U.S. officer fined for harsh interrogation tactics [Archive]

View Full Version : U.S. officer fined for harsh interrogation tactics

Vance

12-12-2003, 06:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/index.html

TIKRIT, Iraq (CNN) -- The commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division's on Friday accepted a U.S. military investigator's recommendation and ordered administrative action against Lt. Col. Allen West, who was accused of using improper methods to force information out of an Iraqi detainee.

Following a military hearing, West was fined $5,000 over two months, according to West's civillian attorney, Neal Puckett.

The punishment does not affect West's eligibility for retirement and pension, Puckett said in a statement.

West, 42, will be assigned to the rear detachment of the 4th Infantry Division awaiting the processing of his retirement request, the statement said.

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 4th Infantry's top general in Tikrit, could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial. If he were to be found guilty at a court martial of the two articles against him, West could have faced 11 years in prison, a military prosecutor told CNN.

The case stems from an incident August 20 at a military base in Taji, just north of Baghdad, when West was interrogating an Iraqi policeman, who was believed to have information about a plot to assassinate West with an ambush on a U.S. convoy.

In testimony at an Article 32 hearing -- the military's version of a grand jury or preliminary hearing -- West said the policeman, Yahya Jhrodi Hamoody, was not cooperating with interrogators, so he watched four of his soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion beat the detainee on the head and body.

West said he also threatened to kill Hamoody. Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel.

Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.

West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.

"I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.

Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

Puckett argued that because West is always accompanied by U.S. troops that he acted to save American lives.

But while West's supporters call him a hero, military prosecutors said his actions amounted to torture and violated articles 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Prosecutor Capt. Magdalena Pezytulska said West should be tried for assault and for communicating a threat. "This is a case about a man who lost his temper," she argued. "There are consequences for [West's] actions."

When West testified that he had "no malice toward Hamoody" and that he "just wanted information," Pezytulska presented a document of West's typed statement following the August incident. She asked him to read his own written words to the court: "In my anger, I couldn't remember how many shots were fired."

After nearly 20 years of military service, West plans to move his family from Texas to Florida, where he said he hopes to start a new life.

I don't care what he did, he saved soldiers' lives, and I thank him for it.

Durandal

12-12-2003, 06:41 PM

The US Army is going to lose a good soldier and an officer.

DPGLAW

12-12-2003, 08:14 PM

Lt. Col. West was doing the right thing when interrogating this piece of **** terrorist, the only thing that he did wrong was not following through on his threat to shoot the terrorist in the head. He should not be punished for these actions, by doing what he did he saved the lives of who knows how many American Soldiers.

What is the difference between him shooting a terrorist and dropping a bomb on one form 25,000 feet, nothing, thats the difference. It is a crying shame that we are going to have to lose a great and obviously selfless officer because some JAG officer 9,000 miles away wants to be politically correct and advance their career. It's also a shame that there are not more officer/soldiers in general that would do this.

If we used tatics like this more often than mabye we would not be sending so many of our soldiers back in caskets. It is obvious that these tatics work, and if something works why not do it. The enemy wouldn't think twice about doing it, why should we.

Mabye if we did use techniques like this more often, like in camp Delta, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. then things would be going alot better for us as a nation because terrorists and all enemies alike would be more likely to be scared of "screwing" with the United State of America.

mocking_loudly_died

12-12-2003, 08:38 PM

Mabye if we did use techniques like this more often, like in camp Delta, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. then things would be going alot better for us as a nation because terrorists and all enemies alike would be more likely to be scared of "screwing" with the United State of America.

People that are willing to blow them selves up are hardly in fear of the USA no matter what you do.

Short term success maybe..... but this sort of action may bolster long term terrorist recruitment drives.

Sadly with this mindset you're bound to be given a lesson in violence, the saying "Get them by the balls, then you can have the mind" has been proven to be a pile of dog ****.

I'm also finding it amusing that all guerrilla actions are now classed as terrorism.

waize

12-12-2003, 09:12 PM

why not use some nuclear bombs then, so you can get the biggest parking lot that you need.
Just move the children and womens out first

SFontaine

12-12-2003, 09:43 PM

Wow. The Army is getting more and more politcally correct.

One?

12-12-2003, 10:17 PM

wait a minute....

Saddam torturing his people is umhumane, against international law, a massive war should be launched against him.

US officer torturing an Iraqi is, totaly humane, justified, officer is a hero and should be rewarded.

SFontaine

12-12-2003, 10:44 PM

1) Beating the man slightl and threatening to shoot him is hardly batheing him in acid while his daughter is raped.

And 2) West did this so he could save American and Iraqi lives, not because the Iraqi police officer spoke out against the US.

Vance

12-12-2003, 10:55 PM

Saddam torturing his people is umhumane, against international law, a massive war should be launched against him.

US officer torturing an Iraqi is, totaly humane, justified, officer is a hero and should be rewarded.
Yes, I'm sure the officer tied him to a pole in town square, beat him with a whip, then took him back inside, and after the Iraqi spilled it the General killed the Iraqi in front of his family.

PS - it was all because he was protesting against US forces, mind you.

:roll:

SFontaine

12-12-2003, 11:01 PM

It's more than semi frightening when Vance and I agree.

Seiyuuki

12-13-2003, 01:18 AM

Argyll

12-13-2003, 07:26 AM

This has been flogged to death before!
Sure he saved lives,but did he act like an officer and Gentleman according to the USMCJ .....no he didn't!
These codes are there to serve a purpose,it's to maintain discipline,and he broke them....end of story!
If every single soldier decided to say fu*k the USMCJ what do you think would happen?.........a proffesional Army would become as undisciplined as the insurgents thats what!
His actions were highly commendable but under the regulations were wrong,Beowulf posted a very good reply to this when it came up.
What I see here is people who have never served getting on their high horse about him being punished,but those who have served and are still serving,when they took that "Oath of allegiance" are bound by the USMCJ,and they follow it to the letter,otherwise they will be disciplined too,and 90% will accept the USMCJ as the rules to abide by!

Vance

12-13-2003, 09:39 AM

I agree Argyll that he did break the rules and has to face the concequences, I never said he shouldn't be fined, and he should be awarded or anything like that, but like I said he saved people's lives and I thank him for it.

Durandal

12-13-2003, 09:54 AM

This has been flogged to death before!
Sure he saved lives,but did he act like an officer and Gentleman according to the USMCJ.

He broke the rules and he needed to be punished. I agree completely.

I think their are some subtle changes that need to be made to the Code.

Argyll

12-13-2003, 09:57 AM

The man stepped forward an reported himself,and that takes bottle,there was no witch hunt,and he clearly accepted that what he did was wrong,and that says a lot about this man!
As a CO his men can be rightly proud of him,I would serve under him had I been from the US.
I can't see why the kids here get upitight about this?

California Joe

12-13-2003, 10:23 AM

What he said.

NcDeuce

12-13-2003, 11:38 AM

The commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division's on Friday accepted a U.S. military investigator's recommendation and ordered administrative action against Lt. Col. Allen West, who was accused of using improper methods to force information out of an Iraqi detainee.

It's the division commander's duty to look into this case. It would look bad if they sat back and did nothing. I hope Lt. Col. West gets a slap on the wrist and sent back to the front. He's a true soldier and I'd fight beside him anyday.

Jag officers almost 10,000 miles away don't know what the hell is going on.

aktarian

12-13-2003, 11:45 AM

What is the difference between him shooting a terrorist and dropping a bomb on one form 25,000 feet, nothing, thats the difference. It is a crying shame that we are going to have to lose a great and obviously selfless officer because some JAG officer 9,000 miles away wants to be politically correct and advance their career. It's also a shame that there are not more officer/soldiers in general that would do this.

One (the bomb) is combat, it's war. Other (shooting) is execution, it's a crime.

martinexsquaddie

12-13-2003, 03:13 PM

it needed to be done. The punishment that is.
either you have discipline or you don't.
Its the military you have your orders you obey them.

Upfrontreporting

12-13-2003, 04:12 PM

It's all about evaluating the cost-effetiveness when contemplating breaking the rules and a matter of timing.

Who wouldn't have done what Lt. Col. Allen West did in that situation?

