‘The Hero of Guantanamo’ Speaks
‘The Hero of Guantanamo’ Speaks
The right wing has wasted no time attacking the Supreme Court and those who supported its ruling on Guantanamo yesterday. Rush Limbaugh’s website ran the headline, “Liberals Celebrate Supreme Court Victory for Terrorists.”
Attacking the patriotism of those who support the decision is ironic. The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “winner of a Bronze Star for his service as a Navy officer in World War II.” And Hamdan was represented by Charles Swift, a Navy lieutenant commander, who Washington Post defense analyst Bill Arkin today describes as “The Hero of Guantanamo.”
Here is a man in uniform who could have done a perfunctory job, who could have seen Hamdan as an assignment, or as an evil and not a human being; who could have saluted and followed orders; who risked promotion and now faces certain retirement without it. He is the hero of Guantanamo.
Swift was interviewed last night by Greta Van Susteren. Watch it:
Full transcript below:
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you ever get dissed by your colleagues? I mean that this is part of the job of being the JAG Corps, you’re a naval officer, but do you get dissed for accepting this responsibility?
SWIFT: I haven’t been to date. I don’t know what people say when I’m not there. But what I do know is that the vast majority that I have talked to have supported — they’ve not always agreed, but they’ve supported the idea that there should be a zealous defense. The one that I remember most, though, is a friend of mine from the Naval Academy. I went back for my 20 year reunion. He’s a marine and he’s an outstanding marine and he’s been in many combat situations, and he took me aside and I thought, this might be the time. And instead, what he said to me was, you know, the rule of law, that’s what I’m out here fighting to preserve. Don’t you dare stop. And that’s enough for me.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, a lot of people were very upset by this decision. Some may think that your client is going to be out on the street tomorrow. That’s not what this means?
SWIFT: No, it’s not what it means. It means that we’re going to have a trial that meets American standards. You know, for too long when we say that the Geneva Conventions, the UMCJ doesn’t apply — and then someone accuses us of torturing somebody or they say that we’re lawless or that the conduct of Abu Ghraib or Haditha is actually how we conduct everything. The problem is, we’ve said, well, the rules really don’t apply here. And so we’re just going on basically our good name. And there’s that doubt that’s created, because on one hand you’re saying you didn’t do it, and on the other hand you’re saying, well, if I did, it was OK.
And, today the Court said very clearly that it’s not OK and that actually makes us much stronger in this struggle against terrorism. Your earlier guest pointed out how bin Laden put on his tape that Zarqawi was a knight of Islam and, at the same time, he tried to distance himself from the fact that he had killed literally thousands of innocent Iraqis which is clearly against Islam. We’re in a much stronger position because our values match our actions and our words.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
YOU ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF BIN LADEN\’S DRIVER!!!
Do you realize how this ruling ignites the right-wing base? In a DC instant, we are throwin aside differences and understanding the dangers our country would face under librofascist leadership. We will destroy you at the polls over your support for Bin Laden\’s cronies.
At least the only cronies I ever schilled for are not responsible for the murder of 3,000 American lives.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pmThank God we still have loyal Americans like Commander Swift.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pmLiberals responsible for the murder of 3,000 lives?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:03 pmNormally, I hate using 9/11 for political gain, but, if you insist, two can play at that game…
What about Bush ignoring memoes and warning lights coming to September 11th?
What about the failure of Bush so far to capture Osama bin Laden, even as we had him cornered in Afghanistan?
What about the war in Iraq, which has destroyed it’s infrastructure and killed over 50,000 Iraqis and 2500 soldiers?
And this is making you mad?
No, TSL you are the sick f*ck
Oh good, he edited it.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:04 pmIn a DC instant, we are throwin aside differences and understanding the dangers our country would face under librofascist leadership.
Traitor sympathizing RIGHT
Another simple eunuch traitor to America and our Constitution. Go back into your basement and squat coward.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI did get sidetracked, though. Lt. Cmdr. Swift is a hero for human rights.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pmWe will always here the excuses, most claiming that “It’s war time, and we must win!”
