Navy Lawyer in Terror Case Not Promoted

AP ^ | 10/8/6

[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.

[george76]

[Centurion2000]

bump

[ExSoldier]

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.

Did you ever see the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation when Commander Riker was ordered to act as opposing counsel to prove his friend Data was machine and not a self aware life form? Great illustration of the principle you describe.

[ExSoldier]

resistance members are not obligated to fight in uniform or carry arms openly in order to be covered by Geneva protocols.

I thought the Geneva Accords were designed to specifically exempt insurgents and terrorists? That's what I learned back at the Infantry Officer Basic Course, anyway. Of course that 1980. Maybe they changed? Naaaaaaw.

[george76]

This my view, too.

the Geneva Accords were designed to specifically exempt insurgents and terrorists

[george76]

Was Lindsey a bad JAG too ?

[upchuck]

Was Lindsey a bad JAG too ?

I honestly don't know. But I'm glad to see we agree he's a crummy Senator.

RINOs out!

[Marine_Uncle]

Your post #72. The deep sadness the alphabets must have felt when they learned the zman was killed.
Post #98. That dog must be named "pencil head" heh heh.

[george76]

Good call on the pencil head !

[george76]

One view on why he is a Rino.

[Marine_Uncle]

:Good call on the pencil head !
Thanks. Now I am going to hit the sack for an hour or so. This working all day long with shifts that can vary between early morning one day to near midnight is getting to be to much.
Sort of dulls the mind. But at least I had the keen eye and mind to spot that dog's pencil head. heh heh.

[upchuck]

If that is the case, then Pandsey's only gotta worry about it for a little more than another year. Then all his troubles will be over as he desperately seeks a non-government job. I suspect he'll end up on K Street as a slimy lobbyist. That way he'll still be near his fav "friend", John Mc Cain.

[Warrior Nurse]

So by what legal standard are the terrorist being tried by in military tribunals if not civil, UCMJ, military or international law?

[Dan(9698)]

So by what legal standard are the terrorist being tried by in military tribunals if not civil, UCMJ, military or international law?

The laws of war. They were passed by congress in the 1700s, and have been used in all wars we have been in.

They are directly under the executive branch, and not under the judicial.

After WW2, the Chief Justice of the United States presided over the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

They implemented the Laws of War. That is what Congress just authorized for use in the Military Tribunals for Club Gitmo.

The Laws of War do not include the Bill of Rights, or Habeas Corpus. It is Martial Law. (When you hear of a Governor declaring "Martial Law" what do think they are declaring?)

It is not a violation for either the Civil Law or UCMJ for enemy combatants, spies, and so forth to attack the United States troops.

[Sloth]

Playing by the rules is why we have any moral superiority to Al Queda.

Utter nonsense.

[Warrior Nurse]

First of all I know what Martial law is as well as Posse Commumitatas (sp), and the law of Land warfare of which the Islamofacists or any of our enemies have obeyed.

[John D]

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.
___________________________________________________________

You also support Hillary, Carter, and McCain. I think you would do better to move on to moveon.com, I think you would have more in common with them.

[Dan(9698)]

...law of Land warfare of which the Islamofacists or any of our enemies have obeyed.

You should know that you don't have to agree with or obey the speed limit law to be tried under it.

They have no choice except to be tried under the Laws of War as interpreted by a Military Tribunal. They don't have to obey it or like it.

Trial by Military Tribunal has always been used in our wars.

It was used by Lincoln in the Civil War. That is why he keeps getting accused with suspending Habeas Corpus.

[PerConPat]

Well, the cartoon pretty much explains the dilemma that we are in. The enemy uses our freedoms and laws against us and, of course, refuses to abide by any standard of decency. This is the central aspect of the current conflict and the reason that so many Americans who ought to know better just cannot get beyond the libertarian theorizing and get behind the WOT in any practicable way.

I have, of late, debated with a few fellow citizens the actions of Abraham Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War. Some of my Libertarian acquaintances express horror at my defense of Honest Abe in this matter. I, nevertheless, maintain that survival trumps legal haggling over rights that certainly must apply in times of safety but not necessarily while we are situated in a time of great danger.

Some believe that you are no better than your enemy if one freedom is interfered with while pursuing victory in a fight to the death. I, however, cannot believe that my destruction at the hands of terrorists would be made less bitter by the knowledge that all civil liberties were in place and had in fact facilitated the butchers at the time of my demise.

Realistically, protestations of legal integrity notwithstanding, the fact that a JAG officer does his/her duty in one manner or another means one thing in peace and another in time of war. But, in fairness, it is not this LCDR's fault that a confused SCOTUS majority shared a belief that has mesmerized much of the nation. IMHO, the peril we face is felt to varying degrees by our population. I expect the terrorists to rectify this in the future; the question is simply how much stateside destruction will it take for the country to finally unite and win the WOT?

As for the passed-over LCDR, a failure to impress superiors in a manner that set him above his competition is surely the cause of his being ordered home.

[Gradient Vector]

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

He was given orders to defend the guy, if he didn't he would be breaking his orders. Plus whats the point of having a trial if you want the lawyers to throw the case? We shouldn't be having show trials like the USSR. If we are going to try them in court they need to be fair trials, otherwise our entire system of justice becomes a mockery. I don't necessarily believe we need to have trials for terrorists, but if we do you can't go label their lawyers traitors, especially when the Navy gave him orders to do so.