The one good man who brought down Guantanamo(

The Telegraph ^ | 02/07/2006 | Philip Sherwell

[oceanview]

essentially, the SCOTUS is going to have to ratify whatever congress comes up with. if this same gang of 5 doesn't like the plan, they will just nullify it.

[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.

[managusta]

I refer you to my post #62.

[managusta]

I refer you to my post #62.

[managusta]

I refer you to my post #62.

[stands2reason]

Well put. Thank you.

[stands2reason]

Polly, see post #62. This guy is an ACLU fellow traveler.

[pollyannaish]

Thanks for the information and I really appreciate the ping.

I am always hesitant to believe anything that comes from the press. But this changes my position entirely. I am deeply disappointed.

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for the ping.
I knew this guy Swift smelled bad.

[FredZarguna]

Very well researched. Like many others in this thread, I was shocked and angered by the decision but didn't consider the defense lawyer himself to be part of the problem. On the face of it, though, his being passed over for promotion (and likely to be passed over again) did have a certain smell to it. Thanks for the background.

[GAB-1955]

No, the Geneva conventions do not. They are simply not under the protection of the Conventions, unless a guerrilla movement under the 1949 Convention counts.

They cannot be tried by special tribunal as currently set up by the court. That does not mean that Congress cannot authorize military tribunals. It doesn't mean that they cannot be left in Gitmo until the war is over. It doesn't preclude courts-martial. The system, as established by the President, was not legally founded, but a tribunal can be set up; they just have to spell out rules for evidence and such before the tribunals are held.

[managusta]

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:19-24 RSV)

Equally it follows that Lt Cdr Charles Swift cannot serve the US and the ACLU.

[KC Burke]

It is a little hard to determine if some of those panels and appearances were due to his serving in the capacity for which the Pentagon chose him, or if he was predisposed to the panel separate from his assignment. I heard some story the other day about his assignment being given with the direct order to do his absolute utmost, and it appears that he surely argued his case in that manner.

The same sort of commission was given to the German saboteurs' attorney in WWII and he became Attorney General five years after serving in that post.