Accused Army officer gets support

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031029-105110-6224r.htm

<snip>"I did use my 9 mm weapon to threaten him and fired it twice. Once I fired into the weapons-clearing barrel outside the facility alone, and the next time I did it while having his head close to the barrel. I fired away from him. I stood in between the firing and his person."

Col. West, an artillery battalion commander, said he reported the incident to his superior officer.

The Army says the aggressive interrogation method constitutes an assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Col. West said in an e-mail yesterday, "I really wanted to stay hidden but that is no longer possible. I am now at a critical decision point to resign. I cannot afford to be sent to jail and my daughters never see their daddy again. My family is all I have now."

more

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Hang him high!

There is no place in MY Army for anyone like this.

[TAH6988]

9. Hang him?

For that? Wasn't aware it was a capital offense...

[Frederic Bastiat]

58. I know Lt. Col. West personally and professionally

He used to be my former battalion commander, if you knew him before this stupid war you wouldn't be so quick as to castigate him, the only thing I can imagine led him to do this was stress and looking out for his troops - something he always did.

Damn we shared a laugh two days before my discharge.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Torture enjoys a broad and bipartisan support among the voting elite

Of course, it is preferable that the victim be Muslim.

[bluestateguy]

3. Hrmph!

The Army is charging him. Imagine the manufactured outrage we would hear from the Right if this was during the Clinton Administration, about how Clinton hated the military, about how Clinton personally made the decision to charge the officer, about Clinton had no military experience, blah, blah, blah. They won't be able to blame this on "liberals" anymore (are there any left in positions of power, outside of the UC-Berkeley Faculty Senate?). This is George W. Bush's problem, not the "liberals", not Bill Clinton's, not the Ivy League's and not the ACLU's. Right wingers who get angry that he is being charged should redirect their anger to their president.

[TAH6988]

7. Why?

The President doesn't bring charges against officers...the officer's commander does. This has nothing to do with the White House.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Key words here from the post you responded to...

..."Imagine the manufactured outrage we would hear from the Right".

Don

[TAH6988]

15. Against the president?

For that...I'm not so sure...but maybe.

[saigon68]

4. THIS PRICK IS A WAR CRIMINAL

Whatever good work some of the troops are doing---- "WILL" be more than overshadowed by "Mother Fuckers " like this one.

We have the internet now. I am sending this to everyone I know.

P.S. He is a coward too--- imagine some terrified prisoner bound and gagged and then this asshole plays Gen Loan.

<>

1968 AP PHOTO: Nguyen Ngoc Loan, whose execution of a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon became one of the most chilling images of the Vietnam War.

[TAH6988]

8. Did the Lt Col

Shoot the Iraqi? If not, comparing him to Gen Loan is duplicitous.

[saigon68]

26. HE IS WORSE THAN GENERAL LOAN

He is an American officer in the United States Army.

We have a higher standard of behavior for one thing.

We also have oaths, honor and discipline.

West for all his service---- is a loose cannon rolling around and should be sent packing.

[Character Assassin]

34. Yawn..... Spare us the histrionic, false comparisons

HE IS WORSE THAN GENERAL LOAN

Black is white! Up is down! Good is bad!

[TAH6988]

35. Worse?

This is worse than killing someone? You just lost all credibility.

[saigon68]

38. I guess I am done here today

Oh well see ya

[saigon68]

39. I think I'm done with this thread

Its only a message board ya know?

I'll see ya

[saskatoon]

57. He is worse then General loan

Right on!

[Mairead]

5. On the scale of bad things in Iraq, this seems minor

Maybe give the guy a reprimand, relieve him, and tell him to put in his papers on Saturday, but not more than that. Think of what cops do and get away with all the time in the US. To single out this one officer seems too much like scapegoating, to me, especially given the ugliness of the situation over there.

We're not really there as benevolent peacekeepers, with 99% of the population on our side, that's a BushCo lie. We're there as invaders and occupiers, and commanders like this guy are in the impossible position of having to pretend that their job is no worse than any small-town police chief in the US.

[sendero]

13. I agree...

... the actions of this guy were poorly concieved and wrong. But in the milieu these men find themselves in the proposed punishment seems excessive to me.

Had he actually injured the man I would think differently. If he has a pattern of these sorts of infractions I would think differently.

