"The American Tradition of Zealous Representation of Unpopular Clients":  John Schwartz of The New Times reports on the criticism certain Justice Department lawyers have faced over their loyalty.  The lawyers once represented detained terrorist suspects, and an  advocacy organization in Washington has used this to question the lawyers' patriotism.  Attacks on these lawyers have drawn commentary from conservative legal scholars who believe that questioning the lawyers' loyalty violates the American legal principle that even unpopular defendants deserve a lawyer.  Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, issued a joint letter signed by former Republican administration officials and other conservative figures, criticizing attacks, claiming they were "unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications."  Richard A Epstein, a law professor, finds it "appalling" that people equate working on detainee cases with a lack of patriotism.  David M. McIntosh, a former member of Congress and a founder of the Federalist Society, thinks sometimes it might be legitimate to examine the agenda of a lawyer.  "Was the person acting merely as an attorney doing their best to represent a client's case," he asked, "or did they seek out the opportunity to represent them or write an amicus brief because they have a political or personal agenda that made them more interested in participating in those cases?"  If the commitment to the case is ideological, he said, it is reasonable to ask, "Is that the best attorney for the Justice Department?"  Kent also linked to Michael Mukasey's Wall Street Journal article on DoJ criticism today.