[N8 v2.0]

Army files charge in combat tactic
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.
Read The Whole Story

 

[Tweek]

You can't argue with results.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Tweek
You can't argue with results.

Where would you draw the line? Is torture acceptable if the results are what you want?

 

[goosemagoo]

True torture would be shooting at his hands or feet

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by fluff
Where would you draw the line? Is torture acceptable if the results are what you want?

Let me help you. You might have missed it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I think the commander in the field did what he thought was best at the time with the info he had to work with.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Tweek
Let me help you. You might have missed it.

Not aimed at you. Just a simple question.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by fluff
Not aimed at you. Just a simple question.

I thought it was aimed at me because you quoted my post.

In any case, could it be considered a war crime, was it against the Geneva Convention as far as how to handle detainees? If not, good show.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by N8
I think the commander in the field did what he thought was best at the time with the info he had to work with.

I think so to. And he foiled an attack to boot. An attack that could have killed Americans. So if they punish this guy is that basically saying... Saving lives is less important than the emotional stability of a prisoner? A prisoner captured most likely attempting to kill an American or a number of Americans.

 

[CouchingTiger]

Isn't this war? Isn't war about killing? But it's not OK to abuse someone's civil rights through agressive interrogation? That's f-ing whacked! You can kill em, but you can't scare them into devulging secrets. Tell that to the US kids that keep dying every day in what really seems to be a no win situation.

Ugh!

-Couch

 

[Silver]

And if this would happen to an American in Iran or North Korea or Syria, we'd be outraged.

If we don't want other people to do it, we shouldn't either.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Silver
And if this would happen to an American in Iran or North Korea or Syria, we'd be outraged.

If we don't want other people to do it, we shouldn't either.

I don't know... he wasn't put under any physical duress, as far as I can tell.

Interrogation is supposed to be emotionally taxing. I believe we expect that to occur to any of our own people caught by enemies, and I don't believe it violates any Geneva convention rules.

I might be missing something, but I'm actually okay with this one.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by ohio
I don't know... he wasn't put under any physical duress, as far as I can tell.

Interrogation is supposed to be emotionally taxing. I believe we expect that to occur to any of our own people caught by enemies, and I don't believe it violates any Geneva convention rules.

I might be missing something, but I'm actually okay with this one.

If an Iranian or Syrian shot at an American citizen during an interrogation, I'm pretty sure that Bush would be grabbing his righteous sword and girdle to go do the Lord's work again. Of course, that might be due more to political considerations than actual care about an American citizen

It is a thin line here, and we're definitely tiptoeing on it. I don't think the Colonel deserves prison though, that is defintely extreme. I'm sure he didn't do something that doesn't happen a lot in Iraq right now.

 

[PsychO!1]

Originally posted by Silver
If an Iranian or Syrian shot at an American citizen during an interrogation, I'm pretty sure that Bush would be grabbing his righteous sword and girdle to go do the Lord's work again.

Nobody was shot...

"he did not physically abuse the detainee, but used psychological pressure by twice firing his service weapon away from the Iraqi."

Since when do you go to prison for frightening someone?

 

[Silver]

Shot AT.

You don't actually have to hit someone or hurt them to assault them.

 

[PsychO!1]

Originally posted by Silver
Shot AT.

You don't actually have to hit someone or hurt them to assault them.

The story said "shot away from".

 

[PsychO!1]

Originally posted by PsychO!1
The story said "shot away from".

[edit] And this was an interogation, not a domestic dispute.

 

[Silver]

Here is the text from the story:

"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."

Sounds like assault to me. You're right though, he didn't get shot directly at.

 

[eric strt6]

from the Geneva convention [of which the USA is a signatory] Re" the treatment of POW's

PART III

CAPTIVITY

SECTION I

BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.


I'd say that last paragraph was violated

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by eric strt6
I'd say that last paragraph was violated

I'd say you're right.

I'm still waffling on this one though. Hell, we don't provide those rights to American citizen's detained by our police force... but then again, I guess we don't have to worry about police officers being taken prisoner by our citizens.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by eric strt6
from the Geneva convention [of which the USA is a signatory] Re" the treatment of POW's

PART III

CAPTIVITY

SECTION I

BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17


No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.


I'd say that last paragraph was violated

I seriously don't think it is followed by anyone to the Nth degree.

"What? Oh that. He sustained that in a fall down the stairs....a lot of stairs"

Not saying what this man did was right or wrong, but he did threaten him and fired his weapon (once outside now where near the prisoner, and once with himself inbetween the subject and weapon) Worst is done on fear factor (TV Show) than what happen to this prisoner. The other soldiers did touch him, it sounds like.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I seriously don't think it is followed by anyone to the Nth degree.

Rhino-

I have read posts where you are Mr. Law Abiding citizen and have chastised others for not following the "rules". Are you saying it's okay to bend rules here?

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by ohio
I'd say you're right.

I'm still waffling on this one though. Hell, we don't provide those rights to American citizen's detained by our police force... but then again, I guess we don't have to worry about police officers being taken prisoner by our citizens.

word

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Shot AT.

You don't actually have to hit someone or hurt them to assault them.

can you read?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Rhino-

I have read posts where you are Mr. Law Abiding citizen and have chastised others for not following the "rules". Are you saying it's okay to bend rules here?

Who follows the rules verbatum/em/im (ahhh hell)?

What was the worst thing the one soldier did? Threaten him and make some noise.

