For a general understanding of my thoughts, I have posted at length, Keep America Safe Ad and Critics Both Miss the Mark. This issue is of particular interest to me because my college roommate, former Bush Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Cully Stimson, stepped into this briar’s patch about three years ago.

It is simply not accurate to state that the ad doesn’t ask the viewer to make the implicit leap that those who have represented the jihadists share those jihadist beliefs. It clearly does – the implication at the beginning of the ad, wherein Holder speaks of progressives of shared beliefs is specifically designed to invoke that subliminal thought and not all that subliminally, I might add. And, then labeling them, i.e. the specific attorneys involved as the “Al qaeda seven” is designed clearly to reinforce this implication.

This implication, despite some viewers desire to want “it to be so,” is, without anything more, mere speculation. Such speculation needlessly derides those that have served in this capacity, without any possibility that that they share the views of the jihadists they may represent.

Do I know this for a fact? Yes. I know for a fact that a very good friend of mine, who is Jewish and a partner with a very large Washington D.C. law firm, represented a muslim jihadist in the not too distant past, as his principal counsel. He is not one of the “Al qaeda seven” referenced in the ad, but by analogy, to somehow argue that my friend shared the jihadist’s contempt for Israel and the Jewish people is beyond silly.

The problem with the ad is that it invites this criticism needlessly. The problem with the criticism is that it avoids the real issue. The issue is ‘ethics.’

The issue about the identity of the attorneys, their prior work and their current work is that we, the American public (the DOJ’s client), are entitled to know these matters, as a matter of ‘ethics.’ Past representation in matters against the DOJ and then work for the DOJ require a determination concerning the presence or absence of ‘conflicts of interest.’ Again, in NO WAY am I asserting that there are any conflicts of interest, but the reason for the disclosure is to assure the client, the American public, of this point. (And, in all likelihood, there is no ethics/conflict issue at all and we can all move on.)

This issue is what the ad should have emphasized, but instead obscured, and this issue is what the criticsim of the ad conveniently avoids.

I have said, now for a third time, that the issue is ethics and making a conflict of interest determination, through full disclosure.

But, let me disabuse you and others of some incorrect beliefs – the “al qaeda 7 should have given some thought how their reckless decision to represent these terrorists. . . ” In all likelihood, these attorneys didn’t choose anything. They were assigned (as third or fourth year associates) by their superiors to work on a file to assist (on a pro bono basis) with appointed counsel in the filing of a brief or the review of a motion.

To argue and pound the table that these people have made a “reckless” decision that will echo through their lives seems to me to be the height of hyperbole.

And, as to the assumption that there are serious conflicts here, how do you know? That’s the point of the need for disclosure – we don’t know.

Let’s assume as a third year associate, I review a brief on behalf of a jihadist defendant. Then, years later, I go to work for the DOJ in their Securities Division, examining SEC filings by a computer company owner here in Michigan.

Is there a legal conflict of interest? No, not even close.

Where the ad goes wrong is that it impliedly impugns the lawyers – I disagree with Erick – without attacking the real issue – the need for disclosure to eliminate the legitimate concerns that I, you and others may have over potential conflicts in the absence of clarifying information.