Colonel West- right or wrong?

[funkyflathead]

I am actually going to defend the guy. Yes his trial is starting.

Look if your in his shoes and have to protect your men would you discharge your gun in the air to scare the suspect?


Notice he did not fire at the suspect and he only fired to scare him.

Damn Bush for putting our young folks in harms way for oil! :mad:

[Walt Starr]

1. He admitted his guilt in the crimes he committed

He deserves the maximum sentence possible and a dishonorable discharge.

[alcuno]

2. Rule of Law. Rule of Law. Rule of Law.

And he didn't fire up in the air. He fired near the guy. He knew that what he had done was wrong which was why he reported it. I don't think that the consequences should be harsh, but he needs to be held accountable.

[DoNotRefill]

4. He fired into a bullet trap.

The real problem was that he allowed his soldiers to beat the prisoner. That's a BIG no-no.

[Walt Starr]

5. He's a fucking light colonel!

He deserves the maximum possible penalty to be served in consecutive sentences for every last possible thing they can charge him with.

He's a disgrace to the uniform, the DOD, and the entire nation. He deserves a dishonorable discharge at the very least. He should receive no compensation, no retirement, and nothing but scorn for the rest of his life.

I'd feel a bit more leniant if he were a captain or below, but he sets the fucking example for too many men.

He's a disgrace.

[Bozola]

3. The point of humane treatment of prisoners is...

to ensure that your people who are prisoners with the other side get treated humanely.

Unlike troops, who are capable of defending themselves, prisoners are cannot.

Officers like Colonel West are not protecting their troops; they're ensuring that if their charges are ever captured, they will face horrendous conditions and probably will not survice the experience.

Reciprocation.

[Wonk]

6. Freepers agree with you wholeheartedly.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1015891/posts

[tritsofme]

7. This guy was something like being within

a week of his retirement, and he was doing everything possible to protect the lives of the men he was responsible for. The unfortunate truth is bush has our troops in the middle of a guerilla war and they need to be able to defend themselves.

The charges must not have been so serious if army said they would drop the charges if he retired without his benefits.

[Arianrhod]

9. I find that hard to believe.

"Within a week of retirement"? It takes 6 months or more to retire out of the Army. What is he doing in Iraq?

[Arianrhod]

10. Ah, I see what it is.

http://washtimes.com/national/20031030-113114-2964r.htm

He reached his 20-year mark on 01 November. That's not the same as being "within a week of retirement", but it does mean that he is now eligible to retire at the rank of lieutenant colonel.

[tritsofme]

11. Thanks, thats what I meant.

nt

[Arianrhod]

8. I will not defend him.

His actions were those of a man who is out of control, rather than following the discipline one supposes he has been trained in. He allowed his emotions to overrule his judgment--and in battle, that is not a good thing.

If anything, this incident shows that he is not fit for command, so at the very least he should be relieved of his post, and should never command troops again. Let him push papers until he reaches 20; or, alternatively, discharge him administratively (less than honorable). We don't need people like him in the military.

One has to wonder, though, how this man will behave as a civilian. Will he blast away at anyone on the street he thinks might possibly be a threat to him? I think he's unstable, and should be watched closely.

In taking this stance, I am in no way denying the ungodly stress of battle and its effects on otherwise sane people. On the contrary, I'm taking that as the foundation of my argument. If he can't handle the stress, then let's get him out of there before he does something really stupid and unrecoverable. It's out of compassion that I don't recommend the maximum penalties.

[TexasMexican]

12. right.

IMO he is right because no harm was done.

He didnt kill anyone, he didnt shoot anyone, he didnt hurt anyone.

That being said even if his superiors didnt like the way he handled it I would hope they would atleast be humane enought to let him retire with the benefits he has earned.

IMO its wrong to punish him and strip of his pension for a case in which no one was hurt.