the United States is not much in doubt.

How many high-profile, big-dollar law firm attorneys volunteered to do pro bono work for any of the victims to help them find a way to sue al Qaeda and any financiers of terror? These lawyers weren't appointed by a court to provide representation to an unpopular defendant. They sought out the opportunity to try to advocate on behalf of providing the full procedural panoply of due process protections to individuals who were apprehended by the U.S. military during wartime, individuals who are American citizens or residents.

If I'm a private citizen in need of an attorney, it's perfectly legitimate for me to decide that I don't want to be represented by the sleazy lawyer who has chosen to advertise on the local park bench and on late-night TV. He's just doing his job, and there's nothing illegal or against the rules of the bar association for him to do that advertising. But his CHOICE to advertise in that way tells us something about him, and each of us is entitled to use that information to determine whether we really want to be associated with him by having him represent us. Well, these 7 lawyers (8, when you count Attorney General Holder himself) represent ALL of us now. I am their client, along with you and Simon and every other American out there. It's entirely legitimate for me to question the choice made by them, to represent our enemy in war, and use that information to decide that I don't want them representing me now. Had they been military lawyers or otherwise court-assigned by a judge trying to find somebody to provide the representation required by law, I'd say ok, do your job, argue what you've got to, and no problems. But that's not what happened here, and so I do have qualms about their involvement, and I want a lot more evidence about their motives before I'm willing to agree that these 7 (8) should represent me.

And how exactly is it a loaded question? All I've done is switched the identity and the specific type of horrible crime? In both the real world and my KKK scenario, lawyers are simply representing an unpopular client, right? Certainly the KKK is no worse, somehow, than al Qaeda, right? What evidence would you need to judge that case that's different from the totality of the evidence of which you are aware as you take the Orin Kerr side of the argument in favor of NOT questioning in any way the "al Qaeda 7"? Remember, the Department of Justice refused to even IDENTIFY the lawyers involved, denying Congress the ability to actually gather any evidence against them.

Are those 7 lawyers (plus the Attorney General) terrorists themselves? I'm sure they're not. None of them are likely as stupid or deluded as Lynne Stewart, a lawyer for the specific terrorists behind the 1993 WTC bombing, who was recently convicted of aiding terrorists by passing information from the imprisoned "Blind Sheik" to his followers, which was used to foment additional acts of terrorism. No, I doubt they're terrorists. But McCarthy doesn't say that they are, and that's not the basis for his argument against their representing the United States of America at the highest levels of the Department of Justice.

His argument about the left and the common cause its intellectual leaders have with Islamism is very subtle and nuanced. Read the McCarthy link I posted in another comment, where he explains it in some detail. I'm not sure how else you explain some things like this. Of course the European left is not the same as the American left, but they certainly share some philosophical underpinnings, and the President himself called on the campaign trail for improving our relations with our European allies and learning from them.

Here's what happened in Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion named Mahdi Hassan the "Role Model of the Year" for all of Norway. But Hassan advocates for a legal ban on homosexuality. When asked whether there should be the death penalty for homosexuals, Hassan said that that is "up to each individual country to decide." It is simply unfathomable to imagine a Christian, any Christian, being given such an award in any modern Western country if that Christian professed a belief that stoning of homosexuals should be left up to each country to decide. Why is that?

Why are the likes of Jennifer Daskal, one of the DOJ attorneys who represented al Qaeda detainees so quick to blame America for the choices OTHERS make to become terrorists and kill Americans and innocents of all stripes?

As McCarthy notes, this is not about disqualification but about political accountability. If the Administration believes there is nothing wrong with the advocacy made by these individuals, let them defend them. Let them explain whether Daskal still believes that it is inappropriate to hold detainees accountable for their terrorist actions simply because they were 16 at the time they committed their acts of terrorism. Do you think no Republican DOJ nominee has ever been quizzed about their clients and the arguments they made on behalf of those clients before?