Do we win against these terrorists (who hate freedom by the way) by limiting what freedoms we celebrate.
Hell, does our government and their reich-wing friends believe that it’s the government that decides who has rights and which ones?
I believe Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that when a government becomes oppressive, it is the duty of the people to overthrow it.
The revolution starts in November 2006. Be ready.
very well spoken man. our democracy proves to be stronger than the word of our president. i believe thats the way it should be.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pmA note to bush loyalists:
“It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible, and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.”
June 30th, 2006 at 3:22 pmYOU ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF BIN LADEN\’S DRIVER!!!
Do you realize how this ruling ignites the right-wing base? In a DC instant, we are throwin aside differences and understanding the dangers our country would face under librofascist leadership. We will destroy you at the polls over your support for Bin Laden\’s cronies.
At least the only cronies I ever schilled for are not responsible for the murder of 3,000 American lives.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left — June 30, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Librofascist, that’s an oxymoron you realize.
And you’re right, the cornies you shill for have killed 100,000+ in your wars of choice. You have trumped us once again sir, don’t rest on your laurels though, there’s millions of evil-doers left.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pmI know the biggest issue in my mind is the rights and freedom’s of the terrorist’s we catch. What could be more important!
June 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pmWE ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF FUTURE AMERICANS THAT WOULD BE ROUNDED UP BY AN OUT OF CONTROL RIGHT WING AND SENT TO CUBA.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:37 pmYOU ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF BIN LADEN\’S DRIVER!!!
Freedom, is not simply a word, or a slogan. It is an ideal and America has often been the physical embodiment of that ideal. No longer it seems. The cowardly among you have won the day, and mortgaged the future freedom of the planet for a fistful of security. Maybe.
I hope that americans are finally waking up, turning around and taking back their country. The US is the worlds most powerful nation state, arguably the most powerful nation state ever in the history of humanity. The fate of the world literally hangs on the decisions you make. Make good ones.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pmTSL,
June 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pmUnfortunately you have missed the point. This wasn’t about the defense of a suspected terrorist. It was about the upholding of the rule of law in the United States. For me, you, every citizen and yes even prisoners of war. Instead of cheering the destruction of our country from within why don’t you try to get a few of your buddies together and take over a third world country and lay down some fascist government you will feel more comfortable. You could even choose Bush to run your new country when his term is over or when he is run out of here.
At least the only cronies I ever schilled for are not responsible for the murder of 3,000 American lives.
Comment by Terror Sympathizing Left
2500 soldiers killed for a lie is close enough. And you actually DO support their deaths were as it is a LIE to say that we support terrorists getting free… no terrorist is going to go free … when they are tried and convicted what do you think they are going to do with them? Dont know? Look up … nuremberg trials …
June 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI know the biggest issue in my mind is the rights and freedom’s of the terrorist’s we catch. What could be more important!
Comment by Dodger — June 30, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
No you’re wrong, the most important thing we could be doing is passing a flag burning amendment, ask Orrin Hatch that’s what he thinks.
It really confuses me how you wingers can’t make the connection that throwing our laws by the wayside is a slippery slope, if they can railroad some Arabs, most of whom were picked up under the slightest suspicion, can be locked up, tortured, and possibly executed without the benefit of a trial of any kind – how very easily you could wake up tomorrow and be given the same treatment.
Democracy is fragile and can be gone in the blink of an eye.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pmOverall the troll traffic has been pretty light today. They all must be out protecting flags from accidental sparkler ignition these next few days.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:46 pmCharles Swift said it VERY well on TV yesterday…
We are supposed to be the GOOD GUYS… what makes the difference between the GOOD GUYS and the BAD GUYS? Those that follow the rule of law are the GOOD GUYS.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI saw Swift interviewed on another program last night and I was impressed. This is a man who values the constitution and the bill of rights – who recognizes that when we compromise our principles we have lost something of ourselves.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:48 pmTo those cretins who think that liberals love the terrorists, I can only say that you don’t know what you’re saying. You haven’t thought it through.
