Posted on 11/21/2003 3:59:24 PM PST by O6ret
PRESS RELEASE
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Armed Services
Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2003
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES LEADERS DEMAND INFORMATION CONCERNING LT. COLONEL WEST
Actions to Save Soldiers Were Proper Based on Available Information
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John M. McHugh (R-NY)are calling on U.S. Army leadership to immediately provide a report on the investigation of Lt. Col. Allen West. West is charged with improperly interrogating an Iraqi prisoner.
Based on the information currently available to them, Hunter and McHugh believe that West's actions may well have been necessary to protect the lives and safety of his fellow soldiers and not the actions of a criminal, as he is charged. Hunter is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and McHugh is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, which has jurisdiction over military personnel matters.
According to news accounts, the incident in question took place this pastAugust near Tikrit, Iraq, when guerrillas attacked U.S. soldiers underWest's command. An informant told U.S. authorities that a local policeman was involved. West ordered the policeman brought in, though he proveduncooperative. West has testified that he fired his pistol near the head ofthe Iraqi, threatening to kill him in an effort to obtain information to protect his troops. As a result of the tactic, the Iraqi provided information regarding a planned sniper attack on U.S. soldiers. Two insurgents were arrested, a third fled and there were no attacks in the area. West immediately informed his commanding officer of the incident. He is currently facing an inquiry to determine if there is cause for a court-martial.
"We are highly disturbed by media accounts that the Army is beginning criminal proceedings against Lt. Col. Allen B. West for taking actions in Iraq that he believed were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men," stated the Congressmen in a letter to Les Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army. "To us, such actions if accurately reported do not appear to be those of a criminal," the letter continues.
In addition to the information previously requested, the Congressmen are asking to see a new report. "We are aware the Army has completed a preliminary inquiry regarding whether to proceed to a court martial and would like to review that report," said Hunter and McHugh in a joint statement. "Our interest is in justice. Based on what we know right now, it is more than reasonable to assume that Col. West acted in a manner proportionate to the threat against his soldiers."
Uh-huh. And that makes mistreatment of a SUSPECT (not proven, just a SUSPECT) all right because...
(Cue Final Jeopardy theme)
Secondly, the conduct of a court martial is certainly judicial and it would be incorrect for anyone outside the process to interfere with the conduct of an ongoing trial.
Wow, someone finally agrees with me.
The decision whether to charge and hold a trial is administrative, however, and a decision that is certainly within the purview of the congress to review as it can review all adminstrative decisions of the executive branch.
The decision hasn't been taken yet. But you want it "pre-reviewed" so that it comes out the way you want.
It would appear that in this case the Court Martial convening authority wans to evade his responsibility and determine whether or not charges are in order.
He's holding an Article 32 hearing. Gosh, it looks like he's determined that there's enough question to warrant such a hearing, and he's using the procedures established to determine if charges are warranted or not.
Congress is asking the supevisors to stand up and take a stand as they are supposed to do, and they all want to provide themselves coverage and let a mindless process procede.
I can tell you this much: if I were the CG of the 4th ID, I'd invite the Congresscritters to visit my headquarters for a briefing.
I doubt they'd show up...
The problem is that a junior JAG officer appointed as the local prosecutor has no choice, really, but to prefer charges.
The CG makes the final decision. >Whether or not, under the circumstances, LTC West was acting in the line of duty is a decision first by a senior line officer, not a junior jag officer.
Fine.
Said officer needs to face up to his own responsibilities, review the facts and make a determination.
And that's why he's holding an Article 32 hearing. Or do you prefer that the WPPA just hush stuff up?
This is merely a Congressman telling a sworn constitutional officer (Sec. Brownlee) what they believe the law that they passed means, and that they do not think that the reported conduct of LTC West is in violation of their law. They are allowed to do that.
By LTC West's account only, based on the word of a "confidential informant."
You know how to tell when an informant's lying to you?
