Members Of Congress, Web Sites Back Officer Who Faces Punishment In Iraq Interrogation Case (West)

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Army’s investigation of an officer accused of crossing the line in an attempt to get information from an Iraqi detainee is generating a grass-roots protest among some Americans who say the safety of troops trumps any temporary violation of interrogation rules.

Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West, who is assigned to the 4th Infantry Division’s 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment, in Tikrit, Iraq, stands accused of actions that occurred Aug. 20, at a detainee holding site in Taji, Iraq.

Some members of Congress, meanwhile, are asking whether those rules may not be too strict in light of the all-out war on terror.

“We’re trying to bring democracy and a better way of life to [Iraq], and you don’t do that by employing terrorist tactics in reverse,” John M. McHugh, R-N.Y., said in a Tuesday telephone interview. “But how many American lives are we willing to trade for ideals?

“Maybe the days of putting someone in a comfortable chair and giving them a cigarette are over.”

In testimony during his Article 32 hearing last week, West, 42, said he had received information that Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, an Iraqi policeman, was allegedly involved in a plot to attack him and his troops.

Article 32 investigations are pretrial proceedings that determine whether a servicemember should face court-martial.

West said he had Hamoodi brought in for questioning, but that the Iraqi would not cooperate, so West led him out of the detention facility to a weapons cleaning area, gave him to a count of five to talk, and then fired two shots near the detainee.

Hamoodi then gave information that led to the detention of additional suspects in the attack.

West said he immediately filed a report to his commanding officer, detailing the incident.

“I knew [my career] was over,” West said during the trial. “I know that the method that I used was not the right method … [but] to protect my soldiers, I’ll go to hell with a gasoline can in my hand.”

One month later, West was relieved of his command. A preliminary investigation by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division alleged that West’s actions were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

With the Article 32 hearing concluded, the case “is now in the hands of the investigative officer,” Lt. Col. Jimmy Davis, according to Master Sgt. Robert Cargie, a spokesman for the 4th ID in Tikrit.

There are three “courses of action” Davis could recommend, Cargie said in a Monday telephone interview: dismiss the case; proceed with Article 15 charges, which are administrative, internal sanctions; or “continue to process to a court-martial.”

Davis will make his recommendation directly to the 4th ID’s commanding officer, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Cargie said.

West has been assigned administrative duties while awaiting the outcome of the investigation, Cargie said. He refused to discuss details of West’s case, citing the pending recommendation.

In a Monday e-mail from Iraq, West also declined to comment on specifics concerning his case.

“I never wanted a public event as such we have,” West wrote. “I will not open my voice until this is resolved and I stand in embrace with my wife and daughters, all that matters right now.”

He referred additional questions to his attorney, retired Marine Lt. Col. Neal Puckett, who is in Tikrit with West awaiting the outcome of the investigation. Puckett did not reply to e-mail and telephone messages seeking comment.

West’s case has caught the attention of many Americans, including several who have e-mailed Stars and Stripes with their concerns.

Typical of those e-mails was this missive from retired Air Force member Roy S. Alba II of San Antonio:

“If the United States Army wants to improve morale they should promote LTC West way ahead of his peers,” Alba wrote. “Besides providing tardy justice to West it will also say to the enemy, ‘We’re taking the gloves off so don’t screw with us!’” wrote Alba.

Angela West, West’s wife of 14 years, said in a Tuesday telephone interview that she has personally received “five or six thousand” letters and e-mails regarding her husband’s predicament, and that they have been running “almost 100 percent positive.”

“People are being very supportive of him, and I’m glad,” Angela West said. “It’s a huge support base, especially [responses from] the military.”

Grass-roots support for West appears to be largely driven by the Internet, where at least two dozen Web sites and chat rooms are tackling the controversy.

Most of the sites lean conservative or are devoted to military and veteran’s issues. At least two outlets, liberty.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php and patriotpetitions.us/colwest/, have electronic petitions prepared they say will be sent to members of Congress, the Pentagon and White House.

On the liberty conservative petition site, opened Nov. 10, 640 people had registered their signatures as of Wednesday. There is no signature count associated with the patriotpetition site.

West also has champions in Congress, including McHugh, who is chairman of the House Armed Service’s Committee’s Subcommittee on Total Force, which has jurisdiction over military personnel matters, and House Armed Service Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

Hunter and McHugh have sent two letters to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, requesting copies of the CID report and the Article 32 hearing transcripts involving the West case.

