[RustyHammer]

Here is one most of us missed:

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/the_news_ed_columnists/article/0,1651,TCP_1133_2410749,00.html


Joe Crankshaw: Instead of medal he richly deserves, Lt. Col. West will get a court martial -- By Joe Crankshaw -- columnist

November 8, 2003

You may never have heard of Lt. Col. Allen B. West, a battalion commander in the Fourth Infantry Division in Iraq, but he desperately needs your help. He faces an untimely end to his military career, and time in jail for saving the lives of his men. Specifically, he is charged with assault for firing his pistol into the air to intimidate an Iraqi prisoner who was concealing plans for an ambush of American troops.

The ploy worked, and U.S. troops ambushed the would be ambushers. Col. West should be receiving a medal, not a court martial.

An Army Judge Advocate General officer — a lawyer for the Army in plain English — assigned to the Fourth Infantry, leveled the charges and is making them stick. It is certainly an example of legal technicalities that ignore both recent history in Iraq and the true nature of war.

If this lawyer wants to prosecute someone for mistreating prisoners of war, let him hunt down the men who mistreated the members of the Ordinance unit, including Jessica Lynch, who were captured, tortured and murdered by the Iraqis. Evidence shows Lynch was raped in the process. Or, let him look for the people who beat and mistreated our pilots during the first Gulf War. That should give him plenty of legitimate targets.

Col. West and his men were stationed at a place called "Saba al Boor," when they captured an Iraqi guerrilla, and began interrogating him. Military questioning on the frontlines is normally conducted by an intelligence officer or noncommissioned officer, assisted by a translator if they don't speak the enemy's language. The process is not unlike what happens in a police precinct station, except that the pressure of time and the fact that American lives hang in the balance, adds an unpleasant dimension.

During the interrogation, the intelligence people came to realize they had something more than your ordinary guerilla grunt. This one had knowledge of upcoming actions, which he was not coming forward with, but which needed to be known. In every war we have fought, when our men were taken under similar circumstances and tried to conceal information, the treatment they received was often brutal and sometimes fatal.

Col. West is dedicated to his men, and he knew he had to get the information in real time or see some of them die. I guess the JAG officer would rather have seen the men die. The colonel had many options, if he was determined to get the information. He could have ordered the prisoner beaten into submission; he could have ordered torture; he could have done many things, but he did none of them. He just scared the information out of the prisoner. He stood behind him, drew his pistol, slid back the slide so the prisoner could hear it, and fired twice in the air. The prisoner, apparently, was not ready to go to paradise, and spilled the beans.

The Iraqi should be glad he was not a prisoner of the South or North Koreans, whose favorite interrogation technique is to truss up the prisoner, tying wrists to ankles, suspending him in the air, then beating him with long, thin bamboo poles for a few hours before they start questioning.

In South Vietnam, ARVIN questioners took prisoners up in helicopters in groups of two or three. At a high altitude, they would pick up one of the prisoners and heave him out the door sans parachute, then start questioning the others. It was effective, but I am sure the JAG officer would not approve.

Germans, Japanese, Russians, all have used brutal tactics far exceeding Col. West's, and everyone just accepts it.

I am not a fan of the Bush War in Iraq. I think we should and could have handled the matter differently. But I support our troops in what they are trying to do under dreadful conditions. I don't think a man's career should be trashed in the name of some theoretical, legal nicety, when he was saving American lives. The end does not always justify the means, but in this case, I think his means are justified by the end. As I have often written, I don't think there is one square inch of foreign soil worth one American life. I also uphold Gen. George Patton's speech to his troops in which he told them the idea that they were supposed to die for their country was crap. "Your job," he said, "is to make the other poor bastard die for his."

Write, e-mail, call, button-hole your congressman and sink the White House under a blizzard of mail. Demand a medal, not a court martial, for Lt. Col. Allen B. West.

Contact Joe Crankshaw by telephone at (772) 221-4181, or e-mail: Joe.Crankshaw@scripps.com. His columns are archived on the News'website, TCPalm.com.

