By William Fisher
When I was a kid growing up in the 1940s, my favorite radio program was The Fred Allen Show, hosted by one of the funniest comics who ever lived. A key chararacter on this weekly show was Senator Beauregard Claghorn. Portrayed by actor Kenny Delmar, Claghorn became the archetypal caricature of a Southern politician – blustering, fumbling, repetitive, endlessly spouting bad puns.
Senator Beauregard Claghorn was obsessed was with The South. He proudly told his audiences he refused to wear a "Union suit" and claimed to drink only out of Dixie cups. When asked a political question by host Allen, Claghorn would respond with a rapid stream of utterly incoherent hot air. After a quip, the senator would laugh uproariously, then deliver one of his favorite catchphrases: "That's a joke, son!"
Well, sadly, old Beauregard is long gone, but arguably his shoes are being well filled by another Senatorial caricature, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.
In the fine art of (unintended) black comedy, Hunter has few equals in a House filled with cartoon congressmen and women.
Take his performance some months ago in the House pressroom. Hunter, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, had just returned from a Pentagon-sponsored tour of Guantanamo Bay, and he was eager to share his observations with the media.
Far from reporting any detainee abuse, Hunter was sounding more and more like the PR man for the new Club Gitmo on the Caribbean, in particular touting the haute cuisine meticulously prepared for the suspected terrorists.
Someone from his staff set a small table next to the pressroom lectern. On the table a number of appetizing-looking dishes were set out to help Mr. Hunter demonstrate his point. Prisoners, he proclaimed, had a daily choice of two entrees, beautifully prepared fresh fish or succulent chicken. Then came a succession of fresh vegetables, followed by a yummy-looking dessert.
The prisoners, he commented, were eating better than their guards! Whereupon, he ate the lunch.
No matter that GITMO detainees were being held indefinitely as enemy combatants, even though many had already been found to be “no longer a threat” to US security or “of no further intelligence value.” No matter that many were scheduled for release, yet remained behind barbed wire. No matter than not a single one of these detainees had been tried for any crime. No matter that their right to appeal their status was in the hands of the very military folks who put them there in the first place.
Gitmo was good!
The San Diego congressman’s stellar performance was in fact a microcosm of his record since he was elected in 1981. Recent example: When Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham announced their “compromise” with the White House on new detainee treatment legislation, Hunter denounced it as too soft on terrorists. He relented under White House cajoling, since the President got almost everything he asked for, and then some.
Hunter, a former member of the US Army airborne, is a warrior, and his campaign contributors know it. These include such major defense contractors as Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics, to mention only a few.
You will recall that when Rep. Duke Cunningham resigned from Congress last year after pleaded guilty to bribery charges, the alleged coconspirators who bribed Cunningham included two San Diego-based defense contractors, Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade. Well, Hunter also had ties to Brent Wilkes, the owner of ADCS, Inc. and Perfect Wave Technologies.
USA today reported that since 1994 Hunter received $40,700 from Wilkes and his companies. In 1997 Hunter and Cunningham worked to extend a multi-million dollar earmark for Wilkes' ADCS to perform document conversion tasks for the Pentagon despite protests from the Defense Department, which claimed that ADCS' services were not needed and a waste of resources. Senator John McCain denounced the House Armed Services Committee for wasting resources in the Defense appropriations bill.
Hunter is a lover of earmarks. One of these, worth $9.7 million, was for ADCS to convert maps of Panama into electronic documents. Hunter and Cunningham both warned, at the time, that China was planning on invading Panama and that America should have electronic documentation of the buildings in the country. They used this premise to justify their inclusion of the $9.7 million earmark that the Pentagon itself did not want in the appropriations bill.
In 2003, Wilkes threw a gala in honor of Hunter called 'Salute to Our Heroes'.
But it doesn’t stop there. In June 2006, Public Citizen reported that Hunter received $11,750 from lobbyist Van D. Hipp Jr., chairman of American Defense International. Hipp's firm represents more than 100 organizations in 11 countries on "government affairs" strategies. Hipp, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, was sentenced to five years' probation and three months' house arrest for accepting illegal campaign gifts during a failed 1994 congressional campaign. He also was fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 200 hours of community service.
