Posted on 12/09/2003 4:05:51 PM PST by Ispy4u
What facts ?????? !!!
LTC West's own behavior has caused me to question his integrity and character.
Before the Article 32 hearing, he claimed that (a) he never struck the prisoner, and (b) he did not order his subordinates to strike the prisoner.
At the Article 32 hearing, we found out that he did both.
Tell me that you did one thing, and then tell me that you did exactly the opposite--yes, I will question your integrity and character.
Or should we merely start parsing his statements in Clintonian fashion?
This is what we know, factually: (1) LTC West did violate orders from his seniors, and gave illegal orders to his subordinates. (2) An ambush that may or may not have been actually planned did not take place. (3) No one has demonstrated a solid connection between (1) and (2). Indeed, no one has actually demonstrated that (2) was actually about to happen. (4) West's subordinates have been punished for obeying West's illegal orders. (5) West now faces prosecution for issuing those orders and disobeying lawful orders to begin with. That's all we know at this time.
No, that's not all we know. We know that there is NO EARTHLY REASON, WHEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMMON SENSE, why LTC West is in trouble...
Btw, I'm watching the Col.'s attorney on O'Reilly right now and he said that the Army has just now decided not to court martial this American hero. ......And is pension is secure as well. He's going to get just a slap on the wrists, much to your chagrin I'd imagine.
Please demonstrate that the ambush was actually about to happen. No one here has done so; they are merely taking LTC West's word for it. And since his statements to the press prior to the Article 32 hearing about his actions are at significant variance with his statements at the Article 32 hearing, I am unwilling to take LTC West's word for it.
That mental condition is called "integrity." Fake executions (such as that engaged in by West) and beating prisoners (such as that engaged by West) were standard techniques of the trade within Saddam Hussein's secret police. Civilized nations don't engage in these sorts of practices for a reason: Where does it stop? At what point do you say, "OK, he isn't talking" and stop these activities?
Get a life and stop sensationalizing. We'll never be that vile and you know it. West's actions weren't even on the radar scope compared to Saddam. Have you been taking propaganda training from the nazi press?
Read about it HERE.
Verbal reprimand, charges will not be pressed. He'll get his full retirement benefits. I'm waiting for confirmation from Iraq.
And others, it now appears....
Last weekend, three American soldiers were ordered to stand trial in January on charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners of war at the detention center at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq.
The charges grew out of an alleged incident May 12 in which the three soldiers from the 320th Military Police Battalion allegedly punched and kicked Iraqi POWs. The soldiers said they acted in self-defense, that conditions were chaotic at Camp Bucca, and that guards had been harassed and assaulted daily by unruly prisoners.The three soldiers, Master Sgt. Lisa Marie Girman, 35; Staff Sgt. Scott A. McKenzie, 38; and Spc. Timothy F. Canjar, 21, are accused of dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment of enemy prisoners of war, filling false official statements, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
A fourth soldier originally held on the same allegations, Sgt. Shawna Edmondson, 24, has received an other-than-honorable discharge from the military, which she requested rather than face martial proceedings.
Well, it's either that, or I rely on LTC West's word.
I'd be a hell of a lot more sanguine over the latter if he hadn't already "misled" (as Clinton would say) the public over his actions.
Actually, it isn't to my chagrin. The guy's CO made a decision. That's the way it works.
I still think a lot less of West now than I did at the beginning. He chose to make a public spectacle of the matter, and "misled" the public regarding his actions in doing so.
Others, paraphrasing or parsing his words may have, but he has not.
As to his making a public spectacle. If this had been handled in this current fashion, which is what he expected and believed should happen, he would not have done anything. Someone was out to hang his hide on a rack and he exercised his own perogative in the end to save his pension for his family...and it worked. I cannot fault him for that.
In the end, you seem to suggest he should take the unwarrented loss of his pension and court martial "for the service". His oath is to the constitutiona and the wellbeing of this nation...he was willing to take one for that, and is now going to. But he was being treated (in his own estimation and in the estimation of many, many others) in a manner that was far disprorortionate to what he did and he determined to do something about it.
I am glad he did. Just my own opinion.
Fine. He talked straight to you. His attorney (who legally speaks for him--why do you think i's called a "power of attorney," anyway?) said otherwise.
As to his making a public spectacle. If this had been handled in this current fashion, which is what he expected and believed should happen, he would not have done anything. Someone was out to hang his hide on a rack and he exercised his own perogative in the end to save his pension for his family...and it worked. I cannot fault him for that.
When it involves false statements to the public, I do have a problem with that, and can fault him.
In the end, you seem to suggest he should take the unwarrented loss of his pension and court martial "for the service".
No, I would prefer that LTC West and his attorney had either told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the public--or that they had simply kept silent until the Article 32 hearing.
His oath is to the constitutiona and the wellbeing of this nation...he was willing to take one for that, and is now going to.
As long as he didn't suffer any material hardship, he's happy. F*** his troops, though.
Fine example of moral courage.
But he was being treated (in his own estimation and in the estimation of many, many others) in a manner that was far disprorortionate to what he did and he determined to do something about it.
Uh-huh. No problem with his troops getting punished for obeying his illegal orders--but he sure didn't want any materially adverse consequences for himself.
I've had the displeasure of serving under two commanders who thought and acted like that. One is far too many.
I have talked not only to LTC West, but to troops there and to their families. They do not feel in the least that he screwed them, to the contrary, to the person they have been willing to support him and lauded him.
Clearly, there is at least one individual in the battalion who feels otherwise to some extent. I have not been able to find that one individual who wrote, in passing, a comment that brought the JAG into it and led to what we have seen. Nonetheless, I am confidant in the story as I have presented here on FR.
We clearly disagree...I'm not surprised by that but am glad that such disagreements and debate have allowed the story to get aired completely and for this end to be reached...which is what the LTC felt would occur from the get-go.
'nuff said on my part, others can come to their own conclusions.
Nothing to do with them? Why they've been engaging in these *illegal* and excessive interrogations that are such an issue with you when it's a combat officer performing them instead of an MP or wannabee spook *professional interrogator*. Now we have a choice of either cutting LTC West some slack, or going back and applying the exact same standard to every MP and M.I. interrogator who's ever performed any sort of similar act, and also bringing Article 128 charges against them, too...including those in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll even apply it retroactively to Johnny Spahn....no exceptions, right?
As for it working on *folks like me* it looks like those folks like me include at least several congressmen and Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker....
-archy-/-
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.