WE HAVE HEARD SOME CRITICISM FROM OTHERS ABOUT YOUR WORK REPRESENTING DETAINEES AT GUANTANAMO BAY. THIS CRITICIZE HIM MISSES ONE CRITICAL -- CRITICISM MISSES ONE CRITICAL POINT -- THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS A PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. I WANT TO THANK SENATOR GRAHAM WHO SERVED AS AN AIR FORCE LAWYER FOR OFFERING HIS FORCE LAWYER FOR DECADES WHO SAID "EVERYONE DESERVES A LAWYER. YOU ARE DOING THE COUNTRY A GREAT SERVICE WHEN YOU DEFEND THE MOST UNPOPULAR PEOPLE." IT IS A TRADITION THAT GOES BACK BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY THAT LAWYERS DO NOT IDENTIFY THE POSITIONS OF THEIR CLIENTS, THE MOST FAMOUS EXAMPLE WAS JOHN ADAMS, WHO REPRESENTED THE BRITISH SOLDIERS CHARGED IN THE BOSTON MASSACRE. I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT APPLIES NOT JUST TO GET MO DETAINEES, BUT TO YOUR WORK AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER -- NOT JUST TO GITMO DETAINEES BUT TO YOUR WORK AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER. THANK YOU, SENATOR. SEPTEMBER 11 WAS A TRAGIC ATTACK ON THIS COUNTRY. WE ALL LIVED THROUGH IT. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED. THERE WERE MANY ACCORDANT DEFENSES AMERICANS UNDERTOOK. THERE WERE AMERICANS WHO SERVICE CAME IN THE FORM OF MILITARY ACTION. MY BROTHER WAS ONE OF THOSE AMERICANS, BRAVE AMERICANS WHO DECIDED TO JOIN THE MILITARY TO DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY. THERE ARE OTHERS OF YOU IN THIS BODY WHO HAVE MILITARY SERVICE AND I HONOR THAT, TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. AFTER 9/11, THERE WERE ALSO LAWYERS WHO RECOGNIZED OUR NATION'S VALUES WERE UNDER ATTACK, THAT WE COULD NOT LET THE TERRORISTS WIN BY CHANGING WHO WE WERE FUNDAMENTALLY. AND WHAT THAT MEANT WAS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING ACCUSED BY OUR GOVERNMENT OF HAVING ENGAGED IN ACTIONS RELATED TO THIS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME WERE ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION. WERE ENTITLED TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. THAT IS WHAT MAKES OUR SYSTEM THE BEST IN THE WORLD. THAT IS WHAT MAKES US EXEMPLARY. I WAS IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE WHEN THE SUPREME COURT, EXCUSE ME, RIGHT AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO BAY BY THE PRESIDENT COULD SEEK REVIEW OF THEIR DETENTION. THOSE CASES STARTED COMING IN. FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS DO NOT GET TO PICK THEIR CLIENTS. THEY HAVE TO REPRESENT WHOEVER COMES IN. IT IS A SERVICE. THAT IS WHAT YOU DO AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER AND YOU ARE STANDING UP FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE OF REPRESENTATION. I REPRESENTED, AS AN APPELLATE DEFENDER, SOME OF THOSE DETAINEES. IN THE EARLY DAYS, THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE WAS VERY UNCERTAIN. THIS HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, NOT ONLY THE ATTACK BUT ALSO THE USE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN PEOPLE IN THIS WAY AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THE COURT WEARS ASKING -- THE COURT WAS ASKING. THE SUPREME COURT HAD TAKEN CASES TO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. ALL OF OUR LIBERTY IS AT STAKE IF WE DO NOT GET IT RIGHT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE EXECUTIVE CAN DO. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECENTLY REAFFIRMED THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GET SUSPENDED IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY. LAWYERS WERE TRYING TO HELP THE COURT FIGURE OUT WHAT THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER WAS IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE AND AS AN APPELLATE DEFENDER, I WORKED ON THE HABEAS PETITIONS OF SOME OF THESE DETAINEES. MY POSITIONS WERE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL, BECAUSE WE HAD VERY LITTLE INFORMATION. PART OF THE ISSUE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THESE CASES WAS MOST OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION WAS CLASSIFIED. DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THESE DEFENDANTS, WE HAD NO FACTS. I WAS MAKING LEGAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT WAS WHAT GAVE RISE TO MY REPRESENTATION. I WOULD EMPHASIZE THAT IS THE ROLE OF A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER. CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS MAKE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN SERVICE OF THE COURT. 