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."
Yes, it is.
And, Congress is NOT interfering with military justice.
Given that they are applying political pressure to spike an ongoing case, in lieu of actually rewriting the UCMJ to allow LTC West's behavior to stand...they are interfering with military justice.
Think of the Constitutional process in terms of an invasion by a rogue division of Mounties marching on Detroit City.
Assume the President, taking delivery of his new limousine, has been taken captive.
You read the Constitution in that light and it all makes a lot of sense, particularly all the parts about Congress.
Again, the context is the Constitution, not the War Powers Act, and not the spineless weasels we've had as Congresscritters for the last 189 years.
A credible threat to apply unlawful deadly force--by, for example, discharging a pistol past their head while physically restraining them, thus putting them in reasonable and immediate fear of losing life or limb--is, by definition, assault, and is punishable under Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
My point concerned the reporters who write pieces about this event ~ they all conclude that Col. West "threatened to kill", when he didn't do that at all!
Then you agree that Bill Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
Lt. Col. Allen B. West -- the most senior officer of the 4th Infantry Division to face such a proceeding -- attended the hearing with his lawyer in a U.S. military base in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.
West is accused of punching and firing a pistol near the prisoner, Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, on Aug. 20 while he was being interrogated in Taji, according toLt. Col. Jimmy Davis, who presided over the hearing.
West also allegedly threatened to kill the detainee if he did not talk, Davis said, reading from a fact sheet. The hearing is to determine whether West should face court-martial.
It's more than the media saying he threatened to kill the guy.
Certainly not.
In fact, I asked why all of them draw a conclusion about West's intentions that is not supported by the evidence yet made public when, in fact, that evidence supports an entirely different conclusion.
Doesn't that only pertain to the judicial, legislative and executive branches?
Congress = legislative branch
Army = executive branch
Gosh, it looks like it applies here.
The Board doing the review might even have that phrase in front of them. I can see Col. West answering "I did not threaten to kill him ~ I did those acts which he would understand as a threat to pistol whip him".
Then he walks with a reduction in rank to Major and an early retirement.
Congress CAN "interfere" with military justice. In case you haven't noticed, Congress makes ALL the rules. It's in Section I, of the US Constitution.
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.