Skip to comments.
The one good man who brought down Guantanamo(
The Telegraph ^
| 02/07/2006
| Philip Sherwell
Posted on 07/01/2006 6:13:32 PM PDT by managusta
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
The face of treason.
1
posted on
07/01/2006 6:13:36 PM PDT
by
managusta
To: managusta
Last I looked Guantanamo is still there and will be for the forseable future.
2
posted on
07/01/2006 6:15:10 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: bnelson44
...And many of the prisoners will be tried and executed. The supreme court ruling was procedural and Bush will win in the end.
3
posted on
07/01/2006 6:20:35 PM PDT
by
gotribe
(It's not a religion.)
To: managusta
The defense counsel was doing his job. Some justices clearly were not.
4
posted on
07/01/2006 6:21:45 PM PDT
by
jimfree
(Freep and ye shall find)
To: bnelson44
So Congress has to authorize the tribunals. They will after break. He's an attorney, he mounted a defense. Who is this poster to call a naval officer treasonous for that?
5
posted on
07/01/2006 6:21:49 PM PDT
by
at bay
("We actually did an evil....." Eric Schmidt, CEO Google)
To: managusta
"We believe in common decency, fairness and the rule of law. Our opponents don't." That's the kind of reasoning that could lose the WOT for us. They laugh--no, make that sneer--at our decency and fairness, and use our own "rule of law" against us.
6
posted on
07/01/2006 6:21:57 PM PDT
by
MizSterious
(Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
To: managusta
he was assigned a case as part of his regular duty, and he did his job. That doesn't make him guilty of treason.
7
posted on
07/01/2006 6:23:43 PM PDT
by
kms61
To: at bay
It wasn't treason. Don't know who did it, but they don't know what they are talking about.
8
posted on
07/01/2006 6:23:48 PM PDT
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: at bay
"So Congress has to authorize the tribunals. They will after break. He's an attorney, he mounted a defense. Who is this poster to call a naval officer treasonous for that?"
Well said. I don't blame him, I blame the 5 Supremes who made this ruling...
9
posted on
07/01/2006 6:28:39 PM PDT
by
piytar
To: bnelson44
Last I looked Guantanamo is still there and will be for the forseable future.Yup. George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief and the Supreme Court hasn't changed a thing. So, two CO-EQUAL branches of government disagree on something - - oh well. Can you imagine how disappointing it would be if Dubya caved to a bunch of scumbags in black robes and ceded control of Executive branch powers to them? I don't see it happening.
To: bnelson44; kms61; at bay
Lt Cdr Swift, a 19-year US Navy veteran, could not hide his elation as he walked down the marble steps of the Supreme Court in full uniform on Thursday after the rulingI agree with the three of you that there was certainly no treason. This guy's "elation" makes him a simple scumbag, that's all.
To: at bay
I agree, the officer did his duty. Based on the "reasoning" behind the verdict, it appears the result wasn't as much due to his legal skills as the 5 justices who were determined to create the outcome they wanted.
12
posted on
07/01/2006 6:37:48 PM PDT
by
Lord Basil
(Hate isn't a family value; it's a liberal one.)
To: managusta
I got the impression that the decision COULD keep Hamdan in Gitmo or elsewhere indefinitely...THAT doesn't sound like a victory for him at all..
13
posted on
07/01/2006 6:40:57 PM PDT
by
Txsleuth
(FREEPATHON TIME--INDEPENDENCE DAY--LIFE IS GOOD!)
To: managusta
I will not try to look into this Officer's heart, but I do KNOW one thing, we NEED to significantly REDUCE the influence lawyers have on today's modern warfare. We need to let battlefield commanders run the war, rather than asking for a legal opinion before they make ANY TACTICAL decision.
14
posted on
07/01/2006 6:41:22 PM PDT
by
PISANO
(We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
To: managusta
Swift was on C-SPAN this morning, and he's anything but.
His liberal leanings were apparent, especially when he said he actually "liked" Hamdan, and went to Yemen to visit his friggin' family!
He seemed rather effiminate in his mannerisms and used "you know" in every other phrase.
15
posted on
07/01/2006 6:41:38 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Today, we settled all family business.)
To: managusta
I bet that this will be in some form on an episode on CBS' "NCIS"...........or if not on of the NBC's "Law and Order"s shows.............
To: managusta

wonderful... i think i'll go throw up my supper now.
17
posted on
07/01/2006 6:50:44 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist ©®)
To: managusta
Look at him - his cover's crooked: What's that tell ya?
18
posted on
07/01/2006 6:50:58 PM PDT
by
Ken522
To: piytar
Actually, I blame him if he made the absurd arguments that the 5 'I feel; therefor I am' justices used in their opinions.
No one of good conscience could argue the Geneva Conventions apply to these enemy combatants, nor could one argue the law passed by Congress did not apply.
If he made those arguments, he was lying to obtain an end.
To: managusta
Not exactly treason ~ it's his job ~ however Lt Cdr Swift seems not to have won anything at all for his client, Hamdan.
In fact, he may very well have done little more than speed the guy on his way to an early execution.
20
posted on
07/01/2006 6:58:45 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson