Ugly Rhetoric From the Right

[elfs]

Some of you may be aware of the case of Lt. Col. Allen B. West. Probably most of you are not. Here are the basic details: In Iraq on August 16th, Lt. Col. West interrogated a captured prisoner of war. The prisoner was wearing an Iraqi police uniform and was apparently infiltrating the US area for scouting purposes. LC West, determined to get information from the prisoner, fired his pistol at an empty barrel twice then threatened the prisoner with the firearm.

The prisoner talked, revealing a credible threat that was dealt with. It is unquestionable that West's actions saved lives that day. Three snipers were themselves surprised by US Forces who now knew of their locations.

A petition is now circulating the Internet calling for West to be exonerated of all charges. The petition echoes many other right wing commentators have said.

What is galling, to me, is this bit:

In twice firing his sidearm, Col. West never intended nor did he actually harm the interrogated prisoner. In this case, the end does indeed justify the means.

On the flip side, we should be grateful that there are level-headed men in the military, however. Lt. Col. Allen R. Naugle sent out the following email to his colleagues (courtesy Jesse Walker at Reason):

It is indeed rare that I find myself in complete disagreement with the conservative establishment, but this is one of those times. I find it distressing and troubling that Christians and conservatives are espousing, in essence, that the ends justify the means.

I take no issue with Lt Col West's motives. He was jealous with the lives of his soldiers. For that, he is to be commended. I too zealously guard those whom the people of the United States entrust to my care. But I cannot, and will not, place my life and theirs in higher import than the rule of law.

If Lt Col West is indeed guilty of that which he is being charged, he violated DOD and Army standards. He may have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He may also have violated the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, and which carry the force of law for the U.S. Armed Forces. To put it quite simply, he may have crossed the line from aggressive soldiering to criminalized inhumanity.

We, as a nation, object when other nation-states use torture, in whatever form, against U.S. personnel, be they military or civilian. And rightly so. Torture has no place in a civilized society. However, if we are to support West's actions, then we have no moral or intellectual standing to object when others detain and torture Americans in order to extract information that could potentially save the lives of those who would engage in violence against us.

It is only a very short intellectual distance from torturing purported 'enemies' to winking at the torture of detainees in America. And that would take us one step further away from representative democracy, and one step closer to a place we dare not approach. And that is a step that Christians and conservative should be actively oppposing!

Perhaps, once the facts are in evidence at his trial, he will be adjudged as to have committed no crime. But in any event, the ends do not justify the means, however noble the cause may or may not have been. And morality is not situational. No man, especially someone who has taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, is above the law.

Comments

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Rigorous interrogation under battlefield conditions is nothing new. In honor-bound militaries such as the British Army, the convention is that if the interrogation needs to take place to save lives (as in this case), the officer is to "take a walk around a boulder" and conveniently not witness what the NCOs do to the guy. This is because the action, while necessary, is in fact dishonorable and not something to be witnessed by an officer.

We'll never know if the "policeman" would have talked using the legal techniques employed by US military interrogators, or if there was sufficient time for this to work. This was not a "under fire, enemy forces on the march, mines in the brush ahead" type of situation. Urgent, yes, but not of an urgency that admits of no delay.

I believe that what the good Colonel did was ethical under the circumstances. I do not believe that _he_, as a serving American military officer, should have been doing it . . . setting this as an example to his personnel and by extension to the US military as "something an officer does." By definition his actions represent the Congress of the United States of America.

I am deeply concerned about the slippery slope presented here, and by the abject failure of many people involved in this issue to recognize the consequences of turning a vile and horrid necessity into some sort of twisted virtue.

In the language of military citations, a particularly brave or noble act is recognized as being "in the highest traditions of the United States Army." Lt. Col. West's conduct was NOT and should NOT be part of the tradition of the United States Army.

Therefore, I believe that Lt. Col. West should be hit up for one count of "conduct unbecoming an officer" and dismissed from military service on that ground.

Not incidentally, Colonel West's inability to grasp the finer points of this issue by itself demonstrates his lack of fitness to hold a command position -- so I would not object to a relief on grounds of simple incompetence, or a voluntary resignation.

Given that he has refused to resign, the court martial can and will throw the book at him. He is likely looking at prison time.

This would not have come up if Colonel West was a Marine. Marines can and will take casualties instead of compromising their honor. There are many Marines. There is only one Marine Corps.

Colonel West

[(Anonymous)]

Love the comment about the marine corps being so much more honorable. Sorry I know many marines, its just not true. Very honorable, no marine ever being dishonorable, unfortunately not true.

While I am willing to concede that Colonel West should be punished for his actions. I think the choices given to him were far to severe. Court Marital or to resign and loose what his 20 years of service have earned him. I beleive that giving him a letter of reprimand would have ended his career. He would have retired with most of his honor intact. What the colonel did was fire a weapon near someone who was planning to kill him and his men from ambush. He did not fire at him, the colonels body was between the weapon and the man at all times. The other officer in the 4th ID who took an Iraqi General's faimly hostage received a condmendation and a promotion.

I wish the colonel had left it to those people that are neither an officer or a gentlemen to accomplish, unfortunately the colonel chose to do what needed to be done himself and take the blame himself. In doing so he earned my respect.

Personally, in this case the end ( saved american lives and a thwarted attempt on the lives of american solidiers) did indeed justify the means (2 rather inexpensive bullets and putting fear into the heart of an enemy combatant). I do not agree that the end always justifies the means however.