House Demands Report from Army on LTC West Investigation

HASC Press Release | 21 Nov 03

[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."

[mdmathis6]

My apologies to you...I backtracked...I meant the post for Ispy 4 u and not for you...I apologize for mistaking you for him and any embarrassment it caused you...and I promise to taste shoe leather for the rest of the day!

[Ben Bolt]

Bump for good news . Ltc. West set a damn fine example ! It would have been an honour to have served with him .

[mdmathis6]

Well that is what I'm questioning...if it is an offense such as to put him in the brig. I know the rules in civilian life are different from the army, the eqivalent would be a police officer threatening a prisoner to confess using deadly force,,,and such usually brings about dismissal and even jail time in some cases, though many are eased out if close to retirement. The police cases I've read about though where the offense is so obvious, the cops are usually fired out of hand or after a short investigation, then criminal charges laid out. The cop can do some plea bargaining but generally they are dismissed with-out benefits, tried and either jailed or given some kind of probation with community service. Then of course are the law suits! Generally, though they are not usually given a choice of retire or be tried and maybe go to jail. The offense of threatening deadly force to co-erce a confession is frowned upon by our courts in civilian life and I could see that it would cause trouble for a soldier who did it in the military as well.

Generally congress doesn't get to involved with these kinds of military issues unless some-thing is going on thru unofficial channels that we don't know about...despite what Ispy4u has to say about it.

Why slap West so hard...even the general that sexually harrassed a fellow woman officer didn't get the punishment he deserved either, being allowed to retire at colonel?

[William Terrell]

This is what your first sergant says, the troops think their CO lost his dicipline by scaring a ambush plan out of a collaborator? And they agree amonst themselves that no good can come from losing dicipline, even if the issue is their lives?

Really?

[Ispy4u]

He's not my 1SG, but yes. Consensus is LTC West lost his discipline and in the end loss of discipline is bad. No one thinks he should lose his retirement or spend 1 day in jail. But the overall consensus is that he can no longer lead, he failed to set the standard and lead by example.

Yes, even if the issue is their lives. None of them want to die. But none of them want to bring shame on the United States or the US Army. It's a matter of honor and the phrase "Duty, Honor, Country" means a lot to soldiers who are gladly and voluntarily serving to uphold the standards and traditions of the US Army.

I'm sorry if you are too dense to get it.

[AndyJackson]

BTW to let you know what a relic you are - there are no CINC's anymore. They are Commanders now. The only CINC is the president. This happened about a year ago.

You are clueless about what goes on in DC. Part of the problem is that you are so wrapped up in your 3letter military computer gobbledygook that you don't know what happens here in Washington before the ROE's are put into the computers to get printed out in your op orders. A lot of high level discussion about rules of engagement happen at the NSC involving State, Defense and the office of the president before they ever go out. The reason is that with the wrong ROEs you can end up with a war or a nuclear war on your hands that you never intended. The President makes those decisions himself, not some 2-star 7 levels down the chain of command.

[mdmathis6]

"I speak with the 1SG of HHC 4th ID almost weekly, I trust he has a good feel for what's going on with the "mudfeet".

What's your source? Or are you projecting from the safety of your armchair?"

That is what you quoted to William Terrel?....You quoted that you speak with the First Sargent "almost weekly". And you continued to speak of him as a source in your other conversations with Mr. Terrell.

And that is what I question...No first Sargent is going to risk his career by giving you other than the OFFICIAL LINE his superiors want him to give. And to mention him on line as a source is a little compromising don't you think? So yeah I don't believe you...and you can call me all the names you like. Even if you did know the first sargent and was "speaking to him weekly", I didn't want to know that. I don't want his superior officers to know that and I certainly don't want the islamofascists to know that!

Now do you get my drift...! "Loose lips sink ships"

[AndyJackson]

CINC sets goals and conditions for victory. That is the extent of their wartime policy.

Oh BS.

[Ispy4u]

They are Commanders now.

If you are going to correct someone use the correct term. "Combattant Commanders" Gee, why didn't you know that?

[AndyJackson]

It was men, right

I was a submariner. Gentlemen never tell.

