I am not sure what I think of this:
The Army has filed a criminal assault charge against an American officer who coerced an Iraqi into providing information that foiled a planned attack on U.S. soldiers.
Lt. Col. Allen B. West says he did not physically abuse the detainee, but used psychological pressure by twice firing his service weapon away from the Iraqi. After the shots were fired, the detainee, an Iraqi police officer, gave up the information on a planned attack around the northern Iraqi town of Saba al Boor.
But the Army is taking a dim view of the interrogation tactic. An Army official at the Pentagon confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that Col. West has been charged with one count of aggravated assault. A military source said an Article 32 hearing has been scheduled in Iraq that could lead to the Army court-martialing Col. West and sending him to prison for a maximum term of eight years.
Some soldiers are privately questioning the Army’s drive to punish the officer for an interrogation technique that likely is used regularly to get information from terrorists.
Col. West’s unit in Iraq operates amid extreme danger. Fighters loyal to ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein are poised at any moment to kill the soldiers in ambushes using explosive devices, guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
I do not condone this type of interrogation (but I know it happens), yet I am sympathetic to an officer doing everything he can to protect his men ina tough situation. Comments?
James Joyner
I agree that it’s a bit dicey, but think the Army has it right. This is clearly a violation of the UCMJ, the laws of war, and the spirit of professionalism.
Emperor Misha I
Bull.
This is a war, not a bloody cricket game. Besides, the ‘raqi in question wasn’t even HARMED, he was just frightened a bit, which led to information that saved the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Get back to me when we have reports of U.S. officers pulling out fingernails and putting out cigarettes on genitals, THEN we can talk about “torture” and “assault”.
Until then, those idiotic, pansy-assed ROEs will only serve to help our enemies and kill our own.
Think scaring a terrorist sympathizer to get info is “out of line”?
Tell that to the loved ones of the U.S. soldiers that would’ve been killed if he HADN’T.
Dean
Something for everyone:
Watch “Rules of Engagement,” w/ Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
Addresses almost precisely this situation.
russ
If this is a violation of the UCMJ then that bit needs changing right damn now…
Its ALWAYS professional to do what you can in war to stop an enemy action and protect one’s men…
This is beginning to sound like the Clinton administration…
Consider the following also:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031028-113316-6459r.htm
Bush renews rebuke of Boykin
Now this is total bullshit!
A clown like Clinton one would expect this behavior from but Bush who should know better?!?!
Bush should quit pandering to the towel heads both domestic and abroad…
Ralph Gizzip
I’m siding with the Emporer here. It wouldn’t bother me one teensy bit if their captives kinda “disappeared” one day. Preferably after telling us everything they knew.
You’ll never gain the respect of the terrorists so you must command their fear.
Kimmitt
Interesting; I am honestly surprised that a conservative blogger even has doubts on the score.
The Mighty Reason Man
Phil Carter has what is probably the best analysis of the incident.
On an emotional level, I’m all for scaring the shit out of the guy by popping off a few rounds.
Intellectually, I’m not sure. I think I pretty much just agree with Carter.
pdb
IANAL, but isn’t this the wartime equivalent of a DA threatening the wheelman of a bank heist with the gas chamber if he doesn’t give up his accomplices?
HH
So this Colonel saves his own life and the lives of potentially countless others by doing what he can to defeat the enemy IN A WAR. And for this, he is drummed out of the army, loses his benefits, etc. Something tells me this moronic regulation didn’t come from Republicans…
Dean
But that won’t stop a single Left blogger/commenter from viewing our military as engaging in baby-killing or atrocities the next time a rumor erupts.
One wonders:
If the Army is going to react this way to an interrogation where our own troops’ lives were saved, what is the likelihood that the Army is going to condone a shooting incident involving civilians?
Yet, when civilians WERE killed earlier this year (in Basra, iirc), quick were the charges to fly against our side, and the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, there might’ve been bad guys in the crowd or the like was rapidly dismissed.
One can only hope that, when the NEXT incident occurs, that the Left is prepared to keep this incident in mind, and how it was resolved.
The Mighty Reason Man
Dean-
“But that won’t stop a single Left blogger/commenter from viewing our military as engaging in baby-killing or atrocities the next time a rumor erupts”
It’s very hard for people to not think you’re an idiot when you say such mind-numbingly stupid things.
Kimmitt
Out of curiousity, is it possible for a US soldier to commit an atrocity, if the act in question, however heinous, likely saved the lives of one or more US servicemen or women?
I’m talking serious insanity here — nuking Fallujah so no one has to die patrolling it.
blaster
From the story I am sympathetic to the LTC. However, the story is only his side at this point.
There is obviously more to it. I suspect that this was not a lone incident. Not only did he fire the weapon, but ordered his soldiers to “agress” the prisoner.
tom scott
I’m not quite sure where I stand either. It’s not as tho’ the Iraqi was treated as badly as Daniel Pearl.
I lean toward enforcing the UCMJ, to preserve the precedent, but due to mitigators (potential and immediate danger to his men) that Lt Col West be either acquited or receive minimal punishment. Such as a letter of reprimand.
Parkway Rest Stop - Jim
I was trained by the Army as an interrogator thirty years ago. What the Army is doing to this man is pure bullshit. Scaring the shit out of a POW to gain important information was (and goddamned well still should be) fair game.
M. Scott Eiland
This would be a nice spot for the Commander in Chief to issue a pre-emptive pardon and moot the issue. The frothing at the mouth that would follow from the usual idiots on the international scene and here at home would just be a bonus to go along with the morale boost it would create among the troops.
The Mighty Reason Man
Eiland-
Right, because pissing off the French is more important than actually figuring out what the right thing to do is.
Dave Violence
Sends the wrong message.
…or does it?
There is no reason to kill a prisoner and the threat thereof is uncharacteristic of the US Military. We don’t kill prisoners and we don’t threaten to kill them, either. We aren’t doing this at Guantonomo and we shouldn’t be doing this anywhere. As far as the ambush goes, well, don’t send the patrol out that night.
While I admire the LTC’s gusto, he’s got bad judgement and, well, see-you later. The ANSWER dicks will not be able to understand this and it will be interesting to watch them squirm.
Kimmitt
“We aren’t doing this at Guantonomo”
How do we know?
Michael Oyola
If Lt. Col. Allen B. West was interrogating Zacarias Moussaoui he would have prevented 9/11.