[RustyHammer]

Sign Petition here: http://patriotpetitions.us/colwest/

11/4/2003 — Exonerate Lt. Col. Allen B. West from Criminal Prosecution


Signers: 106268

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and acting Secretary of the Army Secretary Les Brownlee

Petition Text:

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and acting Secretary of the Army Secretary Les Brownlee

We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives, Senate and Department of Defense on behalf of Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West. Col. West, together with his fellow line officers engaged in combat with terrorists in Iraq, has been ordered to complete a difficult mission under impossible circumstances. U.S. forces in Iraq are not engaged in conventional warfare. They are facing a terrorist enemy who blends into the civilian population -- hiding behind women and children -- only to reemerge to conduct deadly attacks against our troops, themselves fettered by the rules used to govern traditional wars. Col. West's own battalion faces such attacks almost every day. While we acknowledge that U.S. soldiers have an obligation to adhere to a higher standard than their enemy counterparts, and that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a fair and just standard in ordinary cases, we believe the circumstances surrounding Col. West's case are extraordinary, to say the least. It is beyond dispute that Col. West's actions saved the lives of men under his command when he extracted information of an impending attack against himself and his men from an enemy combatant in his custody. In twice firing his sidearm, Col. West never intended nor did he actually harm the interrogated prisoner. In this case, the end does indeed justify the means.

Col. West's actions do not merit prosecution, demotion, loss of benefits or prison time. Col. West's actions merit the praise of his countrymen for the lives he saved in the line of duty. We, citizens of the United States, do hereby petition for Col. West's reprieve from prosecution and return to duty through the intervention of the President, the Congress or the Department of Defense. We will not forget how our nation's leaders choose to treat this brave soldier.

Signed,

{sign online at above-referenced URL}

[longeyes]

Look for a fracturing of the military in the next few years. What
that portends is hard to predict. Don't think a lot of military guys
aren't looking at Col. West's situation and asking the obvious questions.

[Derek Zeanah]

If I were still in, and deliverately violated the rules and regs regarding treatment of prisoners, what would happen to me as a lowly enlisted infantryman?

[Jeff White]

He is actually getting the court martial he richly deserves. I missed thew section in the front of the UCMJ that says it's a peace peacetime only law.

Jeff

[MrAcheson]

November 4th we had a presentation at work (an early vetern's day thing) by one of the US military officers held by Iran after they took the US embassy in 1979. During the question and answer session someone asked him about this case. He responded by saying "Its a tricky subject but I wouldn't want to be the guy prosecuting him for saving his men. I had that done to me in Iran, but I can't condemn Col. West for doing it in Iraq." If someone who has been there on the opposite side of the gun can't condemn West, how can I?

[c_yeager]

Here is one most of us missed:

i think i caught the other three or four threads we had on this.

[RustyHammer]

He is actually getting the court martial he richly deserves. I missed thew section in the front of the UCMJ that says it's a peace peacetime only law.

May not be "right", but better than stuffing body bags with the remains of his troops. At least they wear the uniform!

[tiberius]

Well, he admits to violating the law (UCMJ) so whats wrong with holding a trial to formally determine if his actions were justified or not? Isn't that what trials are for? even military trials?

[Sergeant Bob]

How many would be calling for his head if he'd done the "right" thing and just reported it to "intelligence" and in the meantime the terrorists had attacked with a truck bomb, killing 10 or 20 of his men? All knowing he could have possibly prevented it from happening?
If he knew his men were in danger and he did nothing to prevent his troops from dying, would the UCMJ be on his side?
Would the troops left ever be able to trust their commander (if they feel his only interest is CYA) again? Trust is pretty important when your life is on the line, and it has to go both ways.

[Sean Smith]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47608&highlight=West

In fact, the article above is a distortion of the facts presented by West himself. The threat he was interrogating the guy about was an assassination plot against him personally, not a threat to attack his troops or US forces in general. So much for the selflessness angle.

In West's account, "the interrogators had no luck at first," but it does not spell out if they were qualified CI personnel, or just the NCOs he sent to make the pick-up. At that point he made the conscious decision, as an unqualified cannon-cocker, to take over an interrogation. If they guys weren't qualified to interrogate the guy, West shouldn't have let them do it in the first place, and if they were, he should have had the good sense to shut the hell up and let the professionals do it. Either way, West taking over the interrogation made about as much sense as letting random people off the street operate a 155mm howitzer. Probably less, really, considering the amount of training that goes into making a good interrogator. West poisoned the well and ultimately ruined the guy as a source... yeah, he may have saved his ???, but the source is no good to us now. To my mind, reducing the risk to some light colonel's behind isn't worth the potential information lost from this informant, and the long-term positive effect it could have had on US operations... and it shouldn't have been to his, either. Colonels get the big bucks to see the bigger picture and do the right thing.

