Monday, October 09, 2006

Navy Lawyer Who Successfully Argued Hamdan Case Before Supreme Court Is Denied Promotion. Coincidence? Some In The Military Think Not

The Navy lawyer who took the Guantánamo case of Osama bin Laden's driver to the U.S. Supreme Court — and won — has been passed over for promotion by the Pentagon and must soon leave the military.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift said last week he received word he had been denied a promotion to full-blown commander this summer, "about two weeks after" the Supreme Court sided against the White House and with his client, Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni captive at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under the military's "up-or-out" promotion system, Swift will retire in March or April, closing a 20-year career of military service.

Coincidence?

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion." Others in the military said the timing of Swift's denial was questionable, given his strong track record.

But this is the upside-down world we live in. Swift does the job he was asked to do, as well as can be expected, and he has no future. Meanwhile, Paul Bremer received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush -- even though by his own admission failed to tell Bush or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that the U.S. did not have a sufficient number of troops in Iraq, and in 2003 wrongly assumed the U.S. could "overpower" an insurgency.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Represent the enemy and then expect promotions? Thats like not working and collecting a paycheck. Oh thats right, libs love that sort of thing.

8:17 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Sometimes I start to fear the future of my country in that such imbeciles purport to support the same government as I do.
I'm glad anonymous above admitted he does not believe in the U.S. Supreme Court system, and would rather have a few politicians decide all laws for us without the checks and balances of a court.
With one stupid statement, anonymous just whited-out the entire U.S. Constitution.

As for Cmd. Charles Swift, perhaps a more sensible future government, which is coming up real fast, can offer atonement in the form of a special commendation.
We will then show to the country and the world that even during this Dark Period in the History of U.S. Politics*, many of us had not forgotten the values that have made this country great.

*How the Bush years will be recorded in the history books.

9:49 AM  
Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

Break out the violins for thewaronterrible. I almost shed a tear over that leftist drivel-- NOT. Listen, Pinko, you and your ilk are part of the problem not the solution. Just keep your warped ideas to yourself and let the Nationalists handle scum like this NYU, punk lawyer. Drive him out of the Navy? Hell, somebody should drive him to the gallows for Treason.

11:19 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

The President and Congress are elected by "we the people", and "we the people" can hold them responsible for their actions. We can throw them out of office when we think they abused their power.

Twot seems to think that the unelected U.S. Supreme Court is infallible, and that we should never question their decisions. He seems to feel that conservatives are the anti-Constitution party, when in truth, we're the ones who want strict Constitutionalists appointed to the court.

That's what Mark Levin's book, "Men In Black" is all about. God forbid liberals look at what it is conservatives are actually saying. Just dismiss it all out of hand, because we're conservatives.

With regard to checks and balances, our Founding Fathers understood this, and gave Congress the power to curb the SCOTUS when they overstepped their authority. Problem is, our elected representatives rarely do it, which is why the court is so bold these days.

THAT, my friend twot, is what "checks and balances" is all about. You should educate yourself about what our Constitution actually says, because from everything you ever write on the subject, you sound very misinformed and misguided.

12:27 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So, basically, Patton is saying if you disagree with the Administration you should be killed. What delusion.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

The military should be honored to have such a fine worker as Swift. Instead, they can him for doing his job.

That's upside-down thinking.

1:07 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

No Trinity, you're the one who is misinformed and misguided.
You join the whacko fringe right-wing who believe the Constitution is a flexible document subject to after-the-fact (read after laws have been broken) reinterpretations at the will of the executive branch.
The Supreme Court IS the check on the Congress and the Executive branch and has repeatedly found the Bush Administration in violation of the law and the Constitution. The remedy for Bush on the specific cases is to appeal. Period.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"No Trinity, you're the one who is misinformed and misguided.
You join the whacko fringe right-wing who believe the Constitution is a flexible document"


Again, it's the liberals among us who like to stretch their interpretation of the Constitution to something other than what its original intent was meant to be.

It's not the conservatives who are always searching for "the vague penumbras and emanations of the government and the judiciary", it's your own side.

Also, conservatives respect all of the Constitution. They don't pick and choose which
Amendments they like, and which they want to ignore. (e.g. the 2nd Amendment)

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

do you ever do anything but parrot slogans?

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Twot, where is the right of 'privacy' mentioned in the Constitution.

You're such a student of the document. Explain the right to abortion.

And dont go on a tirade.

2:48 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Widget misinterprets my comment above.
Read my post above and not Trinity's posting of only a part of it out of context.

3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

isn't the right to privacy among the amendments to the constitution, widget?

that's a pretty important set of dcouments, too.

I mean, women were given the right to vote from an amendment. you want to say that shouldn't be allowed because it wasn't made clear in the constitution? how about no free press? Is that a good idea? the right to bear arms (or arm bears)?

3:10 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

we're drifting off topic. the topic should be: did the military pass over swift out of vengeance, after Swift successfully argued Hamdan?

Or are we to assume that Swift, among the very few lawyers in history to win a Supreme Court case, praised by his peers as being among the best and brightest, wasn't good enough for promotion?

If it's the former, shame on the military and-or the Administration for asking a guy to do a job, and then punishing him for doing that job.

If it's the latter, then why was Swift given this humongously important task in the first place?

3:13 PM  
Anonymous Constitution said...

Trinity, you are incorrect.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

4:19 PM  
Blogger John deVille said...

I'm flogging my tribute to Swift as hard as I can.

http://mountainphilosopher.blogs...nder-of- us.html

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why, that post with the actual text of the Constitution just might cause some conservative heads here like Trinity's to pop.
I agree; we have drifted off topic but the somewhat related trashing of the constitutional role of the Supreme Court through accusing Swift of treason demanded a 'swift' response to conservatives deserving of a 'swift' verbal ass-kicking.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

In 1770 shortly before our American Revolution a group of British soldiers killed four American colonists. John Adams who would go onto become the first Vice President of the US, the second President of the US and one our nation’s founding fathers stepped up and defended the British soldiers as their lawyer (getting most of the British soldiers acquitted). Why did he defend them? Because no one else would defend them and he believed that everyone, even the enemy, has a right to a defense attorney doing his best to defend him. That’s what Swift did. In fact Swift was ordered to defend Hamdan by the US Navy, so he did the best job he could. In 1797 the people of the United States elected Adams to the highest office in the land. In 2006 Swift is forced to retire.

6:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares