Still, it's irrelevant. The law is clear, and the law was broken. If you get away with something, fine, but don't try and say 'everyone else is doing it!'. It doesn't work with speeding tickets, and it doesn't work here.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
It says in the original post that the other soldiers did, in fact, beat the prisoner. It also says that they have been punished by simple fines.
They caused actual harm to this person. The Colonel didn't. He, apparantly (i say apparantly because i can see no mention of if the colonel was actually one of the people who beat him, which he probably was to be honest) did NO harm at all to this person, beyond temp. deafness from the gunshot.
If the law system works, and treats people as equals, shouldn't he get exactly the same punishment? The very fact that this whole thing has happened has probably destroyed his chances for promotion anyway, even if he's found innocent, that in itself is punishment enough, to KNOW that you can't further yourself.
I wholeheartedly agree that he should be found guilty. He broke the law. Yet, the punishment should take into acount his intentions, his actual crime (he didn't shoot anyone, and as far as we're concerned, didn't even point the gun at the person), and the possible effects of his actions. It is "probable" that he saved soldiers life. It is not likely that the policeman would be killed by his peers.
If worse comes to worse, he could say that he was taking a spot of target practice while the prisoner looked on... no one could prove him wrong really.
he should be found guilty. He shouldn't really be punished beyond "Don't do it again".
Officers and enlisted men are not equals. This is not a civil court, and you are not under the Constitution when in the service. It is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and until you guys have familiarized yourselves with it, you're out of your element.
See you in a few weeks when you've read it all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Then i really don't see what we can discuss. The man is guilty, there's no way out of it. He will be punished, his career is over. Most of us would probably agree that while he was right to do what he did, he accepts the punishment because he knew the rules and still he broke them.
The problem is that it was not right. If you kidnap my daughter, and the cops beat the **** out of you to find out her location, they infringed the rights of all people under the law. It is designed to protect the innocent, and sometimes, the guilty go free as well. That is the price of civilized behavior.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 5 2003, 10:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 5 2003, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is that it was not right. If you kidnap my daughter, and the cops beat the **** out of you to find out her location, they infringed the rights of all people under the law. It is designed to protect the innocent, and sometimes, the guilty go free as well. That is the price of civilized behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's true though, there's no way you can safely change the law. If the cops were allowed to beat the crap out of kidnappers (and other criminals), you'd get the occasional person with a few broken ribs and limbs that were honestly innocent. You'd also get a few "confessions" out of innocent people who just want the beatings to stop.
However, i don't beleive that rules should be as set in stone as they are. If someone beat the crap out of someone to find out where your daughter is, for example, and they found that it was the wrong person, then the full extent of the law should be laid upon them. If, however, it WAS the right person, and your daughter is safely recovered as a result of it, then it should just be regarded as a normal case with a happy ending. The same, i beleive, should apply with this court marshal.
It's like trying to balance a game when you think about it.
My turn <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
At initial impression, I thought "Good... we got information we needed and hey, we didn't hurt him. Just intimidated- that's better than out and out torture (and I'm not talking about a few slaps)". But regardless, that isn't the point.
The fact that it worked notwithstanding, he broke the law. The only reason some people are quietly praising him is because it worked. This doesn't mean it's a reliable method.
He should be punished just as anyone else; whether he gets 8 years breaking rocks, or a full benefits retirement, isn't up to me. The thing is, the military cannot back down on their word and the law. If they do, if they make exceptions (even once), then the entire justice system is at risk. If you let him off the hook, and someone else does a similar thing, essentially you'll have a situation where your rules are no longer concrete, and now you have to take it by a case by case basis. Not good- a soldier may appeal and go "Well.... Colonel West did it, and you let HIM off the hook...."
Heres a quote from someone who words it better than me...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It worked out this time, even though this officer violated the LOLW, GC and UCMJ all at the same time. It might not have worked out, either (had the Iraqi given false info under duress). That would have saved no lives. The Colonel is not trained to interrogate, nor is he trained to evaluate the results of interrogation. Had the info given been misleading, and had that bad info resulted in the deaths of US soldiers, thrown off the track by false info, you wouldn?t be [praising his actions as you do now].<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, what do you personally feel is fair game for interrogation?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
One thing about this sticks out to me: From everything I've read and heard, if this Col. West hadn't presented himself to his CO and admitted to breaking a law it's very likely that he would have never faced charges.
