I appreciate the opportunity to participate in AEI’s anniversary symposium. I have been involved in post-9/11 work since November 2001 and have been asked to reflect on why I believe my work is important. I was counsel of record in two of the detention cases, Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Munaf v. Geren (2008), and currently represent Abu Zubaydah. But I do not know whether my work is important and leave that assessment to others. All I can relate is why I do it.
My work has always been animated by two elementary convictions. First, the truth is worth pursuing. Second, the statements of people with a stake in the outcome should be tested. These convictions led me initially to Rasul, about habeas for prisoners at Guantanamo, and then to Munaf, involving habeas for American citizens held in Iraq. It seemed to me we should not simply accept the assertion—as though it were gospel—that a man is the demon his jailer represents him to be. If the truth is worth pursuing, and if the statements of people with a stake in the outcome should be tested, then Rasul and Munaf were easy cases. This leads me to Zubaydah. Few have been so demonized, none so misjudged. Even the U.S. government no longer believes what it once said about Zubaydah.
My work has led me to a third conviction. People of good will can disagree, but disagreement is neither proof of venality nor cause for incivility. I do not understand the coarseness that passes for dialogue nowadays. I do not understand why serious issues cannot be given serious thought without resort to vitriol. I do not understand why the debate has become so cheap. It is no answer that much is at stake; that is precisely why it should be otherwise.