Access to competent counsel is central to the rule of law. This right has ancient roots in our legal tradition. It is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, but it predates even the Bill of Rights.

Six years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, patriot and lawyer (and future president) John Adams agreed to defend the British officer and soldiers charged with murder in the Boston Massacre. Adams was vilified by some and was, as he put it in his journal at the time, "never in more misery." Nevertheless, he later wrote: "It was one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country."

Adams defended the accused in the Boston Massacre case because he believed that justice demanded that unpopular defendants receive representation. The chance that this work would limit his personal future was of less importance than the concern that the lack of representation would limit our collective future.

As the United States Supreme Court and virtually every state supreme court, including our own, has recognized, ours is "a government of laws and not of men." The power of the state is awesome. The central principle of the rule of law says that no one- from the least clerk issuing dog licenses to the President of the United States- may exercise that power except as specifically authorized by law.

"But who shall watch the watchers themselves?" Plato famously asked. Who will make sure that government officials comply with the law? Who will stand between them and the arbitrary exercise of power against you and us?

If there are no lawyers willing to do this job, then nothing and no one protects us from such abuse of power. We each are just as vulnerable as the next person whose life or liberty is in jeopardy.

There is a long history of great American lawyers defending unpopular defendants, extending right up to the present, when some of the best lawyers in the country, including several from Vermont, are representing those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Lawyers don't do such things because they are nice, nor because they expect any financial reward. Instead, they take these cases pro bono. Many, if not most, of the defense lawyers who represent prisoners in Guantanamo are doing so not only without charge but at great expense to themselves and their practices. Why?

Because pro bono does not simply mean "for free;" rather, it is an abbreviation of pro bono publico, meaning, "for the public good." These lawyers understand that the privilege of practicing law includes an obligation to assure that the least among us have competent counsel at their side when the government seeks to lock them up. Lawyers hope that a vigorous defense will help satisfy the world that a person found guilty really is guilty, and that justice has prevailed. In other words, the lawyers who take on these clients seek no reward other than that of knowing they serve the public good by protecting the rule of law and upholding the integrity of the justice system.

It is the public good, the rule of law, and the integrity of the justice system that are eroded by attacks on attorneys who represent unpopular clients, or unpopular causes. Thus, Secretary Stimson properly acknowledged in his apology, "a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel." When emotions run the highest and the accused is most hated- that is the time when effective legal representation is most important.

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that many being held in Guantanamo have done very bad things. But it seems unlikely that all have. The government has already released over 350 of those who were initially imprisoned. The suggestion, particularly from a high governmental position, that highly qualified lawyers should not represent the remaining prisoners, or that their paying clients should punish them for doing so, is an affront to our entire system of justice.

I am glad that Secretary Stimson appears now to regret his remarks. Let us all- lawyers, clients, and potential clients- learn from his lesson, recommit ourselves to the rule of law, and recognize the role that effective and zealous representation, even in defense of unpopular causes and clients, plays in protecting and preserving the rule of law, and therefore, our American way of life.