I do appreciate the way you have carried yourself on this thread and the level headed and reasoned discussion you have presented in the points you have raised. Even though I disagree with some of them, all of us could use a lot more reasoned dialogue in discussing those differences.
Thanks again for that...and for your service.
In the end I believe we do agree that West should not go to jail or be ruined over this and that he is willing to accept accountability for his actions...and was from the beginning when he himself reported what he had done to his superiors.
I just happen to believe that his actions should be extolled and that the "rules" in this case, as a result of the experience, should be reviewed and modified so that such initiative, that does not physically harm the prisoner but proves to be correct judgement in helping successfully complete the mission while minimizing US casualties, can be encouraged.
If that initiative is then abused to either torture or inhumanely treat a captive under the new rules that came out of such a review, and does not prove to be correct by subsequent events...meaning the latitude was taken unnecessarily, then corrective action could be taken.
Just my opinion.
Fregards.
LOL! You funny.
You need to understand some things before concluding the man is guilty of assault. There are many different kinds of assault under the UCMJ involving different elements of proof. There is a detailed explanation in the Manual. To convict, ALL elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are also affirmative defenses that a defendant may raise which would lead to acquittal even if the basic offense was proven. These include defense of a third person and duress (also known as the choice of evils defense) that are very much in play here. The legal picture is much more complex and LTC West has a lot more to talk about than has been portrayed here. He has an outstanding lawyer, so we'll see.
You also need to understand that prosecutors, including military prosecutors, have discretion in the decision to charge. Doubts about acheiving a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt should lead to a decision not to charge. I don't know what they've got other than West's own statement. If West prevails at the Art. 32, the charges probably shouldn't have been brought. We'll see.
It's a little hard to square your opinion that you would have brought the charges with the opinion that you don't want him to go to jail.