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."

[muawiyah]

Must be because I was an Infantryman and would have liked to have had an officer willing to sacrifice everything to optimize my opportunity for leaving the situation alive and in one piece.

I simply find it impossible to understand folks who lick the boots of the high command.

BTW, I think he should have pistolwhipped the Ba'athist punk anyway ~ that way he'll behave in the future and not mess with our people.

[mass55th]

"Gosh, it looks like it applies here."

Guess they're applying the system of checks and balances then.

[pointsal]

They (the ARMY) should be sending the whole bunch of JAG desk-jockeys out on patrol with the MP's and giving them water-pistols for their side arms!

[Pukin Dog]

I think he should have pistolwhipped the Ba'athist punk anyway ~ that way he'll behave in the future and not mess with our people.

A lot of people feel just like you do. None of them are Officer material.

[Ispy4u]

You aren't the only infantyman here.

That's no excuse for being uninformed.

[Poohbah]

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.

Since it is codified as Title 50, Chapter 22 of the United States Code, the UCMJ goes through the same process as any other legislation.

To "change the rules," Congress must (a) pass legislation through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and (b) either obtain Presidential approval of the change, or override the President's veto.

In case you didn't notice...Congress didn't do any of this.

[Poohbah]

Look here, in unloading his pistol Col. West used the Ba'athist's own beliefs against him. To the Ba'athist, if not you nor your friends in the news media, the threat was to pistol whip the guy ~ not to shoot him!

Sorry, muawiyah. LTC West threatened to apply deadly force. Among other things, he did NOT unload the pistol; he discharged it. There is a difference between the two. Firing the weapon is not part of the unloading sequence.

[muawiyah]

Ah, hah! But Congresscritters can "investigate". Interesting that you want to interpret that as "command interference".

If the military is part of the Executive establishment, then Congress cannot, by definition, be involved in "command interference".

Congress should be required to get involved in this stuff more often.

[muawiyah]

That's what that particular barrel was for - to verify that the weapon did not have a chambered round. Following that, no doubt appropriate examination of the weapon was made.

The word "allegedly" is still in the story, whether it's the military "fact sheet" or a piece of garbage from one of your "newsie" friends at the New York Times.

[Ispy4u]

If they don't want to influence the outcome then why did they make it publicly known they are inquiring into the matter?

[muawiyah]

You are confounding the word "interfere" with "command interference", which may or may not involve actual interference, but rather might be construed as same.

I take it you were an Air Force officer?

[Ispy4u]

Just happens that even in military hearings a man is cosidered innocent until proven guilty, hence "allegedly".

[Al B.]

So where are you getting your inside information from?

Please ping me when you get an answer to that question.

[Ispy4u]

I take it you were an Air Force officer?

You really don't pay attention, do you?

Ispy4u post #45 You aren't the only infantyman here.

[muawiyah]

There you go again, making excuses for the "newsies" and the Pentagon commandos who think Col. West was too rough on his Ba'athist prisoner.

[muawiyah]

YOu didn't say you were Infantry. You ashamed or something?

[Ispy4u]

You must have a brain injury.

[Poohbah]

Ah, hah! But Congresscritters can "investigate". Interesting that you want to interpret that as "command interference".

I didn't use those words; you did.

Right now, there isn't anything for Congress TO investigate.

There is an Article 32 hearing underway. This hearing will determine if there are sufficient grounds for trying LTC West.

Representative Hunter is demanding that this hearing be turned off before all of the evidence has been presented, and that no further action be taken on the charges--without hearing all of the evidence.

This reminds me of Senator Lott's demand that none of the damning evidence against Clinton be presented at the Senate trial.

Demanding that evidentiary proceedings be terminated right now doesn't strike me as supporting the cause of justice.

[Poohbah]

That's what that particular barrel was for - to verify that the weapon did not have a chambered round. Following that, no doubt appropriate examination of the weapon was made.

Since LTC West was physically restraining the Iraqi, and since he fired more than one round, your hypothesis is not supported.

The word "allegedly" is still in the story, whether it's the military "fact sheet" or a piece of garbage from one of your "newsie" friends at the New York Times.

LTC West admits that he committed those acts...including threatening to kill the prisoner.

[muawiyah]

The "command" would be well-advised to leave things like this alone until the battlefield is secure.

There will be plenty of time later on to sort it all out.