Regardless, a law has been broken and he's admitted to it. The only thing left is the punishment. From my perspective I hope they will consider his extensive military record and show leniency. Clearly he should never command again but stripping him of his retirement seems harsh to me. Just an opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are exceptional circumstances that, i believe, make breaking the law/rules understandable, forgivable, and in cases like this, i believe un-punishable.
In his eyes, he had a stubborn Iraqi who knew that there was going to be an attack on the colonel and his group of soldiers, yet wouldn't tell him where/when/how. So he used tactics that, in my opinion, weren't even that terrible. The guy lives in Iraq... he's had bombs, gunfire, tanks and god knows what exploding, banging and generally making noise around him for ages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this! The law is the law. Start bending them for "special situations" and you end up with a very slippery slope. Let this Colonel beat and threaten a prisoner and you open the door for others to do the same. How long before someone else decides "Well this guy ain't talking. Maybe I should start pulling his fingernails out".
There is a very simple question to be asked here: <b>How is this Colonel any differant from Saddam's police who used torture to extract information?</b>. Answer is, there isn't a differance. Both used torture against prisoners. Now Saddam sanctioned that, but according to US military law plus the conventions that the US has signed, that Colonel was way out of his juristiction to undertake such actions.
Let things like this slide, and you'll end up with the US army being little better than the regime they kicked out of Iraq. I would expect this Colonel to be fully tried under military law. Anything else is unacceptable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is this Colonel any differant from Saddam's police who used torture to extract information?. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a difference. Even though they're on the same spectrum (more harsh methods of interrogation), they're at opposite extremes of it. West discharged his weapon next to the prisoner. He did not kill him- compare this to threatening (not bluffing) the prisoners family, REAL torture, etc.... I'd say there is a big difference. This is like saying "Well you shot this guy defending yourself, and this criminal shot a guy whiel trying to get out of a bank. So you are BOTH the same". Certainly not.
While west does not uphold our moral highgrounds standard by his actions, he is certainly not as much scum as some of saddams enforcers. West decided that his career was worth saving the lives of his troops (or maybe it was just frustration from being there since spring with no relief). I'm not agreeing with him, although at the very least I'm glad it worked so it wasn't totally for nothing.
I don't see a problem with intimidation as an interrogation tool, except for the fact that it is not allowed. If it WAS allowed, I'd still say we take the moral highroad when compared to more ruthless tactics that saddam and rebel groups do.
There has to be a balance. We need this information. If we are so restricted by laws that we cannot get this information, you're going to see more colonel wests. If it is illegal, all they will do is not get caught (or try not to) when doing torture tactics. They'll keep it hush hush. To <b>some</b>, on the field, getting information that can save their lives takes priority, even if it shouldn't. If we are so PC about not hurting the terrorists "feelings" that there is no point to interogating because we legally get the information unless they openly provide it, then there is no point. On the other hand, if we do more saddam like tactics where you actually rack em up, threaten their family, torture them, etc. we are no longer on the moral highground and we have become those we are trying to stop. As nemesis said; they're causing damage to our way of life by making us resort to tactics we have condemned.
So what is the acceptable balance? Intimidation, in my opinion, is very perferable to some harsher alternatives, yet more likely to yield results compared to more PC style interrogations ("tell us what you know!" No! "Ok, fine. Man.. that sucks.) One example is the colonel discharging his weapon. One example is the scene in the movie "untouchables" where connary props the dead man up and uses him to scare the live prisoner. Another example could be seen on the series "24" where they threaten his family even though they never really harmed them.
Although I personally feel that intimidation is fair game (while physical torture is not) I have to agree that in this case it was wrong because he broke the law.
