Replies

"... West's actions -- which are identical to those used by Castro's thugs, btw -- ..."

Castro's thugs have used severe beatings, mock executions, executions of companions and family members in view of the prisoner, electric shock, suspension for extended periods in contorted positions, burning with various implements, and too many other methods of direct and sustained debilitating, maiming, crippling or fatal tortures to name. Also, this incident happened in a field location, not a detention facility, and during the course of a mission.

Get off your high horse. If the law fails to distinguish Col. West's offense from what you compared him to, then it, not the Colonel, has failed.

I am waiting for all the facts to come out, but in fact Col. West, on his own initiative, provided a detailed (and damning) statement to his commander, along with an acknowledgement that he had been aware of the relevant section of the law. That voluntary statement removed all ambiguity, and probably made the charges impossible to avoid. But the punishment needs to fit the totality of circumstances, and if it comes to more than a letter of reprimand in his file (which would end his career just as certainly) it would be excesssive.

But even that would deprive his command and his Country of the services of an effective, caring field commander who proved that he was willing to show initiative and resourcefulness under pressure. Personally, I would not trade one Col. West for half a hundred General Wesley Clarks, for instance, and I doubt that there are very many combat troops - or commanders - who would not agree.

Get off your high horse. If the law fails to distinguish Col. West's offense from what you compared him to, then it, not the Colonel, has failed.

In case you missed it, Lt. Col. West is accused of performing a mock execution. I am waiting for all the facts to come out, but in fact Col. West, on his own initiative, provided a detailed (and damning) statement to his commander, along with an acknowledgement that he had been aware of the relevant section of the law.

Lt. Col. West's own description (according to the e-mail account published in the Washington Times) does not indicate that there was any immediate danger; instead, the events suggest that he was merely impatient, and perhaps irritated by the prisoner's attitude.

But even that would deprive his command and his Country of the services of an effective, caring field commander who proved that he was willing to show initiative and resourcefulness under pressure.

Or, by his thuggish actions, West may have poisoned the well for future interrogations, thereby exposing American soldiers to greater danger.

BTW, I fail to see how it's being on a "high horse" to point out that Col. West's actions are of a sort that you would rightly condemn, had they been done by one of Saddam's thugs on one of our guys.