You would ignore our ideals and principles that have made us great, and that have held us in good stead for 230 years, because of the base feelings of revenge and retribution. Once we cross the threshhold into the land of compromising what we know is right and moral and just, we would not be able to stand as tall. We would reduce ourselves into the category of our enemies. Might does not make right.
For the life of me, I cannot understand people who are so upset that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Constitution (even if just barely) instead of ruling in favor of a growing tyranny in our government. The Bush government of secrecy, of cronyism, of intimidation of the press, of erosion of rights and freedoms for individuals, and of complete disdain for the Constitution is a stain on America, as they disrespect our basic foundations; and the reminder by the SCOTUS that the neither the president nor anyone domestic or foreign is above the laws that have served us all these years.
I still get the chills when I hear the national anthem; my eyes well up when I think of our beautiful country, but the anger I feel when I see my great country being diminished through ignorance and arrogance is palpable.
did greta really use the word “dissed”?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pmas i sit here in a pool of my own excrement, finally getting around to browsing through hamdan, it comes to mind that we would not have won world war ii if we had soldiers of this ilk!!!
greetings from a post-9/11 facist state, floating a pool of my own excrement and blood, and blond hair
ms ann coulter
June 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pmCommander Swift was DOING his job – giving his client a zealous representation. On the other hand, Justice Stevens, COMPLETELY disregarded the TOTALITY of the Geneva Convention definition of POW’s – but why let an “insignificant” detail get in the way of one’s agenda?? I would like to thank J. Stevens for writing such a tedious opinion – I got halfway through and ….fell asleep, By morning, the argument hadn’t picked up the pace.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:52 pm#18 Well said, Marie. Good post!
June 30th, 2006 at 3:54 pmBelieve it or not, LCDR Swift did nothing extraordinary, and won’t suffer because of his work. Navy lawyers are paid to represent people to the best of their abilities, and are often outstanding attorney’s. They get paid to represent both sides during their careers, and are expected to perform with equal zeal whether prosecuting or defending a case.
Although I don’t agree with the Supreme Court decision, I do applaud the LCDR for doing his job, and doing it well.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmFreeps are going nutzoid over this decision because it severely embarrasses and contradicts Bush. SCOTUS, (even with two shrub hand-picks), came to a rational, decisive conclusion that neo-con disregard for our Constitution and international law and conventions is illegal and wrong…Period.
It’s also a highly visible decision to the American public at large, many of whom probably had their doubts as to the legality of bushco anti-terriost policies. Most patriotic Americans truly cherish our rule of law as origionally founded, and their votes this fall will indeed confirm that.
Happy Independence Day…!!!
hog
June 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmComment by mighty aphrodite
Maybe you should read up on your League of Nations / WWII / United Nations history and learn that it is about protecting HUMANITY not about legal technicalities about POWs … NO humans are to be treated as animals. NONE. Due process for all… the technicalities ONLY explain in what exact way you go about this. NONE of it says that certain groups of people can be given the DarkAges/Catholic Inquisition/Protestant witch hunting treatment. … maybe Rush/Bush would like you to believe so… but the facts are not on their side.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pm#21 MA please expound on the disregarding of the TOTALITY of the Geneva Convention’s definition of POW. I do want to read your take on this.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pm…the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Constitution…instead of ruling in favor of a growing tyranny in our government.
Comment by Marie — June 30, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
plain and simple right there…
June 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pmall well said, marie
Which is more patriotic:
defending and excusing presidential policies that have destroyed over 200 years of goodwill between America and much of the world, turned us from champions of human rights to one of the world’s worst offenders, defiled the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who have died fighting to protect the principles upon which this nation was founded–
or, saying–”this is wrong. This does not represent American values and we need to change it.”