I'd like to point out, that in the civilian world, the prisoner commited a felony. Conspiring to set an ambush is pre-meditated murder in the civilian world. Assault (not battery), what the Colonel is charged with, is nothing more than a misdomener. Course, this isn't the civilian world... so west will get retired without benefits (if not prison time) and the prisoner will likely be held for a while and released. This is akin to you defending your home against a burgler, and the "victim" burgler sues you (the homeowner) for violating his personal rights. He gets off and you get jail time..... such is life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a difference. Even though they're on the same spectrum (more harsh methods of interrogation), they're at opposite extremes of it. West discharged his weapon next to the prisoner. He did not kill him- compare this to threatening (not bluffing) the prisoners family, REAL torture, etc.... I'd say there is a big difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no differance. There's no such things as "relative" and "opposite ends of the spectrum" when it comes to using torture to extract information from a person, be they a POW, terrorist or civilian. The methods West used was real torture; period. Torture was something unacceptable for West to do.
You either torture someone or you don't. There's no middle ground. Some forms of torture are, phycologically and physically, worse than others, no question there. But they all fall under the title of torture. And all are equally unacceptable for a US soldier to use.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited November 2003
i have sympathy for the colonel, and yet i still must agree with monkey and others..
he must be prosecuted, because that is the <i>law</i>.
i only believe so BECAUSE of that fact.
if it weren't the law, i'd hope that truth serums or the harshest forms of intimidation be used to protect our men. of course i don't think highly of beatings or torture, but i'll damn well do the whole tell-me-or-i'll-shoot-you thing if it's gonna save our soldiers =\
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any case, given your personal feelings on what is acceptable, how do you extract information from someone who is unwilling to give it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters, these arn't just my personal feelings. The US army and almost the entire Western world agrees with me.
How do you extract information from someone who is unwilling to give it? You generally don't. You might be able to strike a deal, or convince the person that it is in their best interests to reveal the information. But sometimes, people simply won't talk. You have to accept that, if your country and culture has decided that torture is not acceptable. Examine other options, find other people. If there is no-one else, tough luck.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
It wasn't torture though... I mean, if the guy had nailed his balls to the floor or something, then yeah, i would agree that it was completely wrong. But all he did was intimidate him... to save lives.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasn't torture though... I mean, if the guy had nailed his balls to the floor or something, then yeah, i would agree that it was completely wrong. But all he did was intimidate him... to save lives. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US army considers it torture. Our resident military man, Monse, has classified it as against US military law. Indeed, if the actions of West were not considered torture, there wouldn't be a big debacle about it.
I think it's quite clearly torture when you point a gun at someone's head, then fire the damn thing next to them. You are threatening a person with physical harm whilst defenitly using phychological torture. Not all torture methods involve hot pokers and nailing of body parts to the floor. I would quite comfortably say that Saddam's police forces almost certainly would have used similar methods to West: direct threats of physical violence with a weapon. It's just that cases like "raped with a broken beer bottle" tends to draw more media attention, not to mention moral outrage.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
And it comes back to this again:
What is there to discuss, if this man is guilty, there's no way around the law, and he <b>will</b> be punished far more than he should probably deserve?
I think this is one of the rare cases where the ends does in fact justify the means. And the law shouldn't be so set in stone that it can't realise this.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 6 2003, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 6 2003, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What is there to discuss, if this man is guilty, there's no way around the law, and he <b>will</b> be punished far more than he should probably deserve? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You think he deserves to punished very lightly. What kind of example do you think it gives to other soldiers? Like said before: it's a slippery slope and how do you suppose to keep your army under your control if you don't stick to rules. The law has to be set in to stone or else <b>every single case</b> would have to be evaluated individually. You know how difficult that is?
It's not about "He didn't do so bad, he shouldn't be punished much." Everyone who breaks the law must be punished harshly, so the other and the person at hand knows not to do it.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 6 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 6 2003, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The law has to be set in to stone or else <b>every single case</b> would have to be evaluated individually. You know how difficult that is? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is known as a "Trial".
