Replies

My understanding is that under Col. West's orders, two earlier interrogators had manhandled the prisoner before the Col. approached. He then drew his weapon and fired it twice. Neither time was the pistol in close proximity to the prisoner, nor was either shot fired at or near him. Col. West reported all of this to his superiors, unprompted, along with the fact that he was aware of the rule that prohibited his actions.

But there is a larger topic here. We now think that Zacharias Moussawi knew details about the 09/11 attack, details that could have been used to thwart the hijackers plans. In the face of such horror, would we punish an agent that had uncovered this plot and saved thousands, no matter how one guilty prisoner were treated? If not, then we are only talking about balancing the scales.

I am not proposing discarding the rules, or even, as some say here, giving him a medal and a promotion. But I do think that this is a hard case, and hard cases make bad law. This failure of justice illuminates a weakness in the law, and a desparate attempt to deal with that weakness without sacrificing lives.

Even if he didn't PHYSICALLY harm the prisoner, they held the prisoner's head down and (it appears) that the intent was to keep the prisoner from knowing that they weren't shooting at him. IMHO, this is the same as aiming a firearm with blanks at the prisoner and pulling the trigger. Again, I see this as a form of "mock" execution. I agree that West did the right thing by reporting this, and it should be noted to his credit.

But, you can't let the result justify the actions. West may have saved some soldiers because of his actions, but that doesn't excuse his actions or offer any mitigation when it comes to his punishment.

Hard cases DO make bad law. But, in this case, the law was made DECADES before this incident. It wasn't made under the duress of a hard situation, it was made with deliberate thought to the future. The "hard case" would be to justify West's actions because we are in a time of war, even though the laws were written just for that circumstance.

I don't know what specific rule or law will be used against West. We do know that he violated several rules regarding interrogations. The real question is how his methods will be perceived. Many people here have claimed that his actions were definitely not torture, but I don't think they have a clue as to what torture constitutes. Not all torture involves physical pain. Not all torture leaves a mark. The Nazi's repeatedly subjected Jewish prisoners to mock executions. Back then, we DEFINITELY called it torture and condemned it vehemently. Why the change when our own guys might have done this?

I don't bring this up in attempt to pointedly decide that he definitely committed illegal acts or war crimes. I'm just astounded by the number of people who a) refuse to consider the fact that it might be illegal, and b) even if proven illegal, would refuse to acknowlege that it was wrong. I, personally, don't use this as an attack on West. I'm just trying to retain our concepts of legality and honor in warfare. For decades, we've set the standard for honorable conduct and we shouldn't abandon it now.