Replies

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.

Saddam's thugs used much much worse methods. West's actions were the type that only work on a coward. I guess there is no point in debating it with you. Have you ever been in the military? In combat? Or in command of others in combat? I was in the military but not in combat during Viet Nam. Had I been in combat then or now I'd want to be surrounded by men like Lt. Col. West.

I am logging out and going home and really don't have anything else to say on the matter. Have a good weekend.

I stand by my statements and interpretations of events. You have chosen the most malign explanation of everything that happened, and I think you are wrong. If both of us were on the jury, based on what we know now, there would be no verdict. I believe that a violation occurred, but exigent circumstances, judged against the specific actions and nature of this occurrence, mitigate the offense almost - but not quite - totally.

It seems to me that you are prosecuting this case instead of evaluating both sides of it, and while that is your right, I don't think it represents abstract justice. I fear that your approach would impose a smothering political correctness on our troops that would diminish their effectiveness and lead to more attacks on both civilian and military targets, more damage, more injuries, and more loss of life. I am sure that you think just the opposite of me, even though I do recognize that the rule was broken, so I guess that we are done.