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Nov 6 2003, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Nov 6 2003, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 6 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 6 2003, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The law has to be set in to stone or else <b>every single case</b> would have to be evaluated individually. You know how difficult that is? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is known as a "Trial". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What I meant is that each man who broke the law could say that how someone else got off the hook earlier. Judges would have to go through extensive moral debate over 'Was what X did more wrong than what Y did. How should we punish them both and who should go unpunished?' When everyone gets punished no matter what they did, system works flawlessly <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Past judgements are called "precedent" and are an integral part of the US judicial system. Punishing blindly is senseless, that's why there's the self-defense defense for assault, and the due diligence defense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think this is one of the rare cases where the ends does in fact justify the means. And the law shouldn't be so set in stone that it can't realise this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The law is the law. Now I'm sure West had his reasons. But look at it this way: I'm sure Saddam's police forces had their reasons for extracting information from prisoners. For them, it was really important to know if there was going to be an attack by Kurdish rebels. Or maybe they had to know about a political dissenter. Things like this. If we say to West "Oh, your actions did justify the end result", immediatly we not only give the green light for more torture, but we place ourselves alongside the very scum who we are apparently there to kick out of the country.
Of course West will be given a trial. But there can be no legitimate use of torture in the US army, or in any Western nation.
The police in america uses bribes, deals, and sometimes tricks to try and get the person to slip up and say something. Given that the person is going through the process of a fair trial (interrogation is pretty routine I would assume), should it be acceptable to use such tactics in the military?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The police in america uses bribes, deals, and sometimes tricks to try and get the person to slip up and say something. Given that the person is going through the process of a fair trial (interrogation is pretty routine I would assume), should it be acceptable to use such tactics in the military? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd hazard a guess that the US military is allowed to use such tactics. But if you're a US policeman and you pull your gun on a prisoner and say "Tell me what I want to know or I will pull the trigger", expect a short, sharp trip out of the police force plus fines and a possible jail term.
Things like deals with prisoners arn't seen as something unacceptable by our respective countries and cultures. Torture is, however.
Comments
Edited for spelling
They caused actual harm to this person. The Colonel didn't. He, apparantly (i say apparantly because i can see no mention of if the colonel was actually one of the people who beat him, which he probably was to be honest) did NO harm at all to this person, beyond temp. deafness from the gunshot.
If the law system works, and treats people as equals, shouldn't he get exactly the same punishment? The very fact that this whole thing has happened has probably destroyed his chances for promotion anyway, even if he's found innocent, that in itself is punishment enough, to KNOW that you can't further yourself.
I wholeheartedly agree that he should be found guilty. He broke the law. Yet, the punishment should take into acount his intentions, his actual crime (he didn't shoot anyone, and as far as we're concerned, didn't even point the gun at the person), and the possible effects of his actions. It is "probable" that he saved soldiers life. It is not likely that the policeman would be killed by his peers.
If worse comes to worse, he could say that he was taking a spot of target practice while the prisoner looked on... no one could prove him wrong really.
he should be found guilty. He shouldn't really be punished beyond "Don't do it again".
See you in a few weeks when you've read it all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/main_ucmj.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.military-network.com/main_ucmj/...j/main_ucmj.htm</a>
It's true though, there's no way you can safely change the law. If the cops were allowed to beat the crap out of kidnappers (and other criminals), you'd get the occasional person with a few broken ribs and limbs that were honestly innocent. You'd also get a few "confessions" out of innocent people who just want the beatings to stop.
However, i don't beleive that rules should be as set in stone as they are. If someone beat the crap out of someone to find out where your daughter is, for example, and they found that it was the wrong person, then the full extent of the law should be laid upon them. If, however, it WAS the right person, and your daughter is safely recovered as a result of it, then it should just be regarded as a normal case with a happy ending. The same, i beleive, should apply with this court marshal.
It's like trying to balance a game when you think about it.
At initial impression, I thought "Good... we got information we needed and hey, we didn't hurt him. Just intimidated- that's better than out and out torture (and I'm not talking about a few slaps)". But regardless, that isn't the point.
The fact that it worked notwithstanding, he broke the law. The only reason some people are quietly praising him is because it worked. This doesn't mean it's a reliable method.
He should be punished just as anyone else; whether he gets 8 years breaking rocks, or a full benefits retirement, isn't up to me. The thing is, the military cannot back down on their word and the law. If they do, if they make exceptions (even once), then the entire justice system is at risk. If you let him off the hook, and someone else does a similar thing, essentially you'll have a situation where your rules are no longer concrete, and now you have to take it by a case by case basis. Not good- a soldier may appeal and go "Well.... Colonel West did it, and you let HIM off the hook...."
