Allen B. West, Lt. Col., U.S. Army

Last week, Allen B. West, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, was indicted on criminal assault charges for the psychological intimidation tactic he used to acquire vital intelligence from a captured enemy combatant in Iraq. Col. West's interrogation -- which included, as a last resort, twice firing his sidearm away from the detainee -- obtained information of an imminent attack against soldiers under his command, undoubtedly saving an untold number of American lives. Apart from his prosecution, Col. West's so-called "criminal assault" produced other, more constructive results: "There were no further attacks from that town," notes the colonel. "We further apprehended two other conspirators (a third fled town) and found out one of the conspirators was the father of a man we had detained for his Saddam Fedayeen affiliation."

He now faces an Article 32 hearing scheduled for November 10 in Kirkuk, which could result in his court-martial. The 4th Infantry's divisional judge advocate initially offered West the option to resign his commission and forfeit his retirement benefits (one week short of his 20-year retirement eligibility) or face a general court-martial and a sentence of eight years in prison. (Gee, thanks, Your Honor.)

Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice describes criminal assault in these terms: "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." The Army's judge advocate interprets West's actions to be in violation of this restriction. This may be correct, but in both civilian and military courts, decisions are frequently made to decline prosecution based on extenuating circumstances -- and this, clearly, should be one of those cases.

In his only statement since the incident, Col. West asks, "[The enemy detainee] and his accomplices were a threat to our soldiers and the method was not right, but why should I lose 20 years of service or be forced into prison for protecting my men?"

The Federalist asks the same question and calls on fellow Patriots to come to the aid of Col. West and all officers on the front line in our nation's ongoing war against Islamic terrorism and its state sponsors. How can we expect our frontline officers to fight wars the Bush administration calls "preemptive" if they are not given the latitude to respond -- preemptively -- to the asymmetric threats of terrorist aggressors? Would the deaths of American soldiers in the ambush Col. West thwarted at Saba al Boor have constituted a more acceptable result for the Army's judge advocate? While the military is successfully adapting its capabilities to meet the challenges of asymmetric, anti-terrorist warfare, a paradigm shift in how the military expects its officers to carry out such a war seems to be in order.

In the last two days, almost 70,000 Patriots have signed our petition to exonerate Col. West from this grossly misguided criminal prosecution. Please join us. Link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/colwest

"Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice describes criminal assault in these terms: "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." The Army's judge advocate interprets West's actions to be in violation of this restriction. This may be correct, but in both civilian and military courts, decisions are frequently made to decline prosecution based on extenuating circumstances -- and this, clearly, should be one of those cases."

Why are they claiming that he is in violation of this article? This can't really be true in a hot zone and that is what we have here. Major hostilities have ended but not the war? At least that is what we are being told. Is there more to this story or what?

Thank you for posting this. I was wondering how many had signed. I had posted the link to FR in a couple of places. My brother, currently serving in Iraq, and his soldiers have gotten wind of this atrocity. It'll help out their morale I'm sure when I send him your post!! Here's what he sent to me this afternoon:

John Weisman: Memo to Army Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker

November 3, 2003

[Have an opinion on this column? Sound off in John Weisman: Hot Discussions.]

Dear General:

Now let's see if I get this straight. An officer whose Tikrit-based troops have come under attack from Saddam loyalists becomes aware that an Iraqi detainee has information about a planned ambush of his Soldiers, but the prisoner isn't being cooperative.

The officer then goes to interrogate the detainee -- an Iraqi police officer, by the way -- and in the course of questioning, fires his weapon as a way of making the point that he's serious about obtaining straight answers.

The detainee then tells the truth. The ambush is averted, and Soldiers' lives are saved.

The officer is then:

A: given a commendation.

B: promoted to full colonel for showing initiative under pressure and loyalty to his troops.

C: told to resign his commission immediately or face a court martial.

The correct answer, I'm sorry to have to report, is "C."

Lt. Col. Alan B. West, who aggressively interrogated an Iraqi detainee so that he could prevent an ambush and save his Soldiers lives, is being charged with aggravated assault by his unit's JAG officer.

According to published reports, Lt. Col West allowed two of his Soldiers to "physically agress" the prisoner (an act for which they were later fined), and then West brandished his pistol and fired two shots to scare the man into talking.

For this, the Judge Advocate General's office wants to end his 19-year career and possibly send him to prison for eight years. Meanwhile, idiot officers who get their men killed are being given medals and promotions, and generals who have never come under fire are putting themselves in for Silver Stars.

General Schoomaker, this is madness -- and you have to put a full stop to it right now.

Because this is what happens when lawyers, not shooters, run the military.

This is what happens in the politically correct world in which a secretary of the army (Togo West) hires a consultant who actually drafts a report stating that the Army needs to become less aggressive and more in touch with its feminine side.

This is what happens when the Army culture replaces risk-taking and initiative with hundreds of pages of rules and regulations that hamper war-fighting, degrade unit integrity, and place inane limits on how Soldiers can or cannot conduct themselves in battle.

This is what happens when managers and systems analysts replace Warriors in the command structure.

This is what happens when somewhere along the chain of command, the idea that war is about killing people and breaking things gets completely lost. This is what happens when the Army forgets the words of General George S. Patton, Jr.: "We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy -- the hated enemy -- wounds, death, and destruction."

Now, I'm not in favor of hooking prisoners up to field telephones -- although it has certainly happened in the past. Nor am I in favor of taking the Argentine approach to interrogation, i.e., tossing one prisoner out of a chopper 10,000 feet above the South Atlantic and then posing the question to the second prisoner in the chopper.

Moreover, Lt. Col West's actions came nowhere close to anything that can be called torture. Aggressive? Obviously. Outside the box? Absolutely. But aren't those qualities precisely the qualities we want in our officers?

Because if I were a Soldier serving under West's command, I'd say HOOAH, Colonel, and follow him to hell. Why? Because Lt. Col. West demonstrated something that far too few of today's officers are willing to demonstrate to their men and women: loyalty DOWN the chain of command.

Lt. Col. West put his Soldiers' lives above his own career. That sort of behavior deserves to be praised and rewarded, not given eight years and a dishonorable discharge.

There is an additional argument in favor of what Lt-Col. West did. The person he was interrogating was a spy for the other side in this conflict. He was caught as a member of the US-trained Iraqi police force, a position he apparently took to gather information.

Under the Law of War, which predates the United States by about three centuries, a captured spy in a fighting zone can be executed on the spot. It is not necessary even to have a military (or "drum head") trial. However, such a trial is preferable as a matter of form.

General Washington used this power when he tried and hanged Major Andre (the British officer who was Benedict Arnold's contact, and was found behind American lines in civilian clothes). British General Clinton used exactly the same power when he tried and hanged Nathan Hale (also captured in civilian clothes, behind British lines).

And the US Supreme Court recognized, unanimously, that the Law of War has been accepted by Congress and applies to the US military, outside of the constraints of the Bill of Rights. See In re Quirin, 1942.

So, if Col. West had the authority to try and execute this spy, he surely had the authority to scare information out of him without actually harming him.

Second point: Where is Col. West's home state? His Congressman and both of his Senators should be all over the Department of Defense on this case. And if any of those fail to support Col. West, their voters should not support them.

I hope this information is helpful in putting a stop to this nonsense against this fine and able officer. And, yes, I would be proud for him to "have my back," anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.