No, it is not a crime. But when people use their volunteer time to further an evil, it does call into question whether they should be running the government's legal office with respect to that same evil. Perhaps you should lay off the straw men and read something by Andrew McCarthy such as http://article.nationalreview.com/426964/the-gitmo-volunteers/andrew-c-mccarthy
 

Andrew McCarthy's argument that real Patriots don't defend foreign war criminals flies in the face of our system of jurisprudence. A supposedly guaranteed vigorous defense of even the most repugnant offenders is one of the things that makes our criminal justice system far better than most.

The second that McCarthy goes off on volunteer "leftist" lawyers aiding our enemies, simply because they are doing their jobs, he lost all respect. Would he have preferred that when he prosecuted the '91 WTC bombers that they have had no defense council? It seems likely. Very McCarthy-esque, indeed.

His notion that there is no right to council in a habeus case is perhaps the most twisted logic I have read in a very long time. The lawyers did not "volunteer" to get defendants off. They volunteered to ensure that the American system worked and to challenge the power-grab by Liz Cheney's dad and GWB.

To paraphrase the movie Happy Gilmore - "We are all dumber for having read Andrew McCarthy."

Also, Liz Cheney did not write a pseudo-intellectual piece for NRO. She came out with the bat-shit crazy video that might as well have been Joe McCarthy waving a piece of paper in his hand with the names of "communists" in the State Dept.
 

"Would he have preferred that when he prosecuted the '91 WTC bombers that they have had no defense council? It seems likely."

1) Actually, it does not seem likely. '91 WTC was not a habeas case, but a criminal defense. And McCarthy has never expressed such a preference, despite writing numerous articles on that case. Further, if it is wrong that "There is no legal right to counsel in a habeas corpus case," then the government would be required to pay these lawyers, and they would not be volunteers.

2) If "We are all dumber for having read" the prosecutor of the '91 WTC bombers, then we must have been pretty smart indeed.

3) 30-second political spots are indeed not up to the standards of NRO, or any other lengthy magazine pieces. Do you think Democrats' attack ads are otherwise?
 

Strawmen aside, without the habeas cases, there would not have been/will not be, cases for the defense to argue. It is a completely disingenuous argument.

And the SCOTUS pretty much shredded McCarthy's argument.

To suggest that the only pure motive for a defense attorney is to make money, which is what McCarthy argues with his "volunteer" crap, is odious.
 

I see the lawyers as heroes, especially seeing how the know-nothings are attacking them for doing a job that is so controversial thanks to the fake patriots.