Army Files Charges In Combat Tactic
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
in Discussions
<a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031028-113335-6042r.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031028...13335-6042r.htm</a>
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
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.
Col. West, 42, says he pressured the Iraqi after taking into account the dangerous environment and the risk to his soldiers' lives.
In response to an e-mail from The Times, Col. West, a 19-year veteran, gave his version of events.
Col. West is a member of the 4th Infantry, the Fort Hood, Texas, division occupying areas around Tikrit, Saddam's hometown and an area infested with loyalists of the former regime.
An informant reported that there was an assassination plot against Col. West, an artillery officer working with the local governing council in Saba al Boor. On Aug. 16, guerrillas attacked members of the colonel's unit who were on their way to Saba al Boor.
An informant told the soldiers that one person involved in the attack was a town policeman. Col. West sent two sergeants to detain the policeman, who was placed in a detention center near the Taji air base. The interrogators had no luck at first, so Col. West decided to take over the questioning.
"I asked for soldiers to accompany me and told them we had to gather information and that it could get ugly," Col. West said in his e-mail.
He said his soldiers "physically aggress[ed]" the prisoner. A subsequent investigation resulted in nonjudicial punishment for them in the form of fines.
After the physical "aggress" failed, Col. West says he brandished his pistol.
"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.
"I admit that what I did was not right but it was done with the concern of the safety of my soldiers and myself."
Col. West said he informed his superior of his actions. The incident lay dormant until the Army conducted an overall command-climate investigation of the brigade. The investigation turned up the interrogation technique, and Col. West was charged with one count of aggravated assault.
Col. West said the gunshots spurred the Iraqi to provide the location of the planned sniper attack and the names of three guerrilla fighters.
Col. West says the 4th Infantry's staff judge advocate, the unit's prosecutor, is offering him two choices: resign short of gaining retirement benefits or face court-martial.
Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice describes assault in these terms: "Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily 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."
The Army relieved Col. West of his battalion command and has placed him in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which is attached to the 4th Infantry in Kirkuk.
Said his wife, Angela, who lives in Fort Hood: "My husband is a top-of-the-line officer. My husband is an African-American. He has had to overcome a number of things to get where he is."
"I accept being retired at the grade of major and paying whatever fine required, but resignation and prison seems an attempt to destroy me," Col. West says. "All I wish is to go away, re-establish my family and retain some of my dignity."
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
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.
Col. West, 42, says he pressured the Iraqi after taking into account the dangerous environment and the risk to his soldiers' lives.
In response to an e-mail from The Times, Col. West, a 19-year veteran, gave his version of events.
Col. West is a member of the 4th Infantry, the Fort Hood, Texas, division occupying areas around Tikrit, Saddam's hometown and an area infested with loyalists of the former regime.
An informant reported that there was an assassination plot against Col. West, an artillery officer working with the local governing council in Saba al Boor. On Aug. 16, guerrillas attacked members of the colonel's unit who were on their way to Saba al Boor.
An informant told the soldiers that one person involved in the attack was a town policeman. Col. West sent two sergeants to detain the policeman, who was placed in a detention center near the Taji air base. The interrogators had no luck at first, so Col. West decided to take over the questioning.
"I asked for soldiers to accompany me and told them we had to gather information and that it could get ugly," Col. West said in his e-mail.
He said his soldiers "physically aggress[ed]" the prisoner. A subsequent investigation resulted in nonjudicial punishment for them in the form of fines.
After the physical "aggress" failed, Col. West says he brandished his pistol.
"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.
"I admit that what I did was not right but it was done with the concern of the safety of my soldiers and myself."
Col. West said he informed his superior of his actions. The incident lay dormant until the Army conducted an overall command-climate investigation of the brigade. The investigation turned up the interrogation technique, and Col. West was charged with one count of aggravated assault.
Col. West said the gunshots spurred the Iraqi to provide the location of the planned sniper attack and the names of three guerrilla fighters.
Col. West says the 4th Infantry's staff judge advocate, the unit's prosecutor, is offering him two choices: resign short of gaining retirement benefits or face court-martial.
Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice describes assault in these terms: "Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily 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."
The Army relieved Col. West of his battalion command and has placed him in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which is attached to the 4th Infantry in Kirkuk.
Said his wife, Angela, who lives in Fort Hood: "My husband is a top-of-the-line officer. My husband is an African-American. He has had to overcome a number of things to get where he is."
