Lt. Col. Allen B. West

Washington Times ^ | November 6, 2003 | Stanley SrA. USAF 91-95

[blackie]

"Lt. Col. Allen B. West : Thank You for saving our soldiers lives.
You are a Hero Sir!
SALUTE

Double Bump!

[blackie]

Col West defense fund ~ Bump!

[r9etb]

There may be more than a little rough play here. As people who purport to be the highest example of civilized society, we should be leery of attempts to meet the enemy at their low to non-existent level of ethical behavior. I am not advocating we fight under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but if we start advocating certain behaviors or excusing them, then it isn't long before we truly become "occupiers."

I'm with you, Simple. West's actions -- which are identical to those used by Castro's thugs, btw -- are inexcusable.

Beyond that, the more we hear about this story, the more clear it becomes that West was merely impatient. There was no immediate threat, and there is no evidence to suggest that his actions really "saved lives."

Even West admits that his actions were "wrong," and the only reason we're hearing about this at all is because he doesn't want to pay the price for acting like a thug.

[Polybius]

A legal threat of a trial, with a resulting sentence is a far cry from assault. LTC West has been correctly charged. See UCMJ art 128 info Although his offense does not desrve maximum sentencing.

Now, let me say that I greatly admire your adherance to the rule of military law as you see it. Nations that do not instill such an ethos in their armed forces end up with military dictatorships.

The key words in UCMJ Article 128 are "unlawful force".

This is where we disagree and you and I beat this subject to death on another thread.

My position was summarized in Post 153 of that thread.

You argued that that individual has POW rights.

I argued that that individual was an enemy combatant waging war upon the U.S. in a friendly uniform. By the Rules of War, he was an illegal combatant that was specifically excluded by the Rule of War from having POW status and POW rights.

I further pointed out that, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans belonging to Otto Skorzeny’s commando group that had infiltrated American lines wearing American uniforms over their German uniforms were summarily executed when captured in full accordance with the Rules of War.

You and I simply disagree on what military law demands in Iraq right now and we both agreed that a ruling by the court martial was the best way to determine which of us was right. The loser would owe the winner a beer.

Now, that being said, do you believe that that rules of engagement would best serve the interests of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq if they were the rules of engagement you believe are in effect now or the rules of engagement that were in effect at the Battle of the Bulge?

Now, if your interpretation of the rules of engagement are correct, an American officer in Iraq cannot now scare the crap out of that enemy wearing a friendly uniform without violating UCMJ Article 128. At the Battle of the Bulge, West could not only have taken the Germans in a friendly uniform and threatened to shoot him but he could have actually shot him with the full blessing of the U.S. Army and the Rules of War.

[MeekOneGOP]

Very good !! ...

[Lucy Lake]

The WH comment line is available from 9-5 EST. The phone # is 202-456-1111.

The WH fax #'s are 202-456-2461 or 202-456-6337 and Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's fax # is 703-695-1219.

Lt.Col. West needs our support.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I took some heat from the PC crowd but I heard blah, blah, blah, for the most part.

[Ispy4u]

Now, that being said, do you believe that that rules of engagement would best serve the interests of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq if they were the rules of engagement you believe are in effect now or the rules of engagement that were in effect at the Battle of the Bulge?

ROE's as they stand now best serve the interests of the US armed forces in Iraq. Though, unfortunately, it is primarily for PR purposes. The US Military can not afford to take on bad PR, the civilian chain of command, will not accept it. It may seem that the Army is playing a PC game here, but the Chain of command consistently, through many recent administrations not just the current one, has made it clear what is and is not acceptable. It is not up to the Uniformed services to contradict those decisions. They may argue for change, or in some cases lobby congress for it. But to outright ignore the clear instructions of the civilian command structure would be mutiny.

[Calpernia]

Bump and thank you.

Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.

[Calpernia]

Thank you.

Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.

[Calpernia]

Thanks for the bump.

Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.

[Calpernia]

Thanks for supporting!

Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.

[MoJo2001]

Thanks for informing people about what is going on. I emailed him last night and received a response back.

In his hour of need, he asked for "prayers for my family". You've got it.

Also, a check is being mailed today to his Legal Fund. I hope others will do the same. It doesn't take much and we can all make a difference.

[Calpernia]

Thanks for bumping the thread and supporting Col. West!

Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.

[MoJo2001]

Please add me to your Lt. Col West ping list to keep me updated.

(Um, I'm hoping you have one. If not, I'll find ya. LOL!)

[Conspiracy Guy]

Please send my poem to him. I am a USAF Viet Nam Era Vet and never saw combat I was in nukes stateside. But if I had gone into combat, he is the type of man I would liked to have served with.

[Lucy Lake]

Pinging you to # 126.

[Poohbah]

The D.A. goes to the interrogation room and either:

A. Threatens the suspect with death in the electric chair if he does not cooperate.

or

B. Stands aside as two Police officers beat the suspect until he cooperates.

Which conduct is legal and which conduct is illegal?

In the example you offered, A.

But your example does not map to the reality of the case.

The DA indicates that he will prosecute the suspect.

Now, let's wind the tape back:

The DA enters the room and threatens the suspect with a pistol, drags the suspect outside the room, and fires the pistol past the suspect's head.

Legal? Or illegal?

There is a difference between a physical beating and psychological intimidation.

You're arguing that if a mugger just points a gun at you and demands your wallet, it's OK.

[montag813]

Be patient. The truth will come out about this incident, I don't think we know everything yet. I have suspicions that some here will eat a lot of crow for their vitriolic attacks on those of us who want the system to do it's work.

I am exploding with rage, and find it very hard to be patient. For the Kafka-like "prosecutors" to actually threaten a career officer with charges if he didnt resign a few days before his retirement and pension eligibility for this silly and stupid "charge" is beyond disgusting. I WANT HEADS TO ROLL. I WANT THIS OBVIOUS LEFT-WING CLINTON JAG HOLDOVER TO LOSE HIS/HER JOB AND BE DRUMMED OUT OF THE SERVICE.

[Ispy4u]

It's been explained and re-explained that the JAG had no choice but to charge him. And it is standard for a quit or be prosecuted offer to be made. If he had 20 years in before he did his deed, the offer would have been to retire.