Lt. Col. Allen B. West

Washington Times ^ | November 6, 2003 | Stanley SrA. USAF 91-95

[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

[Poohbah]

And I do not at all appreciate the fact that he's got a spin team working the WND "yellow journalism" side of the street as part of his defense.

You are not the only one.

The Army does not appreciate ANYONE--prosecutor or defendant--attempting to manipulate the military justice system via mass media.

[MattinNJ]

My guess (and its just a guess) is this guy was not well liked by those he was working with.

Interesting point. You might be onto something.

Barbaric treament of prisoners is not acceptable. It is against the rules. What THEY do to us is not the point. It is how we conduct ourselves. That is what makes US better than them, in my opinion. And yes, sometimes that costs lives.

A well thought out and reasonable analysis. However, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. I would trade tens of thousands of Iraqi lives for one of our boys...in a heartbeat.

[zipper]

You're right. The rules of war, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions, are very specific:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949:

(article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Lt Col West is guilty if he fired that weapon in the manner the news stories are reporting. The prosecution is certain to prevail. The only questions left to ponder are what the specific charges and punishment will be.

[Polybius]

You're right. The rules of war, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions, are very specific:

(article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The key words there are "prisoners of war".

Those words do not simply mean "any Homo sapien captured during a war". The Rules of War are very specific on who qualifies as a having the legal status of "prisoner of war" which, in turn, determines who qualifies for the legal rights termed "prisoner of war rights".

An enemy combatant caught in a friendly uniform, as this individual was, is defined by the Rules of War as an "illegal combatant".

"Illegal combatants" do not legally qualify for the legal status of "prisoners of war" and they therefore do not qualify for the "prisoner of war rights" under the Geneva Convention.

As I noted in Post 218, the U.S. Government has been shipping off captured al Qaeda illegal combatants to Egypt in order to expedite the extraction of information out of them by less than savory means:

US ships Al Qaeda suspects to Arab states............."These countries – Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, among them – use torture, which, some officials suggest, extracts information much more quickly than more benign interrogation methods."

Now, the problem in this case was that there are now rules of engagement which ordered that such individuals be treated as POW's, West was aware of that order and West deliberately violated that order.

That, however, does not legally preclude the U.S. from changing the rules of engagement and treating illegal combatants captured in Iraq with all the severity in which the U.S. Government has used with the al Qaeda prisoners they have shipped off to Egypt.

The Rules of War afford legal protection those who play by the rules. During World War II, the Germans and the Western Allies mutually agreed to play by the rules and the Western Front was, for the most part, a pretty civilized war front. No such a rules were followed by either side on the Russian Front.

Now, in Iraq, Baathist thugs are bombing Red Cross facilities, murdering civilians and engaging in hostilities while wearing friendly uniforms. Up to now, the U.S. has voluntarily chosen to accord such illegal combatants POW treatment. The key word here is "voluntarily". The U.S. is under no legal obligation under the Rules of War to continue granting prisoner of war rights to illegal combatants.

[Old Student]

I used to teach my troops that it was easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and to do what needed to be done, whatever the consequences. Then stand up like a man (or woman) and take the consequences, whatever they were. It sounds to me like LtCol. West is of the same opinion. I hope it works out well for him. As long has he has competent council, it should, especially if he tells the truth of what happened, and what he was thinking as it happened. That said, I'd rather be commanded by an officer like him than one who would hesitate to do what he did. Far rather!

wrm, MSgt, USAF(Ret.)

[Pukin Dog]

I waited a long time and did a lot of thinking with respect to Col. West before making a statement about this case. I have gotten pings and emails about this, and I'm sorry to have to say that I come down on the side of a strict and vigorous prosecution of the Colonel to determine whether or not he is guilty as charged, and if found guilty he should be punished within the directives of the UCMJ.

One thing that I know about Freepers since I have been here is that they understand that the Military is not the same as civilian life, nor do we want it that way. There are countless threads discussing how Clinton and others have tried to use the services as social experiments, how they have lowered standards in the name of political correctness, and how they have weakened our National Security through a political prism of tolerance.

This is why it is shocking to me that so many here would excuse what (if true) is a blatant violation of U.S. Military law. As Conservatives, we know that the law is more important than any individual in our society. The actions of Col. West may have indeed saved lives. This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The UCMJ is what separates our services from the rest of the world. We have a standard that every person who serves swears to uphold. For officers it is most critical that they live up to the UCMJ, as examples of leadership.