I think kicking him out of probably the only occupation he has ever known is a fair punishment, and it guarantees he will not make such a mistake again, and sends a message to others who think they can lose control with no consequence.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Ever had a gun fired off next to your head before while you were tied up?

Didn't think so.

Don

[TAH6988]

16. Have you ever served in combat?

Ever had the men under your command shot at daily? Ever been responsible for the lives of hundreds of others?

[NNN0LHI]

17. Never have been in the service before but...

...I can tell you one thing. If someone were to tie me up, threaten me with a gun, and then fire it next to my head, that person had better not quit there. Becuase if and when I do get loose, someone would certainly pay dearly for that. That is a promise.

Don

[saigon68]

27. I agree Don

not to mention the FINE example this officer and gentleman set for his subordinates.

[saigon68]

22. I was waiting for this argument.

I WAS IN COMBAT!!!!!

And not only that I was an NCO--in charge of people. I had responsibilities and losing my temper and being an ASSHOLE was not part of the job description.

This guy is a LTC that means he's been in for at least 14-16 years.

HE IS AN IDIOT

His actions are those of an untrained private and a WAR CRIMINAL

His men saw this undoubtedly.

My Lai happened because the Lt. in charge had no discipline.

If this guy couldn't control his emotions he should be kicked out--

But alas, he will be allowed to retire.

Do you want Kent State again also????

[TAH6988]

30. You weren't

there...you don't know why he did what he did. If I thought threatening a guy who had knowledge of impending action against MY men, would help save the lives of MY men, I might have done the same thing. That's all. Of course, I'd accept whatever "punishment" my "superiors" saw fit, but I'd do ANYTHING to protect the lives of my men.

[Walt Starr]

40. Nope, that's a double standard

A non-com would do time in Leavenworth over it.

A Colonel knows better. He must do time in prison. He openly chose to violate the UCMJ while knowning better.

He should do the maximum sentence possible because of his rank.

[TAH6988]

42. What the

heck is a "field grade non-com?"

And the UCMJ is not based on rank.

[Walt Starr]

46. Sorry, poor choice of terms

A sergent would do hard time.

Sentencing can certainly be based upon rank. Kelly got a harsher sentence than his non-coms.

[saigon68]

48. I think you are a disrupter here

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


The UCMJ is based on rank there are 134 Articles--- here is one of them. Article 133. The corresponding article for enlisted is Article 134.

You obviously were never in the service---


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#933.%20ART.%20133.%20CONDUCT%20UNBECOMING%20AN%20OFFICER%20AND%20A%20GENTLEMAN

[TAH6988]

54. I think

you should stop making accusations.

I served 21 years in the military...And I know what conduct unbecoming is. The Lt Col is not guilty of anything...yet.

[saigon68]

55. I think

Its time for me to leave this discussion, I tried to apologize and state you were entitled to your opinion--- you continued to attack me ie: "you've lost your credibitiy" so till next time, adios

As I said before, it's only a message board,

The next thrill in life begins when the big Chimpanzee starts the draft. I for one intend to take to the streets on that trip..
You're welcome to join me there if you care to.

P. S. Thank you for your service to our country.

[TAH6988]

56. No, I won't join

you for something that won't happen. And thanks also to you for your service. I was not attacking you BTW; I respect your opinion, but syaing this Lt Col was worse than Gen Loan was beyond the pale to me.

[OldSoldier]

6. They need to fire the Commanding General of the 4th ID

Remember our buddy who decided the best way to capture an Iraqi officer was to take his family hostage? He was 4th ID too.

Since all the atrocities seem to be coming out of the 4th Infantry Division, perhaps the command climate isn't exactly what we're looking for. Relieve for Cause the CG of 4th ID, and get a general in there who will fight this war without a war crime a day.

[0007]

10. Col. West deserves time to think this out!

The freepers will go nuts if West goes to prison.

[TAH6988]

11. He won't

He'll be given non-judicial punishmnet or a reprimand, allowed to stay on AD until he reaches twenty years, then quietly retire.