"I accept being retired at the grade of major and paying whatever fine required, but resignation and prison seems an attempt to destroy me," Col. West says. "All I wish is to go away, re-establish my family and retain some of my dignity."
Comments
We're one of the <i>very</i> few countries that choose to follow things like the Rules of Engagement, Law of Armed Conflict and Geneva Convention... so we are held to a higher standard. I say, good on them for having the integrity to try one of their own for violations of this code.
What really jumped out at me was that he had to use this technique in the first place. If the US army is being forced to use such tactics, it doesn't say much for the willingness of the Iraqis to co-operate in hunting down the people attacking the occupying forces.
Or it could be they usually interrogate those that are not exactly friendly or don't wish to cooperate and accept information from those that are. Those that are friendly however, out number those that are not.
Law is blind. If something like this goes unpunished, what kind of example it gives to other soldiers? That it's ok to do it. It's a slippery slope.
Though I would disagree with Spyder Monkey on <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We're one of the very few countries that choose to follow things like the Rules of Engagement, Law of Armed Conflict and Geneva Convention... so we are held to a higher standard.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, US should be on the higher moral ground because it's supposed to follow the Geneva Convention etc as a well-being country. Now here's the question: is prosecuting this man bringing back some of the lost higher standards or is it enforcing them? I feel that US kinda lost that higher standard some time ago and this is a nice attempt(as in I'm all for it, no sarcasm) to get those standards back. Though that's another topic related to camp x-ray and whatnot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although the law states that he is wrong, it seems to me that he was fully justified to do that in that situation... I mean, if he hadn't he and other soldiers would have probably been killed. I don't think he should be prosecuted for defending himself and his fellow soldiers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid that the end doesn't always justify the means. You still have to follow the rules.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well for starters the Iraqi in question was a police officer. Hardly a man likely to be a Saddam supporter, yet he didn't want to help the US army.
Secondly, if so many Iraqis are friendly, why are there more and more attacks? Gurrillas and/or terrorists have to blend into societies, relying on the populace to survive, and if the people of a country don't want them there, they will tell the authorities. It was Mao Zedong who once said "The revolutionary soldier is but one fish in a sea of peasents" (or something to that effect, don't make me drag out a textbook <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). What he says remains true today; a gurrilla fighter must be able to blend into society and most importantly, enjoy the support of the people.
Now it may well be that the number of Iraqis actually attacking the US is small. But even if that is the case, that means there a quite a few more Iraqis who arn't willing to expose the actions of these attackers. And even more Iraqis who arn't co-operating in the search to find the attackers.
Then again... Its really difficult for us to even make any judgement ( I'll be the first to admit this ) because we have NO clue as to how many Iraqis are actually helping... We're only able to see one part of the greator picture unfortunately.
You use the methods that are allowed by the conventions you have signed. No matter how much you need that information, if you want to abide the treaties you have signed and want to take the moral highground, you are going to ask politely "Where the terrorists are?"
If you want to ignore all the treaties well-being and a fair share of poorer countries have signed and abide, how are you better from 'rogue states'?
In his eyes, he had a stubborn Iraqi who knew that there was going to be an attack on the colonel and his group of soldiers, yet wouldn't tell him where/when/how. So he used tactics that, in my opinion, weren't even that terrible. The guy lives in Iraq... he's had bombs, gunfire, tanks and god knows what exploding, banging and generally making noise around him for ages.
So anyway, he fires a gun twice, probably in desperation and frustration more than anything else, and the guy tells him what he needs to know. So what's happened? Well:
1) The colonel knows that there is probably going to be an ambush somewhere
2) He knows that the Policeman knows where, how and when
3) He won't tell
4) he fires his pistol twice, not aiming at anyone or causing any harm really (apart from temporary hearing loss for the cop)
5) He probably saved his own life, plus a good few soldiers while doing this.
Now, i find it hard to believe that the American army gives two sh*ts about what this man did. He saved lives, or at least, he was acting to save lives. Even if the cop is killed by the rebels for co-operating, the cold fact is that he probably saved at least 5 people doing so.
This whole thing just screams of America's Army doing... something. Trying to regain some of it's Morals, probably. I mean, they've blew up hospitals and simply said "was an accident. **** happens", yet someone fires a gun relatively close to someone's head and he gets court marshalled? What makes it worse is that he's Black, which will only blow up in their face once his lawyers (do court marhshalled people get lawyers? I'm not sure) start dragging up a load of stuff which has been "forgotten".
