Replies

PK, from what I've seen so far, I don't see any criminal conduct. This prisoner was an unlawful combatant, a terrorist dressed in an Iraqi police uniform. As such he does not get POW status. So there is not a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I don't think a criminal assault occurred since LTC West had no intention of harming the guy, he was bluffing.

It seems to me that what LTC West did was violate an order and Army doctrine. He was apparently willing to do that to stop a planned ambush. He made a full report, made no effort to conceal his actions, and seems willing to face the consequences of his actions.

For those actions, I would expect LTC West to be relieved of command and his career effectively terminated. The Army's effort to throw him in Leavenworth is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion IMHO. Telling LTC West that he could avoid prosecution if he gave up the pension he worked 19.9 years for (and his wife I'm sure has no little interest in) was just plain chicken shiite.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 128. ASSAULT

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or

(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon;

is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I anticipated this argument and did my homework before I decided that West was wrong. Intent may play a role in a civilian jurisdiction, but in the UCMJ, it clearly does not.

Colonel West violated the rules in a relatively minor way in a very time critical, combat set of conditions. In so doing he not only was able to accomplish his mission (securing and pacifying the area)...he was able to do so while minimizing the loss of American life. He displayed admirable qualitities of discretion, judgement and accountability in the circumstances he was presented with IMHO, and reported his ciolation personally, indicating he was willing to be accountable for them.

The very outcome he achieved demands a review of the rules in this case IMHO, because had he adhered, in all likelihood he would not have prevented or thwarted the attack (therefore not fulfilling his mission) and he would most likely have lost more lives than he did (which was zero for this particular set of circumstances).

So, while some verbal reminder to him of the importance of adhereing to the written rules may be in order...he should also be recognized and lauded for his willingness to put himself and his own career on the line in order to achieve the accomplishment of his mission with minimum US losses. Such wllingness to sacrifice and put himself at personal risk in order to accomplish the mission would, at another time, be called "service above and beyond the call of duty".

Had he failed...had he not thwarted the attack or found that there was not attack...then his actions would have potentially warranted a more severe reprimand and a mark on his military record...potentially even a justifiable court martial.

But that's not what happened. If everything is as it appears in all of the reports I have read about this, then he took the risk...and it was a personal one...it panned out and the mission was accomplished and lives were saved. That warrants our respect and our praise IMHO.

All of that pretty much some up my own thoughts on the matter.

Jeff