Replies

It was a technical violation in the sense that the prisoner suffered neither actual injury nor any direct threat of such injury, such as some other posts have suggested (pointing the gun at him, firing next to his ear, or barely missing him).

Another post here says that the prisoner was brought out to the colonel. If so, this incident occurred in a command location rather than in a prisoner venue, so being armed was likely not an issue. That might be enough to fit within one of the mitigating circumstances you advanced, based only on his actions. But he told the truth, and is being punished for that, too.

I contend that the proposed punishment is far too severe for the actual transgression, and that if the law fails to recognize that, it needs changing. A letter of reprimand - still a career ender - would be more suitable, although it would deprive us of the services of a truly dedicated, experienced, battle-tested leader of men in the field.

Personally, I would not trade one Col. West for half a hundred General Wesley Clarks, and I guarantee that every one of his men would echo that.

I don't want to seem him destroyed, either. It would be devastating to morale in an already tense theater.

The issue, for me, isn't the specific actions of this officer. It's the general lack of understanding of the UCMJ and laws of warfare, and the willingness by many to throw them out the window without considering the consequences.