My 2 cents (And there'll probably be more later <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
**EDIT**
Had to censor myself... the swear filter doesn't censor out "sh*ts"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bombing hospitals can be accidental. Collateral damage is done... however, in a POW situation, you treat prisoners the way you would want your own treated should they be captured. The Colonel knowingly broke the Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners of war, and should be punished accordingly.
As for court-martials, members are entitled to legal council at their own expense, or provided for by the Judge Advocates office. Interestingly, according to Air Force Times, more than 90% of all Court Martials result in a guilty verdict. They're pretty much guilty before the preceedings even begin.
And saved other lifes in the process.
Whatever way you look at it, more than one life > one life. And if the information given by that police officer killed him, but saved more than one person, i say it's a fair trade.
And, seriously, what was so terrible anyway? He had two gunshots near him... hardly a death penalty. he's lived under Saddam Hussein for ages, and if all the propogander(omg... sp?) i've been fed over the last year or so is true, that's NOTHING compared to what he's used to.
If you want to ignore all the treaties well-being and a fair share of poorer countries have signed and abide, how are you better from 'rogue states'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean hypothetically, if you were writing the conventions, where would you draw the limit and what methods are acceptable keeping in mind this information is important to the safety of you and others
In his eyes, he had a stubborn Iraqi who knew that there was going to be an attack on the colonel and his group of soldiers, yet wouldn't tell him where/when/how. So he used tactics that, in my opinion, weren't even that terrible. The guy lives in Iraq... he's had bombs, gunfire, tanks and god knows what exploding, banging and generally making noise around him for ages.
So anyway, he fires a gun twice, probably in desperation and frustration more than anything else, and the guy tells him what he needs to know. So what's happened? Well:
1) The colonel knows that there is probably going to be an ambush somewhere
2) He knows that the Policeman knows where, how and when
3) He won't tell
4) he fires his pistol twice, not aiming at anyone or causing any harm really (apart from temporary hearing loss for the cop)
5) He probably saved his own life, plus a good few soldiers while doing this.
Now, i find it hard to believe that the American army gives two sh*ts about what this man did. He saved lives, or at least, he was acting to save lives. Even if the cop is killed by the rebels for co-operating, the cold fact is that he probably saved at least 5 people doing so.
This whole thing just screams of America's Army doing... something. Trying to regain some of it's Morals, probably. I mean, they've blew up hospitals and simply said "was an accident. **** happens", yet someone fires a gun relatively close to someone's head and he gets court marshalled? What makes it worse is that he's Black, which will only blow up in their face once his lawyers (do court marhshalled people get lawyers? I'm not sure) start dragging up a load of stuff which has been "forgotten".
My 2 cents (And there'll probably be more later <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
**EDIT**
Had to censor myself... the swear filter doesn't censor out "sh*ts" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to say that you took the words right out of my mouth. In any extreme circumstance rules can be broken justifyably I believe. I have a friend who just got out of Iraq. My god, what if he had interogated by the rules and soldiers were killed due to those snipers? What if my friend was one of them?
That Col. probably saved many lives and spared many mothers, brothers, wives, sisters, fathers....etc. many tears. I'm Sorry. But his punishment is too harsh. It's easy for some of you to sit back and say, "Oh yes, good for them for punishing him to the full extent of the law." The guy just saved lives and did not take any lives in doing so. How can you all say this? Life is very precious.
Yet he had the intent to withhold information, which would very probably lead to more than one soldiers death.
I'm sorry, i just can't see what all the fuss is about. The US Army already looks bad from overseas because it keeps losing soldiers to what what the rest of the world sees as a few people in a barn. Not to mention the fact it's hardly the nicest thing in the world to have half your squad killed in an ambush that you KNEW you could avoid if you were a little but more assertive than "Pretty please tell us?".
The rules are stupid to be quite honest. You can't interrogate a prisoner without instilling some sense of fear into them. If they don't respond to one level (the mean person talking to them) you go up and up until they do respond. The line is torture or beating, that's where you stop.
It seems to me that, the only reason this has happened at all is because the US Army doesn't want any more bad publicity. If this cop tells his friends what happened, they tell their friends and so on, it's only so long untill you see:
"A US ARMY COLONEL NAILED MY FEET TO THE FLOOR AND SET MY PRIVATES ON FIRE!"
in the newspapers. So, in my opinion, the army decided to get it now and say "Yeah, he shot a few rounds near him, didn't do any harm, we're dealing with it" before it got out of hand.
