Replies

My dad, a career officer, once asked me what my obligation as a serviceman was. My reply was (by rote) "to fight and die for my country!" "WRONG!!", he cried, "your job is to make the OTHER SOB fight and die for HIS!!"

LTC West was doing his job. The UCMJ is written for a perfect world which, as we all know, doesn't exist in war time. The fact is that, given the circumstances of this event, EVERY serviceman or woman who has or will fire a weapon during a time of war can be court-martialed for EXACTLY the same reason as LTC West - frightening the enemy and, by firing their weapon, apparently coerce the enemy into capitulating or revealing information that saves the lives of American and, possibly, hostile forces.

As a nation, we have always abhorred the unnecessary loss of life that occurs during war time and have always worked to minimize the unnecessary loss of civilian life. IMO, LTC West was taking the actions necessary to minimize the loss of innocent lives because none of us know the extent of the pending attack on his troops.

It is also important to note that LTC West DID NOT enter the interrogation room with a weapon, he had the Iraqi police officer brought to him in an area outside the interrogation room. Merely holding his head down to prevent him from seeing where he was is NOT a violation of his rights nor is it a violation of the UCMJ. While attending a service school on escape and evasion, I was BLINDFOLDED. If one is bad, the other is certainly worse and, yet, no one was court-martialed for blindfolding us in the school.

We can discuss this point forever and I don't believe that either of us will ever agree or change the other's opinion. That's why there are so many flavors of Ice cream. However, I do respect your opinions and support your obligation to express them. Healthy debate is essential if we are ever going to have excellent public policy is this nation.

You've made a lot of good points, but I want to clarify that treatment of prisoners is VERY different from treatment of the enemy.

During a combat engagement, there are very few limits on the amount of force a soldier can bring down upon the enemy in order to discomfort, scare or kill him. All of those methods are perfectly legal because of the enemy's status as a combatant. Wether the enemy suffers some physical or emotional discomfort isn't a concern, because they are, at that time, combatants.

When an individual becomes a PRISONER, however, a whole other set of rules apply. When you take a prisoner, you become RESPONSIBLE for the safety and security of that prisoner.

In the various SERE schools, they train you to deal with the actions of the enemy, where it is presumed that the enemy is not as willing to abide by the laws of land warfare. When they interrogate "prisoners", it's not meant to be an instruction on how to interrogate, but how to RESIST. Many of the methods used to instruct students are not meant to be used on the enemy.

Thanks for a solid debate. Many here don't want to even recognize the UCMJ or any other accords we've agreed to abide by. If LTC West is found not guilty (or the case is dismissed) because he didn't break any rules or laws, that would be fine by me. But I'd still like to see those rules given the respect they deserve.