[Jeff Head]

I respect what you have to say and in general agree with it. But we disagree on the level of treatment that constitutes inhumane, atrocious behavior. Like I said, in the time-critical combat situation that West faced...I not only do not find fault with him, I believe what he did was prudent.

In all-out war where you have an enemy who wants nothing more than to kill as many of your as he can, and wants nothing more than to destroy your way of life...you have to take the steps necessary to preserve your way of life. That does not mean you enjoy it, and it does not mean you sadistically torture or maim prisoners for the sake of the sadsim.

Like I said, ask WW II vets who fought German spies posing as US soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge. Or ask US Marines and Army and Navy personnel who fought the Jpanese on ISlands like Tareawa, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, etc. They are not proud of what they had to do to win...but they did it anyway so we could sit here in the peace and comfort of our homes and freedom and theorize about it.

West took responsibility and is willing to be accountable for what he did. He knew it crossed a line. There are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, relatives and friends whose sons are in all likelihood alive today because of what he did who are glad he crossed that line. Stack that up to a few bruises and a deflated ego. Ask those parents how they feel...better yet, imagine your own son, daughter, brother, friend and tell me you would willingly sacrifice their life and liberty over the minor infraction of the rules Col. West made. I would not.

Our service personnel have been put in the position to do much worse in the past...in war, they probably will have to do so in the future. I oray to God that they will have the strength and the wisdom to do what is right, however difficult, to preserve liberty and our way of life.

[Hawkeye2]

West took responsibility and is willing to be accountable for what he did. He knew it crossed a line. ............ I’m glad to hear that. We cannot have soldiers deciding which orders they will obey and which they will not. No one would defend the platoon leader who went south when he was ordered to go north. “I was simply trying to save the lives of my men,” would not be a valid defense. Even if it accomplished his stated objective, he would still be subject to disciplinary action. I see no difference in Col. West’s actions. He had orders and he chose to disregard them. If what West did was the right thing, then why shouldn't every platoon leader follow his example, and disregard their orders if they have reason to believe it will put their men at risk?