Rules are rules. And as the saying goes, they're made to be broken. Most rules are very poorly worded and thought up by idealists living in their own world. How do they <b>expect</b> a hardened enemy soldier (not in this case, obviously, but the rules would apply in war time too) to tell them their plans if they basically have to put him in a nice, comfy cell and ask him "PLEASE tell us where the bombs are?" every two days?
It's war time, people's lives were in danger, he made a bit of noise and saved them. GG.
**EDIT**
About 2 years ago, i could have killed someone, gone into rehab, come back out with a new identity to protect me, have monthly payments, a new car, new house and a new life in almost half the time the maximum prison sentance is for this "offence". If that doesn't say something about "the good guys" (i'm in the UK) laws, i don't know what does.
Come on now... There are no indications that anyone was beaten. You're taking it to the next level... And that is not the issue here.
Come on now... There are no indications that anyone was beaten. You're taking it to the next level... And that is not the issue here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you read the article?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"I asked for soldiers to accompany me and told them we had to gather information and that it could get ugly," Col. West said in his e-mail.
He said his soldiers "physically aggress[ed]" the prisoner. A subsequent investigation resulted in nonjudicial punishment for them in the form of fines.
After the physical "aggress" failed, Col. West says he brandished his pistol.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe that this man should be punished. If anything, he should be rewarded for knowing when the rules should be broken. And i honestly can't imagine that there is a person in power who really cares what this man did. It's <b>obviously</b> a PR deal. I mean, this Colonel is being used as a scapegoat (for want of a better word) so the US can stand up and say "Hey! Look at me! I'm not really a bad guy, bending the rules to suit me, i'm prosecuting my own soldiers! Hey! LOOK!".
The guy did the right thing at the wrong time. It's bad luck for him, but he just <b>shouldn't be punished</b>. He saved people's lives without directly risking anyone elses!
Sgt, USMC, 0341, 1992-1998
As a few people have mentioned, this whole thing comes down to whether or not you believe that there are circumstances in which rules can be forgotten.
He's in a warzone. He's very probably seen some people he knows get killed or wounded. He's hardly wanting to let more of his friends die. Then all of a sudden, a piece of good news/bad news arrives. You know you're going to be ambushed, that gives you an advantage. You don't know when or where. You're back to square one.
Then, a godsend. A local policeman knows when, how and where the attack will take place. Your soldiers are saved! Wait! The little git won't tell. You get anxious, knowing the rules, but also knowing a human life, especialy the life of someone you like, takes precedence(sp? ffs, i can't spell) over simple rules. You don't want to hurt the guy, but you need the information.... What do you do?
There's limited choice here. Keep asking nicely and die, be a bit hardcore and live. There are other, similar situations that can apply to this kind of framework:
I live at home with my mom and dad (i'm 15). I spend most of my time upstairs in my room, on this computer. If i heard a scream, i went downstairs, and there's a man i don't know with a baseball bat, my dad is lying on the floor unconscious and my mom's face is caved in, i'm going to.... well, i wouldn't stop hitting till i passed out if you get my meaning.
Now, in a court case, the judge would probably be leniant. I have no previous criminal record (and for the sake of argument, i'm assuming that the colonel hasn't either), and i was provoked into the attack by, yep, exceptional circumstances.
While that may or may not have anything to do with the case at hand, i hope you can see how it kind of fits in. There are certain situations where the law need not be as heavy handed as it can be, and i believe this is one of them. I don't know if this is true or not, but i pasted this link into an IRC room and i got this reply:
"Oh sure they prosecute a guy who shoots away from an Iraqi soldier.. but a pilot who drops bombs on 4 Canadians.. gets off.."
I don't know if that is true, but i'm sure (and we all know it) that there are other "crimes" that individuals have committed in the US army that haven't gone punished. This is hardly the worst crime of all, why decide to go all Moral on this one?
Military officers are held to a higher standard, this man is just for filling the role, by using his brains and taking a risk to save his troops lives. This man should be commended not reprimanded. We need a bit more free thinking in the army, and officers should be the ones to do it, after all they go to college their smart people(mostly) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> , this one knew that his troop?s lives were at stake and he made the right choice and I think the courts will agree.
The Colonel in our example knew that he was doing a wrong thing.
In your example, most states allow you to shoot trespassers... beating them senseless would also probably be covered.
This case applies very well to the police department in your town, dear readers. Members of that paramilitary organization are not allowed to beat confessions out of kidnappers either, for the very same reasons.