Further, Hunter’s 2004 financial disclosure form revealed co-ownership of a rural Virginia cabin with former Rep. Pete Geren (D-Texas). Following his stint in Congress, Geren served as an aide to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon from 2001-2005. According to USA Today, one of his primary responsibilities was "keeping Congress off Rumsfeld’s back" during the Abu Ghraib detainee controversy. So, as Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, Hunter dutifully discouraged any congressional investigation into Abu Ghraib.
Despite their affiliation, Hunter’s financial disclosure makes no mention of Geren’s Defense Department affiliation. In addition, Geren’s disclosures simply refer to the "Hunter/Geren partnership," never referring to the fact that "Hunter" is the chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services.
According to POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, Hunter’s top corporate campaign contributor, San Diego-based defense contractor Titan Corporation, suffered from the publicity of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Titan Corp. served as interrogators at the prison, and was subsequently implicated in the mistreatment allegations that followed. Despite this, and the fact that Titan pled guilty to three criminal counts of bribery in March 2005, the Defense Department waived its right to disbar Titan from any contracts. This chain of events has led to questions about Hunter's ties to the Defense Department.
As reported in a May 29, 2006 Inside the Navy story, Titan Corp. has received several government earmarks beyond what the Pentagon requested for two Navy projects: the experimental Sea Fighter LCS (X) craft and the Affordable Weapons System (AWS). According to the report, there are a number of other missile concepts that provide similar solutions as the LCS and AWS, but at a lower cost. Both projects have been championed by Hunter, and are contracted by Titan Corp.
So Senator Claghorn can continue to rest in peace, knowing that even if he’s lost his title as Congress’s premiere caricature, at least he has a worthy successor.
The only thing missing from Duncan Hunter’s shtick is the tagline, “That’s a joke son.”
That OK. Because it’s no joke.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
SWIFT-BOATED -- AGAIN
By William Fisher
This has to be the non-surprise of the week: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer who led the recent successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, has been passed over for promotion to full Commander and will have to leave the military.
The military claims there is no connection between its decision and Swift’s defense of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni and alleged al-Qaida member who was accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver. Yet the Navy lost no time in exacting retribution. Its decision on Swift came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House.
And it was made despite a report from his supervisor saying he served with distinction. "Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, the Pentagon's chief defense counsel for Military Commissions. Sullivan added it was "quite a coincidence" that Swift was passed over for a promotion "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."
A coincidence indeed!
The 44-year-old lawyer will be forced to retire from the armed services in March or April under the military's "up or out" promotion system. Swift said he would have defended Hamdan even if he had known it would cut short his Navy career. He added that he plans to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian.
The 36-year-old Hamdan was captured along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion that was a response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Hamdan has acknowledged that bin Laden paid him $200 a month as his driver on a Kandahar farm, but he says he never joined al-Qaida or engaged in military fighting.
With Swift’s help, Hamdan turned to civilian courts to challenge the constitutionality of his war-crimes trial, a case that eventually led the Supreme Court to rule that President Bush had outstripped his authority when he created ad hoc military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
The Pentagon sought to redesign the format of the trials, but substituted a system similar to the one The Supreme Court struck down. Thus, a new court challenge is likely.
Legislation passed by Congress last month has meanwhile taken away the right of Guantanamo detainees to file traditional habeas corpus petitions, meaning that Swift's first hurdle as a civilian will be to argue that he has the right to represent Hamdan in federal court. Swift says the legislation's rules for the commission trials are "better by a degree" than the previous guidelines, but still leave open the possibility that a defendant could be convicted by unreliable evidence obtained by coercion.
He believes that military judges would have too much discretion to permit tainted evidence. "It's absolutely dependent on individuals rather than on clear rules of law," he says.
Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion."