On this July 4 I would like to celebrate loyalty to America rather than blindly following a leader simply because he represents your political Party or your particular ideology.
I love my country and I want it back!
June 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pm“what he said to me was, you know, the rule of law, that’s what I’m out here fighting to preserve. Don’t you dare stop.”
This is what ALL the fucking chicken hawk cowardly motherfuckers don’t seem to understand! We aren’t chearing for the rights of terrorists (and yes I’m talking to you TSL from #1), we’re chearing for the rights that most all of us who wore or wear the uniform are there to protect. It’s about the rule of law! It’s the only thing that makes us different from a handful of tinpot dictatorships around the world and it MUST be protected and allowed to thrive.
“We are either a nation of laws, or a nation of men”
Thus spoke Thomas Jefferson. He believed in the rule of law at the exclusion of the rest of the trappings of a Republic. I, for one, agree with him. Try to spin that terrorsympathizingwrong! I believe that EVERY single man held at Guantanamo Bay and in every other US detention facility should have to actually answer for their crimes (if they in fact committed any). The simple fact of the matter though is that President Bush’s decree that they be tried by military tribunal is NOT permissable under the Geneva Conventions. And before you harp on the BS about international law being used to determine US law, per the Constitution of the United States of America, the Geneva Conventions ARE US law because it was ratified by the US Congress and signed by an American President. Anyone who would be stupid enough to feel that we are cheering for the rights of terrorists doesn’t deserve to call themself an American. In the words of Scott Ritter, “Submit your passport for shredding and get the hell out of my country!”
June 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#6 I believe Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that when a government becomes oppressive, it is the duty of the people to overthrow it.
The revolution starts in November 2006. Be ready.
Comment by The Other National Anthem
Our Declaration of Independence says pretty much the same thing. Personally, I’d be happy if Conaway’s proposed resolution included mandatory reading of this documest as well as The Constitution.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pmOff topic.
The Bush-Koizumi tour through the late rock ‘n’ roll legend’s mansion was wrapping up two days of consultations. His visit saw military pomp, the tinkling of crystal at a black-tie dinner and two hours of discussions on Iraq, North Korea, U.S. beef exports and other weighty matters in the Oval Office.
So the leader of Japan comes here eats, drinks, listens to music and oh they managed to talk a whole two hours about Iraq and North Korea. Waste of time and money. Heck of a job you’re doin’ Bushie.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pmIf Rush Limbaugh hates America this much, he should leave it. I’m serious.
Limbaugh is a traitor to this country and to the freedoms that the soldiers of WWII and other previous wars fought and died for. I’m proud of the American freedoms that Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing are trying to take away from us.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pmWell said. If that was passed, fundamentalists might see that there is actually no explicit mention of “God” in both documents, or they might see the establishment clause and take it for what it really means
June 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pmCorrection:
The preferred spelling is now “Limpbaugh.”
Please take note.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:31 pmThe trial of “bin Laden’s driver” should be a slap in the face reminder to every American that it was indeed Osama bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein who killed Americans on US soil. Why, then, did we wage unprovoked, pre-emptive war on a country that posed no harm to us? The statement that. “YOU ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF BIN LADEN’S DRIVER!!!” is patently absurd and another attempt by the sockpuppets of ther GOP to distract attention from the fact that our Administration is immoral and incompetent. If our laws and government can’t protect us from any foreign or domestic harm, even bin Laden’s driver, we are all fucked.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:45 pmOne of my favorite speeches, especially today:
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions
Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=157
In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them—they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; ’tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time, and untorn by usurpation—to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
How, then, shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a Trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgement of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana; —they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter; —they are not the creature of climate—neither are they confined to the slaveholding, or the non-slaveholding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.
….
