Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Torture

  1. #16
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    given these facts, i'm interested to know what 8 squaddies in the field with no knowledge of psychology, little time and no opportunity to corroborate or evaluate the 'information' they glean feel they will achieve - apart from a courts martial, blackening their country's name, losing friends and alienating people, and getting duff information that leads them on a wild goose chase?
    I can see myself doing something like this.

    The Washington Times
    www.washingtontimes.com
    Officer avoids court-martial
    By Rowan Scarborough
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    Published December 13, 2003

    Lt. Col. Allen B. West was fined $5,000 by his commanding officer yesterday, closing a case in which the Army charged him with assault for firing his gun to frighten an Iraqi detainee into disclosing a planned ambush.
    Neal Puckett, Col. West's civilian attorney, said the officer plans to return to Fort Hood, Texas, where he expects to be granted a full-benefits retirement this spring after a 20-year Army career.
    Col. West appeared before Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, at his Tikrit headquarters. Gen. Odierno fined him one-half month's pay for two months, or roughly $5,000, Mr. Puckett said. The division's lawyers sought a court-martial, but a hearing officer recommended Article 15, or nonjudicial punishment.
    The case has been closely watched by Army officers and military veterans. Col. West's stated motives were to protect himself and his soldiers in the notorious Sunni Triangle, where Americans face daily attacks from Saddam Hussein loyalists. But he admitted bending the rules and the Army chose to file charges rather than handling the case quietly.
    With the case closed, civilian defense attorney Puckett harshly criticized the Army.
    "The problem with today's Army is that the top brass seem to have become paranoid about making common sense decisions without the 'advice of counsel.' " said Mr. Puckett, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel. "Those counsel usually have no idea what it means to command troops in combat."
    Mr. Puckett said that early on in the case, the 4th Infantry's staff judge advocate offered a deal: If Col. West would resign short of qualifying for retirement benefits, the Army would not seek a court-martial. Mr. Puckett rejected the offer.
    "Had true Army leaders been allowed to handle this without benefit of counsel, I believe Al West would still be in command, would have been privately congratulated, and told to stay out of the interrogation business in the future," Mr. Puckett said.
    "That would have been true Army leadership. Those type of leaders are still in the Army. It's just that they have been subverted by job-justifying lawyers who seek to play a larger role in the command."
    The case had a compelling story line.
    Col. West, a product of a poor family in Atlanta, graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1983 and joined the Army, an institution that was actively recruiting blacks.
    He rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and won command of an artillery battalion before deploying to Iraq from Fort Hood. His future seemed bright. Perhaps a brigade command was in his future.
    While trying to bring democracy to a small town near Tikrit, he received intelligence information that an Iraqi policeman was involved in a plot to kill the officer and his soldiers. When the detained policeman refused to talk, Col. West took him outside and fired two shots near his head. The frightened Iraqi then gave up information on the planned assassination, including those involved.
    Col. West informed superiors of his action, which violated Army rules for interrogation. An investigative hearing officer, Lt. Col. Jimmy Davis, recommended this week that Col. West face administrative punishment at what is called an Article 15 hearing. Gen. Odierno agreed.
    Col. West had feared the Army would move to court-martial him. If convicted, he would have carried a criminal record. A military jury could have voted to dismiss him from the Army, a sentence that would strip all pension and medical benefits for him, his wife and two children.
    The Washington Times, which first reported Col. West's case, obtained Col. Davis' Article 32 investigative report, in which he recommended no court-martial. Some excerpts:
    •"Lt. Col. West's impeccable service record in tough jobs combined with his prior unblemished character support this decision. Many of his soldiers testified to his positive, proactive leadership style. The soldiers felt like a team and would go out of their way to support him and many stated they would work for him again.
    •"Nature of threat and environment: The immediacy of the threat in Lt. Col. West's mind was his primary concern. His earlier personal ambush experience heightened the hazards. Adding in the assassination plots manifested in the commander's mind that the likelihood of the threat was very high. Risk management procedures called for decisive commander action.
    •"There were no improper motives for this incident. Lt. Col. West did not intentionally try to harm the victim. The accused has willingly cooperated and immediately accepted responsibility for his actions. His foibles were that he implicated his soldiers, allowed physical abuse and failed to fully inform his commander. For this reason, Lt. Col. West must be punished for his actions.
    "Administrative measures have already been applied and effectively ended Lt. Col. West's career. Dismissing the charges with no action could provide free license and have a contrary effect to good order and discipline. From the soldiers' of [West´s unit] point of view the case is already affecting morale. Administration of quick justice and getting on with prosecuting the war is in the best interest of his unit, the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) and the Army. An Article 15 sends the message of punishment to the force with an element of compassion. Lt. Col. West is allowed some measure of dignity."
    Chimo

  2. #17
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    scaring a suspect with no intention of actually harming them is rather different to using a black and decker and lumps of rock.

    the question for the colonel in the news is: what would he have done had the suspect given no information, or information that the colonel beleived to be incorrect?

    moreover, i presume the colonel then made some change of plan or initated some operation effectively on the say so of a terrorist suspect with no corroberating evidence. interesting...

    the colonels defence is a dichotomy: he's saying that he didn't hurt the bloke and didn't mean to, that the bloke was 'just a bit scared'. however, he felt confident enough in the information gleaned to send his troops off on an unplanned, unpracticed operation. would anyone be confident enough in the first 'confession' of a terrorist suspect that due to time constraints couldn't be analysed or corroborated and who was 'just a bit scared' to send troops into a potential ambush?
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  3. #18
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Of course there were collaborating evidence. The Col and his troops were continually being ambushed. The people knew the enemy's operational methods. Thus, any info given must fit within known parameters.

