Posted on 12/01/2003 5:40:49 AM PST by GigaDittos
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.