I know the American People are much attached to their Government; —I know they would suffer much for its sake;—I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs “how shall we fortify against it?” The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
More…
June 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pmhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=157
“Liberals Celebrate Supreme Court Victory for Terrorists.â€
All in support of a president who has been impotent in the face of the terrorists.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:10 pm.
“Librofascists”? That’s a new one. This boy is so confused I’m surprised he can find his way to the toilet.
Yeah, Bin Laden’s driver is really dangerous. I guess he could run over somebody or something.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pmShorter TSL: WE WANT A POLICE STATE AND WE WANT IT NOW!
Next up on Fox News: Bin Laden’s proctologist and how he may know where Saddam’s WMD are being hidden!
June 30th, 2006 at 5:18 pmShorter TSL: WE WANT A POLICE STATE AND WE WANT IT NOW!
Comment by Speed — June 30, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
oh man, that shouldn’t have been funny, but it cracked me up!
and, not the troll Amy – thank you for that also…
besides the obvious, i thought it makes our present day “english” language sound rather gross…
June 30th, 2006 at 5:34 pmjust sayin’…
Terror Sympathizing Left,
Don’t be frightened.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:41 pmLt Cmdr Swift is a fine man. We need more of them in this world.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#26 – MA please expound on the disregarding of the TOTALITY of the Geneva Convention’s definition of POW. I do want to read your take on this.” Comment by thinkaboutit
******Had Justice Stevens READ and DIGESTED Rule 4 of the Geneva Convention on Combatant Prisoners, he may have been inclined to see the petitioner Hamdan should not have been granted certiorari and had no standing.
A brief synopsis:
June 30th, 2006 at 7:33 pm“A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1.) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2.) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3,) that of carrying arms openly;
4.) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.”
#34 – “Correction:The preferred spelling is now “Limpbaugh.†Please take note.”
Comment by Bob Loblaw
*****Correction: The correct spelling is now “Limpblaw” – Please update your mailing lists.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:39 pmWould Mrs “Bob” please adopt “her” own punctuation style- if you’re capable…
June 30th, 2006 at 8:15 pmLcdr swift was “detailed” as defense attorney. He’s just doing his job as you would hope your attorney would do. Although i’m pretty sure his career is now over so some of you should step up to the plate and offer him a job?
June 30th, 2006 at 8:22 pmThe Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions
Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ library/ index.asp?document=157
We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise, would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore; and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our government should have been maintained in its original form from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed, and crumbled away. Through that period, it was felt by all, to be an undecided experiment; now, it is understood to be a successful one. Then, all that sought celebrity and fame, and distinction, expected to find them in the success of that experiment. Their all was staked upon it:—their destiny was inseparably linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world, a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition, which had hitherto been considered, at best no better, than problematical; namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties and cities, and rivers and mountains; and to be revered and sung, and toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful; and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught; and I believe it is true, that with the catching, end the pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they, too, will seek a field. It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.
Mr. Cheney is that you? If not well there is likely someone near … this unistary executive thing is a twinkle in someones eye…
June 30th, 2006 at 8:31 pmThe Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions
Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ library/ index.asp?document=157
Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws; and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON.
Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, ” the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
June 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pmDear umbra – LtCmdr Swift performed his duty to the BEST of his ability – as his DUTY required. Why so pessimistic about his job opportunities – don’t tell me you’re a progressive conspiracy theorist, too???
Happy Independence Day!
June 30th, 2006 at 8:46 pmSorry mighty aphrodite, didnt say anything like that. He’s been detailed to do a job. I dont know if he had permission to appear on TV but assume he had some latitude. As a 04 he doesn’t have a lot of lattitude. I still have a hard time seeing the “hero” in anything here. The “hero’s” were the ones who put them there in the first place.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:59 pmLt., Commander, Charles Swift stated the case better on Hardball last night He understand the real issue at stake.
