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.
Well, 'engagement' implies one of the situations when you're allowed to fire your weapon. I doubt any provision of those rules allow one to fire a weapon in the situation described here. I see where you're going with this, but I don't think there is enough of what is called a 'causal' connection.
I'm afraid you and others will have to be patient regarding the documented story. The forum of Public Opinion has no business even knowing about the event in question. That they do, is due only another failure of Col. West.
Those of us working to find out about Capt. Scott Spiecher get a big kick out of you folks finding reason to cheer the illegal abuse of a POW. The facts will be public soon enough; the only reason I comment at all is only an attempt to prevent Freepers from feeling foolish when it does.
I'm afraid you and others will have to be patient regarding the documented story.
So, does that mean you have no proof to back up your claims?
The forum of Public Opinion has no business even knowing about the event in question.
Well, they do and that's a fact of life we'll have to deal with.
That they do, is due only another failure of Col. West.
Is this fact or another unsupported claim?
..the only reason I comment at all is only an attempt to prevent Freepers from feeling foolish when it does.
Heh heh..that's rich.
Thanks.
West's own statements at his Article 32 hearing contradict this statement.
With his men under direct threat from an ambush from an enemy who would use babies as shields and shredders as tools of info extraction, shooting a gun past this enemy's head was a kindness.
Give the man a promotion. Our enemies don't care about the "rules of engagement" or the Geneva Convention ~ and while aspiring for international civility is a noble dream, it isn't reality.
If one of our Soldiers dies because an enemy who can't be trusted is given civilized treatment ~ the officer in charge of appeasement should be the one on trial, imho.
LTC West is a hero.
That is exactly why they have to come down on him. If an O-5 can publicly disobey his lawful orders and do this to prisoners, than PFC Bag of Donuts is no longer obligated to follow those orders either. Good order and discipline requires that he be punished for this.
Stop right there.
That wasn't the situation. If he has time to have his subordinates smack a prisoner around, and then engage in this little bit of street theater, then it wasn't a "direct threat."
Our enemies don't care about the "rules of engagement"
That's because they are evil. We are the good guys. That means we worry about the rules of engagement. If you wish us to be as evil as the bad guys, then start your own branch of the Ba'athist Party here in America.
If one of our Soldiers dies because an enemy who can't be trusted is given civilized treatment ~ the officer in charge of appeasement should be the one on trial, imho.
OK: suppose one of your ham-handed interrogations results in a prisoner clamming up completely (read about the Hanoi Hilton to understand what people can choose to endure), and one of our troops gets killed. Does the officer who pulled that stunt get a "That's OK, buddy" from you?
Or, suppose the interrogation generates its usual result--false information to make the interrogator stop. That false information is acted on, and the unit gets ambushed because they were misled by a prisoner who really didn't know a damn thing. You still going to say the officer is a hero?
Bump for those who have kept the faith.
Hmmmmm.
Sounds like someone up that chain of command needs to be on trial instead of Col West.
Demonstrably, someone has not grasped the nuances of asymmetric war.
And the price is "merely" dozens or hundreds of American lives needlessly sacrificed.
Patton got relieved of his command just for slapping a soldier. We prosecuted war criminals based on their treatment of POW's, and I'll bet that we prosecuted some of our own guys for mistreatement of POW's.
Here's the deal: there are times when an officer may need to disobey orders. But those times have to be extremely few and far between, else discipline collapses. If an officer makes the decision to do that, then he'd better be sure that he was right to do so, and he has to be willing to live with the consequences if he does so.
Maybe he was right to do what he did. But part of the price of being given the privilege of being an officer is to live with the repercussions of your actions. Is it fair? Well, maybe not. But its not "fair" for someone to get killed in the line of duty either, yet we expect it if it becomes necessary. LC West did what he thought was right, and maybe it was. He also knowingly disobeyed a standing order, and its now his duty to take his lumps for it. If it hadn't become public, he'd have gotten away with it, and no harm done. But since it has become public, he's got to pay for it.
The magnitude of the punishment should be open to debate. But the fact that he should be punished is an easy call.
Demonstrably, someone has not grasped the nuances of asymmetric war.
And the price is "merely" dozens or hundreds of American lives needlessly sacrificed.
Kindly provide proof of that. Give me the name of each American who died because of these ROEs, and demonstrate EXACTLY how the ROEs caused each death.
Are you looking to get your butt stomped? I don't know if you held an 'O' or an 'E' rank but I will say this, "Those are fightin words, JarHead"
Is it amateur hour again? Have you noticed that the majority of the former military here seem to agree that LC West must be disciplined for this. Heck, West recognizes that good order and discipline requires that he be punished.
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.