[Ispy4u]

You don't see many rational articles properly defending the US Army in it's necessary pursuit of justice in this case. Most news and opinion pieces I've seen simply proclaim LTC West a hero who should be decorated. I and a few others here have argued incessantly that LTC West is no hero, not based on his actions he is being investigated for anyway.

[Ispy4u]

Pinging to your attention.

[Sir Gawain]

If someone had found out who was going to fly the planes into the WTC, and had killed them, they would not be a hero in your eyes.

[verity]

He is not a hero in my book: however he is innocent until proven guilty.

[milan]

Regardless of what you think, he saved American lives. Who knows how many.

We are at war. We are too "humane" with the enemy. They do not return the hospitality. They know we foolow the rules that no one else does. We are dealing with terrorists and those that are friends with terrorists. LTC. West did the right thing, just like Oliver North did the right thing. Damn the laws. If he was rapeing and pillaging, sure, throw him in jail. But he wasn't. He beat a friggin conspirator and got the required info. Give him a promotion and a medal.

[OldFriend]

After speaking to a veteran I am inclined to agree with you. All the known facts of this case show that the man was totally out of line and certainly is no hero. Allowing other soldiers to beat a man in custody is hardly admirable.

The media exploited this case as a way to create dissention.

[samtheman]

LTC West is a hero who should be decorated.

The JAGS should be forced to watch films of AMERICANS jumping out of the burning WTC towers.

Scumbags.

[milan]

If we had more commanders like LTC West, there would be less American bodies.

[milan]

You're sick. He saved Americans. Does that not mean something to you?

[Broadside Joe]

"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."

Wasn't this "Iraqi policeman" supposed to be on our side? If so doesn't this make him a spy? And what does the Geneva Convention say about handling spies?

[leprechaun9]

It seems that Mr. Bookman would seek out LTC West's kindergarten teacher to see if there were any such tendencies back then and perhaps this hostility was the result of parental abuse.

That would be the approach of the Atlanta Constipation if they were responding to the WTC attack!

[StonyBurk]

May not be a hero--but he Is the kind of Officer I would want--if in the feild. What he did was overcome the feild
problem of intelligence gathering. He spoke to the enemy in
the only language the enemy is capable of understanding.
Col.West created a usefull dialogue that saved lives--both
American and Iraqi.Or at the very least demonstrated prior
rumor to be true thus allowing him to avoid a dangerous
situation. If a commander isn't willing to go through hell
with a gascan to protect his men --he isn't worth diddly .

[Jumper]

The press will convict based on the old time feel good religion of liberialism and hatred of the military. This media exposure would have never happened in an elite unit; the good LTC's only error was to have acted in front of soldiers who themselves have no loyality to the Country or their fellow soldiers.

[Dudoight]

This past Sunday, Oliver North had a special on Pearl Harbor. In an inteview with a veteran, it was noted that he and another US soldier captured the first Japanese war prisoner a few days after the attack. This elderly vet described the capture. He also stated that in interrogating the prisoner, they did the same thing as Col. West. They held a gun near his head and fired into the sand of beach. They were able to get a lot of info out of him. When did the army go PC?

[Auntie Mame]

After complaints were filed by other soldiers, the colonel was relieved of command

So this finally explains why anyone even found out about the incident. Apparently there were some soldiers who didn't like the man.

I've always wondered about that.

What he did was against procedure and he should (unfortunately) be punished. But what he really did wrong was get caught.

I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did, but you can't get caught doing it.

[John D]

I can tell you know no one who is in harms way. This man saved many American lives. Only a member of DU would think what LTC West did was wrong, and that is because they want the US to lose the war on terror. That is their best chance of regaining the White House.
I can not believe any American could suggest that a hero, saving American lives is deserving of a court martial. My son is in Iraq right now and I would be very happy if there more LTC Wests over there.

[caspera]

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.

What a jackass statement. In order for the Geneva convention to apply, the captured must at the least: A) Be uniformed so as to distinguish between from the civilian popuplation B) Be in service to a State C) Not operate deliberabtely amongst a civilian population. The captured a GITMO have no right to Geneva convention treatment because they first violate almost all the rules for being treated as prisoners of war unlike the American soldiers captured in Vietnam. To refer to the situations as analogous is loathesome. To refer to the US distinction as an "excuse" is ignorant. The Geneva convention is supposed to provide a motivation for soldiers not to descend into utter barbarism by providing the incentive of civilized treatment if captured if they have followed certain rules. If those who disregard those rules are treated exactly the same as those who don't, that incentive disappears.

The United States is thus actually giving meaning to the Geneva convection by making this distinction.

[Publius6961]

Under the strain of command in a dangerous situation, Lt. Col. Allen West committed a serious error in judgment.

Excellent fornat for an article. The crux is right up front.

What an excellent illustration of a faulty premise leading to a significant saving in time not having to read the remainder of the article. The editor's assertion is an opinion, pure and simple. Where rules are concerned, there are those circumscribed by their intellect and imagination; brain-bound, so to speak, to the "following orders" mentality, the ends in itself.
I have no desire whatsoever to engage them in further debate about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of Col. West's actions. I still believe and hold that he did the right thing.

Isolated and chosen exceptions to rules are the hallmark of true leaders.
That I would fight alongside Col West is the best affirmation of putting my life where my mouth is.
Can't say that for the ding dongs who perpetually sit on their "rulebooks".

[Publius6961]

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.

Sophistry had rotted our culture so thoroughly that many tend to accept it as "civilized" sophistication. Personally I can smell BS, still.

Those familiar with Winston Churchill's life are well aware of his unique position to comment on things both political and martial. One of his observations recurs in my mind as I see this continuing debate.
During the dark days of WWII, when things looked grimmest and hopeless, and unconventional warfare being fought (and criticized), he made his famous observation:

No "good" civilized society was ever saved from oblivion by the actions of girlie men. (Paraphrased) Or rule-book jockeys, I might add.

[mhking]

Nor was it clear that the suspect was guilty.

Nor was there time for a tribunal to determine that.

Colonel West made a battlefield decision.

West's critics are engaged in Monday morning quarterbacking of an unprecedented degree. Would you have all battlefield decisions revisited if it unduly "frightens" an enemy combattant?

You want to question the Administration and it's rationale? That's one thing. But when you begin to call battlefield decisions into question, simply because they offend sensibilities, you begin to undermine the entire code and concept of military justice.

[Vision]

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.

...and is unAmerican.