4th Infantry Division Lt. Colonel may face Court Martial for Torturing Prisoner

[tnitsuj]

from MSNBC.COM

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Ah yes -the West story. Seems a bit misleading to say that he "tortured" a prisoner though. Threatening to kill to extract info that the "correct" ways couldn't doesn't seem like torture to me. Ofcourse he should have followed proceedure but what he did saved lives and I think more than a few of us would have done the same thing he(West) did if we knew he had info.

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes -the West story. Seems a bit misleading to say that he "tortured" a prisoner though. Threatening to kill to extract info that the "correct" ways couldn't doesn't seem like torture to me. Ofcourse he should have followed proceedure but what he did saved lives and I think more than a few of us would have done the same thing he(West) did if we knew he had info.

CkG

So you don't think beating him up and threatening to kill him is not torture? and how exactly did he save lives. The guy didn't know anything?

 

[Hammer]

i would fine the guy $5 and let him go on his way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes -the West story. Seems a bit misleading to say that he "tortured" a prisoner though. Threatening to kill to extract info that the "correct" ways couldn't doesn't seem like torture to me. Ofcourse he should have followed proceedure but what he did saved lives and I think more than a few of us would have done the same thing he(West) did if we knew he had info.

CkG

So you don't think beating him up and threatening to kill him is not torture? and how exactly did he save lives. The guy didn't know anything?

I don't think West beat him up - one of the soldiers allegedly punched him...and?
Threatening to kill him to extract info is not torture in my book - sorry. Is it intended to scare the sh!t out of them? hell yes, but torture - no.

And what this little story fails to tell is that there seems to be some info extracted from this detainee.
linky
"Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said unless new information emerges, he thinks the officer "should be commended for his actions in interrogation that prevented an attack on the soldiers of his command. That's my feeling, and I think others may share it but may not want to say it.""

Here is a page that has alot of info links concerning this case.

CkG

 

[Shad0hawK]

he does not deserve to be court martialed.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

The law, John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens on trial for murder, is inflexible, inexable, and deaf: inexorable to the cries of the defendant; "deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace." His words ring true, 227 years later. Elected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls. Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, picketers, threats, petitions, panelists, and talk shows. In this country, we do not administer justice by plebiscite. A judge, in short, is a public servant who must follow his conscience, whether or not he counters the manifest wishes of those he serves; whether or not his decision seems a surrender to the prevalent demands.

-- Hiller B. Zobel
Associate Justice,
Superior Court of Massachusetts

IMHO a very good quote, and one that I ever find hard to fault.

In other words, if he broke the law he should get the appropriate punishment. Deterioration of the rule of law IMHO leads to deterioration of a moral highground. I'm sure there are pertinant legal questions this man should face - otherwise it would not have got as far as a court martial in the first place.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[rjain]

Well, the story seems to indicate that his tactics were explicitly against the code of conduct, so he does deserve to have some punishment for violating those rules.

That senator must consider the army's code of conduct to not be relevant to the conduct of army personnel. But I guess that's a politician for you. What's the point of a code of conduct if it'll just be ignored when there's a PR problem? That's about as corrupt as MCI's accounting, where they ignored accounting rules if they didn't get the numbers they wanted.

Edit: To make my views clear, I'm talking about the rule of law, not about what the laws should be in the first place. If the law is unnecessarily hampering our ability to wage war, then maybe we should consider shooting a gun at a prisoner and threatening to perform war crimes as an accepted method of interrogation. Should threatening to rape a prisoner also be a legal interrogation tactic? What about threatening to murder their (non-combatant) family? Isn't this exactly what the "evil" side does in our movies? Especially if we're interrogating a civillian...

 

[UltraQuiet]

The Geneva Convention prohibits torture as defined below. If you want to twist and bend the convention to suit your needs then you have to be ready to have it disregarded when it suits your enemy. A slippery slope indeed.

1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by
or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or
suffering;

(C) the threat of imminent death;

Of course it's easy to point and comment sitting here, thousands of miles away, w/o the burden of command weighing down upon us.

 

[no0b]

What he did was wrong.
But I and most everyone else would have done the same thing he did.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The Geneva Convention prohibits torture as defined below. If you want to twist and bend the convention to suit your needs then you have to be ready to have it disregarded when it suits your enemy. A slippery slope indeed.

1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by
or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or
suffering;

(C) the threat of imminent death;

hmmm...that would definately seem to apply in this case. If this is all true, court martial him and throw him in Leavenworth.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: no0b
What he did was wrong.
But I and most everyone else would have done the same thing he did.

Exactly my point. Yes, he broke the "rules" and he admits it, but what he did saved lives and helped prevent sniper attacks and such. Now, that doesn't excuse his actions, perse, but dasm - I'm sure I'd have done that same thing if in a similar situation. Now I don't think I'd have allowed him to be punched because that is torture/physical abuse in my book but scaring the crap out of him by firing a weapon isn't "torture" IMO. Again, he broke the rules and is facing punishment for it, but there is more to the story than the MSNBC link tells.