[Enjolras]

18. Frankly, I hope you're right

I read the original story Wednesday, also in the Wash Times. It said the detainee, a local Iraqi police officer, under this interrogation spilled the beans about a planned sniper attack, and gave the names of 3 individuals who were to be involved. If this is to be believed -- and remember this incident was reported by lt. col West himself, so it probably is -- it means the detainee really was involved with the terrorists. And while I agree that our forces never should have been there in the first place, the fact is they are there now, whether they want to be or not, and must defend themselves. Besides, I have not one iota of sympathy for terrorists. And let's face it, some of them over there really are.

If you can't stomach that logic, consider this: Lt. col. West is African-American. How easy would it be to turn this into a racial issue?

[saigon68]

23. WHITE, PURPLE OR BLUE race has nothing to do with this

This guy is unfit to lead troops PERIOD. He should be kicked out

[Enjolras]

24. You know that's not what Jackson & Sharpton will say

Think. Do you want to cede the moral high ground on civil rights to the conservatives?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. My morals aren't based on anyone else's opinions

I prefer the unvarnished truth. Defending this criminal in no way constitutes taking the moral high ground on civil rights or anything else.

Think.

[TAH6988]

43. He hasn't been

convicted of anything...yet.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. In this thread, we've been expressing opinion

There's been no conviction, there's been no acquittal. We're talking right versus wrong.

[lumpy]

19. Makes one wonder what other forms of torture

were used on this man before the Col.(no doubt in frustration) felt compelled to use his gun.

[zanana]

20. I worry about the mental health of the troops.

I know that war can change people. Actually, I think that just being in the military can change people. I've read reports that morale is "low", but what exactly does that mean? Does that mean troops are getting depressed, or angry, or......brutal? What happens when these people come home and are expected to "blend in" with society? I just don't think that any of these troops have a good future to look forward to.

[atreides1]

21. Why Have The Geneva Conventions or The UCMJ

The point here is not whether or not the information saved any lives, the point is do the ends justify the means.

For those that say yes, well why abide by the Geneva Conventions, the UCMJ, or the laws covering conduct during war. Why not just toss them all away and use open torture to get information.

If what Col West did was okay, then the Iraqis showing the members of the 507th Maintenenace Company is also acceptable, and we have no reason to complain that the Geneva Convention was violated. The US has already violated the Geneva Conventios with its treatment of the men now imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

The US has already shown that it will not comply with the same rules that it says everyone else must abide by, if that's the case then we no longer have the right to complain when this very same thing starts to happen to our own military personnel.

My own opinion is that Col West was tired, and actually thought he was doing good. Unfortunately he violated the UCMJ, and as the commander of an artillery battalion he was did not possess the training to even conduct this interrogation.

Besides if an attack was prevented, why hasn't this PR using administration pointed this out.

In my opinion Col West acted because a fellow officer took Iraqi civilians as hostages and was not punished for the crime. So Col West
might have felt that he could employ the same kind of tactics with the same results, but it hasn't worked out that way.

If Col West is a man of honor, and still possesses some level of integrity he would ask to be relieved, and be allowed to remain on
active duty unitl such time that he can retire from the service.

I am a vet, I have seen combat, and I have had soldiers under my command, not hundreds, just a squad, and we were shot at. This little bit of info is for TAH.

[saigon68]

25. Col West is a PISS poor officer

This is something that cannot be forgiven. To justify this is to tear up Article 133 of the UCMJ. Someone up the chain is going to come down hard on this asshole. IF THEY DON'T ITS OPEN SEASON.

[TAH6988]

31. I agree with the vast majority

of your post. I do, however, feel that the Lt Col thought he was doing the right thing. If he in fact violated the UCMJ, as it appears he did, he will, and should, be punished accordingly. That said, I might have done the EXACT same thing in his shoes if I honestly felt the lives of my men were in danger had I NOT taken any action.

[saigon68]

32. I respect your opinion

I disagree with your conclussion, I guess its up to the jury at the Court Martial.

[TAH6988]

36. There won't be any court martial is my bet

He'll recieve NJP.

[Rose Siding]

28. That one gets support

and this one is branded a coward:

Carson soldier faces charge of cowardice


The soldier said he experienced a “panic attack” after seeing the mangled body of an Iraqi man and told his superior he was heading for a “nervous breakdown.”

After that, Pogany said he didn’t request to go on missions nor did the unit ask him to go.

Pogany said he asked for help but was denied the care soldiers with “combat stress” are supposed to receive.