Of course, most folks think they know everything about interrogation because they watched a couple of episodes of "The Shield." :rolleyes:

In any case, he broke the law and is going to get court martialed. That's the way it is supposed to work, no free ride just because he's a field grade. If some PFC... who would have been no less qualified in interrogations than the colonel, incidentally... did this, he'd be court martialed without blinking an eye. It would also be detrimental to good order and discipline to let him get away with it, as it would be a tacit approval of abuse of captives at will.

[Sergeant Bob]

Granted, there was self interest involved. That would be plenty of motivation for anyone. But given the usual methods of attack by the terrorists in those parts (car and truck bombs, people with explosives strapped to their bodies, several gunmen with automatic weapons) it is reasonable to assume that his men were in danger too.
If you knew someone was coming for you, and that would place your family in danger too, I would expect you to take a proactive approach to neutralize the threat as much (or more) for your family than you would for yourself.

edited to add: I'm not really against a court martial, as I am well aware why the UCMJ exists, just any presupposition (is that a word?) of guilt. While he is probably technically "guilty", I just don't feel that he was wrong. I hope he is exonerated.

[Derek Zeanah]

If you knew someone was coming for you, and that would place your family in danger too, I would expect you to take a proactive approach to neutralize the threat as much (or more) for your family than you would for yourself.Hey, man, do what you have to do.

Just understand there are consequences associated with those actions. The good Colonel is suffering personal consequences, we lost an intel source as a consequence, and the Iraquis and and rest of the world now view us as the sort of country that resorts to violence and death threats as part of routine interrogations.

Great.

Isn't that what the local law-and-order crowd says, anyway? "you do the crime..."

[Thumper]

Well put, Derek...

The UCMJ is what separates "our'n from their'n"...not the Geneva or any other "international" convention.

We hold our own high ground, not subject to outside authority.

...and that's as it should be.

[Lord Grey Boots]

I only have a problem with the two warning shots being considered "assault". Thats seems to be a stretch.

[Sergeant Bob]

Need a feature on the board which pulls your post while editing so nobody can cross post while your editing.

[Sergeant Bob]

I only have a problem with the two warning shots being considered "assault". Thats seems to be a stretch.
That's funny if you think about the irony.
You can shoot at them, but you can't shoot near them.;)

[ojibweindian]

the Colonel is not fighting fair? Is that what this is about? He's not "playing" by the rules? Since when is fighting to survive about playing by the rules or fighting "fair"?

Have we become such wimps? Man, this sucks....

[Jeff White]

RustyHammer,
May not be "right", but better than stuffing body bags with the remains of his troops. At least they wear the uniform!

I retired on 31 Oct 2003 after almost 29 years. I'd wager to say I wore the uniform longer then most members of this board.

If you think we can condone this type of conduct from a field grade officer you are very wrong. We have troops from all MOSs (because Rumsfeld refuses to expand the Army to fight a war, it interferes with transformation but that's another thread) acting as Infantry and MPs in a counter insurgency environment where we aren't fighting a uniformed enemy. What LTC West did, was establish a new standard for field interrogation in his battalion. Sure it worked out well, this time. But you can bet that right after it happened every PFC and Specialist in the Bn heard about it. So now it's ok to treat every detainee that way? Hardly, but it is in that Bn, because the commander of that Bn set the standard with his own conduct. Can we fault the younger troops when they brutalize detainees if we don't hold everyone to the same standards?

We are fighting an enemy much tougher then the former Ba'athists ever will be. We are fighting the world media. They will do everything they can to undermine our troops and our objectives because the wrong party is in charge. The Toledo Blade already published a 4 part feature on alleged atrocities in Vietnam in 1967. Why do you think they are digging that up now? Because in the last article they tied it into counter insurgency warfare in Iraq. You'll soon see articles in the New York Times, Washington Post etc. claiming that this type of warfare is brutalizing our soliders and making calloused killers of our fine young men and women. So given all that, you want to condone violations of the Law of Land Warfare and the UCMJ?

This is a real war, it's not a Samuel L. Jackson war movie. I doubt that the commander of the Saddam Feydeen is going to testify at LTC West's Court Martial.

You are also ignoring that this came out as part of a 15-6 investigation into the command climate of a brigade. I'm sure there are a lot of other issues involved that aren't making the press.

