Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy Lawyer in Terror Case Not Promoted
AP ^ | 10/8/6

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; al; alqaeda; attacklawyer; binladen; bush; charlesswift; corruption; gitmo; guantanomo; hamdan; hamdancase; iraq; islam; jag; lawyer; navy; osama; osamabinladen; osamasdriver; qaeda; scotus; supremecourt; swift; sympathizer; terrorism; traitor; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-192 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2006 4:57:50 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Time to make the big bucks eh!

Guy I knew was passed over in the Navy because his turn at the bridge in an aircraft carrier turned out wrong.

Supposedly he brought the carrier to a halt during flight operations to avoid hitting an oil tanker or other type of fleet support ship.

I really wished they'd promoted him though; then he wouldn't have been in our office creating misery for everybody all the time.

2 posted on 10/08/2006 5:00:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Although it (up or out) is SOP in the military, this one sure seems fishy.

Oh well, the guy will make 2-3 (or 20-30?) times as much money in civilian life now.


3 posted on 10/08/2006 5:01:14 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

get him out.

he'll easily be able to find employment with some Dem connected law firm or the ACLU.


4 posted on 10/08/2006 5:01:46 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"All I ever wanted was to make a difference"

Yep - sounds like a whiney liberal to me.

Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

5 posted on 10/08/2006 5:02:14 PM PDT by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: SmithL

Swift boated?


7 posted on 10/08/2006 5:02:16 PM PDT by Third Order
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"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.

A classy man - and an inspiration to me as an attorney-in-training.

I respect him.

8 posted on 10/08/2006 5:04:24 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well life sucks and then you die. What goes around comes around. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Mama sissy took my teddy bear :(


9 posted on 10/08/2006 5:06:54 PM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com --- Plan is our middle name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
He added he would have defended Hamdan even if alQaeda exploded a nuclear device in the United States because that is what traitors do.
10 posted on 10/08/2006 5:07:06 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

AMF


11 posted on 10/08/2006 5:08:36 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

His country ordered him to take the case, or do you think he should have half-assed his assignment to get the outcome you wanted?

12 posted on 10/08/2006 5:08:47 PM PDT by cryptical (Wretched excess is just barely enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

>>>>"Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic"<<<<<<

Spot on post

TT


13 posted on 10/08/2006 5:09:12 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
to get the outcome you wanted?

Some of us want the outcome to be the defeat of alQaeda ...

14 posted on 10/08/2006 5:10:11 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
When you're a lawyer in the military it's not easy ... then again, being a line officer in the military isn't either.
Civilian life in the real world ain't what it's cracked up to be ... get a life.
15 posted on 10/08/2006 5:14:56 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
payback's a hillary...
16 posted on 10/08/2006 5:15:55 PM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

I'm glad he's out too. He can continue to do law for the whiney PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE.


17 posted on 10/08/2006 5:20:02 PM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cryptical

Yes, he should have. Who would have held it against him?


18 posted on 10/08/2006 5:27:06 PM PDT by furquhart (Time for a New Crusade - Deus lo Volt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I respect him.

Irony? I'm saying to myself, "He was wrong on the law, but slavishly politically correct. And he gets the Supreme Weenies, who also don't respect the Constitution, to agree with him, which wasn't hard."

There's no benefit to anyone in this case, materially or in principle, to anyone except this lousy lawyer, for whom it is publicity.

What's to admire about this traitor feathering his nest?

19 posted on 10/08/2006 5:27:08 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: furquhart; P-Marlowe
Who would have held it against him?

Every lawyer has the ethical duty of zealousness for his client. Taking a dive just because the defendant is particularly unsavory is grounds for disbarment.

Put it this way - if I were a Navy JAG, and ordered to defend a terrorist, I'd do it to the best of my abilities. That's part of what makes us better than them.

20 posted on 10/08/2006 5:40:41 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic I think your premise is incorrect he was assigned as the Defense attorney and one of his roles was to make sure the proceedings were done in accordance with the UCMJ. Obviously he was in a no win situation if he did a good job he would be branded a terrorist sympathizer if he didn't he would have been labeled incompetent. No one here know this mans military record but I think it is unconscionable to say that he was not defending his country.
21 posted on 10/08/2006 5:47:02 PM PDT by Warrior Nurse (I am starting another underground railroad to help blacks escape from the Democratic plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"He was wrong on the law, but slavishly politically correct.

Says you. I personally agree with the Supreme Court, and with this officer.

And he gets the Supreme Weenies, who also don't respect the Constitution, to agree with him, which wasn't hard."

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.

There's no benefit to anyone in this case, materially or in principle, to anyone except this lousy lawyer, for whom it is publicity.

Au contraire. The Geneva Convention requires that enemy combatants be given some due process. Once again, that's what makes us better than them.

What's to admire about this traitor feathering his nest?

Once again, just because you disagree with him does not make him a "traitor." He did his job as a lawyer, and did it well.

