revel wrote:HokieBird wrote:revel wrote:I suppose these bottom feeders will think its funny Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years. This country is just sick.
More left-wing lip-flapping from the guttersnipes. Why don't you inform us just why "Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years"? You seem to know a lot about it.
Read the article and you'll know too.
Quote:The Times editorial made it seem as if a navy hero had been slapped down for trying to put a stop to the practices at Guantánamo. On the telephone, Swift was irritated about that. "There is nothing clear-cut about this," he insisted. "It is not black-and-white."
You think this is evidence that Lt.Cdr. Swift is being punished? Even he admits that's not the case, to the point of being irritated at the suggestion.
The Lt.Cdr. realized when he took on the Hamden defense that trial work would not help in the promotion race, yet he agreed to it with his eyes wide open. That's what he means by saying "there's nothing clear-cut" and "it's not black-and-white".
He spent most of his career in the courtroom,
knowing that a singular focus on litigation could prevent him from rising beyond his current rank.
Just because a few ignorant civilians speculate that his being passed over for promotion is a punishment doesn't make it true. He recognizes this and so should you.
revel wrote:This country is just sick.
It's unfortunate (for you) that you find your country's existence so painful. Perhaps a move to one that's more aesthetically pleasing to you is in order?
HokieBird wrote:revel wrote:HokieBird wrote:revel wrote:I suppose these bottom feeders will think its funny Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years. This country is just sick.
More left-wing lip-flapping from the guttersnipes. Why don't you inform us just why "Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years"? You seem to know a lot about it.
Read the article and you'll know too.
Quote:The Times editorial made it seem as if a navy hero had been slapped down for trying to put a stop to the practices at Guantánamo. On the telephone, Swift was irritated about that. "There is nothing clear-cut about this," he insisted. "It is not black-and-white."
You think this is evidence that Lt.Cdr. Swift is being punished? Even he admits that's not the case, to the point of being irritated at the suggestion.
The Lt.Cdr. realized when he took on the Hamden defense that trial work would not help in the promotion race, yet he agreed to it with his eyes wide open. That's what he means by saying "there's nothing clear-cut" and "it's not black-and-white".
He spent most of his career in the courtroom,
knowing that a singular focus on litigation could prevent him from rising beyond his current rank.
Just because a few ignorant civilians speculate that his being passed over for promotion is a punishment doesn't make it true. He recognizes this and so should you.
revel wrote:This country is just sick.
It's unfortunate (for you) that you find your country's existence so painful. Perhaps a move to one that's more aesthetically pleasing to you is in order?
Even if he did know going in after being assigned to defend Hamden that he was going to be denied for promotion, how does that justify being denied promotion? The military is the one in the wrong if this is the case just as much if he didn't know going in he would be denied promotion. You seem to be agreeing that the military did deny his promotion because he defended Hamdan by this very argument. In any case he only expressed irritation and said it wasn't so clear cut but he didn't deny the charges. Which suggest defending Hamdan rather than just pleading guilty had something to do with it even if it isn't so clear cut.
As far as moving-no need- President Bush can't be in office too much longer and with him the sickness within this country will start to heal.
revel wrote :
Quote:... the sickness within this country will start to heal.
i sure hope you are right , revel !
looking across the border from the north , i hope there will not be too many hard feelings after your next presidential election .
we do like to visit the united states and have met many truly wonderful and hospitable americans over the years - sure hope it'll stay that way !
hbg
hbg, You can depend on it!
revel wrote:HokieBird wrote:revel wrote:HokieBird wrote:revel wrote:I suppose these bottom feeders will think its funny Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years. This country is just sick.
More left-wing lip-flapping from the guttersnipes. Why don't you inform us just why "Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift lost his career as jag officer of twelve years"? You seem to know a lot about it.
Read the article and you'll know too.
Quote:The Times editorial made it seem as if a navy hero had been slapped down for trying to put a stop to the practices at Guantánamo. On the telephone, Swift was irritated about that. "There is nothing clear-cut about this," he insisted. "It is not black-and-white."
You think this is evidence that Lt.Cdr. Swift is being punished? Even he admits that's not the case, to the point of being irritated at the suggestion.