CkG

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
The Geneva Convention prohibits torture as defined below. If you want to twist and bend the convention to suit your needs then you have to be ready to have it disregarded when it suits your enemy. A slippery slope indeed.

1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by
or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or
suffering;

(C) the threat of imminent death;

hmmm...that would definately seem to apply in this case. If this is all true, court martial him and throw him in Leavenworth.

No way... fine him $.50 and let him walk.

 

[rjain]

There were extenuating circumstances. This case is more like manslaughter if you compare torture to murder.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Of course it's easy to point and comment sitting here, thousands of miles away, w/o the burden of command weighing down upon us.

Roger that. Those boots feel much differently after walking around in them.

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

hmmm...that would definately seem to apply in this case. If this is all true, court martial him and throw him in Leavenworth.

Although making an example of this officer may either send a message or set a precedent, others have committed far worse acts and received much less or even no punishment at all.

In other words, the circumstances must be carefully weighed to avoid sending the wrong message.

 

[fwtong]

I'm just surprised that he hasn't been promoted yet.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

The law, John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens on trial for murder, is inflexible, inexable, and deaf: inexorable to the cries of the defendant; "deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace." His words ring true, 227 years later. Elected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls. Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, picketers, threats, petitions, panelists, and talk shows. In this country, we do not administer justice by plebiscite. A judge, in short, is a public servant who must follow his conscience, whether or not he counters the manifest wishes of those he serves; whether or not his decision seems a surrender to the prevalent demands.

-- Hiller B. Zobel
Associate Justice,
Superior Court of Massachusetts

IMHO a very good quote, and one that I ever find hard to fault.

In other words, if he broke the law he should get the appropriate punishment. Deterioration of the rule of law IMHO leads to deterioration of a moral highground. I'm sure there are pertinant legal questions this man should face - otherwise it would not have got as far as a court martial in the first place.

Cheers,

Andy

He was not on US soil and not under the jurisdiction of US law.

HE is bound by the UCMJ, make a note in his record and send him on his way

 

[Zebo]

This is f-ing ridiculus and I think some political modivation inside is behind this. After all you can shock and awe them, don't bother counting "collaterals", but when a man get results in the heat of the moment by just shooting his pistol over the prisoners head it a war crime? Uh huh. We need more like him not these pansy rubber stamped chicken hawks running the show.

A real warriors take on it.

 

[kage69]

That guy's first paragraph says it all, and I agree with him 100%.

 

[Witling]

The term "court martial" is poorly understood. It's only a trial and the person on trial is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The military also has another procedure called "nonjudicial punishment." The defendant has to agree to that and the punishment is limited (potentially unpleasant, but limited). A court martial is just a trial.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: nutxo

He was not on US soil and not under the jurisdiction of US law.

HE is bound by the UCMJ, make a note in his record and send him on his way

Who said anything about US law. We are talking about the laws of the US Army.

 

[Witling]

Uh, "UCMJ" means "Uniform Code of Military Justice." It's not only the law of the army, but of all the nation's armed services.

EDITED: I presume that the part in the previous post about "make a note in his record and send him on his way" was sarcasm.

As I said in one of my signatures, "Anandtech needs "Sarcastic" and "Very Sarcastic" emoticons.

 

[chess9]

Some wag said "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."

Poor guy. I feel sorry for him. He lost it for a few minutes. No one is dead. He isn't Calley, and this isn't Nam...yet. Give him a reprimand and let him go back to work or retire.

-Robert

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law, John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens on trial for murder, is inflexible, inexable, and deaf: inexorable to the cries of the defendant; "deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace." His words ring true, 227 years later. Elected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls. Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, picketers, threats, petitions, panelists, and talk shows. In this country, we do not administer justice by plebiscite. A judge, in short, is a public servant who must follow his conscience, whether or not he counters the manifest wishes of those he serves; whether or not his decision seems a surrender to the prevalent demands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-- Hiller B. Zobel
Associate Justice,
Superior Court of Massachusetts

IMHO a very good quote, and one that I ever find hard to fault.

In other words, if he broke the law he should get the appropriate punishment. Deterioration of the rule of law IMHO leads to deterioration of a moral highground. I'm sure there are pertinant legal questions this man should face - otherwise it would not have got as far as a court martial in the first place.

Cheers,

Andy

He was not on US soil and not under the jurisdiction of US law.

HE is bound by the UCMJ, make a note in his record and send him on his way

I did know that. I assumed that the court martial system also observed these basic tenets of "law".

It was a closely related example and not a direct correlation - but I still see no reason why it does not apply in principle.

Andy

 

[Witling]

Hmmph? Having read the story from the original link, I infer, but do not know, that the Colonel's reasons for suspecting the policeman weren't very good. I say this because in a military unit, it's more likely than not that nobody saw or heard anything. "I was guarding the perimeter." I think it's got to be a pretty aggregious case for somebody to testify. I don't condon this action but the guy wasn't hospitalized or shot. I'm amazed it even got a hearing.