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.
You forgot about President Nixon. Also known as "Precedent Nixon."
He's a goner, if this report is accurate.
Extra-ordinary warfare demands extra-ordinary counter-measures. When dealing with kamikazes, there is only one rule: Do whatever it takes to survive.
So we can assume that in this case there is some kind of directive from West's superiors in the ROE that covers the details of extracting information from a captive.
Could we also assume that this directive (if it exists) covers the extenuating circumstance in West's case, ie that his troops were in imminent danger?
Col. West seems to have finally remembered why he wears the Uniform. This is the first I have heard of him regaining military bearing since this incident came to light. Had he made his admission on the first day, BEFORE his troops turned him in, he might be in a much better position today. Instead he and his lawyer made sure that the matter would be a public one. What he did was WRONG, and I wish he had said so sooner, instead of wrapping himself in the flag, claiming to have saved lives that no one seems able to prove were at risk.
As I have heard it, he "turned himself in" by writing a report on the incident and passing it up the chain of command.
Only a thanksgiving turkey can be pardoned without first having been found guilty.
Actually, LTC West can be summoned to testify before congress, and may be granrted full immunity from prosecution if he believes his truthful testimony could be used against him in court or courts-martial.
And that possibility is under consideration by several congressmen.
-archy-/-
Back then, there weren't very many Americans, including political leaders and some in the military, hoping the US military forces in Iraq would be defeated and discredited so that their careers would prosper.
-archy-/-
From what I know he passes my test for doing the right thing. Of course, I don't know everything and that's why we're having this discussion on this forum.
I am interested in what the actual 'law' says regarding this case because in the end, it isn't going to matter what you or I think...his case is going to be won or lost in two forums. One is the forum of public opinion where I think he will do well. The other is the legal forum which I'm not at all sure of.
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.