ht rlmorel
Posted on 10/08/2006 4:57:50 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I'll be back tomorrow to check this out. Thanks for the ping.
BS. The fact that he was passed over and must leave the service in an up or out system has nothing to do with his defense of a Gitmo client. He had several oppotunities before the promotion boards. There must be something in his official record that caused him to be low ranked by several of his supervisors.
Totally and absolutely false.
Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.
As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners".
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands.
The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Thanks. I like this :
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stewart Mill :
Ssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Don't confuse the AssPress with facts that conflict with their agenda.
Was Senator Graham a JAG like this ?
Maybe Osama's driver will try to pull an Atta.
Good, another one of Slick's Perfumed Pink Panty wearing JagOff Princes leaves our military.
The damage done to this country by these Clintoon maggot infested Jagoffs has to be incredible.
I tell my wife that I can feel good that if a real slimy SOB can get due process, then I know for sure I can if I ever get charged with something.
Criminal justice is usually not a conservative liberal thing. Almost all lawyers and judges I know here in Amarillo are pretty conservative. It doesn't matter whether someone is a prosecutor or defense lawyer.
We all (most) have respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. The system is designed to work when the rules are followed.
As for Hamdan, I FIRMLY disagree with the SCOTUS majority. As an attorney however, I can't blame the lawyer who argued the case. We are obligated to make arguments on behalf of our clients. We cannot be responsible for what a court does with them.
As a matter of fact I am often relieved when a court rules against me. I did my job, and the court did its job. That is the way it works.
BTW, let me know if you need any bar study tips, or law school advice. I don't know where you are in your "training", so just let me know if you need anything.
He did not defend Hamdan. He attacked the system in an effort to reduce the need to defend Hamdan. Guilt or innocence was never addressed, only the process.
I see nothing classy nor worthy of respect. The military men who risked their lives to bring Hamdan to justice are worthy of respect. The men who stand the wall to protect us from men like Hamdan are worthy of respect.
Playing the system to prevent sleaze like Hamdan from getting the penalty they deserve is hardly worthy of respect.
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.
ht rlmorel
Dude, I just don't see a way for AQ combatants to claim Geneva rights anywhere below, on any pretext. It was invented partly to stomp out people like them. Below is from the "Geneva Convention of 1949," which is posted on the Web site of the International Committee of the Red Cross. I seem to have saved it without the proper url (sorry about that), but it's easy to find.
It's important not to treat flagrant violators as if they were following the rules, because their strategy is itself a crime. And I'm no Democrat, but FDR had spies and saboteurs shot routinely—no Gitmo for them. Was he a war criminal for that? I've never heard anyone claim so.
"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
All he did was to weaken a country.
Au revoir.
??
This is a myth. The UCMJ applies only to members of the US Armed forces. It does not apply to anyone else, including combatant prisoners, whether lawful or unlawful.
Also US Civil law does not apply to combatants. That is the problem with all of this. They are trying to apply the wrong laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.