California Joe

12-13-2003, 04:27 PM

I would have shot that spying Iraqi cocksucker in the head. But I'm weak like that.

aktarian

12-13-2003, 04:53 PM

It's all about evaluating the cost-effetiveness when contemplating breaking the rules and a matter of timing.

Who wouldn't have done what Lt. Col. Allen West did in that situation?

Just remember this next time you hear some US POW is mistreted.

NcDeuce

12-13-2003, 05:38 PM

American POWs being mistreated is not new at all...

On March 31, 1999, Serbian forces took three American soldiers captive near the town of Kumanovo in the border area between Macedonia and Serbia.The larger Serbian patrol overtook and seized the U.S. servicemen, who were there as part of a NATO force put in place to secure Macedonia's border with Kosovo. The Serbs held the Americans captive for 32 days before releasing and returning the U.S. servicemen to their unit. For at least part of their captivity, the American POWs were subjected to clear violations of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention.

Legal protections begin for POWs at the moment of capture. The Geneva Convention is triggered at the "time [POWs] fall into the power of the enemy." Protections are afforded the POW irrespective of the prisoner's physical location; the very fact that the enemy holds a POW provides protection. Thus, in this case, the Serbian sergeant or private at the place of capture is required to observe the same standards of treatment as expected of the officer in charge of the prison in Belgrade.

The Convention mandates that POWs be removed from the combat area as soon as possible so that POWs are not endangered (Article 19). The delay of nearly a week in moving the captured U.S. soldiers from the combat area to Belgrade would appear to have fallen short of acceptable legal standards. Moreover, the fact that the captives could hear friendly aircraft and falling bombs could be evidence that the place of confinement was not sufficiently removed from the combat area.

Media accounts indicate that the three Americans made no effort to resist capture, though they apparently were beaten at the scene. Article 13 of the Convention specifically prohibits acts, which "seriously endanger the health of a prisoner of war," and mandates that "prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." If the beating is severe enough to cause "great suffering or serious injury to body or health," then such mistreatment constitutes a "grave breach" of the Convention.

The prisoner of war is required by Article 17 to provide his name, rank, date of birth and serial number. While the enemy may request more information, the captive is not required to provide it. No punishment can be inflicted on the POW for refusing to answer such questions. In this case, it appears that the Serbs asked for the address in the United States of one captive's family. When the American failed to accede, his captors beat him. As there was no obligation to provide the information, punishing the captive in any way for failing to do so was a violation of the law.

POWs may be disarmed and have any military property confiscated. However, personal property must be left with the prisoner or, if taken for safekeeping, a receipt must be provided. Proof of identity cannot be denied the captive. If the capturing force takes the POW's identity card, then it is obligated by Article 18 of the Convention to provide the POW a substitute.

Of course, the liberty of the POW will be restricted. But at the same time conditions of captivity are extensively covered by the Convention. It is, for example, prohibited to hold POWs in a penitentiary (Article 22). POWs are not criminals. Yet contrary to this standard, Serbian forces held the American POWs in jails.

The POW must be fed and provided medical attention. The American POWs arrived in Belgrade having suffered a physical beating and should properly have been examined by a physician. In addition, they were held in solitary confinement and denied access to the outside, a violation of Article 38.

aktarian

12-13-2003, 06:15 PM

American POWs being mistreated is not new at all...

Don't complain about taking it if you are willing to dish it out.

On March 31, 1999, Serbian forces took three American soldiers captive near the town of Kumanovo in the border area between Macedonia and Serbia.The larger Serbian patrol overtook and seized the U.S. servicemen, who were there as part of a NATO force put in place to secure Macedonia's border with Kosovo. The Serbs held the Americans captive for 32 days before releasing and returning the U.S. servicemen to their unit. For at least part of their captivity, the American POWs were subjected to clear violations of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention.
/.../

I wonder how many things mentioned here did this US interogator break. But then again, that was OK, since it was done to Iraqi terrorist **** and not noble US serviceman defending freedoms. :roll:

California Joe

12-13-2003, 06:30 PM

You spelled Fiji wrong.

mocking_loudly_died

12-13-2003, 06:35 PM

You spelled Fiji wrong.

rofl

NcDeuce

12-13-2003, 06:37 PM

West was interrogating an Iraqi policeman, who was believed to have information about a plot to assassinate West with an ambush on a U.S. convoy.

