[evad]

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

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?

[Ispy4u]

The rules of prisoner handling in the GWOT are that all detainees and captured nationals are to be treated as POWs until their status is determined by the appropriate authority. That authority being the SJA or JAG and MP/CID investigators.

You can make every claim in the book that what LTC West did was OK but just like everyone else in a US uniform, the treatment of POWs is a non compromising order.

So short answer, yes he disobeyed a lawful order known to him and his subordinates regarding the treatment and handling of detainees and POWs.

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

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.