The Lt.Cdr. realized when he took on the Hamden defense that trial work would not help in the promotion race, yet he agreed to it with his eyes wide open. That's what he means by saying "there's nothing clear-cut" and "it's not black-and-white".
He spent most of his career in the courtroom,
knowing that a singular focus on litigation could prevent him from rising beyond his current rank.
Just because a few ignorant civilians speculate that his being passed over for promotion is a punishment doesn't make it true. He recognizes this and so should you.
revel wrote:This country is just sick.
It's unfortunate (for you) that you find your country's existence so painful. Perhaps a move to one that's more aesthetically pleasing to you is in order?
Even if he did know going in after being assigned to defend Hamden that he was going to be denied for promotion, how does that justify being denied promotion?
He was denied promotion prior to defending Hamden, also. Your 'grand conspiracy' theme that he was shafted because of his work on Hamden conveniently fails to mention that little fact. A JAG officer could have above-average abilities as defense counsel, but if he fails on other criteria such as leadership potential, special operations forces experience, joint duty-credit (it's all listed on the BuPers website), he's probably going to fail selection. And he did.
Twice.
Quote:The military is the one in the wrong if this is the case just as much if he didn't know going in he would be denied promotion.
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote:You seem to be agreeing that the military did deny his promotion because he defended Hamdan by this very argument.
Nonsensical, whatever spin you choose to put on it. Considering the fitness reports for Swift's last promotion consideration had to be in by October, 2005, I highly doubt the board had any knowledge of the 'famous case' on which he was working.
Quote:In any case he only expressed irritation and said it wasn't so clear cut but he didn't deny the charges. Which suggest defending Hamdan rather than just pleading guilty had something to do with it even if it isn't so clear cut.
Now you're trying to put words in Swift's mouth. He knew after he was passed over the first time that his career was over. In the Navy, it's "up or out" and he got out
because he failed to select for promotion twice.
He also knows that promotion boards are not subject to tampering, and as a Naval officer with access to the BuPers website he has access to the list of board members. I think one of the reasons he's chosen no redress (and there were several options available to him) is because he knows those officers have the moral courage and power to prevent a miscarriage of justice, such as the one you're implying.
Swift also knows there were many, many JAG LCDRs that, like him, were not selected for promotion. None of them defended Hamden. He knows that as stellar and spectacular as his military career may have been, there are others,
many, many others, that are better, and duty onshore in a courtroom may not compare to those doing the hard work at sea.
Probably the most important thing that Lt.Cdr. Swift knows is that people unfamiliar with the Navy way of doing things (such as you and other posters here) will take their cheap shots.
That's why he was irritated.
Quote:As far as moving-no need- President Bush can't be in office too much longer and with him the sickness within this country will start to heal.
Your perceived 'sickness'. Apparently you're unaware that Senate Bill 3930 didn't pass on a Republican vote alone. If ignorance is bliss, you're in hog heaven.
OFFICER J: And who is the leader of the Al-Qaeda, are you aware?
DAVID HICKS: bin Laden.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Whatever the truth about Hicks' view of why he trained with Al-Qaeda, the fact that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation would have been enough to convict him at a trial.
BRIG GEN THOMAS HEMINGWAY, LEGAL ADVISOR OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS: It's either support for, or resources for a terrorist organisation. It's the providing the support for the - the organisation, that is the - the offence, in and of itself.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: That could be very, very broad, couldn't it?
BRIG GEN THOMAS HEMINGWAY, LEGAL ADVISOR OFFICE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS: Well, it could be, but then terrorism is a very, very broad activity.
LT CDR CHARLES SWIFT, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR SALIM HAMDAN**: The government's argument of that charge is that presence or participation in any form, at any time equals guilt, that everyone who fought us was a criminal.
JOSHUA DRATEL, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR DAVID HICKS: It does have aspects of strict liability in that regard, and is not a traditional type of criminal intent that we're used to in the criminal justice field, and, as a result, it's been a controversial statute for - for a long time. It's only been around, really, for ten years.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Lieutenant Colonel Swift is the military defence lawyer in the next case to be heard by the military commission. His client, Salim Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver, is expected to face the same charge as Hicks - material support for a terrorist organisation.