Instead of help, Pogany said, one of his superiors told him to “get his head out of his ass and get with the program.”

An Army psychologist in Iraq said Pogany had a normal reaction to seeing the body and recommended rest and then a return to duty, the soldier said.

Instead, his commander ordered him back to Colorado Springs to face a court-martial for “misbehavior before the enemy.”

http://www.gazette.com/popupNews.php?id=626747

[saigon68]

29. Don't worry eventially he will be punished

The Green Machine needs to get harsh with the troops. </Sarcasm>

Eventually the Veteran's administration will determine that he will also be denied benefits, for a full blown case of PTSD, too!!!!

[hussar]

37. I also served in combat

and I agree with what you say

[toopers]

44. Saigon . . .

You seem to have a personal issue with this situation. If all parts of this story are true then the Iraqi police officer was actually an enemy combatant. He was dressed as an ally but working for the enemy. The american officer would actually be justified to kill the Iraqi police officer based upon the rules of engagement involving enemy combatants, just as Loan did to the enemy combatant in Vietnam that you pictured earlier. With my brother being a lowly grunt in the military I am glad to see that an officer has the intestinal fortitude to make a quick decision that saved lives. No one was killed because of his actions. Just about any other decision would have resulted in the loss of lives, either american soldiers, Iraqi Police officer, or the terrorists that were plotting the assasination attempts.

[atreides1]

53. Wrong

He only has that right if the individual was actually firing on him and his troops.

The Geneva Conventions are clear, until such time as the status of an individual captured in a combat zone is determined, said individual will be accorded all of the rights of a PRISONER OF WAR.

This means that the Iraqi police officer was only required to give his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth, nothing more.

Col West did not have the authority to question the prisoner through the use of intimidation.

By the way there wwas no such designation as enemy combatant used until this adminstration invented it. As for your brother, I hope you would be just as understanding if the situation was reversed, and he was the enemy combatant.

I think it would be great for you to publicly acknowledge that as an enemy combatant, your brother's death at the hands of an Iraqi officer would have been justified. And that it helped to save the lives of others.

But I think that you would be calling for the head of the Iraqi officer who did this same thing to your brother, wouldn't you?

By the way the standard rules of engagement allow the use of deadly force if no other option is available, and that is only if you are fired upon first.

I guess if your brother killed someone in cold blood over there, you would overlook it, but would you be so forgiving if your brother was
the one who was tortured or killed, I think not.

[Character Assassin]

33. He did the right thing, and he got results.

Before someone out there in the ether breathlessly over-extrapolates this into "BUT WHAT ABOUT KENT STATE?" (whoops, someone already has) or "THIS MAN IS A NAZI!", I would suggest keeping a certain sense of proportion before spouting off.

The man was involved with the terrorists. He cracked, with no particular damage to himself.

Show's over folks. Nothing to see here.

[Walt Starr]

45. The man WAS NOT involved with terrorists

The man was involved with the enemy. This was an interrogation of an enemy soldier during a time of war.

We have thrown artound the word "terrorist" so much in the past two years that it is completely meaningless now.

There are rules for interrogation of enemy soldiers. The colonel violeated them. He deserves hard time and a dishonorable discharge. Anything less in unacceptable.

[toopers]

47. The Iraqi Police Officer was the enemy,

but he was dressed as an ally of the US. This makes him a spy or an enemy combatant -- punishable by death.

[Walt Starr]

49. After a trial

Sorry, no excuse for a violation of the UCMJ.

Lt. Col. West should spend several years breaking big ones into little ones and lose all military benefits.

He's a coward's coward and deserves the dishonorable discharge that should be coming his way.

[RetroLounge]

50. enemy combatant

isn't that the new term used by the Freepers and the Repugs to justify their torture in Cuba?

Thought so,

Maybe you should find another word to use, instead of the Right Wing terms.

[TAH6988]

51. No

It's a normal term used in the military.

[TAH6988]

52. Doesn't he get a trial first? N/T

[jayfish]

59. "I Cannot Afford To Be Sent To Jail

and my daughters never see their daddy again. My family is all I have now." I'm sure those sentiments were very similar to what that Iraqi was thinking. Did that Iraqi receive a trial before it was decided he would be coerced at the barrel of a gun? Did the people he gave up receive a trial?

Jay