Heres a quote from someone who words it better than me...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It worked out this time, even though this officer violated the LOLW, GC and UCMJ all at the same time. It might not have worked out, either (had the Iraqi given false info under duress). That would have saved no lives. The Colonel is not trained to interrogate, nor is he trained to evaluate the results of interrogation. Had the info given been misleading, and had that bad info resulted in the deaths of US soldiers, thrown off the track by false info, you wouldn?t be [praising his actions as you do now].<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, what do you personally feel is fair game for interrogation?
Regardless, a law has been broken and he's admitted to it. The only thing left is the punishment. From my perspective I hope they will consider his extensive military record and show leniency. Clearly he should never command again but stripping him of his retirement seems harsh to me. Just an opinion.
In his eyes, he had a stubborn Iraqi who knew that there was going to be an attack on the colonel and his group of soldiers, yet wouldn't tell him where/when/how. So he used tactics that, in my opinion, weren't even that terrible. The guy lives in Iraq... he's had bombs, gunfire, tanks and god knows what exploding, banging and generally making noise around him for ages.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe I'm reading stuff like this! The law is the law. Start bending them for "special situations" and you end up with a very slippery slope. Let this Colonel beat and threaten a prisoner and you open the door for others to do the same. How long before someone else decides "Well this guy ain't talking. Maybe I should start pulling his fingernails out".
There is a very simple question to be asked here: <b>How is this Colonel any differant from Saddam's police who used torture to extract information?</b>. Answer is, there isn't a differance. Both used torture against prisoners. Now Saddam sanctioned that, but according to US military law plus the conventions that the US has signed, that Colonel was way out of his juristiction to undertake such actions.
Let things like this slide, and you'll end up with the US army being little better than the regime they kicked out of Iraq. I would expect this Colonel to be fully tried under military law. Anything else is unacceptable.
There is a difference. Even though they're on the same spectrum (more harsh methods of interrogation), they're at opposite extremes of it. West discharged his weapon next to the prisoner. He did not kill him- compare this to threatening (not bluffing) the prisoners family, REAL torture, etc.... I'd say there is a big difference. This is like saying "Well you shot this guy defending yourself, and this criminal shot a guy whiel trying to get out of a bank. So you are BOTH the same". Certainly not.
While west does not uphold our moral highgrounds standard by his actions, he is certainly not as much scum as some of saddams enforcers. West decided that his career was worth saving the lives of his troops (or maybe it was just frustration from being there since spring with no relief). I'm not agreeing with him, although at the very least I'm glad it worked so it wasn't totally for nothing.
I don't see a problem with intimidation as an interrogation tool, except for the fact that it is not allowed. If it WAS allowed, I'd still say we take the moral highroad when compared to more ruthless tactics that saddam and rebel groups do.
There has to be a balance. We need this information. If we are so restricted by laws that we cannot get this information, you're going to see more colonel wests. If it is illegal, all they will do is not get caught (or try not to) when doing torture tactics. They'll keep it hush hush. To <b>some</b>, on the field, getting information that can save their lives takes priority, even if it shouldn't. If we are so PC about not hurting the terrorists "feelings" that there is no point to interogating because we legally get the information unless they openly provide it, then there is no point. On the other hand, if we do more saddam like tactics where you actually rack em up, threaten their family, torture them, etc. we are no longer on the moral highground and we have become those we are trying to stop. As nemesis said; they're causing damage to our way of life by making us resort to tactics we have condemned.
So what is the acceptable balance? Intimidation, in my opinion, is very perferable to some harsher alternatives, yet more likely to yield results compared to more PC style interrogations ("tell us what you know!" No! "Ok, fine. Man.. that sucks.) One example is the colonel discharging his weapon. One example is the scene in the movie "untouchables" where connary props the dead man up and uses him to scare the live prisoner. Another example could be seen on the series "24" where they threaten his family even though they never really harmed them.
Although I personally feel that intimidation is fair game (while physical torture is not) I have to agree that in this case it was wrong because he broke the law.
