Posted on 12/01/2003 5:40:49 AM PST by GigaDittos
Republican lawmakers are standing behind a lieutenant colonel who has been threatened by the Army with early retirement or criminal prosecution for his use of an unconventional interrogation technique. In a letter to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and John H. McHugh, R-N.Y., said they were "highly disturbed" the Pentagon was considering leveling criminal charges against Army Lt. Col. Allan West, Copley News Service reported.
The Army is considering charging West, an artillery unit commander, with aggravated assault, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for his dramatic interrogation technique against an Iraqi policeman suspected of having ties to Saddam loyalist guerillas.
In an effort to produce faster results because of intelligence his unit was targeted for attack, West took charge of the interrogation of the Iraqi in the town of Saba al Boor, near Tikrit, Aug. 21. Warning subordinates the interrogation "could get ugly," he threatened to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, then fired his sidearm into the ground near the Iraqi's head.
The Iraqi policeman then began providing details of an impending attack upon American troops. The information also led to a series of arrests of Saddam loyalists.
West, who immediately reported the incident to his superiors, said he was the target of an assassination plot, and that soldiers in his unit had been attacked by guerillas linked to the policeman.
"I did not want to expose my soldiers to a possible attack," he told The Washington Times in an e-mail.
Hunter – chairman of the House Armed Services Committee – and McHugh, a member of the committee, said West's actions "were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men."
Not Criminal
"To us, such actions if accurately reported do not appear to be those of a criminal," said the letter. The lawmakers asked Brownlee to " expeditiously provide us" details which led the unit's commanding general to begin a criminal investigation of West.
The lawmakers requested Brownlee "closely examine this matter and provide us with your assessment of facts and circumstances."
West has also garnered support from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a member of the committee.
Supporters say the tactic, while unconventional, likely saved the lives of American troops. But military officials believe West violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and are considering charging him with aggravated assault.
Article 128 of the code states: "[Any military personnel] who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do...harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
In his e-mail to the Times, West said he fired his 9 mm pistol twice, once "into the weapons clearing barrel outside the facility alone, and the next time I did it while having his head close to the barrel."
"I stood in between the firing and his person. I admit that what I did was not right, but it was done with the concern of the safety of my soldiers and myself," he wrote.
The Army has given West a choice, however – resign early and lose retirement benefits, or face charges which could range in penalties from no punishment to eight years in prison.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he has the authority to intervene on West's behalf, but has so far refused. Retired Marine Lt. Col. Neal A. Puckett, West's attorney, has rejected an offer from the 4th Infantry Division's staff judge advocate for his client to resign and lose his benefits.
Puckett and West are currently at a forward base near Tikrit awaiting the results of an ongoing investigation.
At a preliminary hearing in Tikrit last week, West testified he also allowed two U.S. soldiers to beat the Iraqi policeman prior to firing his weapon because the Iraqi refused to provide information on the attack.
Read the law cited carefully.
Article 128 of the code states: "[Any military personnel] who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do...harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
He's admitted he never intended to do harm. I don't think he's even violated the 'letter of the law'. However, it doesn't help his case when he's out there in the media admitting he what he did 'was not right.'
Agreed...critical error on his part.
In an effort to be totally above board he has shot himself in the foot making it even harder for his superiors to find a way out for him.
All that aside, the fact is what he did 'was right' and would not violate any of my rules of engagement for wartime actions.
Actually, at his Article 32 hearing, he did.
Does anyone know if the UCMJ covers 'rules of engagement' in wartime??
Where do rules of engagement come from?
Yes, it does.
Where do rules of engagement come from?
They are imposed by senior echelons--brigade, division, corps, theater commander, and so on. In other words, LTC West was violating orders from those above him in the chain of command.
Only a thanksgiving turkey can be pardoned without first having been found guilty.
Then West is innocent: he clearly made no "attempt" to harm that Iraqi @sswipe.
:( Another reason why one much remember their is a constitutional right to remain silent - even under the UCMJ.
Agreed. You make a good point. His best option is to win this in the court of public opinion. His admission makes it that much harder for his defenders in Congress.
I'm sure it does, but maybe not in detail. What the UCMJ would do is say it's a violation to disobey a direct order. The rules of engagement would be contained in a direct order from someone in his chain of command. Therefore, disobeying those direct orders would be a violation of the UCMJ, in addition to any specific violation of the UCMJ like assault, battery, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.