LT CDR CHARLES SWIFT, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR SALIM HAMDAN: If you've written a crime so broad that everyone is guilty, you're guaranteed not to have anyone escape punishment in our rationale, but if you think about it for a second, you should have already known it.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: On September 11, David Hicks wasn't in Afghanistan. He saw the Al-Qaeda attacks on TV in Pakistan. But those who would frame the system to detain and try him were in Washington. The US Navy's top military lawyer, Don Guter, was inside the Pentagon.
REAR ADMIRAL DONALD GUTER, NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2000-02: The main emotion was anger. People who worked in the Pentagon, you worked long hours there and you feel like that's a second home, and you also feel like it's impenetrable. And now you've been hit and you know that New York happened and Pennsylvania and Washington, and people were very angry.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Nearly two months before Hicks was arrested, the Bush Administration was planning its response to Al-Qaeda.
REAR ADMIRAL DONALD GUTER, NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2000-02: The first thing that I recall was the discussion about going to Afghanistan and cleaning up the camps, so that's the very first thing. And the very first topic under that was, "OK, if we do this operation, we are going to capture people. What do we do with them, where do we take them?"
DEBBIE WHITMONT: It was Don Guter who suggested Guantanamo.
REAR ADMIRAL DONALD GUTER, NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2000-02: It became apparent to me that they were looking for a place where the courts wouldn't interfere with what we were doing. And I said, "Well, you know, pretty much any naval officer who's had duty knows that that would be Guantanamo Bay".
At the time I made that suggestion I didn't think that it would turn out like this.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Guter says the military lawyers thought detainees could be tried quickly. But lawyers in the Vice President's Office wanted a new system - including judges without legal training.
REAR ADMIRAL DONALD GUTER, NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2000-02: I think they were looking to minimise the amount of due process that was provided to people that we took off the battlefield. I think a lot of people had the sense and the real conviction that they didn't deserve a lot of due process.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: The US President agreed. In November 2001, he ordered that trials would be held outside American law - by military tribunal.
GEORGE W BUSH, US PRESIDENT: The option to use a military tribunal in the time of war makes a lot of sense.
HokieBird
The fact is although Swift was irritated, he didn't deny the charges but just said it wasn't clear cut. If there was no truth to it, he could have denied it to clear up the misconception so liberals like myself couldn't take cheap shots.
revel wrote:HokieBird
The fact is although Swift was irritated, he didn't deny the charges but just said it wasn't clear cut. If there was no truth to it, he could have denied it to clear up the misconception so liberals like myself couldn't take cheap shots.
Everyone deserves privacy. If Swift had in any way agreed with the idiots who know nothing about military promotions boards, he'd have had a lot to answer to. Why was he passed over the first time? Why were others, at least as good - if not better than he, also passed over? Why has he not availed himself of the several remedies available if there was indeed misconduct among the board?
The answers are, of course, that he knows the truth. There are only so many positions to fill, perhaps as few as 2 or 3 above zone LCDRS will be selected out of many, many times that. Swift has a good record. Excellent, many would say. The promotions board is looking for
superlative.
The cheap shots not only slander the excellent officers that make up the promotions boards, it's also very unfair to Swift. The only incentive for him to publish his private service record would be if he agrees he was shafted. He doesn't, so there's no incentive.
Even knowing all that, even if he were to say it to your face, liberals like yourself would still take the cheap shot.
Getting back to the subject
Army officer says Gitmo panels flawed
Update on the Gitmo meeting
Guantanamo Splits Administration
Quote:The Associated Press reported yesterday that a meeting of several top Bush administration officials about Guantanamo's future was scheduled for today, but the White House denied such a meeting was taking place. Two administration officials said last night that a meeting about several topics is scheduled for today but that the Guantanamo issue was removed from the agenda after news of the meeting broke.
HokieBird wrote:Jarallah al-Marri's brother, Ali al-Marri (a legal resident of the U.S.), is the petitioner in the Fourth Circuit case and he's being detained in a Naval brig.
You're right. Ali al-Marri.