Didn't say it was right. By the post by eric strt6 he was breaking the rules. To what extent is it punishable? Mental trauma? I would fear being out in the trenches more than in that room with the officer.

No one gets a room at a Holiday Inn Express when the are being interogated.....let alone a mint on their pillow.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by eric strt6
from the Geneva convention [of which the USA is a signatory] Re" the treatment of POW's

PART III

CAPTIVITY

SECTION I

BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY

Article 17

Every prisoner of war....

Ah! He was not a prisoner of war silly's...

DUH!

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
can you read?

Can you?

My reply to PsychO!1:

"Sounds like assault to me. You're right though, he didn't get shot directly at."

 

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by N8
Ah! He was not a prisoner of war silly's...

DUH!

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by eric strt6
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

nerf, nerf, nerf...

if only there was some way 19 muslim terrorists could have avoided being subject to such inhuman laws...

oh wait!

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if only there was some way 19 muslim terrorists could have avoided being subject to such inhuman laws...

oh wait!

Ya, we should just burn our constituion, break all our treaties and run buck wild on the world. That will show them.

 

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by $tinkle
if only there was some way 19 muslim terrorists could have avoided being subject to such inhuman laws...

oh wait!

you know what

We follow the Geneva Convention because we expect ,no demand that our POW's get treated in a humane manner. If we start torturing and violating the convention, in our adversaries eyes it becomes open season on every person serving our country.

You lead by example, we set a standard, Americans should not sink to the level of barabarians [even if that is how some may perceive us].

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Can you?

My reply to PsychO!1:

"Sounds like assault to me. You're right though, he didn't get shot directly at."

and how many tries did that take you?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
and how many tries did that take you?

A couple tries. You want to comment on the meat of the question, or are you just going to be snippy? We can do that with PMs, you know.

And the fact that the Colonel shot away from the guy doesn't change the fact that it is assault, by the way.

 

[Jorvik]

What the hell is wrong with the Army? Why would you tell anyone that you discharged your firearm? Just interrogate the POW, get the intel you need, and say that he volunteered the information.

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by Silver
And if this would happen to an American in Iran or North Korea or Syria, we'd be outraged.

If we don't want other people to do it, we shouldn't either.

uh...it does and will happen to any american POW. just shooting away from the dude was really nice. we're one of the FEW nations that tries to live by the geneva convention but i wouldn't think twice about scaring a prisoner in order to save the lives of my men. that colonel should get a medal for saving lives, not a court martial. what the hell is wrong with this country?:angry:

 

[manimal]

Originally posted by eric strt6


You lead by example, we set a standard, Americans should not sink to the level of barabarians [even if that is how some may perceive us].

yes, we set the example....but no one is following. we are literally the only nation (and maybe canada but they rarely capture anybody ) that abides by these rules. i'm not saying that we should torture everybody but heck...if you're a POW and you have info on an imminent attack against us then you have no reasonable expectation of not being assaulted. that's one of the first things understood in SERE school; if you're caught, prepare to get your arse beat down. it's just part of being involved in a "conflict".

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
A couple tries. You want to comment on the meat of the question, or are you just going to be snippy? We can do that with PMs, you know.

I just want to be snippy.


In public thanks.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by manimal
yes, we set the example....but no one is following. we are literally the only nation (and maybe canada but they rarely capture anybody ) that abides by these rules. i'm not saying that we should torture everybody but heck...if you're a POW and you have info on an imminent attack against us then you have no reasonable expectation of not being assaulted. that's one of the first things understood in SERE school; if you're caught, prepare to get your arse beat down. it's just part of being involved in a "conflict".

You are operating on dual system of morality and as a cop that is scary stuff. Yes I realize we are talking about U.M.C stuff not the laws of the state you live in but heck dude you will be arresting people who are just as ambivilant as you are on Geneva except they may feel it's that domestic violence laws are dumb because, hell cops smack their wives around too.

The Lt. who was convicted of murder in Mai Lai back in the day deserved what he got and the asshat who got nailed here deserves what he gets.

And if I break the law I'll get what I deserve too. You too for that matter.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by manimal
i'm not saying that we should torture everybody but heck...if you're a POW and you have info on an imminent attack against us then you have no reasonable expectation of not being assaulted.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that's it's OK to torture someone if they have information that you need to save other lives. Is that correct?

At first reading that seems reasonable but then consider this...

1. How do you know that they have the information that you think that they have?

2. The only way that you know what they know is if you already know it.

3. If you know it already there is no need to torture someone to elicit information you already have.

4. If you don't know it you cannot be sure that they do either.

5. It is certainly not reasonable to justify torture on a results basis. Given enough torture the victim will simply tell you what you want to hear.

What makes this more worrying, as others have said, is that you are a police officer. Now I do not claim to be an expert on the American law enforcement system, but does that not make you a public servant? Is there not some motto about 'to protect and serve'?

Given your statement above are you sure you're in the right job?

In the real world I would concede that torture is prevalent rather than rare, but is that any justification for nations who purport to offer a moral lead to resort to what they openly state to be immoral actions?

In this particular case the Colonel may well feel that he was treated harshly and no doubt he was being made an example of. It's tough on him but the US military does need to be as clean as possible, especially if they want any chance in the 'hearts and minds' battle.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I just want to be snippy.


In public thanks.

You forgot your smiley.

I would have thought why you walked through a fire was more important than how. (re. your sig line)