Replies

At risk of being the wet blanket here and the target of a large-scale incendiary strike, NO ONE on this list knows exactly what happened. Everyone wants to jump on this based on the media's account? The oh, so accurate media? Or the accused himself? Frankly, I have seen some info that make me lean toward the guilty side at least on some lesser charges. I have enough confidence in the military justice system, which is eminently more fair than the civil system, to let this investigation play out. There may be more than a little rough play here. As people who purport to be the highest example of civilized society, we should be leery of attempts to meet the enemy at their low to non-existent level of ethical behavior. I am not advocating we fight under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but if we start advocating certain behaviors or excusing them, then it isn't long before we truly become "occupiers."

I am a little disturbed that everyone here seems to want to short-circuit the established procedures of due process we all reverently cherish as constitutionalists.

Furthermore, does it not bother anyone else that his wife played the race card immediately? Go back and read some of the initial articles. The Army is an institution that prides itself on being as close to color blind a place in America.

Thank you "Judge Simple"

May I ask why you assume nothing more is known?

And if you are supportive of letting it play out, you may do that. You don't have to join the email, letter writing, petition signing party.

Goodnight to you.

>>Furthermore, does it not bother anyone else that his wife played the race card immediately? Go back and read some of the initial articles. <<

Yes, indeed it does bother.

>> The Army is an institution that prides itself on being as close to color blind a place in America.<<

Not really, in a way. Back in 1996, when speaking with a neighbor that was a Colonel in the Army, he mentioned that promotion boards make their selection and then, if the lowest guy on the list is a white male, the promotion board then starts going down the list below the cut-off, looking for a minority that didn’t make the cut. When they find a minority they then would then compare the lowest white male select with the highest minority non-select. This “second look” may sound “fair” to some, but is actually a message that if you are a minority you get a second chance, a better chance at being promoted because the white males does not get a second look if he is a non-select, whereas a minority to get a second chance. It also tells the promotion boards they better use race as a factor in their selections. (You don’t want the boss to second guess promotion decisions purely because he is using race as the motivating factor.)

As far as responding to the media, you have a point that the media hardly ever get things right in their reporting, especially when it involves military-related items. However, given what Col West has written, and given the charges and public release statements of the Army, it is clear the Army is trying to impose a PC agenda.

The fact remains that Col West and his troops were in contact with the enemy, were facing a direct and lethal threat, and intimidation is a proven, and legal, method to extract information.

The “Rules of Engagement” movie does depict a similar situation where difficult choices on a bloody and dangerous and dirty battlefield do not necessarily allow easy decisions regarding methods and technique. I highly recommend this movie for those interested in ethical dilemma’s on the battlefield, and when said dilemmas do not necessarily track with legal requirements.

Now, let’s say Col West was part of a group that was looking for a nuke in Iraq, and said nuke is programmed to go off within an hour. They capture one of the main plotters and this bad guy knows where the nuke is. Now, do you play paddy-cake with the bad guy, respecting his “rights,” or do you use extreme measures, to include torture, to make him talk? Of course, every sane person would endorse extreme measures to extract the information. Now, change the scenario some and we have Col West in Iraq, knowing his troops are under threat, an ambush is planned and the bad guy is not talking, do you endorse the use of extreme methods (intimidation only)? You should.

If the situation was where the battle was over and the troops were in garrison, and the threat was not immediate, then let the slow, drip-drip of relentless questioning take its toll. However, this was not the case. Immediacy of the situation required affirmative action to protect his troops.

Difficult situation, but clearly Col West did the right thing at the right time.

There may be more than a little rough play here. As people who purport to be the highest example of civilized society, we should be leery of attempts to meet the enemy at their low to non-existent level of ethical behavior. I am not advocating we fight under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but if we start advocating certain behaviors or excusing them, then it isn't long before we truly become "occupiers."

I'm with you, Simple. West's actions -- which are identical to those used by Castro's thugs, btw -- are inexcusable.

Beyond that, the more we hear about this story, the more clear it becomes that West was merely impatient. There was no immediate threat, and there is no evidence to suggest that his actions really "saved lives."

Even West admits that his actions were "wrong," and the only reason we're hearing about this at all is because he doesn't want to pay the price for acting like a thug.

But he didn't HURT the guy and he DID get the information he needed and this is WAR, right???

If he threatened a POW with death to make him speak...so what?

I dont care if he used a nuke. His actions saved lives.

It;s not like his people would have blown themselves up to kill one or two of us or anything, is it? </ sarcasm>