22 posted on 10/08/2006 5:47:37 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic

I think your premise is incorrect he was assigned as the Defense attorney and one of his roles was to make sure the proceedings were done in accordance with the UCMJ. Obviously he was in a no win situation if he did a good job he would be branded a terrorist sympathizer if he didn't he would have been labeled incompetent. No one here know this mans military record but I think it is unconscionable to say that he was not defending his country.

23 posted on 10/08/2006 5:49:17 PM PDT by Warrior Nurse (I am starting another underground railroad to help blacks escape from the Democratic plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

He'll make a heck of a lot more money working for the DNC full time. Besides, the DNC is eager to hire veterans now with the elections coming up and all that jazz.


24 posted on 10/08/2006 5:55:13 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer ("Today we march, tomorrow we vote!" The illegal aliens won't be "staying home" on Nov. 7th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981; managusta

In reply to all those who believe that Swift was an "Atticus Finch" who represented his client with zealous determination in the face of the power of the state.

Firstly, on the 22nd of July 2005 in New Orleans, the American Civil Liberties Union presented their Medal of Liberty awards to the five military defense lawyers who represented the first round of defendants at the Guantánamo Bay tribunals and challenged the entire military commission system.

Secondly, the five JAG lawyers were Lieutenant Commanders Charles Swift and Philip Sundel of the Navy, Major Michael D. Mori of the Marine Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Mark A. Bridges of the Army, and Lieutenant Colonel Sharon A. Shaffer of the Air Force.

Thirdly,Swift and his co-chair Shaffer appeared in an "ACLU Panel on the Rights of the Guantánamo Detainees" on the 10th November 2005 at George Mason University sponsored by Joseph Zengerle(FAIR vs Rumsfeld).

Fourthly,the arguments used in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld were outlined in a paper titled "Conduct Unbecoming: Pitfalls in the President's Military Commissions" (3/4/2004)written by Timothy Edgar(Legislative Counsel ACLU) and published by the ACLU.

Finally,Swift was no "useful idiot" but a willful participant in an attack on the ability of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief to wage war.An act that I consider treasonous.

You may disagree with me but the facts support my case.

62 posted on 07/02/2006 3:10:47 PM PDT by managusta (


25 posted on 10/08/2006 6:02:02 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I personally agree with the Supreme Court, as does alQaeda.
26 posted on 10/08/2006 6:06:40 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoCal_Republican

Good news.


27 posted on 10/08/2006 6:07:33 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford
Although it (up or out) is SOP in the military, this one sure seems fishy.

The article is trying to make you think it's fishy by breathlessly pointing out he was notified two weeks after the end of the case.

The truth is Navy selection boards for both staff and line officers meet at the same time every year. He was in competition with all of the eligible JAG O-4s for promotion. There was no "special board" just for him.

28 posted on 10/08/2006 6:08:05 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

Yeah just some poor schmuck that got assigned to this case and "zealously" defended his client. Sell it to the Air Force, Mayonnaise.

29 posted on 10/08/2006 6:14:00 PM PDT by countess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
, as does alQaeda.

Oh, there's solid logic. (Guilt by association logical fallacy.)

30 posted on 10/08/2006 6:18:39 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jude24

"A classy man - and an inspiration to me as an attorney-in-training."

Friends don't let friends become lawyers. Or, to paraphrase George Lucas, "Gentlemen don't do lawyering about after dark (or any other time)."


31 posted on 10/08/2006 6:23:59 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
Put it this way - if I were a Navy JAG, and ordered to defend a terrorist, I'd do it to the best of my abilities.

If you knew he was guilty (he confessed to you) and he wanted to take the stand in his own defense and you felt that, because he came across as an honest guy, if he testified it might just get him acquited, would you put him on the stand?

32 posted on 10/08/2006 6:27:06 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Why is it that most Calvinists can never give a yes or no answer to a yes or no question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If you knew he was guilty (he confessed to you) and he wanted to take the stand in his own defense and you felt that, because he came across as an honest guy, if he testified it might just get him acquited, would you put him on the stand?

No. You know the ethical duty against suborning perjury. My obligation would be to dissuade him, if he refuses to be dissuaded, either seek to be removed as counsel or to report the situation to the Court.

(This stuff's all on the MPRE. Good review, thanks!)

33 posted on 10/08/2006 6:29:33 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Neither grammar, logic, nor rhetoric will save you. The Freepers are correct - the shark wnet far beyond the call of duty. Arguably, it is probably because he sees it as his duty to bad mouth the war on terror and to ham string it whenever possible.


34 posted on 10/08/2006 6:29:56 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY; P-Marlowe
The truth is Navy selection boards for both staff and line officers meet at the same time every year. He was in competition with all of the eligible JAG O-4s for promotion. There was no "special board" just for him.

