Excessively hasty, and unless you're very, VERY good, risks arterial bleeding that can end your prisoner's interrogation prematurely.
Just turn him over to the Nungs. They're older now, but there are still a few around.
-archy-/-
Posted on 12/09/2003 4:16:55 AM PST by Ispy4u
Under the strain of command in a dangerous situation, Lt. Col. Allen West committed a serious error in judgment. And in a military environment, such errors by a commanding officer cannot go unpunished.
Informed on Aug. 20 that an Iraqi policeman might have information about potential attacks on West and his troops, the colonel invited soldiers under his command to beat the suspect as West looked on. When that did not produce the desired effect, West threatened the prisoner, first firing a pistol into the air, then holding the pistol to the policeman's head and firing a shot into the ground nearby.
Not surprisingly, the terrified suspect then began babbling information. As is often the case when such crude techniques are used, it later proved impossible to verify whether that information was accurate or whether it had been invented by the suspect in a desperate attempt to save his life.
Nor was it clear that the suspect was guilty. As U.S. intelligence officers testified in a preliminary hearing in the case, Iraqis will often finger an innocent person to American troops as a way to wreak personal revenge on each other.
Unfortunately for West, there is no question whatsoever about his own behavior in the case, or that it violated U.S. Army regulations. After complaints were filed by other soldiers, the colonel was relieved of command and is awaiting word whether he will be court-martialed on charges of aggravated assault and communicating a threat. If found guilty, the well-respected officer could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison.
It is hard not to feel sympathy for West, and almost impossible to sit in judgment of him from afar. "If it's the lives of my men and their safety," he said in his preliminary hearing, "I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." His case has even drawn congressional interest, with two U.S. senators suggesting that West deserves to be commended for his actions, not prosecuted. And certainly, a prison term does seem an unduly harsh punishment.
It is even more difficult to condemn West for violating the standards of the Geneva Convention for warfare and occupation when more senior U.S. officials are themselves treating those rules as inconvenient guidelines that can be ignored at will. The hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held under harsh conditions by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, for example, have been ruled ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention because they are supposedly "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war.
That effort to redefine the problem calls to mind the argument used by the North Vietnamese more than 30 years ago to justify their cruel treatment of captured American aviators. John McCain and others in the Hanoi Hilton were not prisoners of war, we were told, but war criminals who deserved what they got. In other words, it is always easy to find a justification if you want one badly enough.
It is also true that in Iraq, we are engaged in a bitter struggle with people who do not recognize such distinctions. As the West case illustrates, it is tempting to then fight the battle on their terms, and in rare cases it may indeed be necessary to do so.
But those and other distinctions are part of why we're fighting. We believe such rules are important to civilized life; our opponents do not. In the eyes of the Iraqis, it is hard to distinguish ourselves from the previous regime if we ourselves do not attempt to live by the rules we claim to uphold. The suspect threatened by West, for example, was a policeman, and hundreds of U.S. personnel are trying hard every day to convince Iraqi policemen that such tactics are simply unacceptable.
For military reasons, punishing West in some way is mandatory. The tactics that he used that day contradict the values this country is supposed to be defending. Allowing an officer of his rank to evade consequences for such behavior would send an unmistakable signal up and down the ranks and greatly erode the discipline our soldiers rely upon in tough situations.
Certainly, the pressures of combat help explain his mistake. They do not excuse it.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.
Precisely where we differ. I do not think discipline was done correctly in this instance.
Anyone who doesnt support completely overwhelming firepower used with extreme prejudice when engaging an enemy force that wants to spill your blood is an idiot.
You are only confusing the situation by not looking to the basic breach of discipline, and that is all he is charged with.
If that is truly the issue then you'd do well to not refer to a screed that revolves around the premise that our actions are contrary to the Geneva Convention...
You have to admit that there's been a spiraling out of control of the media spin on each side here. Col. West may have "broke the rules", but that infraction should have warranted quite a bit milder treatment and maybe a review of how we treat combatants out of uniform (with a subsequent dispersal of the negative aspects of harsher non-uniformed combatants treatment to the locals). It's obvious that the current situation will just have people over there walking on eggshells should he be hammered, and the fact that he faces a harsh punishment is the reason this has been brought into the public spotlight...
Excessively hasty, and unless you're very, VERY good, risks arterial bleeding that can end your prisoner's interrogation prematurely.
Just turn him over to the Nungs. They're older now, but there are still a few around.
-archy-/-
Ummmm, the PC lawyers, and the two female Military Intelligence interrogators, annoyed that the grunt LTC got results when they did not....
I guess my only question is: Did Mr. Bookman ever engage in any combat, wear the uniform, or see any of his buddies last breaths? Methinketh not!
The questionable actions of any soldier in our military can bring dishonor and condemnation on the entire nation if we are percieved to support those actions.
And then:
Our service has nothing to do with "raising up in the eyes of the world" but we are duty bound to not bring shame and discredit on our nation.
You are quite simply arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If the questionable actions of a soldier has the ability to bring on conemnation then how is that what you advocate isn't going to bring on praise from our detractors?
You simply have it in for this guy. I have read your previous posts on this issue and can see that there is something personal in your hyperbole.
I wish you well and hope you can reconcile whatever it is the Lt. Col. West has done to offend you.
I tend to disagree with you on this also.
They will make an example of LTC West if they possibly can.
The plea bargain to resign with no retirement was too harsh to begin with. They almost HAD to know that he would not take that and he would go to the court martial.
Someone wants to burn this man bad. I'm not sure who has made that decision but, IMO, that decision has been made.
Spoken like a true Zero Tolerance disciple. Shows no regard for context. LTC West is a hero.
It just pissed them off more when he actually admitted to them that he did what was reported and would do it again.
It would have been ok if he would have caved in a claimed to be under undue stress and lost his head. But for someone to take credit and full responsibility for doing something that was the absolute correct thing to do is something that some people just cant stand.
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.