The Pussification of our Military
Via Spoons comes this WaPo Washington Times article:
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.
He did this to foil an assassination plot. It’s a war people, not a game of flag football.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:03 pm
I agree, but I am not surprised. This goes on a little more than is known, with special forces being particularly “persuasive” in the field.
Sadly, he probably will have to mount a vigorous defense. As a light bird, he shouldly be extremely well versed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice…if he were enlisted or below field grade of Major, he might skate.
Again, I can’t say I am surprised. He has too much authority not to be held accountable. It is a drawback of a Code not updated to fight the war we are in, where non-uniformed soldiers are rampant.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:07 pm
Was this guy a trained interrigator? I doubt charges would be brough against him if his bosses did not agree that this was outside the scope of his position.
I suspect they had other problems with this guy and are using this as an “easy” way of getting him moved.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:13 pm
SU:..I’m surprised that you of all people would take this attitude. War is still governed by the Geneva Convention and the U.S. is supposed to take the higher moral ground. What would you think of a police officer in the U.S. that did the same thing? Would you believe that the ends justified the means?
October 30th, 2003 at 1:30 pm
Manish, the Laws of War and Peace are not the same as the laws governing police conduct.
I am not even sure that scaring a prisoner a little is covered by the the Laws of War and Peace, but this incident is covered by the code of conduct and the UCMJ.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:33 pm
War is moderated by the Geneva, and only applies to uniformed soldiers. The only conflict Lt.Col. West’s actions were against the UCMJ.
A police officer doing so in this country would most likely being doing so against someone who is protected by US laws(even illegal aliens are afforded some rights by the constitution). The Iraqi in question, was not. Just another terrorist-sympathizer who gave up the intent of fellow cowards. Since he was out of uniform, he could have been shot. Once the interrogation began, he was afforded some measure of protection by the UCMJ, not by the Geneva Convention, not by US law or worthless UN paper.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:42 pm
Drake,
Umm, the UCMJ is purly US federal law.
October 30th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
Not in the sense of conventional US law on US shores. The UCMJ is an esoteric set of laws, codes, and ordinances to be used in esoteric circumstances. Was the Iraqi entitled to protection from say…the 4th amendment? No. Was he entitled to certain rights when being interrogated by a field grade officer in a foriegn land.Yes.
At least, that is how they explained it to me in basic.
October 30th, 2003 at 2:11 pm
Everyone else addressed it but:
War is still governed by the Geneva Convention and the U.S. is supposed to take the higher moral ground.
Torture is banned but I doubt psychological warfare is banned.
What would you think of a police officer in the U.S. that did the same thing?
It’s a war which is slightly different. If a policeman did this, he should be shot.
Would you believe that the ends justified the means?
I think the means are OK so that question is invalid. No blood, no foul.
October 30th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
Drake,
The UCMJ is federal law just like any other law. We are not talking about the laws governing the Iraqi, we are talking about the law governing the Officer. I suggest you browse Article I of the the US Constitution as a starting point. The UCMJ is an ENUMERATED federal power.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:08 pm
But it isn’t like any other law, it does not apply to non-servicemen. Period. How hard is that to understand? A soldier can be cited for speeding in the US as well as a citizen, but a citizen cannot be held accountable by the UCMJ for say, mistreating a prisoner. If you are saying it derives it authority from the Constitution then you are correct…but it isn’t a federal law that we see in our everyday lives.
You argue about what laws the Colonel is under, and I have not disputed that. I am trying to answer Manish’s contention that the Iraqi had some rights under either Geneva or his policeman analogy. The Iraqi had no rights either until he was being interrogated…as he could have been classified as a non-uniform combatant/insurgent/terrorist/saboteur and shot without repercussions from the UCMJ.
Subchapter 1 and 2 are pretty good places to start.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:27 pm
There are two questions here, really. The first is whether the actions were legal. The second is whether the actions were okay or advisable. I’ll only address the latter question. It seems to me that we’re supposed to be the good guys here. It’s hard to tell people that you’re friendly liberators while you’re doing stuff like this.
