[alpowolf]

Yes, and many posters have convicted him already.

But many of his supporters here seem to accept that he did it; they just think that it's ok. Some have even suggested that he get a medal, or be promoted. I, and some others on the "against" side, as you would say, take the view that if he did it, it's wrong.

[Calpernia]

You are hereby invited and encouraged to start a thread to debate Lt. Col. West. I posted this thread under activism; not general discussion. Worse yet, I enouraged Lt. Col Allen, Angela AND his lawyer to sign on here. I am disgusted with you all. You think Angela needs to be confronted with this when I promised help? They are getting enough back stabbing. Is this the respect you show to a Lt. Col who put his life on the line to defend OUR country?

I was going to continue to post progress, information and updates here; but I'm sickened by how this turned out. I am more than likely going to just continue this movement with the Vets, Trench Rats and Legion. The National reach with them is just fine. The contacts go up to the White House. The activism will continue. Just without your inclusion. I don't need this behavior. The West Family don't need this behavior. None of our military do.

[Gunrunner2]

>>But many of his supporters here seem to accept that he did it; they just think that it's ok.<<

And others think he did it and regardless of the context and circumstance ("situational ethics"), should be hung.

(Side bar: “situational ethics” do apply. If you shove an old lady with the aim of knocking her down, that is wrong, but if you shove and old lady with the aim of knocking her down to avoid being hit by someone swinging a shovel and not paying attention, that is right. Situation ethics.)

>>Some have even suggested that he get a medal, or be promoted.<<

Most posters understand the human element, the ethical dilemma and err on the side of compassion and understanding.

Those that recognize the complexities of the situation and the conflict between ethical, moral and legal, those are the posters that encourage a human aspect to this.

In my opinion and with some presumption, those that focus on the narrow definition of the law, applied without judgment or context, those are the one's that know nothing of the harsh reality of war and, not to be too blunt, hide behind the law because they can't face the truth that in some cases, under some circumstances, the law simply isn't right---especially in a combat scenario.

To judge without a heart is to worship a secular gawd—“the law.” For instance, when Col West stands before God and says he “assaulted” a man in violation of man’s secular law, I am convinced He will understand. Conversely speaking, when an abortionist stands before God and says, “but the law said I could kill babies.. .”, I am sure God will be less than understanding and insist upon His moral, ethical law.

Doing the right thing is sometimes not always the legal thing, and sometimes the legal thing to do is not necessarily the right thing to do. I am NOT saying Col West acted illegally. No sir. I am saying his allegiance is to God, his men and the ethical duty to serve both.

>>I, and some others on the "against" side, as you would say,<<

Stop it, please.

Let's get this straight--I did not introduce the word "against" to describe your position. No sir. That was done by someone that self-identified your side as "against"--- thereby supporting my opinion that those that are "against" have already made a value judgment and convicted him. . .doing exactly what you find objectionable in the "for" side.

I withhold judgment and I also am inclined to tend to the side of compassion and mercy (and respect) to a man of unquestioned honor and dignity, doing a most difficult job.

Have a good night.