I'd like to point out, that in the civilian world, the prisoner commited a felony. Conspiring to set an ambush is pre-meditated murder in the civilian world. Assault (not battery), what the Colonel is charged with, is nothing more than a misdomener. Course, this isn't the civilian world... so west will get retired without benefits (if not prison time) and the prisoner will likely be held for a while and released. This is akin to you defending your home against a burgler, and the "victim" burgler sues you (the homeowner) for violating his personal rights. He gets off and you get jail time..... such is life.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no differance. There's no such things as "relative" and "opposite ends of the spectrum" when it comes to using torture to extract information from a person, be they a POW, terrorist or civilian. The methods West used was real torture; period. Torture was something unacceptable for West to do.
You either torture someone or you don't. There's no middle ground. Some forms of torture are, phycologically and physically, worse than others, no question there. But they all fall under the title of torture. And all are equally unacceptable for a US soldier to use.
he must be prosecuted, because that is the <i>law</i>.
i only believe so BECAUSE of that fact.
if it weren't the law, i'd hope that truth serums or the harshest forms of intimidation be used to protect our men. of course i don't think highly of beatings or torture, but i'll damn well do the whole tell-me-or-i'll-shoot-you thing if it's gonna save our soldiers =\
We will just have to agree to disagree then I guess.
In any case, given your personal feelings on what is acceptable, how do you extract information from someone who is unwilling to give it?
For starters, these arn't just my personal feelings. The US army and almost the entire Western world agrees with me.
How do you extract information from someone who is unwilling to give it? You generally don't. You might be able to strike a deal, or convince the person that it is in their best interests to reveal the information. But sometimes, people simply won't talk. You have to accept that, if your country and culture has decided that torture is not acceptable. Examine other options, find other people. If there is no-one else, tough luck.
The US army considers it torture. Our resident military man, Monse, has classified it as against US military law. Indeed, if the actions of West were not considered torture, there wouldn't be a big debacle about it.
I think it's quite clearly torture when you point a gun at someone's head, then fire the damn thing next to them. You are threatening a person with physical harm whilst defenitly using phychological torture. Not all torture methods involve hot pokers and nailing of body parts to the floor. I would quite comfortably say that Saddam's police forces almost certainly would have used similar methods to West: direct threats of physical violence with a weapon. It's just that cases like "raped with a broken beer bottle" tends to draw more media attention, not to mention moral outrage.
What is there to discuss, if this man is guilty, there's no way around the law, and he <b>will</b> be punished far more than he should probably deserve?
I think this is one of the rare cases where the ends does in fact justify the means. And the law shouldn't be so set in stone that it can't realise this.
You think he deserves to punished very lightly. What kind of example do you think it gives to other soldiers? Like said before: it's a slippery slope and how do you suppose to keep your army under your control if you don't stick to rules. The law has to be set in to stone or else <b>every single case</b> would have to be evaluated individually. You know how difficult that is?
It's not about "He didn't do so bad, he shouldn't be punished much." Everyone who breaks the law must be punished harshly, so the other and the person at hand knows not to do it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is known as a "Trial".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is known as a "Trial". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I meant is that each man who broke the law could say that how someone else got off the hook earlier. Judges would have to go through extensive moral debate over 'Was what X did more wrong than what Y did. How should we punish them both and who should go unpunished?' When everyone gets punished no matter what they did, system works flawlessly <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The law is the law. Now I'm sure West had his reasons. But look at it this way: I'm sure Saddam's police forces had their reasons for extracting information from prisoners. For them, it was really important to know if there was going to be an attack by Kurdish rebels. Or maybe they had to know about a political dissenter. Things like this. If we say to West "Oh, your actions did justify the end result", immediatly we not only give the green light for more torture, but we place ourselves alongside the very scum who we are apparently there to kick out of the country.
Of course West will be given a trial. But there can be no legitimate use of torture in the US army, or in any Western nation.
I'd hazard a guess that the US military is allowed to use such tactics. But if you're a US policeman and you pull your gun on a prisoner and say "Tell me what I want to know or I will pull the trigger", expect a short, sharp trip out of the police force plus fines and a possible jail term.
Things like deals with prisoners arn't seen as something unacceptable by our respective countries and cultures. Torture is, however.