GOP Defends Army Officer

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday, Dec. 1, 2003 | Jon E. Dougherty

[GigaDittos]

Regardless of the letter of the law, this man's intent was just and to do his duty to his men. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

[nicmarlo]

BTTT....this man, IMHO, did nothing wrong. We are at war, against terrorists, snipers, and evil men who observe no "proper rules" of engagement/customs of war.

[ClintonBeGone]

Regardless of the letter of the law, this man's intent was just and to do his duty to his men. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

Read the law cited carefully.

Article 128 of the code states: "[Any military personnel] who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do...harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

He's admitted he never intended to do harm. I don't think he's even violated the 'letter of the law'. However, it doesn't help his case when he's out there in the media admitting he what he did 'was not right.'

[Fawnn]

I'm glad to see the GOP support for Lt. Col. West! I believe he is an Army officer who warrants our praise, not charges. ("Unconventional interrogation technique," my Aunt Fanny! His methods don't sound "unconventional" to me; they sound "effective"!)

Ping

[evad]

..admitting he what he did 'was not right.'

Agreed...critical error on his part.

In an effort to be totally above board he has shot himself in the foot making it even harder for his superiors to find a way out for him.

All that aside, the fact is what he did 'was right' and would not violate any of my rules of engagement for wartime actions.

[mattdono]

LT. Colonel West BUMP

[Poohbah]

He's admitted he never intended to do harm.

Actually, at his Article 32 hearing, he did.

[evad]

..the tactic, while unconventional, likely saved the lives of American troops. But military officials believe West violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Does anyone know if the UCMJ covers 'rules of engagement' in wartime??

Where do rules of engagement come from?

[verity]

I always have a problem with professional politicians preaching about morality and ethics.

[Poohbah]

Does anyone know if the UCMJ covers 'rules of engagement' in wartime??

Yes, it does.

Where do rules of engagement come from?

They are imposed by senior echelons--brigade, division, corps, theater commander, and so on. In other words, LTC West was violating orders from those above him in the chain of command.

[Ispy4u]

Thanks for the ping.

People can bend the words of article 128 but it still points back to admission of guilt for assault. Whatever happens to LTC West will center on that and "other" stuff from the command climate investigation.

[Ispy4u]

UCMJ covers every action, of every member of the military, at all times. There are no exceptions!

And BTW ROE come from lawful orders of West's superiors. He failed to follow orders as well as comitting assault.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Still, its a shame to junk the guy's career over this.

[HarleyD]

Sorry, I cannot accept that this individual should be court martial for getting information which resulted in saving his troops. This is one rare exception where the end does justify the means. If it means making one Iraqie terrorist pee his pants to save the lifes for our troops then I'm all for it. I think this is a good case for a presidential pardon and a promotion.

[verity]

I think this is a good case for a presidential pardon

Only a thanksgiving turkey can be pardoned without first having been found guilty.

[Redbob]

"Article 128 of the code states: "[Any military personnel] who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do...harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Then West is innocent: he clearly made no "attempt" to harm that Iraqi @sswipe.

[basque69]

There is a problem inherent here. If a colonel-grade commander does this, what message is being sent to Private Snuffy in A Battery? These charges were brought by a fine division commander. Basically, the problem is that there is a very thin line between an army and an armed mob. By definition West set an ugly precedent for his command.

[ClintonBeGone]

Actually, at his Article 32 hearing, he did.

:( Another reason why one much remember their is a constitutional right to remain silent - even under the UCMJ.

[ClintonBeGone]

All that aside, the fact is what he did 'was right' and would not violate any of my rules of engagement for wartime actions.

Agreed. You make a good point. His best option is to win this in the court of public opinion. His admission makes it that much harder for his defenders in Congress.

[ClintonBeGone]

Does anyone know if the UCMJ covers 'rules of engagement' in wartime??

I'm sure it does, but maybe not in detail. What the UCMJ would do is say it's a violation to disobey a direct order. The rules of engagement would be contained in a direct order from someone in his chain of command. Therefore, disobeying those direct orders would be a violation of the UCMJ, in addition to any specific violation of the UCMJ like assault, battery, etc.