[mdmathis6]

"This is what your first sergant says, the troops think their CO lost his dicipline by scaring a ambush plan out of a collaborator? And they agree amonst themselves that no good can come from losing dicipline, even if the issue is their lives?

Really?"


If this is true, what Ispy says, I fear our military has become more like Eurogirlie men than I feared. But the tribunals will have to sort it all out now. I don't know it "that retire with-out rank and benefits or be court martialed bit" they pulled on West was put out with the hope that he would quietly go, or... put out with the hope that he would demand a trial and be further bashed in the verdict phase. If it was the first scenario, then somebody goofed royally and completely misread the man. If it was the second scenario, it would give me great fear as a civilian as to see the level of cynicism the military has sunk to in the politics of personal destruction.

[Ispy4u]

There is no OPSEC problem with that.

He is a friend of mine and we happen to stay in touch. You think that no one knows any of the soldiers in Iraq? I mention him as a source of what the troops in 4th ID think of the LTC West situation, nothing else.

"Loose lips", you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Please don't try again to cover up your stupidity, you will eventually fall into the hole you've dug here.

[AndyJackson]

If it was the first ... if it was the second

The problem is that the adults who are supposed to be in charge left a rather important decision to "the system." The Congress has now reminded them that they are in charge and personally accountable - not some mindless system. This is not untoward political interference. It is the political system asking the officers in charge to stand up and be counted. A lot of folks around here apparently think it the manly think is to slink off and let the military bureucracy do its mindless paper shuffle and unmanly to have to explain what is going on and why you made the decisions you made.

[William Terrell]

This first sergant reports to you, personally, that the troops think their CO was undiciplined and they agree he should have let the collabarator go unthreatened?

Right. I spent 13 months in VN and this was not my experience. But I was in the Marines.

[mdmathis6]

I'm covering up nothing...not even my name...but it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't necessarily agree with you, looking back over the other posts. So your are calling the rest of us stupid too? In the heat of discussions ideas get shared, trounced, beleived or disbelieved... but I have seen few "stupid" posters on freerepublic and I have never called any-one names or belittled them. I was even man enough to apologize to Pukin Dog.

You say you know certain people in the military who talk to you fine, but I think by mentioning specific people by rank(even if the name isn't mentioned) is dangerous to them. There are so many first sargents in the 4th infantry right? So to state an opinion on this is stupid...right? Okay I'm too stupid and ignorant to know that duty and honor exist for the defence of Liberty and that duty and honor only exist when there is true justice. But even true justice cnnot exist with out mercy! Yeah I'm too stupid to know that...

[Ispy4u]

You are intentionally twisting my words.

I told you what I was told, LTC West lost his discipline, that doesn't imply he was never or is no longer disciplined. I never told you the troops think he should have let the detainee go unthreatened. Quit trying to add words to my statement.

VN was a different experience altogether, I would hope that you would want it to stay that way.

[mdmathis6]

oh don't me wrong...andy,,,I approve of the fact that congress is looking at the situation! I'm glad of it...and if West is guilty then he needs the appropriate discipline.
I fear in our Republic, how our civilian Government handles the military is much like how a snake charmer handles a cobra , by gentle motions and vibrations, by understanding its rythms, a cobra remains daized, hypnotically locked in that veil of indecision between biting or escape. God help us should our military ever bite us, pray the "charmers" of the congress handle this situation well!

[verity]

The decision was that LTC West will get a general court martial.

I do not concur. An Article 32 Investigation is not a GCM. There is ample precedence for the results of a "32" to cause the GCMCA to withdraw the charges. In any case, a congress critter can make life tough for the CG; however, he cannot usurp his authority.

[AndyJackson]

oh don't me wrong

I'm not. I am in general agreement with your statement and just adding my own comments. Sorry if it came across wrong.

[Ispy4u]

If you take my words as calling you stupid, so be it.

You have shown at least three times you are barely capable of reading english.

You failed to attribute a quote to the proper party. Even when you were corrected you misunderstood the purpose and content of the quote. After that you still misunderstood, and attributed information from friends as some kind of OPSEC violation. Finally you don't know the difference between pointing out stupidity and calling someone stupid. Gee I've known you for less than a day, and this is what I have to go on regarding your intelligence level.

If I wanted to call you a name, I would call you a name.