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 ...
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.
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.
get him out.
he'll easily be able to find employment with some Dem connected law firm or the ACLU.
Yep - sounds like a whiney liberal to me.
Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Swift boated?
A classy man - and an inspiration to me as an attorney-in-training.
I respect him.
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 :(
AMF
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?
>>>>"Too bad his aspirations didn't include defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic"<<<<<<
Spot on post
TT
Some of us want the outcome to be the defeat of alQaeda ...
I'm glad he's out too. He can continue to do law for the whiney PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE.
Yes, he should have. Who would have held it against 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (
Good news.
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.
Yeah just some poor schmuck that got assigned to this case and "zealously" defended his client. Sell it to the Air Force, Mayonnaise.
Oh, there's solid logic. (Guilt by association logical fallacy.)
"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)."
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!)
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.
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.
That's right, this board is a no-logic zone. Duly noted.
How would that work on the MPRE?
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 ...
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
BTW: I appreciate the friendly tone of your post. (As opposed to certain other posters.)
Good.
Do you call him a civilian ?
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.