|
Navy lawyer who won landmark supreme court case against government forced to retire
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Guantanamo defense lawyer forced to retire by Navy
By Carol Rosenberg
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
NEWARK, N.J. - The Navy lawyer who took the Guantanamo 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, 44, said last week he received word that he had been denied a promotion to full-blown Navy commander this summer - "about two weeks after" the Supreme Court sided against the White House and with his client, a Yemeni captive at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
Under the military's "up or out" promotion system, Swift will retire in March or April, closing out a 20-year career of military service.
A Pentagon appointee, Swift embraced the alleged al-Qaida's sympathizer's defense with a classic defense lawyer's zeal - casting his captive client as an innocent victim in the dungeon of King George, a startling analogy for the attorney whose commander-in-chief is President George Bush.
He wore Navy whites to his client's war-crimes tribunal at Guantanamo, dress blues to challenge the administration on the steps of the Supreme Court and turned up last week at a symposium at Seton Hall Law School in more sober, workaday khakis.
"It was a pleasure to serve," said Swift, who added that he would defend Salim Hamdan all over again, even if he knew he would have to leave the Navy earlier than he wanted.
"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," he said.
Swift, a University of Seattle Law School graduate, also said he will continue to defend Hamdan as a civilian. The Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, which provided pro bono legal work in Hamdan's habeas corpus petition, has agreed to support Swift's defense of Hamdan in civilian life, he said.
Hamdan, 36, who has only a fourth-grade education, was captured along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, launched in reprisal for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He admits to working as bin Laden's $200-a-month driver on a Kandahar farm, but said he never joined al-Qaida and never fought anyone.
Still at Guantanamo as an "enemy combatant," Hamdan halted his war-crimes trial by challenging the format's constitutionality through civilian courts. The justices ruled in June that President Bush overstepped his constitutional authority by creating ad hoc military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sending the Pentagon back to the drawing board for the trials.
In the end, it developed a system very similar to those struck down, setting the stage for a likely new challenge this session.
In the opinion of Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion," given his devotion to the Navy, the law and his client.
But, he said, Swift is part of a long line of Navy defense lawyers "of tremendous distinction" who were not made full commander and "had their careers terminated prematurely."
"He brought real credit to the Navy," said Fidell. "It's too bad that it's unrequited love."
In June, the prestigious National Law Journal listed Swift among the nation's top 100 lawyers, with such legal luminaries as former Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, 66; Stanford Law constitutional law expert Kathleen Sullivan, 50, and former Bush campaign recount attorney Fred H. Bartlit, 73.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, Pentagon spokesman on Guantanamo topics, did not respond to a query about the up-or-out system by which Navy lieutenant commanders are retired if they don't get promoted.
Perhaps ironically, one of Swift's first challenges on behalf of Hamdan as a civilian will be over whether he has the right to represent him in federal court. Under legislation approved by the House and Senate last month, Guantanamo detainees lose their right to file traditional habeas corpus petitions.
Swift last saw his controversial client last month at Guantanamo. "He's depressed," the lawyer said.
Swift said the Yemeni is now held in "Tango Block" at the U.S. detention center, in the company of ethnic Muslim Uighurs, who await resettlement elsewhere rather than repatriation to their native China.
"He now has Chinese roommates," meaning cellblock neighbors, said Swift, "which he's not particularly thrilled about."
Swift's supervisor, the Pentagon's chief defense counsel for Military Commissions, said the career Navy officer had served with distinction.
"Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney, calling it "quite a coincidence" that the Navy promotion board passed on promoting Swift "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/ne...on/15704593.htm
|
The price of doing what's right and doing your job. This government ... I tell you. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| That's pretty messed up, doesn't surprise me in the least though, considering who's in office. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| up -or- out sounds like a pretty stupid system of operation. Imagine if the private sector worked on the same system. Economies would fail. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Holly , the judge wasn't paid out by the government? Where's all the credit to the judge(s) for not being afraid and making the right judgement. Its not every day you can hear about a judge not afraid of the consequences, government pressure and threats to career and life and make the right decision.
My biggest thanks and respect go out to the judge(s) who decided on this case. I wish them all the best ... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
the article didn't mention once the other times he failed to make O5.
do you guys know what it takes put on the rank of commander in the Navy? it's probably the hardest rank to make outside the flag ranks.