In testimony at an Article 32 hearing -- the military's version of a grand jury or preliminary hearing -- West said the policeman, Yahya Jhrodi Hamoody, was not cooperating with interrogators, so he watched four of his soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion beat the detainee on the head and body.

West said he also threatened to kill Hamoody. Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel.

Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.

The 3 American troops in 1999 did not have a plot to kill their captors.

Argyll

12-13-2003, 06:43 PM

TF160 If you're an aspiring officer to be ,then I'd suggest you sit and digest the USMCJ,and understand the reason for it's existance,to disregard it as West did,yiu accept the consequences,so why don't you just let this go.?
You break the law you face the consequences,that is the way it is,has been and always will be!

California Joe

12-13-2003, 06:45 PM

If you weren't Scottish and an orangutan and a guy I'd kiss you with tongue.

Jack Mehoff

12-13-2003, 06:50 PM

Argyll

12-13-2003, 06:54 PM

close your eyes and pretend you don't notice the bristles!!! ;)

Have a good one yesterday mate?

Jack Mehoff

12-13-2003, 06:55 PM

close your eyes and pretend you don't notice the bristles!!! ;)

Have a good one yesterday mate?

thanks babe

Argyll

12-13-2003, 06:57 PM

rofl
You guys are priceless!!

California Joe

12-13-2003, 06:59 PM

close your eyes and pretend you don't notice the bristles!!! ;)

Have a good one yesterday mate?

Rather uneventful. farmgirl is reall far away. Plus I got to go to a funeral today which made this weekend special.

Jack Mehoff

12-13-2003, 07:27 PM

rofl
You guys are priceless!!

I'm very expensive for one night

Seiyuuki

12-13-2003, 07:46 PM

SFontaine

12-13-2003, 08:17 PM

I thought spies were shot on sight.. You know considering they're out of uniform.

usa320

12-13-2003, 08:22 PM

Bottom line is the man saved lives. Instead of worrying about Political correctness he put the well being of his soldier first, and he should be commended for that.

Seiyuuki

12-13-2003, 08:28 PM

I thought spies were shot on sight.. You know considering they're out of uniform.

According to the Geneva Convention, yes, spies, out of uniform, are subject to death, which include summary execution.

Bottom line is the man saved lives. Instead of worrying about Political correctness he put the well being of his soldier first, and he should be commended for that.

The fact is that he did violate the UCMJ, but he accepted the consequences of his action, turn himself in knowing he committed a violation and accepted the punishment which speak well of his character.

Argyll

12-13-2003, 08:31 PM

Bottom line is he broke the USMCJ!!
This had nothing to do with Political Correctness,sure it saved lives,but Military Law is not there for the hell of it!!!

How can a Commanding Officer enforce the USMCJ within his Battalion when he breaks them himself?
have you any idea the ****storm that would happen if every soldier just cast aside the codes of conduct,and behaved like undisciplined conscripts?
It would tarnish an image of proffesionalism that the US Military is proud off.
His actions again were commendable but wrong in the eyes of the Law as laid down by the USMCJ!!

**Edit**
How would you define a spy when US/UK SOF were also not wearing uniforms?

Seiyuuki

12-13-2003, 08:36 PM

**Edit**
How would you define a spy when US/UK SOF were also not wearing uniforms?

Well, I'm sure they'll probably be shot too.

ShadowNeo

12-13-2003, 08:37 PM

Ultimately, I feel that the methods he used to manipulate the outcome of the situation were out of order. My opinion, was that it was simply unjust and unhonourable, to beat the Iraqi and, essentially, threaten him with death.

Granted though, situations like this are moral dilemas, there are so many rights and wrongs flying around that decisions and outcomes are heavily weighted with both of these aspects. We can never truly predict the outcome of any of the decisions that could have been made, so must base our judgements solely on the real outcome.

Argyll

12-13-2003, 08:38 PM

:D :lol:
Yeah that's if they could catch em!! ;)

SFontaine

12-13-2003, 08:57 PM

**Edit**
How would you define a spy when US/UK SOF were also not wearing uniforms?

US/UK SOF when on patrol or somesuch usually have some sort of identifier.

According to the Geneva Convention, yes, spies, out of uniform, are subject to death, which include summary execution.

So really what LTCOL West did was well within his rights?

Argyll

12-13-2003, 09:03 PM

An Ir/patch is not classed as Uniform,take a look through some of the Galleries,theres not a lot in the way you could define as anything to do with a Uniform,even National Flags on vests are not classed as uniforms............or are they?
You could have the CIA/SAD guys stand next to the SOF guys,standing next to the PMC guys,standing next to the Civpop,and you would be very hard pushed to identify them as to who and what they are!

ShadowNeo

12-13-2003, 09:05 PM

So the Iraqi policeman was actually a spy? I saw that the article stated that he had knowledge of an alleged assasination, but does the fact that he possesed this information make him a spy? Would his status as a spy be affected if he was in Police unifrom or not, or is no differentiation made? Apologies if I have overlooked something.

SFontaine

12-13-2003, 09:07 PM

Well if he knew of an assassination it would mean he's somehow connected to the insurgents hence he is prolly in the Iraqi police for spying purposes.

And Argyll, stop trying to dance around the the situation at hand. The Iraqi cop was a spy most likely, hence could have been executed within the bounds of the geneva convention.

ShadowNeo

12-13-2003, 09:12 PM

Being a member of the Iraqi police, it could have been that he had heard, through word of mouth from other members of the Iraqi Police or another element that an assasination was to be taking place, the article didn't state at all that the Policeman himself was actually involved in it.

So are you saying, suspicion rather than proof that a person is a spy is enough to justify potentially killing or harming them? My knowledge of the geneva convention is limited, so clarification would be appreciated.

Argyll

12-13-2003, 09:17 PM

SFontaine I ain't dancin around mate,but why the hell can you lot not accept that Lt Col West was in the wrong and broke the USMCJ?

The Iraqi cop was a spy,says who,you? or was it just hearsay,was he actually tried as a spy?Unless you are privy to all this then stop speculating!Half of the Iraqi Police will be classed as spies then,what you going to do ,execute them all....wake up man and smell the coffee!

Does this make all SOF operatives spies,when they were riding around in their SUV's in plain clothes,and would you accept that if they were captured by a Foreign state,that they could be summarily executed as spies under the terms of the Geneva convention?...........would you fu*k!

SFontaine

12-13-2003, 11:34 PM

Being a member of the Iraqi police, it could have been that he had heard, through word of mouth from other members of the Iraqi Police or another element that an assasination was to be taking place, the article didn't state at all that the Policeman himself was actually involved in it.

It's his Duty as an Iraqi police officer to report to someone if he hears of an assassination. The fact that West had to beat it out of him shows he was in on it.

and Argyll.. Please show me where US or UK SOF could be mistaken for a member of the local populace and be trying to "spy"

the_spec

12-14-2003, 01:23 AM

Please show me where US or UK SOF could be mistaken for a member of the local populace and be trying to "spy"
It's not about "being mistaken for" but rather "not identifiable as". Besides, I don't think that anyone here knows where SOFs could be "spying" right now.
I also don't see the point in frantically trying to make somebody a spy so you have the "right" to execute him. I mean, come on, it's not like the soldiers are searching for loopholes all the time just so they can execute prisoners. And if I may remind you, West wanted to get information out of the policeman, so what good would it have been to execute that man?
I would suggest to clear that spy situation up, otherwise it's useless to discuss it just because someone said "yeah he can be executed". How 'bout a source?
Oh, and another thing, what is the proper uniform of a spy? Has the new order of woodland BDUs already arrived in Langley? :lol:
What I can say for sure is that armed people, who are not identifiable as soldiers (civ. clothes, no ranks, no insignia, weapons hidden) may be executed when captured as they don't count as an official war fighting faction.

aktarian

12-14-2003, 03:31 AM

The 3 American troops in 1999 did not have a plot to kill their captors.

No? They weren't part of military that was bombing their country and killing their fellow citizens?

Argyll

12-14-2003, 06:01 AM

SFontaine are you for real?
Are you aware I'm ex Military?Have you actually bothered to look at the photos section depicting SF in Civilian clothing on Ops.
I suspect you know absoloute nothing about Military Ops

Spying=The gathering of intelligence for future ops Yes/No
There were US/UK SF in Baghdad during the ground offensive,what do you think they were doing site seeing.....!!! :bash:

SFontaine

12-14-2003, 06:44 AM

Yeah I know they were spying, hence could have been exeucted or killed if they had been captured. I'm just saying the ones patrolling around now aren't.

Argyll

12-14-2003, 06:58 AM

Who was talking about now?
Did you even bother to read what I said properly?
I said 2 things that were relevant
1.Troops in a Foreign country ie realting to Pakistan,as this is waht was previously mentioned
2.Troops dressed in civvies and local garb during the ground offensive!!

ShadowNeo

12-14-2003, 07:12 AM

It's his Duty as an Iraqi police officer to report to someone if he hears of an assassination. The fact that West had to beat it out of him shows he was in on it.

So, think about the situation here. The Policeman probably did have reasons for withholding the information, perhaps fear of reprisals against himself or his family by rogue Iraqi elements (speculation of course). There could have been a whole load of other reasons. Therefore, the fact that the information was beaten out of him doesn't necessarily prove he was involved with it.

Fargin

12-14-2003, 07:15 AM

I don't care what he did, he saved soldiers' lives, and I thank him for it.

...

DPGLAW

12-14-2003, 05:50 PM

Illegal or not, he did the right thing and should not be punished for it. He did what he did to save lives, not just for ****s and giggles. He was morally right and his actions were justifiable...

Argyll

12-14-2003, 06:37 PM

Here we go again!!
I see your familiar with the USMCJ then ........not!
Nobody is disputing that his actions saved lives,but the manner in which he did this contravened the USMCJ,and therfore he was WRONG.....which part of all this do you non Military people not get?

Tane Angle

12-14-2003, 06:58 PM

Was he outside the UCMJ? You bet he was. He apparently felt that breach of the UCMJ was warranted though. That's a big line to cross, and one that shouldn't be crossed rashly, but sometimes it is necessary. Was it necessary here, I don't know. I simply don't know enough about the case to comment on whether he was right or wrong. But regardless of right or wrong, it's a breach of the UCMJ.

As for our SOF personnel, granted this is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan, I can recall at least one instance of a uniformed Navy SEAL being executed after he was captured. Mike Spann was technically out of uniform, but that too was cold blooded murder, not combat.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Omega

12-14-2003, 08:45 PM

why do you keep calling it the usmcj? I always thought it was the UCMJ.

Beowulf

12-14-2003, 10:37 PM

why do you keep calling it the usmcj? I always thought it was the UCMJ.
You're right but Argyll's not a "bloody yank" ;) so he wouldn't know that. United States Military Code of Justice is close enough to get the point across...

Edit: UCMJ=Uniform Code of Military Justice

aktarian

12-15-2003, 03:55 AM

Royal

12-15-2003, 08:39 AM

Who wouldn't have done what Lt. Col. Allen West did in that situation?

I wouldn't.

I stand by the comments made last time this thread came up. The UCMJ is there for a reason - to maintain discipline - the last person who should break it is a CO, so he should and has been punished.

I do not doubt the he is a brave and good commander and have the lives of those serving under him in mind, but that is no excuse. An officer at BG level has access to trained interrogators - they have a far better idea of how to deal with such a situation than Col West had.

I wish him well in the future, but he should not be allowed to command combat troops again. Much as we may sometimes wish otherwise, we are contstrained by rules even in warfare. If we ignore those that do not fit with our ideas or needs at the time, we are no better than those (insert expletive of your choice) we fight to maintain our ideals of freedom and democracy.

Edited to get UCMJ right (bloody Brits ;) - what's wrong with Section 69 for f**ks sake? ;)

NcDeuce

12-15-2003, 08:47 AM