1770

In the last days of the winter of 1770, in Boston, there was an incident of violence between an aggrieved mob of citizens and a group of soldiers. In the aftermath, a prominent lawyer comes forward to defend the soldiers against a public outcry demanding retribution and justice for the deaths and injuries to civilians at the hands of military force. This lawyer does so with limited pecuniary reward and at considerable risk to his otherwise respectable status and reputation earned within his community (such as it can be as a lawyer and skilled orator), not to mention the potential for risk of his personal safety in the inflammatory environment of the day. He succeeds in arguing the innocence of these soldiers and their commander. The obviousness of the charge being that they were but a match thrown into the fire by another hand (the British government). The successful adjudication of this case is, among other things, celebrated by international scholars, lawyers, and is often cited as a hallmark of American jurisprudence that we will intend, not merely with motions but with great and serious vigor, to supply a rigorous defence to people who are charged with a crime, even a serious and violent crime against civilians or innocents. The lawyer involved eventually, though not without some occasional blemish on his record of public service, is regarded as among our highest patriots and greatest Americans, despite a great deal of public uncertainty and passionate feeling surrounding the case itself at the time.

In the years following 2001, American intelligence and military forces and its international allies detained hundreds of suspects without charge. A handful of lawyers either elected themselves or were appointed to the task of representing the case to be made for their innocence if ever the charges were raised against them. In most cases these lawyers had to argue even for such charges to be made and the cases adjudicated to verify them at all. These lawyers are branded as traitors for having the unmitigated gall to represent people who the government claims, but offers no proof for such, as subhuman scum capable of the worst and most terrifying criminal acts of wanton aggression against society (ie: they're terrorists). It is no matter that hundreds of these suspects were released or ordered to be released on the grounds that they posed no threat to American security and safety or at least that the government had collected no evidence that they were a threat. It matters only that they supported "terrorists".

One wonders which image would be more productive at prosecuting and defending the cause of liberty and freedom, causes which Americans claim to revere and celebrate through the retelling of our history. The ardent Patriot who confidently represents his enemy in a courtroom with dedication? Or the person who demands that his government protect him by making accusations and arrests without having to support them merely to alleviate his fear?

Update: There's also this guy in our "history". He might have had something to say about the tradition of fighting injustices in the form of our treatment of other men to reflect our passions and prejudices in the manner of justice just as Adams did.