“We’re looking for the facts,” McHugh said. “We’re not urging a specific outcome here, or suggesting that what [West] did is totally OK, [but] we are looking for justice.”

McHugh said he heard about West “six or eight weeks ago,” while listening to a talk radio show by conservative host G. Gordon Liddy.

Subsequently, “more than two dozen members [of the House] have come up to me to comment, complain about [West’s case] or demand some kind of action on it,” McHugh said, calling such numbers “surprising.”

“When you have that level of member concern, you try to respond to it,” McHugh said.

Senior Army officials at the Pentagon will not discuss the West case, spokesman Maj. Steve Stover said Monday, “because we want to avoid undue command influence” on the outcome of the hearing.

It’s difficult to say whether the congressional interest will help or harm West, according to attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington.

“The value of congressional inquiries [into military justice cases] is not very clear,” Fidell said in a Monday telephone interview. “They often prove perfunctory, or worse yet, can backfire and harm the person that they are seeking to help,” because military officials resent the interference.

McHugh, however, said that while the West case “is obviously important for Colonel West, there are a number of larger, legitimate questions here” about the use of force in interrogations.

“We’re concerned about the longer-term implications,” McHugh said. “The challenge is that there are far too many detainees who don’t take us seriously.

“No one is saying we should engage in wholesale beatings and intimidation, but this is a new era,” he said. “The question we might ask ourselves is, within the bounds of humane treatment, should we be a little less strict” regarding the rules of interrogations?

“There’s a bigger picture here,” she said. “We’re really not getting information from these guys (the Iraqis).”

“If [West’s] actions prevented four [soldiers’] lives from being lost, then I wish their families a great Thanksgiving,” Angela West said.

I guess your point is we should just give up now since we lost 78 in November?

Not at all. This could be the point at which we begin to take a real agressive stance, instead of just shooting back when fired upon. Of course if it's made clear that such aggressiveness will buy the officer commanding a set of charges and specifications, they'll back off, and sometime early next year, we'll note a hundred more Americans killed in a month to come.

No really Arch, what are you getting at? I guess that we shouldn't have even bothered to fight back against the ambush yesterday, after all because of this LTC West thing our 4th ID guys' morale is obvoiously broken.

I'm less concerned for the 4th ID than I am for reservists arriving in-country, and more of whom will be taking over in the next six months, at least. And in particular, for their junior officers, from many of whom I've heard sad and disturbing thoughts, if understandable ones.

I posted the info about the ambush because whiners like you said that the morale of 4th ID would be crushed. Well for a crushed morale those guys kicked the livin crap out of the Fedayeen Saddam!

When I'm called a whiner by someone hiding behind his desk in Maryland, I'm not particularly impressed. Tell us about the ambushes you've pulled off, not those of otyhers. BTW, it was 54 enemy hostile KIA. Or were you reading the press accounts instead of the 4th ID AAR?

After all, they have Americans like you making sure that other officers won't be taking effective measures against them, and otherwise giving them aid and comfort.

I had almost forgotten why I offered before to give you a short class on the differences between officer and enlisted. Keep talking trash, you whiner!

I don't need lessons on that, having spent my first tour, 1966-1970, as an enlisted man, initially as an eleven-echo tank crewman. But I particularly don't need lessons from a chairwarmer who couldn't hack it in a line unit in a combat arms MOS.

-archy-/-

Let's see arch. I'm still active, I've been in theater already this year. I was in Afghanistan last year. And you call me a chair warmer. Did you forget that I was 8 years Infantry or are you a has-been that has to disparage others service to make himself feel big?

What you don't know about Intel analysts cracks me up. You should not make assumptions about what someone does because of their MOS. The Army has an awful lot of "other jobs" for people that aren't necessarily apparent by their job title.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into a Peeing contest with a has-been. I know what I've done, and don't have to prove it to you. Even if you have done more than me in your career, that doesn't mean your comments hold water.

BTW those reservists arriving in country will do just fine. Their tours are 18 mos long with required 12 in country. What do you think they are going to do for the other 6? It won't be sitting on their duffs in garrison, I can promise you that. Some of it will be set aside for Demobilization, but the majority will be hell bent for leather training. They will be up to speed when they get there.

Anyway, here's to your moaning and whining about one LTC who can't maintain his self discipline. His story makes for a really good "no $H#T there we were" story, but in reality it costs us way more than any of us are willing to pay.

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.