U.S. Officer Fined, Will Resign for Beating Iraqi

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - A U.S. army officer who led a battalion in northern Iraq has been found guilty of aggravated assault on a prisoner and has tendered his resignation, the press office of his division said on Saturday.

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West was suspended from his post in August when he was charged with beating up and threatening to kill an Iraqi policeman he was interrogating about attacks on U.S. forces.

In a closed hearing on Friday with the commander of the 4th Infantry Division and the officer acting as judge, Allen admitted violating army rules and asked to retire as of spring next year, the press office said.

West was fined $5,000 but escaped a full military trial. The division commander recommended acceptance of his retirement request, which now goes to the army's human resources department for confirmation.

"While his crimes could merit a court martial, mitigating factors involved were considered including the stressful environment our leaders and soldiers face daily and Lt Col West's record as an officer and commander," the division said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3987386

Hey, now it's o.K. to torture prisoners, when you are stressed (and an U.S. soldier).

I somehow think there should be more to this than a slap-on-the-wrist fine and a resignation.

But that could just be me. Hmmmm

...to the Netherlands. He can see the sites like... hmmm... the HAGUE?

If this is the same story, it is about an officer who fired a gun next to an Iraqi prisoner's head because he was trying to get information about a plot to kill him and others in his unit. The Iraqi confessed and the plot was thwarted. I'm not so sure this soldier deserves condemnation, if he saved someone's life. I would reserve my condemnation for the administration who put him in the terrible circumstance he found himself in. Anyway, he asked as to get out and I hope they let him go.

He stood by and let other soldiers beat the prisoner, and then used
the threat of death to force a statement from the prisoner.

He should be condemned for his actions, these soldiers are not without blame and I really wish people here would quit giving them the
benefit of the doubt.

The man violated the Geneva Conventions, Manuals of Courts Martial, and the Laws of War. $5,000 dollars and being allowed to retire is a slap on the wrist.

Would you and all the other "let's forgive the troops, but blame the
administration" clique feel the same way if an Iraqi officer had done the same to an American soldier, I don't think so. An Iraqi officer could claim that he was trying to save the lives of his troops, but I have a funny feeling that no one here would be as forgiving.

The facts are that the chain of command have dehumanized the Iraqis to the point where a good number of American troops don't see people
they just see an enemy.

And this has resulted in civilians being murdered, but all you can say
is let's blame the administration. I hate this administration for what
it's done, but it isn't Bush out there pulling the trigger, Rumsfeld
isn't calling in air strikes, Cheney isn't the one firing a tank cannon at buildings indiscrimately. All this is being done by US military personnel, and they need to share in the blame as well as the
Bush junta.

In other words people, quit giving the troops a free pass, they have to be held responsible for their actions at some point in time, they follow orders blindly and without question, and that lack of vision has resulted in the taking of hostages, and the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

I'm a strong believer in taking responsibility for your own actions, and all I can see coming out of this is the standard answer that has
been given from the Nuremburg Trials, "I was just following orders".

It didn't work then and it shouldn't work now!!!!!!

You have no evidence of the Rush Limbaugh excuse for this unit's brutality. Believe me, if there were anything to that bs, Reuters would have put it in the piece.

Also know as 'The Witch Hammer' is a 16th century step by step guide to interrogating someone in order to extract a confession- whatever confession you want.

So much for Justice. I though it was S-2 who was supposed to find out about stuff like this?

Listening to Cafferty on CNN, you'd think that all he did was fire off a gun and intentionally missing. No harm no foul, right?

Media Whores.

The point of the story is that it is NOT OK to torture prisoners even though said prisoner has information that can prevent the deaths of the men you are trying protect and bring home alive and well.
This would be an example of unintended consequences. The Iraqi policeman would have gotten a lot of money from Saddam if he would have walked up the Lt. Col. West and killed him. But he didn't. He was captured and roughed up by Lt. Col. West and achieved the same thing as blowing him up-another US soldier goes home.
I wonder if that Iraqi policeman is applying for a reward from Saddam?

This happened during the invasion - in a war scenario. Given your argumentation, it would be o.K. to torture any POW to extract information, since that could save other soldiers lifes. Would it be o.K. to you if someone torturing an U.S. soldier would get away free on that pretense?

To overcome barbarism of that kind civilised nations have agreed upon the Geneva Convention. But international law now is futile, right?

Did he get away with it? I would say no and furthermore, he wasn't brought before a Nuremburg type of tribunal, he was prosecuted by his own country. That's civilized.
Also, just because I don't agree with you, don't accuse me of being a freeper please.

Didn't want to accuse you of being a freeper, but your argument in this case sounds pretty freepish.

