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 ...
The People President Clinton Didn't Have to Pardon...
Because They're All Dead
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clintonfriends.htm
"Au contraire. The Geneva Convention requires that enemy combatants be given some due process. Once again, that's what makes us better than them. "
Where does it say that?
Congraulations! You finally got to the enemy supporting sob.
Just give them enough rope and they will always hang themselves. Some do it quickly, others take a while longer.
This one couldn't tstand you telling the truth about him.
You and I both know that the exNavy lawyer and the SC decision will cost Ameican blood and a lot of it.
Ted Turner says he can't pick sides in War on Terror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J-mUwkmw-M
Only on days that end in Y.
Article 3 starts, "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:"
In what sense does this apply to a battle between Americans and Afghanistan?
It was my understanding that Article 3 applied to civil war.
Your thoughts?
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. -------------------------
I fail to see any connection with Gitmo...
We know which side Ted Tunner supports.
The problem for Ted and all the other terrorists supporters [read Democrats and the msm] is that their side doesn't support them. Given the chance they will cut their throats just as fast as they will anyone else.
Wrong Article III. Look for the Third Geneva Convention.
Defending someone should not be at the cost of the truth. He made fallacious claims about the law. It may be common with ACLU lawyers, but it's wrong, and in wartime, it can be treasonous. John Adams got off the Brits who shot the settlers in the Boston Massacre, but as far as we know, he did it on the facts.
The fact that enough Supreme Court justices were dishonest enough to sign off on it shows the consequences of putting winning before duty. Thousands of people could die because this military lawyer wasn't true to his vocation.
Insufficient. I've tried that - if there is a different article, I haven't found it. I reviewed the Third Geneva Convention - I don't see any difference.
However, look at Article II. By its terms, that Convention applies to declared wars between two member states (Art. II) and internal wars occuring within a member state (Art. III).
Correct. It does NOT apply to "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" if they do not "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
BTW - my preference is to say that, while they are NOT prisoners of war, we will treat them as such - and then detain them until terrorists around the world stop attacking, or they hit 80 years of age, whichever comes first.
Your plan - to hold the detainees until terrorism ceases - is impractical. Terrorism will never cease; it's been around for millenia.
Guess we'll have to hold them forever, then. Works for me.
I don't have time to review the 4th convention, other than to note that I haven't seen it referenced with regard to Gitmo before. I'll try reviewing it tomorrow.
Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind.
We wish him well....
</sarcasm>
I agree with you, we don't need the military eating its own. Traitor in uniform and yes he made a difference, aiding the enemy......
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.