“The question is; It’s how we conduct ourselves. It has to do with if we say our opponents can cause us to not follow the rules anymore, then we have lost who we are. We are the good guys. We are the guys who follow the rules, and the people we fight are the bad guys. And we show that everyday we follow the rules regardless of what they do. It’s what sets us apart. It’s what makes us great and I in my mind it’s what I think makes us undefeatable.”
June 30th, 2006 at 9:36 pm#51 Good comment, something I can believe in.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:52 pmSwift seems to be a good guy, so Bush will have him swiftboated!
June 30th, 2006 at 9:54 pmNothing unAmerican in #51 post. You only have to swiftboat idiots
June 30th, 2006 at 10:01 pmLt. CMDR. Charles Swift speaks out
June 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pm…
LT. CMDR. CHARLES SWIFT, SALIM AHMED HAMDAN‘S LAWYER: At stake was the rule of law. The president had staked out a position that was contrary both to international law and to our domestic statutes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What the court did was say that even the president has to follow the law. And that if we‘re going to try people, we‘re going to do it under the law, not under an ad hoc system.
…
Now all we have to do is change the law.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:09 pmPower grab? Wouldn’t have been a declaration of independence without it would it.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:23 pmThat is pretty stuped umbra. You do know the founding fathers fought against powergrabbers right?
July 1st, 2006 at 3:09 amYOU ARE CHEERING FOR THE RIGHTS OF BIN LADEN\’S DRIVER!!!
Well, I guess you should be in a tantrum! You suckers have been trying your best to trash that “goddamned piece of paper” every since the decider managed to assend to his throne. Now that the Court has thrown a wrench in the works, you have the gaul to talk about the right wing base, notably down to some 30+ percent of the American public. Yes, you might destroy us at the polls. With your ilk controlling the diabold voting machines and, as that ass King up in NY says, taking care of the counting, you just might do that. But, that’s un-American, and would only be appreciated by a GOP jackass!
July 1st, 2006 at 9:50 amLt Cmdr Swift is a genuine human being and a REAL American patriot…
…we need MORE like him in our gov’t., electorate, and military…
…he was GREAT on C-Span this a.m….
…wish we had people like him running this country…
July 1st, 2006 at 10:36 amRush must be drunk or high on Viagra.
July 1st, 2006 at 11:07 amI care what the Geneva Convention says insofar as we are signers of it and as a nation must honor our treaties. However, to me the Geneva Convention is only a minimum standard for how we should be treating any and all detainees. How in the world many neocons can say that they want a “culture of life” and be so dispicably negligent of actually living humans is beyond me.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:08 pmAl-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden urged Iraqi militants in an Internet message Saturday to continue fighting the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad, or else “all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders.” …
The message urged militants in Iraq to continue their fight.
“Stay steadfast and don’t leave Baghdad, otherwise all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders,” said the message.
“Your Muslim nation is looking for you and praying for your victory. You are their hope after God. You are God’s trusted soldiers who will liberate the ummah (the nation) from the serfdom of the crusaders in our countries,” bin Laden said in the posting.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:42 pmOsama also praised the installation of the Islamist regime in Somalia, reminding everyone that our retreat from there in late 1993 showed us to have no tenacity in fighting Islamofascism. Even Osama can’t pretend that the situation hasn’t changed in the thirteen years since that ignominious “redeployment”, the one John Murtha hails as a military victory. The only people still able to pretend that 1993 still exists is a rapidly diminishing group of Democratic politicians led by Murtha, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:51 pmDear Mark Wilde, I believe and I know you deny that no terrorists were in Iraq before we went to Iraq, but as more and more documents are translated, your wrong. And if I’m not wrong… where would AQ be massing today?
July 1st, 2006 at 11:15 pmReference: Comment by Brandi — July 1, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Apparently the polls go over your head! In event you have not been reading them, over 66% of this nation think we are headed in the wrong direction. Your great decider’s approval has once again dropped; down to 35% now. Only some 40% or so approve of this imbecile’s handling of the Iraq war. And it goes on and on…so, it is an open ended question as to the “diminishing group” you refer to. I don’t believe YOU even believe what you post…you just like to see your comments in print with all that high level of knowledge about what will be in those translated documents. Do you have some sort of crystal ball? Or, as most trolls, do you just throw out any comment you think will attract some attention. Get a life!