JAG is a very competitive program. It's not necessarily fishy that he was passed over for promotion. One must wonder, however, how many O-4's that were promoted had argued before the Supreme Court, let alone won.

35 posted on 10/08/2006 6:32:02 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Neither grammar, logic, nor rhetoric will save you.

That's right, this board is a no-logic zone. Duly noted.

36 posted on 10/08/2006 6:32:38 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
If he insisted on testifying I suspect you might be able to have him take the stand, and then ask him his name and then after he says, "Muhammed Atta" say "no further questions." If the prosecution then gets him to lie after that then that would probably not be your on your hands.

How would that work on the MPRE?

37 posted on 10/08/2006 6:34:47 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Why is it that most Calvinists can never give a yes or no answer to a yes or no question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Oh, there's solid logic. (Guilt by association logical fallacy.)

Yep, he was personal assistant, bodyguard and driver for Osama Bin Laden, but don't let that stop you from supporting him with your amicus brief ...

38 posted on 10/08/2006 6:34:49 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

Hey! Being a lawyer is all about defending one's own clients. If the Navy is going to get its pink-doilied panties in a wad over it, then he's better off going outside and making big bucks. He has a great new resume line item...and that, unlike a promotion, can never be taken away.


39 posted on 10/08/2006 6:36:04 PM PDT by Tax Government (Defeat Islamic imperialists, democrats and...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
Even drivers for Osama Bin Laden are entitled to some due process under the Geneva Convention.

The guilt by association is not for Hamdan. If he truly did aid Bin Laden, and that is proven in a court of law, then he should be punished.

The guilt-by-association fallacy was in saying that "Al Queda agrees," as though that invalidates my argument. (Although I suspect Al Queda doesn't particularly care whether or not we give them trials. They see themselves as Islamic martyrs. They don't care if they get caught. No, trials are to maintain our own moral superiority.)

40 posted on 10/08/2006 6:49:47 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
Well life sucks and then you die. What goes around comes around. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Mama sissy took my teddy bear :(

You forgot ... "If you can't ride with the big boys then don't saddle up." ... and also ... "If you can't pee in the tall grass don't run with the big dogs."
41 posted on 10/08/2006 6:50:23 PM PDT by One_who_hopes_to_know
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
How would that work on the MPRE?

I'm guessing someone intending to perjure himself won't perjure himself about his name. That wouldn't work.

That answer isn't likely to be one on that MPRE test anyway. (A useless hoop I have to jump through anyway.)

42 posted on 10/08/2006 6:52:03 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jude24
The Geneva Convention requires that enemy combatants be given some due process.

If Al Qaeda were a party to the Geneva Conventions, I would agree with you completely. But they're not.

And worse than that, these prisoners were acting as illegal combatants—spies and assassins hiding among civilians, fighting out of uniform, not carrying arms openly, and so on. According to the Geneva Conventions, such men have no rights to due process, and can be summarily shot.

This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions, but the just enforcement of them. This is a war, and if Supreme Court justices ignore the Constitution and the actual text of treaties our Senate has approved, they dishonor their office, and are not worthy of respect. In fact, some of them are worthy of prosecution.

43 posted on 10/08/2006 7:00:15 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
If Al Qaeda were a party to the Geneva Conventions, I would agree with you completely. But they're not.

No. But Hamdan was an Afghani or Pakistani citizen (don't recall which). Those countries are both, IIRC, signitories to the Geneva Convention. They are therefore covered by the Geneva Conventions.

. And worse than that, these prisoners were acting as illegal combatants—spies and assassins hiding among civilians, fighting out of uniform, not carrying arms openly, and so on. According to the Geneva Conventions, such men have no rights to due process, and can be summarily shot.

That's not at all true. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention (of which we are a signitory), Article III applies to all citizens of a belligerent state. There are some basic rights (including some basic due process) to which all combatants are entitled. Additionally, resistance members are not obligated to fight in uniform or carry arms openly in order to be covered by Geneva protocols. Arguably, Hamdan was a member of a resistance to American occupation of Afghanistan. (Since he was Bin Laden's driver, he may have been a member of Al Queda, but not the Taliban.)

44 posted on 10/08/2006 7:09:47 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

BTW: I appreciate the friendly tone of your post. (As opposed to certain other posters.)


45 posted on 10/08/2006 7:10:28 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jude24

46 posted on 10/08/2006 7:12:04 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: george76

47 posted on 10/08/2006 7:14:13 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: george76; P-Marlowe
That's what makes the American troops "soldiers," and not "terrorists." Playing by the rules is why we have any moral superiority to Al Queda. It is not enough that our causus belli is just; we must also be jus in bello (just in war).
48 posted on 10/08/2006 7:18:17 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: everyone

Good.


49 posted on 10/08/2006 7:20:08 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charlie the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jude24; freema; Just A Nobody

Do you call him a civilian ?


50 posted on 10/08/2006 7:21:09 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-192 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson