Guest williestokes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Lt Col West was in Iraq interviewing a suspect (an Iraqi police officer) who supposedly had information on a future attack. He refused to talk so West said he was going to kill him if he continued to resist and then West fired a 9 mm bullet to the side of his head. For punishment, he is being suspended $2500 of his salary for the next two months. Im not sure if this is related to the punishment, but hes also filed for retirement. I dont think he deserves what hes getting. In fact, I think the man should be hailed as a hero, not as a villain. The man he threatened was a terrorist. We are punishing one of our good men for the sake of a terrorist. And after West fired the two shots, the man gave up information about a planned attack on US soldiers and the attack was prevented because of this information. Lt Col Alan West saved American lives and were punishing him! This is not right. This is not right at all. Heres a link that says what Im saying a lot better than I can: link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I think its justified. Those sick Iraqi bastards deserve their dicks cut off for being like Hitler, just look at what they have done to their citizens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 thats a tough call, im not sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 There are good Iraqis too I warn you. But this one was a bad apple. West was absolutely righteous in what he did. He saved American lives! But unfortunately, some people think psychological pressure on an Iraqi terrorist was worse than our American boys coming home in flag draped coffins. Also, they charged him with aggravated assault, yet he never touched the man. This man deserves a Distinguished Service Medal, not a court martial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Also, they charged him with aggravated assault, yet he never touched the man. his bullet did tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 His bullet didnt hit him. He fired it away from the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 ok, i read it wrong, i thought you said he shot him in the side of the head, if he did miss he doesnt deserve that punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 ok, i read it wrong, i thought you said he shot him in the side of the head, if he did miss he doesnt deserve that punishment Ya, at first when I read it I was like of course he deserves to be punished, he shot the guy in the side of the head, then after reading that part two more times I was like aaahh, he shot to the side of his head (aka he shot the gun right by his head). Still wrong, but its a good tactic when drying to dig information out. Did this guy have any hearing loss because of this (well permanent hearing loss). I think the soldier did what his job was, although you could argue whether it was done properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Here is the legal basis for the Army's decision: These interrogation practices include beating detainees; forcing detainees to stand or kneel for hours; holding detainees in awkward, painful positions; depriving detainees of sleep by use of bright lights or loud noises; implementing psychological pressure; and withholding medical attention and painkillers to wounded detainees. All meet the internationally recognized definition of torture and cruel, inhuman and or degrading treatment and should be abolished and are in direct violation of international law as well as the definitions under United States law. Courtesy of the ACLU website. http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=13963 This definition was written at the Convention Against Torture and ratified in 1998 by the United states. I believe there are even clauses going all the way back to the Treaty of Versaille about this, but I'm not into Law, so I can't be 100% sure... I agree this is a tough call, and I am grateful I am not the one that has to make it. I am sure when faced with this decision international law isn't the first thought in mind...But if you want to read the laws the link is there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 This scenario has been poured over by people for a long time. Some terrorist asshole like that has vital time-sensitive information regarding an attack/hostage/whatever. He wont talk so what do you do? In cases like these I have absolutely no issue with the use of physical or mental abuse or the use of truth serums to get what is needed. The well being of innocent people takes precedence and we seriously need to re-examine how we deal with caes like this one. LTC West, who by all accounts was an outstanding officer, is now being forced to retire because he did what he had to do to protect his men. This is such a waste of fine military talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 The problem with torture, besides being barbarous, is that you never know what information you're getting. The tactics worked this time and for that we should be grateful. But what if the informant in question truly didn't know anything? s***, threaten to shoot a guy in the head and he'd admit to assassinating Kennedy. It worked out this time, but in general restrictions on torture are in place for good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 There are rules for a reason. And their have to be consequences for breaking the rules, and that goes for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 If we are willing to accept this method, then we must be willing to accept the other side doing it to our guys. I'm not certain I can accept that. I would be outraged to learn that an Iraqi interogator decided to fake shooting one of our guys to make him talk about future US military plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 In the United States you can be charged with assault for just pointing a gun at someone. Even though this occurred during an interrogation there are still rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 If we are willing to accept this method, then we must be willing to accept the other side doing it to our guys. I'm not certain I can accept that. I would be outraged to learn that an Iraqi interogator decided to fake shooting one of our guys to make him talk about future US military plans. As I was scrolling down this thread, the point that you made was the one that was forming in my head. Very well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 It's tough sometimes to play fair when you know the other side won't. Still we need to live our values, no matter how irritating they can be. We want to be the shining example for the world's people to aspire to. Although a suspended sentence, full retirement benefits, and a thank you from the President might also be in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 As I was scrolling down this thread, the point that you made was the one that was forming in my head. Very well said. Any one of the nations we've fought recently has done far worse to our troops than we did to this clown. Personally I have no problem with what he did to that Iraqi. He didnt even hurt him any just threw a scare into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I probably wont be here much as of now so Ill just add one final post to a situation which I find to be downright wrong. In the beginning of the war, Iraqis came out with white flags and as we moved to capture, they drew their weapons and fired on our boys. A true cowards method. And unfair