He added that “Swift joins many other distinguished Navy officers over the years who have seen their careers end prematurely…He brought real credit to the Navy. It's too bad that it's unrequited love."
Swift never had a choice in representing Hamdan. He was ordered to represent him, but says that was only “for purposes of obtaining a guilty plea.” Instead, he took the case to a US Federal Court, which ruled that Hamdan had not received a fair hearing.
But Swift became a clear target for the Pentagon by testifying before Congressional Committees and speaking out in many other public settings about the Hamdan case.
That case has been bouncing around the US justice system for several years, beginning in 2004, when the DOD formally referred charges against the Yemeni national, one of six Guantánamo detainees who were designated by President Bush in July 2003 as subject to trial by military commission under the President’s Order of November 13, 2001. He is formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, attack civilian objects, murder, destruction of property, and terrorism.
Documents unsealed two years ago revealed allegations that Hamdan was beaten, threatened, and kept in isolation for upwards of eight months. A military commission preliminary hearing began the week of August 23, 2004.
In September 2004, the petition was re-filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, and, in November 2004, that court found the military commission unlawful because the process violated the laws of war and military law, and stayed the commission.
In July 2005 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court and upheld the commission as lawful. Concurring with that decision was then Judge John Roberts, who was later confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Hamdan’s lawyers appealed the ruling, and in November 2005 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In January 2006, the government filed a motion for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (the Graham/Levin amendment) divested Hamdan of the right to seek habeas corpus in a federal court.
The Supreme Court – with Chief Justice Roberts not participating -- found otherwise. It ruled 5-3 that the president had no inherent authority to establish military commissions without Congressional authorization. The key issue was separation of powers as mandated by the US Constitution.
That sparked a huge battle between Congress and the White House, as well as among Senate Republicans. Most of these, joined by some Democrats who face tight reelection races in November, would have been content to rubber-stamp the “substitute” legislation proposed by the White House. But three so-called “maverick” Senators refused to go along. The “compromise” reached by the three – Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner -- was hailed by some as a significant congressional victory over the Executive Branch. But the compromise gave the president virtually everything he asked for.
Which means we aren’t anywhere close to having heard the last of Mr. Hamdan – or Lt. Commander Swift.
During the Senate’s debate over its new military commission legislation, as well as its deliberations on last year’s Detainee Treatment Act, we have been treated to endless tributes to the military’s JAG Corps and its competence and fairness.
Many of these paeans of praise have come from Senator Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina conservative who has been a military lawyer and judge for many years and who holds the rank of Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.
Well, it would be gratifying if Senator Graham now put his clout where his mouth is and pressured the Pentagon to reverse the Swift decision. From all Graham has said over the past several years, the Swift-Boating of this courageous young lawyer compromises the very soul of the JAG Corps of which Graham is so proud.
He should be seriously concerned about the chilling effect that the booting of Lt. Commander Swift will have on military lawyers who are ordered to mount a vigorous defense of their clients – and who get dumped as their reward.
Until that happens, the moral of the Swift story has to be that no good deed will go unpunished.
This has to be the non-surprise of the week: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer who led the recent successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, has been passed over for promotion to full Commander and will have to leave the military.
The military claims there is no connection between its decision and Swift’s defense of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni and alleged al-Qaida member who was accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver. Yet the Navy lost no time in exacting retribution. Its decision on Swift came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House.
And it was made despite a report from his supervisor saying he served with distinction. "Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, the Pentagon's chief defense counsel for Military Commissions. Sullivan added it was "quite a coincidence" that Swift was passed over for a promotion "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."
A coincidence indeed!
The 44-year-old lawyer will be forced to retire from the armed services in March or April under the military's "up or out" promotion system. Swift said he would have defended Hamdan even if he had known it would cut short his Navy career. He added that he plans to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian.
The 36-year-old Hamdan was captured along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan while fleeing the U.S. invasion that was a response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Hamdan has acknowledged that bin Laden paid him $200 a month as his driver on a Kandahar farm, but he says he never joined al-Qaida or engaged in military fighting.
