Semantics
10-16-2006, 08:11 PM
The cost of doing your duty
The New York Times
Published: October 11, 2006
During the recent debate over how to handle the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, the Bush administration made a lot of noise about its commitment to fair treatment for the detainees and its respect for the uniformed lawyers of the armed forces. Anyone who believed those claims should consider the fate of the Navy lawyer whose integrity helped spark that debate in the first place.
In 2003, Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift was assigned to represent Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen accused of being a member of Al Qaeda - for the sole purpose of getting him to plead guilty before one of the military commissions that President George W. Bush created for Guantánamo.
Instead of carrying out this repugnant task, Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional. He did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated U.S. law as well as the Geneva Conventions. The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high-court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Swift was told he was being denied a promotion, which spelled the end of his 20-year career.
With his defense of Hamdan and his testimony before Congress, Swift did as much as any individual to expose the wrongs of Guantánamo and the lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.
The law creating military tribunals for terror suspects leaves enormous room for the continued abuse of prisoners and for the continued detention of scores of men who committed no crime. If their military lawyers are afraid to represent them vigorously, their hopes for justice dim even further.
The Navy gave no reason for refusing Swift's promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers.
Instead of carrying out this repugnant task, Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional.
They were.
There is nothing like being punished for doing your ethical duty. :rolleyes:
This is infuriating and goes right along with the current bs ideology of "If you're not with us, you're against us" :(
The New York Times
Published: October 11, 2006
During the recent debate over how to handle the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, the Bush administration made a lot of noise about its commitment to fair treatment for the detainees and its respect for the uniformed lawyers of the armed forces. Anyone who believed those claims should consider the fate of the Navy lawyer whose integrity helped spark that debate in the first place.
In 2003, Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift was assigned to represent Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen accused of being a member of Al Qaeda - for the sole purpose of getting him to plead guilty before one of the military commissions that President George W. Bush created for Guantánamo.
Instead of carrying out this repugnant task, Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional. He did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated U.S. law as well as the Geneva Conventions. The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high-court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Swift was told he was being denied a promotion, which spelled the end of his 20-year career.
With his defense of Hamdan and his testimony before Congress, Swift did as much as any individual to expose the wrongs of Guantánamo and the lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.
The law creating military tribunals for terror suspects leaves enormous room for the continued abuse of prisoners and for the continued detention of scores of men who committed no crime. If their military lawyers are afraid to represent them vigorously, their hopes for justice dim even further.
The Navy gave no reason for refusing Swift's promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers.
Instead of carrying out this repugnant task, Swift concluded that the commissions were unconstitutional.
They were.
There is nothing like being punished for doing your ethical duty. :rolleyes:
This is infuriating and goes right along with the current bs ideology of "If you're not with us, you're against us" :(