In war, lives are lost. Each life is precious, and tragic if lost. However, when the UCMJ is violated, our nation stands to lose much more. It loses all that we claim to hold dear; our ideals, our values, our position of respect and leadership in the world. We cannot afford to bend, nudge or ignore our laws for even the slightest infractions. Once we do that, then the UCMJ is conditional, and for all intent and purposes, meaningless.

If laws are to be meaningful and respected, we cannot claim embarrassing exceptions because an officer stands to lose much through his infraction. Do we respect law? If we respect it conditionally, then we have no business expecting others not to create their own exceptions at their convenience. When other countries break laws and claim popular excuse, what is our argument? Col. West may become a symbol for what is right in this country by accepting his guilt (if found so) and using it to promote a higher purpose then his own interests.

We as Conservatives occasionally need to remember that the Military is not an environment for grey-area reasoning. The UCMJ is clear and concise in describing the responsibilities that servicemen swear to uphold. If someone can point me to the area where the UCMJ explains exceptions for law-breaking, I would be happy to reconsider my position. As a former career Navy officer, I was at no time unaware of my responsibility to uphold the UCMJ in all my official and unofficial actions while I wore the uniform.

If Col. West is guilty, he must pay the price for those crimes, or we will all pay the considerably larger price of losing the honor and respect of a nation based on laws.

[TailspinJim]

Pukin Dog, you make me sick......oh, navy...that may explain it.

[Pukin Dog]

Good to know you spend as much time on your post as I did.

[Dubya]

Thanks for the ping. He is a hero.

[Dubya]

Where is the petition? I would like to sign it and I am proud of this man. I wish we had more like him.

[A Simple Soldier]

Then stand up like a man (or woman) and take the consequences, whatever they were.

That is the issue here. He seems to want to be exempted from judgement. Many on this list not only want that, they want him canonized.

He did the right thing. He made a bad guy crap his pants. Boo-hoo. BUT, it may not have been legal. We have a very good and fair system to reconcile that. And the Division Commander, not the SJA or those "evil" Pentagon pansies, makes the determination to go forward with legal proceedings. All the carping and huffing and puffing about the JAG shows total ignorance about the military. JAGs make recommendations. Commanders decide.

Furthermore, he punished his own soldiers for striking this same POW. This to me is probably the most bothersome aspect of the whole case.

[Old Student]

I don't find it bothersome, from this point of view: they have already been punished, so there is little likelyhood of them recieving further, more severe, punishment. He then took the next step, and got the information he needed, the way he did. A climate investigation will fall entirely on his head, not those of his troops, particularly since he has already punished them. I don't know about now, but when I retired, an article 15 was very nearly a career-killer. I suspect it is not so, now, but don't know for sure. Also, I am Air Force, and the Army may be, and have been, different.

All this, of course, assumes my read of the situation is correct, of course. It may not be, in which case the investigation will likely determine that.

[A Simple Soldier]

The Article 15s were administered for the incident in question. The command climate survey, taken after this incident, is why all this is going on. The chain of command was going to brush it off initially. The soldiers in the unit raised the so-called red-flag.

You can make a very safe bet the two soldiers won't be reenlisting.

[Old Student]

I suppose I should add that I find the officer's creed's word order significant, too. Duty first, then Honor, and then Country comes, last of all.

[Old Student]

Not that I could blame them. Despite having spent 24 years in, myself, I couldn't recommend a military career to anyone who isn't truely ate up.

[Dubya]

Bump for a hero who saved his men.

[Ispy4u]

An Article 15 is not necessarily a career ender. The commander issuing the NJP has many options available for routes of punishment.

I can't imagine any officer that would be arrogant enough to issue punishment to subordiates and object to punishment for himself when his own transgression surpasses theirs.

When the facts from this case are released from the judicial proceedings I have a feeling there will be a lot more disturbing information about this commander's actions.

[windchime]

Bump!

[Poohbah]

If laws are to be meaningful and respected, we cannot claim embarrassing exceptions because an officer stands to lose much through his infraction.

It has been utterly surreal to listen to "conservatives" argue, with a straight face, that officers can pick and choose which orders to obey and which to disobey, without consequence.

We as Conservatives occasionally need to remember that the Military is not an environment for grey-area reasoning. The UCMJ is clear and concise in describing the responsibilities that servicemen swear to uphold.

"He who cannot command himself cannot command others."

[Poohbah]

You find nothing wrong with a commander punishing his subordinates for their transgressions of the UCMJ, and then acting as if he has a divine right to clemency for his own?