Posted on 11/06/2003 4:44:20 AM PST by Jeff Head
The following is Lt. Col. Allen B. West's own candid comment regarding the situation he faced in Iraq, as reported by the Washington Dispatch on November 5, 2003:
"I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. We ... apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedeyeen affiliation. "Colonel West takes personal responsibility for his actions. He makes no bones about it, he threatened this Iraqi spy bodliy harm to get information from him. And that is what he was, a spy working within the Iraqi Police Force that has been established and supported by the coalition authority. As a spy, under the so-called rules of war, I believe he could have shot the man. Perhaps that is an angle that should be explored.
In either case, Colonel West's actions no doubt saved the lives of Americans...the lives he is principally responsible for...and that was his motivation.
He understood that while he may have violated the rules (and he admits to and takes responsibility for this as well)...he also understood he was going to do what had to be done, in a war zone, to save the lives of the men under his command.
The rules were written by men and women sitting in safe seats far away from combat and the brutal reality of the moment. For the most part they are good rules and should not be violated. But there are times when the SHTF that you have to do what you must to save the lives of those you are responsible for, American lives, and accomplish the mission. Colonel West knew his greater responsibility and he performed it, regardless of personal cost. The trait of a true leader in my book.
President Truman incinerated tens of thousands of Japanese to save hundreds of thousands of Americans...and in so doing he also saved millions of Japanese. In today's world and PC nomenclature this might be considered a war crime...a violation of the "rules". But back then it was heralded by the soldiers as a God-send...and by Americans back home as what had to be done to end the war. People who had seen for themsleves the cold reality of four years of World War.
That generation is dying out and it seems we have forgottent their experiences and the lessons.
The reality is, that by scaring this man in the fashion he did...West not only saved American lives...he saved the lives of Iraqis as well.
God bless you Colonel West...you've got my back any time!
Charlie Mike.
The "standard of treatment" that you site for GTMO is treatment for detainees that are no longer active combatants and are out of the theater of operations.
An irregular combatant engaged in a bombing campaign and still in the spot where he was captured, by the very nature of his warfare, is still an active combatant when he witholds information about impending attacks.
Neither you nor I are privy to interrogation tactics used at GTMO as we do not have a "need to know".
However, it has been reported that some detainees have been sent over to some of our "allies" in the Middle East so that they may use their persuasive powers to loosen the tongue.
Military law can be interpretted in different ways as can civilian law. The U.S. Supreme Court, < sarcasm> in it's infinite wisdom, < /sarcasm> has determined that the "penumbra" of the 14th Amendment allows a woman to abort a perfectly viable fetus.
Military law can be interpretted to fully support the actions of Colonel West.
However, in this particular case, one JAG has interpretted it so strictly that if Sgt. Ispy4u captured a terrorist who is bragging that, in 20 minutes, a massive bomb will cause 5,000 civilian deaths somewhere in New York City, all Sgt. Ispy4u would be able to do is ask the terrorist if he has any particular attorney he prefers.
What restrictions if there is no contract?
Oh, I think we might manage a little better than that....
"The story continued, “West’s lawyer, Neal Puckett, said the prosecutor has offered Col. West two choices: quit now, short of his 20-year retirement eligibility ,,, or face criminal proceedings that could lead to a trial. The assault charges carry a maximum penalty of eight years in prison."
So what would you decide to do if you were Col. West? Quit or go to trial?
If you are actually a Noncom in the US Army, I weep for the poor bastards under your command.
You should be relieved of all command responsibilities and sent back to basic training, if not drummed out of the service outright.
L
Sorry. As a Navy Commander, I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of Army NCO ranks.
The standard of treatment I cited was the treatment of captured personnel before their legal status was determined. Their treatment until transport to Gitmo was exactly the same as EPWs from the Taliban Afghani Military.
The Taliban captured in Afghanistan were captured in conventional combat operations while they engaged in conventional warfare themselves. They were not captured red-handed in terrorist operations.