    2nd, the one and only advantage about ambushes is the surprise. That element is effectively taken away and the second the convoy left the compound, they would be looking for and be ready to engage in a counter-ambush, whether the intel was correct or not. These guys would be going out loaded and hunting for bear.
    Chimo

  4. #19
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    assuming US troops on patrol are always operating on the understanding that incoming rounds could already be on their way - probably a sensible precaution given the operating tempo of central iraq, why then do ambushes still cause significant casualties?
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  5. #20
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    There is a difference of doing patrols and getting caught in an ambush and then actually going out looking for an ambush. The former lacks the recee necessary for detecting the ambush. The latter would be sending recee out precisely looking for it.
    Chimo

  6. #21
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziska
    So are you saying you would do it, then take the rap?

    I would not do it, as I have sworn an oath not to break the law, but laws can be changed.
    I'm saying that it is a tough decision and maybe even a bad decision and all the consequences must be examined (as much as time allow). They don't pay us to avoid the tough decisions and most certainly, they don't pay us to avoid the consequences of those decisions.

    However, a bad decision is better than no decision.
    Chimo

  7. #22
    Canadian again at last! Military Professional
    Join Date
    17 May 05
    Location
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Posts
    1,400
    However, a bad decision is better than no decision.[/QUOTE]


    Could not have been better said.
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    College students are very, very, very dumb. But that's what you get when the government subsidizes children to sit in the middle of a corn field to drink alcohol and fuck.

  8. #23
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 May 05
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    the question for the colonel in the news is: what would he have done had the suspect given no information, or information that the colonel beleived to be incorrect?
    What difference does it make? Or are you going to Court Martial him for what he would have done in a hypothetical situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    moreover, i presume the colonel then made some change of plan or initated some operation effectively on the say so of a terrorist suspect with no corroberating evidence. interesting...
    I sure as hell hope he did! You expect the man to completely disregard information about a threat to the people under his command?! Would you find it more palatable if he had allowed them to walk into what he had reason to believe was an ambush without changing the plan to prevent it? Oh, brother.
    The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
    Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
    - The Eagles

  9. #24
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Major Dad
    What difference does it make? Or are you going to Court Martial him for what he would have done in a hypothetical situation?



    I sure as hell hope he did! You expect the man to completely disregard information about a threat to the people under his command?! Would you find it more palatable if he had allowed them to walk into what he had reason to believe was an ambush without changing the plan to prevent it? Oh, brother.
    i posed the question because his 'scaring' the suspect produced information which he obviously believed, i am interested to know what he would have done had the information appeared less convincing. you can only scare someone so many times without them realising that you have no intention of carrying out the threat, therefore would the colonel have escalated the violence into actual harm, or would he have said "i've used what tactics i can, its not worked, therefore i give up"?

    i wouldn't expect the colonel to completely disregard 'information' gained from an unreliable source in a manner known to produce unreliable information, but i'd expect him to treat it with more than a pinch of salt. given the willingness of terrorists in iraq to deliberately die in order to achieve even small, tactical victories, perhaps a little scepticism would be in order in relation to information gleaned by scaring people. one who is prepared to drive a car bomb into a patrol is unlikely to be 'really scared' by someone firing a few rounds into the earth at his feet.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  10. #25
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Location
    Northern Tasmania
    Posts
    408
    I agree that making descision is more important than doing nothing, and I feel that the law should give field operators more leeway in PW handling. However, if the law says I can't touch them, I guess I wouldn't. Who knows though. I'm not even halfway through my training. I'll let you know how I feel when I've been commissioned.
    SWANSEA 'TILL I DIE! - CARN THE CROWS!

    Rule Britannia, No Surrender

    Staff Cadet in the Australian Army Reserve.

    Soli Deo Gloria

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziska
    I agree that making descision is more important than doing nothing, and I feel that the law should give field operators more leeway in PW handling. However, if the law says I can't touch them, I guess I wouldn't. Who knows though. I'm not even halfway through my training. I'll let you know how I feel when I've been commissioned.
    Both the GC and the QR&O are absolutely clear. We cannot apply torture. However, that was not my point. My point was that a decision has to be made and be it the right decision or the wrong decision or maybe the best or worst decision of the moment, you must be prepared to live and deal with the consequences.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Torture: Coming to Terms with 'The Dark Side'
    By Bulgaroctonus in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05 Dec 05,, 04:47
  2. Religious Rights are being respected at Gitmo
    By Leader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08 Jun 05,, 16:50
  3. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04 Jun 05,, 17:31
  4. How to Interrogate Terrorists
    By Leader in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 13 Jan 05,, 16:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •