Posted on 11/06/2003 6:31:20 PM PST by Calpernia
Letters To Leaders
All messages are published with permission of the sender. The general topic of this message is Defense/Military:
Subject: Lt. Col. Allen B. West
To: Sen. Charles Schumer
November 6, 2003
Sir,
With all due respect, this is the very first time I have ever written to a Senator. With regards to this fine officer and the plight he is in. I have attached the article below if you are unaware of his situation. As an American, and as a veteran myself, I am utterly disgusted, shocked, and ashamed that our Army is harassing this man and is even considering a court martial. These same people who are requesting this mans court martial would probably have something quite different to say if it were their loved ones lives who were saved by this mans actions. I can not express to you how utterly disgusted and extremely angry I am at this outrageous and unjust treatment of an officer who saves lives by using such tender tactics as these to gain information from an enemy who does not abide by, or respect any code, or human right. I mean are you kidding me! So he fired a weapon near his head and made a threat, BIG DEAL! LIVES WERE SAVED!!!! Hello? Is this thing on? Are you hearing me!!! Are we such a nation of weaklings that we would have our interrogators offer prisoners candy popcorn and maybe a comfortable seat on the couch while they decide if they want to cooperate or not! Consider the tactics of our enemy, yeah, I won't even go there as they are too gruesome and inhumane to even mention. This absolutely ludicrous and unjust action being considered against this American fighting man who saves lives and who gave so many years of his life in that effort is an abhorrent black mark on the face of what is increasingly becoming and embarrassing country to have sworn my allegiance to. And no, I am not ashamed of our president and his decision to go to war. I am NOT one of those. No, in fact I LOVE our president and I am all for sending a message to radical religious groups who have committed so many blatant acts of war against our country in the name of their religion. No Sir, what makes me ashamed is to read of our nation treating it's heroes, like this Man Col. West, like a criminal when his only action was to save lives. It sickens me. Absolutely sickens me and almost makes me wish I had never served. Almost. Let me just leave you with this last thought so that you understand. I say almost as I never served in our country's armed services for you, or any fed. No government agenda was ever a motivating factor in my serving. As though I was subordinate to the government and obeyed the orders thereof, my service was to the people who had gone before me and stood and fought and died for my right to impart this to you now. It is for their sake, and for their honor that I did serve. And it is for their sake, and for their honor that I am still proud to be an American and I will still stand and fight should my country call me to do so. I do not know how to make this any more plain to you Sir, this is an injustice that needs to be rectified. PLEASE do what you can on this honorable mans behalf. Also, thank you Sir for having taken the time.
Sincerely Stanley SrA. USAF 91-95
'Heroic' officer clings to faith Facing charges after foiling ambush plot, 'devastating' to be regarded as a criminal
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35447
Guilderland , NY
Double Bump!
I'm with you, Simple. West's actions -- which are identical to those used by Castro's thugs, btw -- are inexcusable.
Beyond that, the more we hear about this story, the more clear it becomes that West was merely impatient. There was no immediate threat, and there is no evidence to suggest that his actions really "saved lives."
Even West admits that his actions were "wrong," and the only reason we're hearing about this at all is because he doesn't want to pay the price for acting like a thug.
Now, let me say that I greatly admire your adherance to the rule of military law as you see it. Nations that do not instill such an ethos in their armed forces end up with military dictatorships.
The key words in UCMJ Article 128 are "unlawful force".
This is where we disagree and you and I beat this subject to death on another thread.
My position was summarized in Post 153 of that thread.
You argued that that individual has POW rights.
I argued that that individual was an enemy combatant waging war upon the U.S. in a friendly uniform. By the Rules of War, he was an illegal combatant that was specifically excluded by the Rule of War from having POW status and POW rights.
I further pointed out that, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans belonging to Otto Skorzenys commando group that had infiltrated American lines wearing American uniforms over their German uniforms were summarily executed when captured in full accordance with the Rules of War.
You and I simply disagree on what military law demands in Iraq right now and we both agreed that a ruling by the court martial was the best way to determine which of us was right. The loser would owe the winner a beer.
Now, that being said, do you believe that that rules of engagement would best serve the interests of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq if they were the rules of engagement you believe are in effect now or the rules of engagement that were in effect at the Battle of the Bulge?
Now, if your interpretation of the rules of engagement are correct, an American officer in Iraq cannot now scare the crap out of that enemy wearing a friendly uniform without violating UCMJ Article 128. At the Battle of the Bulge, West could not only have taken the Germans in a friendly uniform and threatened to shoot him but he could have actually shot him with the full blessing of the U.S. Army and the Rules of War.
Very good !! ...
ROE's as they stand now best serve the interests of the US armed forces in Iraq. Though, unfortunately, it is primarily for PR purposes. The US Military can not afford to take on bad PR, the civilian chain of command, will not accept it. It may seem that the Army is playing a PC game here, but the Chain of command consistently, through many recent administrations not just the current one, has made it clear what is and is not acceptable. It is not up to the Uniformed services to contradict those decisions. They may argue for change, or in some cases lobby congress for it. But to outright ignore the clear instructions of the civilian command structure would be mutiny.
Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.
Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.
Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.
Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.
Stop by to learn more about and support Lt. Col. Allen B. West I spoke to him last night and his lawyer will be sending more information that will soon be posted.
A. Threatens the suspect with death in the electric chair if he does not cooperate.
or
B. Stands aside as two Police officers beat the suspect until he cooperates.
Which conduct is legal and which conduct is illegal?
In the example you offered, A.
But your example does not map to the reality of the case.
The DA indicates that he will prosecute the suspect.
Now, let's wind the tape back:
The DA enters the room and threatens the suspect with a pistol, drags the suspect outside the room, and fires the pistol past the suspect's head.
Legal? Or illegal?
There is a difference between a physical beating and psychological intimidation.
You're arguing that if a mugger just points a gun at you and demands your wallet, it's OK.
I am exploding with rage, and find it very hard to be patient. For the Kafka-like "prosecutors" to actually threaten a career officer with charges if he didnt resign a few days before his retirement and pension eligibility for this silly and stupid "charge" is beyond disgusting. I WANT HEADS TO ROLL. I WANT THIS OBVIOUS LEFT-WING CLINTON JAG HOLDOVER TO LOSE HIS/HER JOB AND BE DRUMMED OUT OF THE SERVICE.
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.