And he's still a prisoner. Not an EPW, but a prisoner. And it's still against standing regs (and good sense) to thump prisoners.
If I were Secretary Brownlee, I would an arrow pointing to this phrase and write, "I.e., nothing. STFU." and return it to Congress.
First, there was already an adminstrative decision to take it to an Article 32 hearing and so the CG already ducked a decision to dismiss once. Once it goes to an Article 32 hearing, it cannot be disposed of there because LTC West's Lawyers will demand trial by Court Martial rather than give the CG an opportunity to dispose of the case. Allowed to dispose of the case, the outcome would likely be general discharge or some such thing that does not draw a lot of attention, saves the face of the Army, and avoids the publicity of a court martial. Therefore, I believe that the Article 32 decision having been made, a general court martial is pretty much automatic at this stage.
What the honorable Congressman is saying is that LTCOL West has done nothing to violate their laws that would warrant a court martial and he should be left alone.
Your ignorance of the duties of a constitutional officer of the goverment to appear testify and answer questions or produce requested information is astounding. For said action Brownlee would receive a subupoena to appear and testify - enforaceable by Federal agents - and could be charged with contempt of congress. What you are asking Bronwlee to do no constitutional officer who values his job would do.
What has been hushed up? We all know about it.
Oh, I see. The CG's only sanctioned role is to engage the WPPA and dump the charges, whatever they may be, whatever the evidence gathered is.
What the honorable Congressman is saying is that LTCOL West has done nothing to violate their laws that would warrant a court martial and he should be left alone.
Wow. I didn't realize that being a congresscritter made one omniscient. No need for any sort of hearing. Heck, let's get rid of the JAG. No need to investigate anything ever again, we'll ask a congresscritter what happened, and he'll come to the correct conclusion based solely on heavily-spun editorializing masquerading as "reporting."
You know what West and his attorney have deigned to tell you. They haven't bothered telling you everything.
Well, in my case...I'm already guilty of contempt of congress. I find them a generally contempible lot.
What you are asking Bronwlee to do no constitutional officer who values his job would do.
Who said I'd value my job in that scenario?
Sure, I'd show up and testify.
"I have special trust and confidence in the fidelity, patriotism, and loyalty of the commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Mister Hunter."
That is your recommendation, not mine. The problem is that you are seeking a judicial solution to what is fundamentally a political problem. Decisions about rules of engagement, treatment of captured enemy agents, etc. are fundamentally political decisions. War is, after all, the continuation of politics by other means. War and its conduct is not judicial, it is political. The military would like to leave it to a mindless process and say that the process is working so no one has to gage where they are on the political correctness meter. Congress just told them hey, this really is political, make your decision like a man and like the commissioned officer we said you are and stand up and be counted.
As Sun Tzu reminds us, waging war is an issue of state. Congress knows that this discussion is about fundamental policy. You in your small-minded ignorance want to treat it like a parking ticket.
Commissioned officers do not make political decisions in this country, unless I woke up this morning in Guate-f***ing-mala and some O-6 just stormed 1600 Pennsyvania to proclaim himself "President for Life."
Rumsfeld and Brownlee are the answerable constitutional officers not the CG and they cannot pass the buck like youy just did. Rumsfeld wouldn't, either.
You are way out of your depth. Political decisions are about the only kinds of decisions that JCS makes.
That wasn't passing the buck.
In case you didn't notice....Congress can do any of it, if it so desires. BTW, Congress writes the US Code. If it wants to rewrite T50/C22, it can. The point is, is that the Constitution made Congress the overseer of the country, military and all. It can declare war or impeach a president or a SCOTUS justice. Congress has been given the duty of "oversight" by the Constitution. There is no separation of powers issue here.
Lot's of them are still up for taking out the NVA.
Aren't you?
I think you nailed the problem here on the head Poohbah. Most americans have an attention span far too short to execute a war these days. They want their win right now, and no mess either. Instant gratification is what those like LibKill seek.
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.