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 am[...] Think Progress » ‘The Hero of Guantanamo’ SpeaksThe right wing has wasted no time attacking the Supreme Court and those who supported its ruling on Guantanamo yesterday. Rush Limbaugh’s website ran the headline, “Liberals Celebrate Supreme Court Victory for Terrorists.†[...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:01 amRush Limbaugh’s website ran the headline, “Liberals Celebrate Supreme Court Victory for Terrorists.†[…]
Pingback by MissM’s Blog #70
Miss M,
The drug addict felon Pus Limphog…
…is irrelevant…
…inbred Bushite TRAITORS listen to him…
…but they realize that his is a pulpit of propaganda and profit…
…they just won’t admit it aloud…
…Limphog (and his TREASONOUS right wing media co-conspirators) will eventually go the way of McCarthy…
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:43 pmmighty aphrodite
You are both right and wrong of course.
You are right in that the 3rd Geneva Convention does indeed specify these designations for POWs but you are wrong in assuming that if someone does not meet them then he/she is to be treated as a piece of meat with no rights whatsoever.
In case a person does not fall under the 3rd convention, he/she then falls under the 4th as a civilian or specifically in case of Bin Laden’s driver as a civilian criminal to be tried with all rules of law applicable in a civilian court. There is simply no way for a prisoner to “fall through the cracks” of the Geneva Conventions and to become a piece of meat with no rights whatsoever, totally at the mercy of the conquering nation. Under the conventions one is a civilian with more rights unless specifically falling into the other special categories.
And as someone already pointed out, the Conventions form a baseline, a minimum standard, expected that of civilized nations.
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:44 pm[...] 9 ‘‘The Hero of Guantanamo’ Speaks’, ThinkProgress.org, June 30, 2006 * * * By Quinn Hungeski – Posted at G.N.N. & TheParagraph.com [...]
July 30th, 2006 at 1:55 am[...] Dubbed the “hero of Guantanamo,” Swift reported in June 2005 that when he was first asked to represent Hamdan, he was instructed that he could negotiate only a guilty plea. He called the instructions “a clear attempt to coerce Mr. Hamdan into pleading guilty.” Refusing to back down, Swift “ended up fighting his commander in chief at the U.S. Supreme Court.” He explained: As an officer, I have the deepest respect for the President. But as an officer, it is also my duty to point out when an order is wrong. What protects our democracy is that we do not just follow orders blindly. [...]
October 11th, 2006 at 11:25 am[...] Dubbed the “hero of Guantanamo,†Swift reported in June 2005 that when he was first asked to represent Hamdan, he was instructed that he could negotiate only a guilty plea. He called the instructions “a clear attempt to coerce Mr. Hamdan into pleading guilty.†Refusing to back down, Swift “ended up fighting his commander in chief at the U.S. Supreme Court.†He explained: As an officer, I have the deepest respect for the President. But as an officer, it is also my duty to point out when an order is wrong. What protects our democracy is that we do not just follow orders blindly. [...]
October 15th, 2006 at 11:40 pm[...] Lt. Commander Charles Swift, the lawyer who represented Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled President Bush’s military commissions unconstitutional and in violation of international law, appeared on C-Span yesterday to take questions from viewers. Swift has been dubbed the “hero of Guantanamo,” yet he was recently “passed over for promotion” by the Pentagon. [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm[...] Lt. Commander Charles Swift, the lawyer who represented Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled President Bush’s military commissions unconstitutional and in violation of international law, appeared on C-Span yesterday to take questions from viewers. Swift has been dubbed the “hero of Guantanamo,†yet he was recently “passed over for promotion†by the Pentagon. [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 8:27 pm