With Swift’s help, Hamdan turned to civilian courts to challenge the constitutionality of his war-crimes trial, a case that eventually led the Supreme Court to rule that President Bush had outstripped his authority when he created ad hoc military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
The Pentagon sought to redesign the format of the trials, but substituted a system similar to the one The Supreme Court struck down. Thus, a new court challenge is likely.
Legislation passed by Congress last month has meanwhile taken away the right of Guantanamo detainees to file traditional habeas corpus petitions, meaning that Swift's first hurdle as a civilian will be to argue that he has the right to represent Hamdan in federal court. Swift says the legislation's rules for the commission trials are "better by a degree" than the previous guidelines, but still leave open the possibility that a defendant could be convicted by unreliable evidence obtained by coercion.
He believes that military judges would have too much discretion to permit tainted evidence. "It's absolutely dependent on individuals rather than on clear rules of law," he says.
Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion."
He added that “Swift joins many other distinguished Navy officers over the years who have seen their careers end prematurely…He brought real credit to the Navy. It's too bad that it's unrequited love."
Swift never had a choice in representing Hamdan. He was ordered to represent him, but says that was only “for purposes of obtaining a guilty plea.” Instead, he took the case to a US Federal Court, which ruled that Hamdan had not received a fair hearing.
But Swift became a clear target for the Pentagon by testifying before Congressional Committees and speaking out in many other public settings about the Hamdan case.
That case has been bouncing around the US justice system for several years, beginning in 2004, when the DOD formally referred charges against the Yemeni national, one of six Guantánamo detainees who were designated by President Bush in July 2003 as subject to trial by military commission under the President’s Order of November 13, 2001. He is formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, attack civilian objects, murder, destruction of property, and terrorism.
Documents unsealed two years ago revealed allegations that Hamdan was beaten, threatened, and kept in isolation for upwards of eight months. A military commission preliminary hearing began the week of August 23, 2004.
In September 2004, the petition was re-filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, and, in November 2004, that court found the military commission unlawful because the process violated the laws of war and military law, and stayed the commission.
In July 2005 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court and upheld the commission as lawful. Concurring with that decision was then Judge John Roberts, who was later confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Hamdan’s lawyers appealed the ruling, and in November 2005 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
In January 2006, the government filed a motion for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (the Graham/Levin amendment) divested Hamdan of the right to seek habeas corpus in a federal court.
The Supreme Court – with Chief Justice Roberts not participating -- found otherwise. It ruled 5-3 that the president had no inherent authority to establish military commissions without Congressional authorization. The key issue was separation of powers as mandated by the US Constitution.
That sparked a huge battle between Congress and the White House, as well as among Senate Republicans. Most of these, joined by some Democrats who face tight reelection races in November, would have been content to rubber-stamp the “substitute” legislation proposed by the White House. But three so-called “maverick” Senators refused to go along. The “compromise” reached by the three – Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner -- was hailed by some as a significant congressional victory over the Executive Branch. But the compromise gave the president virtually everything he asked for.
Which means we aren’t anywhere close to having heard the last of Mr. Hamdan – or Lt. Commander Swift.
During the Senate’s debate over its new military commission legislation, as well as its deliberations on last year’s Detainee Treatment Act, we have been treated to endless tributes to the military’s JAG Corps and its competence and fairness.
Many of these paeans of praise have come from Senator Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina conservative who has been a military lawyer and judge for many years and who holds the rank of Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.
Well, it would be gratifying if Senator Graham now put his clout where his mouth is and pressured the Pentagon to reverse the Swift decision. From all Graham has said over the past several years, the Swift-Boating of this courageous young lawyer compromises the very soul of the JAG Corps of which Graham is so proud.
He should be seriously concerned about the chilling effect that the booting of Lt. Commander Swift will have on military lawyers who are ordered to mount a vigorous defense of their clients – and who get dumped as their reward.
Until that happens, the moral of the Swift story has to be that no good deed will go unpunished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
