WEST: Court martial of US officer in Iraq

Where is his defence fund web site?

We will lose if we try to fight a PC war. Where is that defence fund.

Right On!Who was the Supreme Court Justice that observed that"The United States Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact"?Was it Oliver Wendell Holmes??This man is a HERO!!!!!!!!!!!

Colonel in Iraq refuses to resign

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    The attorney for Lt. Col. Allen B. West said yesterday his client will not quit the Army, rejecting a prosecutor's offer to resign rather than face charges he threatened an Iraqi detainee to gain information on a planned guerrilla attack.
    "Col. West will not resign short of his retirement eligibility," attorney Neal Puckett said in an interview.
    Mr. Puckett said he will travel to Iraq next week to investigate the case. He will then defend Col. West at an investigative hearing, called an Article 32, scheduled for Nov. 10 in Kirkuk. If enough evidence of wrongdoing is presented, Col. West could be court-martialed and sent to prison.
    The staff judge advocate for the 4th Infantry Division has charged Col. West with communicating a threat and aggravated assault for firing his pistol to scare a detainee into divulging information.
    Col. West told The Washington Times in an e-mail this week that he was desperate to gain information to protect his soldiers. They face almost daily attacks as they work to impose security around Tikrit, a stronghold of Saddam Hussein loyalists.
    The prosecutor has offered Col. West two choices: quit now, short of his 20-year retirement eligibility tomorrow, or face criminal proceedings that could lead to a trial. The assault charges carry a maximum penalty of eight years in prison.
    Mr. Puckett is a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who, as a judge advocate and military judge, handled more than 1,000 criminal cases. He said it is not unusual to suggest an officer quit rather than face charges.
    "However, I've never seen a situation where this guy is this close to retirement," Mr. Puckett said.
    If he quit, Col. West, 42, would lose more than $1 million in pay and health benefits over his life expectancy. His wife is a cancer survivor, Mr. Puckett said, meaning medical insurance will be extremely costly.
    The attorney said Col. West may consider accepting "nonjudicial punishment" at an Article 15 hearing before the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno. This procedure would allow the officer to retire with benefits, Mr. Puckett said. He said it is likely that Gen. Odierno approved the "quit or court-martial" offer to Col. West.
    The Army has relieved Col. West of his battalion command, an action that effectively ends his career.
    "The Army doesn't make just anybody a battalion commander," Mr. Puckett said. "If he had stayed a battalion commander, he was almost assured of being promoted to [full] colonel in the future."
    Col. West acknowledged in his e-mail to The Times that he did not follow the rules for interrogation, which prohibit the threat of force. He has offered to resign at the lower rank of major so he can collect retirement benefits. He reaches his 20th year of service tomorrow.
    At the Article 32 hearing, an officer will listen to prosecution and defense evidence. The officer would then recommend to Gen. Odierno whether to order a court-martial, dismiss the charges or handle the case administratively.
    The Times contacted Col. West via e-mail earlier this week, and he responded with an account of his actions in August.
    He was working as a liaison with the town council of Saba al Boor. His unit learned through an informant of impending attacks. The next day, some of his soldiers were attacked on a road leading to the town.
    The informant said an Iraqi police officer was involved. Col. West had the policeman detained. When two interrogators failed to gain any information, Col. West went to the detention center, brought the detainee outside and fired his 9 mm pistol twice to scare him into talking.
    Col. West said the detainee then provided the names of two accomplices and told of another planned sniper attack the next day.
    "I have never denied what happened and have always been brutally honest," said Col. West. "I accept responsibility for the episode, but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of a potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town. 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 Fedeyeen affiliation.
    "[The Iraqi policeman] 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?"
    Col. West's plight has struck a chord with military advocates. They complain the Army has put soldiers in a deadly environment, yet forced them to play by strict rules of conduct while their terrorist enemies do not.
    Said Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness: "Excuse me while I go to look up Marquis of Queensberry. No wonder we haven't gotten any information on Hussein's present location from all of those 'deck of cards' people we have captured. Has the Army lost its institutional mind? Or maybe they have forgotten that a state of war exists in Iraq."

This man is a HERO!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you include his troops, who engaged in similar actions to West's, in that description? Are they heroes?

West disagrees with you. He calls them criminals. He has punished them for disobeying orders--the same orders he disobeyed.

He demands that his troops conduct themselves to a higher standard than he holds himself to.

Good God. Court martialled for protecting his men?

This is insane.

Poobah - please expound -

If my neighbor is plotting to kill me and my family and neighbors and i take him to task by what ever means without killing him and saving my family/neighbors - give me some juice!

YES! and this is what I'm yelling about - where is his defence fund site?

Write your Senators and Congress Critters on behalf of Col West. Prosecution for this "offense" is a TRAVESTY!

The man should be promoted and made head of intelligence in Iraq. He'd do a heck of a lot better job than those that are doing it now!

West's men violate standing orders regarding the treatment of prisoners, and he punishes them.

West violates them himself, and demands that he not be held to account.

The only way you can say that that's good leadership is if you think that Bill Clinton is a good leader.

The situation as portrayed by West, and the situation as it realy was, are two very different things--and the situation was not as grave as West describes it.

My limited info on this, is that there is much unhappiness in the ranks about this officer being drawn and quartered by Washington officialdom, in order to make "the suits" appear to be sensitive people.

Had the officer discovered some plot against a high-up Pentagon official, he would be feted in D.C.

Further, had the officer taken it upon himself to slip into Iran or Syria, to recover, let's say, a small yet very deadly nuclear device about which he learned from the exact same "interrogation process," what would now be happening.

In short, he is being persecuted because some "suits" intend to set an example.

The "politics" of "the system" that is going on over there, is not good at all.

If anything is true, the Iraqi people really are happy to see us. The trouble is not so much them, as it is our own officialdom that is vigorously trying to shoot itself in the foot several times over.

The general, younger troopers of ours, over there, have heard of how things get messed up in the military, but many really do not know how much more messed up this mess is, than most, and more than it should be.

While in general, and in particular, our troops are performing well, they are not being served well by their bosses in all to many instances.

And the supply problem continues, contrary to all the chatter here.

Cumon Poohbah - nureons not firing fast enough?

Suck Rocks!

You're absolutely right!

It seems to me that everybody somehow is missing the most important point. The detainee was not wearing a uniform clearly designating him as a combatant on one of the sides of conflict - he was in the uniform of US ally while fighting against US.

It seems to me that the rules of war are not applicable to him and hence there was simply nothing there to violate by beating him or treatening to execute him.

Actually, the situation is that West was the subject of an unrelated IG investigation.

IG investigations are not conducted just for laughs, especially in a combat zone.

The "Mad Dog Arab' is just fine.

Any SF that would put a 45 to the head of a USAF pilot to get to the objective is OK in my book.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1016491/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1015891/posts

Angela's address for fund donations are listed at these threads:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1016491/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1015891/posts

Cumon Poohbah - nureons not firing fast enough?

Mine are firing quite nicely, thank you for asking.

LTC West was the subject of an IG investigation for unrelated issues.

The Army doesn't conduct IG investigations for trivial reasons, particularly in a combat zone.

West's men violate standing orders regarding the treatment of prisoners, and he punishes them. West violates them himself, and demands that he not be held to account.

Dude, I thinks there is a difference here. While I am not aware of what "standing orders" were violated, there is a difference of hitting a "prisoner" in the ribs with your assault rifle 'cause the pace was too slow, and having a suspect in the planned ambush of troops not coughing up intelligence.

Perhaps if you could inform us poor souls who are unaware of what "violations" were committed and punished?