to say the least. They have not played fair and we shouldnt either. Imagine how ridiculous the rules of war are. "Lets kill these schmucks, but lets try to be civil." No, unfair play shall receive unfair play. Im not saying we should resort to torture and civilian massacre, but what West did worked. Certain American men and women are alive today because of him! If only I was older (Im 16), I would go to Washington and fight for what West truly deserves, a Distinguished Service Medal. Goodbye friends and fellow Sox fans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 One final thing, nuke, youve had some good points on this thread. Good job man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Bush likes torture, I mean check this out: Amnesty International reported, "US Exports $20 million of Shackles, Electro-Shock Technology" to countries that the US condemned for torture. In 2002, Bush, Jr. violated the spirit of our export policy and approved the sale of equipment implicated in torture to Yemen, Jordan, Morocco and Thailand, despite these countries' proven abuses from the same weapons Amnesty also reported, "The total value of US exports of electro-shock weapons was $14.7 million in 2002 and exports of restraints totaled $4.4 million in the same period. The Commerce and State Departments approved these sales, permitting 45 countries to purchase electro-shock technology, including 19 that had been cited for the use of such weapons to inflict torture since 1990." While not many US news papers are reporting this story - the rest of the world is noticing through the Internet: Asia Times reports, "Although torture is endemic in Saudi Arabia, Smith & Wesson had no qualms about exporting approximately 10,000 leg-irons to Riyadh. And, apparently sharing this lack of concern, the Bush administration approved the sale," said William Schulz, executive director of AIUSA, Amnesty's US branch. For decades, human rights groups and the US State Department have documented Saudi Arabia's cruel use of leg-irons and shackles to inflict torture and force confessions," Schulz added. "With this shameful shipment, we can expect the torture of religious minorities and peaceful protestors to continue for years to come." The Manila Times reported, "The US Department of Commerce last year approved licenses for exports of discharge-type weapons, including electro-shock stun guns, shock batons, and similar devices, to 45 countries, among them a large number where the State Department has reported the use of torture against detainees. Those countries include Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Honduras, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and Venezuela. More than 60 US manufacturers sought licenses to export such equipment during 2002. " What this officer did was wrong. And who is to say that the information he got out of the guy was correct? If you torture a guy enough, he'd say he was the guy who kidnapped the Lindburgh baby. Beatings in interrogations is what the Gestapo used to do to get their information to save the Reich. How can we show the world that they must abide by the rules of the international community if we throw them out and do whatever the hell we want? Just think of the lesson we showed with Iraq: Showing Saddam that the UN cannot be dismissed by dismissing the mandate of the UN ourselves and going on our own in a unilateral attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest williestokes Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 There was a planned attack. And since we knew, by Wests interrogation tactics, that it was coming, we were there and we stopped it. Wests punishment was not excruciating, but it was still wrong. This man deserves a Distinguished Service Medal. And the greatest tragedy in this is that, years from now, West will be remembered as psychological torturer of a terrorist. Thats not just! He deserves to be remembered as a saviour of American lives! I for one, will always remember him as such and someday, I hope to take action to clear this great mans name and give him the medal and honor he deserves... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 And who is to say that the information he got out of the guy was correct? I think that's the most valid point out of all of this. I can think of a lot of criminal cases here in the states where the accused falsely confessed under duress. It's a bad idea. I'm reminded of a short story by Sartre (a bad example to prove the point, but torture gained a false confession nonetheless). The truth is, if we blur the line for this case, then it becomes all too easy to blur that line on the next case that comes along. Yes, it is awful beyond words that American lives were at stake. But we cannot hold ourselves above international law--violating those laws got us into this problem in the first place, and I can't see them curing this situation. The mere idea that TORTURE can gain postive results is so sick to me--a violation of human rights is a violation of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Why are you leaving Williestokes? Can't handle a differing opinion? Be a man for once, stay and make us see the light...if there is light. Besides, we have as many conservatives here as liberals, tho if you're looking for total ideological homogenuity.... Re: shooting.....This has only become a tough moral dilemma only until very recently; throughout the ages torture (let alone general bad treatment) and hard-core psychological methods of enemies has been a cross-culturally accepted, and rather effective, practice. It's a way of making a potentially tide-turning secret not so secret any more. Duh. Where do I stand? With the innocent civilians it helped save. Would I want to be in that terrorist policeman's shoes? Hell, f***ing no! Then again, I am not a terrorist. Would I want to be in Leut. Col's place? Ima gonna say 'no way', either.......Will this result in increased incidents of torure and abuse toward American servicemen? Hey, it's not like everybody plays by the same rules, POWs will NOT be cuddled and pempered either way. Guatanamo is a 5-star hotel compared to some other places in the world. Duh again. All in all, this is one of those gray areas in life, a complex problem not easily solvable on the blackboard or in sloganeering rhetotic. I do not side with GOP on most things and issues, but this is as apartisan/political as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 If only I was older (Im 16), I would go to Washington and fight for what West truly deserves, a Distinguished Service Medal. If only you were older, you should enlist in a branch of the service of the military that woulld put you on the front lines. Otherwise your words are self-serving, to say the least. Nuke and I disagree and that is ok, America allows disagreement, and I respect Nuke in that he has been there, he is in the service and has been there. My son is there now, a Marine. What is not right is the little war hawks who talk of things that they are so unwilling to back up with their lives, refusing to put their ass on the line. If you believe it, you do it - and I don't mean go to DC to lobby. You can do that now. When you are 18, feeling as you do, their is only one morally consistent place for you to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Look at all the protests the government put out alone when Iraqis paraded US POWs on TV. If we are better than our enemy, we have to be better than our enemy. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.