It is not possible, except throught mental gymnastics, for a captured/surrendered combatant to be considered active regardless of information he holds.
Go back to my previous example. You capture a terrorist who brags to you he has planted a bomb large enough to kill hundreds of American civilians somewhere in the city, that the bomb will explode in 20 minutes and that he read in a newspaper that some Army JAG has determined that you can't do a damn thing about it except ask him very politely where he hid that bomb.
Do you truly believe that that individual is not an active combatant?
Do you truly believe that it is your legal duty as a servicemeber of the U.S. Armed Forces to allow those American civilians to die rather than threaten to blow that bastard's head off if he doesn't tell you where the bomb is hidden?
Go back and re-read your description of a legal combatant it is precisely the description required to define any combatant. All POWs have the potential to hold information, by law POWs are only required to give name, rank, and ID number.
Let's see: The individual in question was caught red-handed in a friendly uniform, not bearing arms openly and participating in the espionage needed to kill American soldiers and has knowledge that would stop one of those attacks.
He qualifies as an illegal combatant and the Rules of War specifically exclude him from the rights accorded a POW.
How did they handle this back in World War II?
BTW, those Germans of Otto Skorzeny’s commando group, which infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were shot upon capture even though they were wearing German uniforms under the American gear.
In World War II, if you wanted the protection of the Rules of War, you had to follow the Rules of War. If you didn't, you could be summarily shot.
Now, you and and that JAG want the U.S. Army to grant Geneva Convention rights to illegal combatants and terrorists, in the combat theater, in time sensitive situations in spite of the fact that it would put American servicemembers in harm's way.
That's a great way to get Americans killed and lose a war.
If a time machine brought a Battle of the Bulge G.I. out of his Bastogne foxhole and into our time, he would be peeing in his pants with laughter about this discussion.
I believe the term FUBAR was coined during World War II to describe this sort of thing.
The question was not put to me but I would request court martial and force the JAG's to make a case as to why illegal combatants should now be accorded Geneva Convention rights.
If this ridiculous JAG opinion stands, America loses much more that Colonel West can lose.
Not all of them. We are still capturing remnants and sympathizers and all are treated as POWs. There was very little conventional about operations in Afghanistan.
Go back to my previous example....
That is certainly a tough situation to be in, but one cannot be certain if they are telling the truth or will even tell you the truth about where the bomb is hidden. So you are back to the same place we are now. Our tactics and procedures should not be disregarded on the word of an EPW. How many times did the "threat level" change based on the debriefing of an AQ detainee and nothing happened?
Do you truly believe that that individual is not an active combatant?
He is not.
Do you truly believe that it is your legal duty as a servicemeber of the U.S. Armed Forces to allow those American civilians to die rather than threaten to blow that bastard's head off if he doesn't tell you where the bomb is hidden?
I didn't plant the bomb. I don't even know if he's being truthful. How would I know he's telling me the truth where the bomb is hidden and not setting a trap? Therefore, do I threaten every EPW/detainee with their life to tell me everything I don't know?
He qualifies as an illegal combatant and the Rules of War specifically exclude him from the rights accorded a POW.
But our rules hold us responsible to treat him as an EPW until his status is determined by proper authority. And as far as the WWII story goes. I say great for them, wish we had that kind of freedom now.
Now, you and and that JAG want the U.S. Army to grant Geneva Convention rights to illegal combatants and terrorists, in the combat theater, in time sensitive situations in spite of the fact that it would put American servicemembers in harm's way.
I don't have a say in how our country treats EPW's. I follow the lawful orders of my superiors. I don't make up the rules as I go along. And until the instructions on handling EPWs changes, LTC West is wrong.
I agree. I was curious as to my addressee's sentiment.
In the end, I hope that Colonel West opts for court martial so that your points and my points can be argued and ruled upon.
Loser buys the winner a beer.
Sorry I missed that post.
I would definitely go to trial. I don't belive it will come to a trial but his only choices right now are get out, or go to court martial.
IMO, he will be repremanded and allowed to put in his retirement papers.
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.