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 ...
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 ?
Article III of the Third Geneva Convention applies even to "illegal" combatants.
They are only entitled to die. I despise their defenders who spit on those Americans who died on September 11, 2001.
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.
You sound like a Democrat. If Bin Laden did it, and if it is proven in a court of law ... You are corrupt.
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.)
Someone has to make alQaeda's case for them.
Hamdan was a Yemeni, which makes him a foreign fighter, and an illegal combatant.
Are these civilians or uniformed soldiers ?
Illegal. "Take no prisoners" is a violation of the Geneva protections. If they surrender, they are entitled to enemy combatant protections.
You sound like a Democrat.
Because I believe that wars must be fought not only for just causes, but with just means? If I'm unwelcome in the party in control of my country because of that belief, well, that is frightening.
If Bin Laden did it, and if it is proven in a court of law
I didn't say that. I said if Hamdan aided Bin Laden, and that it is proven in a court of law that Hamdan aided Bin Laden, then he should be punished.
You are corrupt.
Because of a belief in "just war"?
Civilian resistors are entitled to Geneva protections.
look like they need killin'.
fishy? who gives a rat - he was more interested in the "rights" of the detainees (and I use that word loosely) then in prosecuting these scum???? It's a good thing he wasn't promoted, in my opinion!
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.
