Navy Lawyer in Terror Case Not Promoted

AP ^ | 10/8/6

[SmithL]

The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire in March or April under the military's "up or out" promotion system. Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander.

He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden's driver.

"It was a pleasure to serve," Swift told the newspaper. He added he would have defended Hamdan even if he had known it would cut short his Navy career.

"All I ever wanted was to make a difference — and in that sense I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams," Swift said.

The Pentagon had no comment Sunday.

A graduate of the University of Seattle School of Law, Swift plans to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian.

[Lancey Howard]

I personally agree with the Supreme Court, and with this officer.
I have far more respect for the law - and the Supreme Court - than you do. Even those judges with whom I disagree deserve to be given the respect of their office.

I agree with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. (Roberts recused himself, but I believe he, too, would have stood with civilized America.) On the other hand, you agree with the liberal scumbags.

Interesting.

[Navy Patriot]

Have a citation to authority for this?

Article Two, Section Two:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Sorry, no courts mentioned except those that the executive may care to implement (MILITARY tribunals).

[gogeo]

Even drivers for Osama Bin Laden are entitled to some due process under the Geneva Convention...

Actually, no...why don't you explain the particular rule regarding illegal combatants?

[freema]

Don't play legalize horsecrap with me. Like I said, it's 7th grade. You go ahead and enjoy the library. Others of us have a war to fight.

[jude24]

That doesn't say that the Court doesn't interpret them. Look at Art. III, Section 2, cl. 5. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases "arising under... treaties."

[jude24]

Others of us have a war to fight.

That why you're behind a keyboard?

[Navy Patriot]

Idiot statement of the evening: or we might as well not bother.

So, our civilization is worth nothing, compared to theirs because we are not as perfect as God or as indestructable?

We have plenty of moral high ground, and it is worth winning to keep sitting on it alive.

[gogeo]

Those countries are both, IIRC, signitories to the Geneva Convention. They are therefore covered by the Geneva Conventions...

Methinks you will have to do better than that in the real world...the countries were signatories, but Hamdan was not in the uniform of either of those countries, and was not acting as part of a military force at the request of either of those countries.

Surely, you can do better? Do I need to quote the text here?

This travesty of a ruling was made possible by undue deferrence to world opinion.

[Navy Patriot]

Gotta go to work, another time.

[presently no screen name]

LOL!

[InkStone]

That why you're behind a keyboard?

Hey PrettyBoy, you assume quite a bit from that statement.

I have sad news: No one's impressed with you. It's late, now go to bed and yes you can leave the hall light on.

[freema]

You got one right! That's exactly why I'm behind a keyboard.

[george76]

" The face of treason. "

ht managusta

[presently no screen name]

That's part of what makes us better than them

You feel the need to prove you are better than them? A little self righteous while they are wishing you were dead.

[freema]

"A little self righteous while they are wishing you were dead."

May I?

A little self righteous while good men ARE dead.

[M. Espinola]

They are without question uniformed Pal-Arab terrorist 'soldiers' and their cohorts out of uniform.

I wonder if the US taxpayers footed the bill for those uniforms?

The photo below shows the pro-Iranian terrorist régime of Hamas holding a terrorist rally right on Israel's southern doorstep.

'Palestinian' Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of the Islamic group Hamas, center, delivers a speech during a rally at a soccer stadium in Gaza City, Friday, Oct. 6, 2006. Tens of thousands gathered on Friday in a massive show of support for the ruling Hamas group and its beleaguered government.(AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

[Rembrandt]

"A graduate of the University of Seattle School of Law, Swift plans to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian."
~~~
This AP story is a red herring.

Except for the rare person who can actually walk on water, no career Naval officer makes it past LCdr unless he/she went to Annapolis.

It's a handy vehicle for the AP to bash the military though.

[presently no screen name]

Much better but the truth always is. Thanks!

[presently no screen name]

Yeah, afraid of something. Playing nice-nice w/the enemy, he THINKS he can make a friend. Definitely leave the light on - living in darkness must be a b#*CH.

[Dan Lacey]

Thanks for the cartoon George76.
While our enemies ignore the Geneva Conventions and wage war upon civilians, we're expected to 'play fair' by abiding to international humanist law, which means these animals without consciences get chances to come back and kill innocents again. The Geneva Conventions were originally aimed at gentleman nations which already possessed national consciences, just as our domestic laws were written by and for men with personal conscience, guided in turn by Judeo-Christian principles. Laws can't tell you right from wrong, and the Geneva Conventions, last ratified in 1949, are blind to the mercilessness of our current conflict. Do people really believe that the only means of keeping our soldiers from slaughtering civilians is the Geneva Conventions?
As for the Supremes; they've repeatedly subjugated domestic law to international law, which is unconstitutional and the result of lawyers looking to the Geneva conventions as a model. So much for lawyers in love with the Geneva Conventions.
Our national character is our first model. It's flawed, but proven to actually work in practice.