Besides, we’re not at war any more. According to President Bush, we won the war several months ago.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:35 pm
Drake, *I* understand it just fine and deal with issues relating to it on a regular basis.
Plenty of other law does not apply to *everybody* either, by design.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:39 pm
tqirsch, when did the president or his staff ever say that we are no longer at war?
Direct quote please, not some re-wording by The Progressive or whatever your favorite publication happens to be.
October 30th, 2003 at 3:47 pm
Guy, did you serve in the armed forces by chance? I think I am understanding what you are saying, but every time I have been instructed about this from a JAG representative(I may be rusty, it was before Bosnia) stated that the UCMJ is our bible for being deployed overseas. Although you are symbolicly fighting for the constitution, it is the last document on your mind when your boots are on the ground elsewhere.
October 30th, 2003 at 4:03 pm
Yes, I continue to serve and am a Field Grade Officer plus my civilian job is deeply military related. Most of my peers at work are Field Grade Officers in Reserve TPUs too. These issues come up all of the time.
The UCMJ is in effect for all federal active forces all of the time, all federal reserve forces while on duty and National Guard forces only when federalized. On that last item, when I went to active schools my orders were prominantly marked that I was not subject to the UCMJ.
Anyway, it is real law, not some curiosity.
October 30th, 2003 at 4:07 pm
Really..wow.. What rank? Are you in a Civil Affairs unit by chance?
October 30th, 2003 at 5:40 pm
Guy:
I guess you’ve got me. During the “mission accomplished” flight suit aircraft carrier stunt, Bush declared that “Major combat operations are complete,” and that “Iraq is [now] free,” but didn’t specifically say the war in Iraq was over. But that doesn’t take away from my argument that using heavy-handed tactics similar to those of the guys we just booted isn’t exactly going to win us the love, loyalty, and respect of the people we’re supposed to be liberating.
Uncle:
You need to correct your sourcing. The story is from the highly partisan Washington Times, not the Washington Post as you indicate. That’s like confusing NPR with Right Wing News.
Manish:
You shouldn’t be surprised at the disregard for the Geneva Convention and International Law. You should be surprised that somebody’s actually doing something about it.
Everybody:
It should also be noted that the soldier in question admits wrongdoing:
(emphasis added)
Should this guy get max prison time and lose his benefits? No, probably not, unless there’s a lot more that we’re not hearing. But there ought to be some sort of punishment and/or reprimand, to send a message to other yahoos that crossing the line like this isn’t acceptable US policy.
October 30th, 2003 at 9:14 pm
since when did protecting your troops become unacceptable US policy? are you saying that if he didn’t do everything possible to get this guy to talk and his troops died everyone back home would be cool with it?
“well, we lost a bunch of american lives, but dammit, we’re still on the moral high ground.”
screw that. if it means saving lives i say you do whatever you have to or you go tell the dead soldiers familes about your moral high horse and see if they think you’re a hero.
October 31st, 2003 at 9:28 am
Drake,
Major, Aviation. Apologies for a badly worded comment, I am currently IRR and not in a TPU. Several of my peers at work are in TPUs, one is in CA.
tgirsch,
You are really becoming an annoyance. You sound just like the AC and other flaiming Lefties in this /. JE:
http://slashdot.org/~jcast/journal/50509
I, for one, am just going to ignore you until you can learn to pay attention to what people actually say rather than placing your agenda into their mouths.
October 31st, 2003 at 10:18 am
Ah…I see. That did help.
October 31st, 2003 at 11:25 am
mayor jimmy:
since when did protecting your troops become unacceptable US policy?
It’s all about the means. But hey, if you don’t care that we don’t somehow separate ourselves from the tyrants we’re supposed to be ousting…
Guy:
Excuse me? Where exactly did I put my “agenda” in anyone’s mouth? Where exactly did I fabricate a quote? I was mistaken about Bush having declared the war over, and admitted as much.
I thought we were supposed to be turning Iraq into a free democracy. Excuse me ever-so-much for my error.
Also, show me exactly where I resort to name-calling to make my point. Until you do that, I call “bullshit” on your analogy between my posts and the /. one.
Frankly, what you apparently have no patience for is people who dare to disagree with you.