you get passed over for any rank above O2 more than once, your booted...and he was up against his 20 year mark?:rolleyes:
you guys are being sucked down the vortex as usual. pathetic. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
up -or- out sounds like a pretty stupid system of operation. Imagine if the private sector worked on the same system. Economies would fail. |
There are many private-sector companies that operate on an "up or out" track. In fact, some of the most successful, competitive firms operate on that system. McKinsey Consulting is one of the best known strategic consulting firms that is strictly up-or-out. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| I don't understand how it can be good practice to get rid of your workforce just because they are not the one chosen for a promotion. That would require extra investment in training which is unnecessary. |
|
|
| OurManFlint |
| quote: | | Swift, a University of Seattle Law School graduate |
Um, there's a University of Washington Law School in Seattle and a Seattle University Law School, but no University of Seattle. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you guys are being sucked down the vortex as usual. pathetic. |
Umm ok care to clarify your statement with some substance. Ignoring even him winning a case in the highest court of the land, have you read over Swift's qualifications? All you've said so far is that getting to the rank of commander is hard. Well thanks for the clarification, I thought all you had to do was the slip the doorman a fiver.
| quote: |
There are many private-sector companies that operate on an "up or out" track. In fact, some of the most successful, competitive firms operate on that system. McKinsey Consulting is one of the best known strategic consulting firms that is strictly up-or-out.
|
This is the government we're talking about. Not Mckinsey. Besides that, all the McKinsey folk I know are blowhards (although my personal experience is irrelevant to the discussion). |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
All you've said so far is that getting to the rank of commander is hard. |
winning a case in the SCOTUS is great if you're just a lawyer. that doesn't automatically give you the right to put on the rank of Commander. and thats your argument? equally pathetic.
you see, the rank of Commander is given on the contingency of ones ability to "command". all other officer ranks under O5 work to achieve that status thoughout their career. in other words you are being groomed for command from the time of your commission until your O5 review cycle for command.
the Navy is different in that respect when it comes time to pin O5 on somebody because O5 is the lowest rank command can be given on a formal basis. it is unique to other forces in that Commander means you can operate a command independently from other commands whether they be shore or sea commands, but it's left over from the romantic days of the high seas ship command and their duties and resposibilities left alone from your parent commands back on land.
as i said before, he was obviously passed over at least once before. the article makes no mention of this. the article makes no other mention of his FITREPS (fitness report) throughout his illustrious 20 yr. career. and think of that 20yr. mark as a hard stop or deathknell to an O4 that has been passed over for command more than once.
and again, the article conveniently makes no mention of the fact that all officer ranks are are subject to the boot if passed over for advancement to the next rank more than once. there are no exceptions. accept certain medical waivers. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
winning a case in the SCOTUS is great if you're just a lawyer. that doesn't automatically give you the right to put on the rank of Commander. and thats your argument? equally pathetic.
|
No my argument was to ignore him winning the SCOTUS case. Maybe you should re-read it.
| quote: |
you see, the rank of Commander is given on the contingency of ones ability to "command". all other officer ranks under O5 work to achieve that status thoughout their career. in other words you are being groomed for command from the time of your commission until your O5 review cycle for command.
the Navy is different in that respect when it comes time to pin O5 on somebody because O5 is the lowest rank command can be given on a formal basis. it is unique to other forces in that Commander means you can operate a command independently from other commands whether they be shore or sea commands, but it's left over from the romantic days of the high seas ship command and their duties and resposibilities left alone from your parent commands back on land.
as i said before, he was obviously passed over at least once before. the article makes no mention of this. the article makes no other mention of his FITREPS (fitness report) throughout his illustrious 20 yr. career. and think of that 20yr. mark as a hard stop or deathknell to an O4 that has been passed over for command more than once.
and again, the article conveniently makes no mention of the fact that all officer ranks are are subject to the boot if passed over for advancement to the next rank more than once. there are no exceptions. accept certain medical waivers. |
Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Now please explain why we should listen to your assessment of how laywers are promoted in the navy. I'm assuming you argue from firsthand experience in some manner of speaking ... why should we believe you and reject the statements made by the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Eugene Fidell? I'm sure you can fully substantiate the government's actions to dismiss a lawyer who's regarded as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country .... He must have been terrible at his job after all. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No my argument was to ignore him winning the SCOTUS case. Maybe you should re-read it. |
no one said he was ignored. he just failed to qualify for Commander...again!
| quote: | | Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Now please explain why we should listen to your assessment of how laywers are promoted in the navy. I'm assuming you argue from firsthand experience in some manner of speaking ... why should we believe you and reject the statements made by the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Eugene Fidell? I'm sure you can fully substantiate the government's actions to dismiss a lawyer who's regarded as one of the top 100 lawyers in the country .... He must have been terrible at his job after all. |
JAG officers are LDO (limited duty officers) they get lumped in together with all the other LDO's at the selection board. the selection board looks at a faceless (although i think there is a picture in there) FITREPs and performance evals and are gone over with a fine tooth comb for administative and clerical errors by many senior ranking board members. there is a point system tallied for every applicant and is basically the final word but it is not known by non-board personel.
thats all moot really. the FACT is, and is a fact you are ignoring, that he was obviously passed over at least once before for the same rank. otherwise this wouldn't be an issue at his 20 year mark. all officers are subject to this system of "up or out" at all ranks except Flag |
|
|
|
|