This guy violated:

The rights of the person he tortured
The rights of war, as proscribed in the Geneva Convention
The codes of conduct in battle

I didn't say he needs to be put in front of a Nuremberg tribunal - he has not committed atrocities of that scale. But I think he got away way too lightly, protected by the haughtiness of the military he serves in.
This is why he needs to be put in front of a court.

As well, he is a commanding officer, who is giving example to his subordinates,thus bearing a high responsibility.

Again, I ask you, what would you think should be done to one of Saddams officers, if he had beaten up and threatened a GI? Fined and sent home?

I am biased against the Iraqi military so my answer would probably upset you.

is to take care of his troops. He bent the rules doing it but he still accomplised his duty.

As a veteran of two tours of combat in Vietnam, I applaud this decision. It comes way, way too late.

When the hell will people learn that you can't win the support of the people if you're going to brutalize them and their families.

This is clearly the result of an enlightened higher-up. It is totally contrary to the Bush-Rumsfeld approach of organized sadism.

You can tell nobody in this administration ever spent a day in combat. They might understand that the other guy is a human being, too. He believes he is fighting for his nation's independence and freedom. We ought to understand such concepts, but with half-demented leadership we seem to have forgotten them.

You're in the jungle and your buddies have just captured an enemy combatant dressed as a policeman and start to interrogate him. Everyone knows why he's there (spotter, sniper, whatever). Yet he keeps telling them he's just there in case there's a burglary or a traffic accident. You all have a vested interest in finding out what the enemies tactics are because they are shooting at you and trying to kill you. So the guys in your unit get down to business on the guy, before they or you die, trying to find out what the plan is. You step in and say,"He's a human being too. Don't hurt him. I don't mind dying so long as you protect his human rights." That's very hard for me to believe.
The second thing I'm not clear about is this snippet:
"He believes he is fighting for his nation's independence and freedom."
I take it you know the guy and have a reasonable understanding of his motives. Was he so brainwashed that he actually believed he was living in a free country? Or was he one of the 'policemen' that took people away in the middle of the night to be tortured, murdered and dropped in a ditch?
Get off your high horse. This wasn't My Lai or The Hanoi Hilton and at some point in his career the poor Iraqi policeman probably did something he needed his ass kicked for anyway.

Perhaps we invaded their country, are occupying it against their will to steal their oil, and they are engaged in guerilla warfare to make us leave?!?!?!?

Original???

We have no fucking business there. Accordingly, beating up someone is not going to do a bit of good.

any consequences for this?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/iraqiwar.rm

If we can really believe the rationale for this bird's disciplining, then I applaud the commander who did it to him. I am inclined to believe it because of the inherent enlightened attitude in the statement:

West had "mortgaged the future discipline in this unit by compromising his credibility," the statement said. "Without discipline there is no trust, no cohesion, and no higher purpose for which we fight."

All during Vietnam I witnessed countless acts of racist brutality and insolence delivered to the Vietnamese civilians by our GIs. Nobody in command ever once spoke against it. My appeals to the chaplains received the response that "If we preached to the men that they show restraint, the colonel (head chaplain) would be furious."

The fact is, our military does not inculcate self-discipline and restraint in our troops. Discipline--as in following orders--to be sure. But not self discipline. All you have to do is be in a US army unit whenever it receives a single round of incoming. No matter where they are, they will all start firing indiscriminately in every direction.

I'm sure this courageous act of disciplining this commander is an isolated incident. This is not the neocon way.

If this is any indicator- It's only a matter of time.

Col West did what he thought was best to protect his men from getting killed...what you all seem to be missing is the fact that he realized he was breaking a rule...did it anyway to protect his men...and then TURNED HIMSELF IN, KNOWING IT WOULD END HIS CAREER.

I am quite sure the men in his unit and their families are very thankful for what he did. He broke the rules and turned himself in, a far cry from attrocities commited in Vietnam.

So let's have a little role playing exercise-

Say I let 20 of my favorite DUer's beat your ass like a drum; they're tired, frustrated, missing home and they get you to take it all out on you. Congratulations.

Then I show up, I'm not an officer anymore, I've thrown the UCMJ and 20 years of training out the window; I'm just the guy in charge (who ordered your recent beating) and now I'm fingering a Baretta 92 SF and looking pissed.

And to make it more realistic- we're all speaking German and you're speaking English- I hope you speak good German. Now I'm threatening to blow your brains out unless you answer my questions- what answers are you going to give?

I'll tell you what answers- whatever I want to hear.

You need to review recent History and look up something from the Viet Nam War called 'the Pheonix Program'.