The bottom line is that LTC West has to be held accountable. If he's not then the entire chain of command breaks down. You can slap a Sergeant who's a team leader on the wrist for something like this considering how it came out, but you can't do that to a field grade officer. If you let LTC West off, you might as well just say we can continue to torture detainees and we're all sliding down the slippery slope.

The best thing to do is let the military justice system work, The facts will come out and LTC West will get the justice he deserves. As a commander LTC West had an obligation to do things right and by the book. In my opinion his true character is showing when he chose to try this in the press.

Jeff

[longeyes]

The media, here and abroad, are dredging up Vietnam not because of
Iraq but because Vietnam gave incontrovertible proof, to the hard-core
Left, that America was rotten at the root, that we are somehow the
world's cancer. They will never let go of Vietnam and the whiff of atrocities, no matter how much genocide is occurring all over this planet and how many mass graves are unearthed in Iraq. If there had been no Col. West to once
again prove to all mankind that Americans are satanic, the media would
have had to invent one. The Left wants to crack America's resolve and
to demoralize our military. The real question, to me anyway, is who
seized the West story and ran with it--and why. America would be very
wise to have a media blackout in its theaters of war--if we really want
to win. And that is far from clear in this age of PC.

[w4rma]

With all due respect, longeyes, you are blatantly incorrect.

Army four-star General, Wesley Clark is running on the Democratic ticket, partially because of Bush's failed leadership over Iraq. Whether he wins the nomination or not, he is likely to be the nominee's running mate (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/dean/index.html).

Dean's opposition to the Iraq war wasn't anti-military but was pro-military. This occupation is a waste of American resources (and definitely lives) and damages our credibility abroad.

U.S. War Dead in Iraq Exceed Early Vietnam Years
Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:23 p.m. ET
By David Morgan

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces currently number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.
…
http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=MyLycos&storyId=798648

As to what it would take to "win". What are you suggesting? Nuke(s)? Mowing down Iraqi protestors? What do you think Bush is trying to do in Iraq? What is the objective? Liberate the Iraqis via nuke? Liberate the oil via nuke? Why not just leave Saddam there, if that is the "goal"? President Eisenhower helped install Saddam for stability.

Back on topic: Lt. Col. West should NOT be court marshalled, IMHO. He deserves a medal.

[c_yeager]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War,

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

Veeeery carefully worded. The first thought is "well there werent many american troops there to get killed in the first place in '61 so of course its lower." Then they tell you that there were 17,000 troops in INDOCHINA at the time. I would imagine that indochina includes more than vietnam. So this might not exactly mean what it appears to mean.

Regardless comparing the occupation of an enemy nation with the calmest two years of a 15 year war hardly makes any sense at all. Again people just like to bring up Vietnam so that they can pretend that they are protesting somethign worth protesting when in reality they arent.

[Jeff White]

Any comparison with Vietnam is completely irrelevant. You could also say that casualites exceed the first week of the revolution and it'd mean the same.

Once again the mainstream press and the Democratic Party is dancing on the graves of our honored dead. Where was all this concern when Clinton bombed Iraq? Where was it when the votes to authorize the use of force were conducted. IMHO those who were hawks when their party was in charge, and whowere hawks up until the time we went to war and are no longer hawks because to be so might not be the best way to get their party back into power aren't fit to clean the porta potties our troops use. Wesley Clark had nothing but praise for the administration until he decided to run for president.

Back on topic; What is your opinion on LTC West? Did he do the right thing?

Jeff

[Preacherman]

IIRC, the initial reports of this incident stated that Col. West's troops physically assaulted or tortured those being questioned, and that when this didn't produce the desired information, Col. West staged his shooting stunt. IMHO, this definitely warrants a court-martial: mistreatment of prisoners in the presence of the commanding officer, who then joins in the mistreatment! There's no way on earth that this conduct should be condoned.

[w4rma]

On Topic: I just read Preacherman's post above. Assuming Preacherman's description of the situation is accurate, I agree with Preacherman.

Off topic, to defend myself: Jeff White, no Americans died containing Saddam. Jeff White, I was among those who tried to stop this invasion of Iraq before it started in order to prevent American (and Iraqi) deaths. Many generals tried to warn the ideologues in the White House that Iraq would become a quagmire. Many CIA agents tried to warn the White House ideologues that Iraq would become a quagmire. Many diplomats tried to warn the White House neo-cons that Iraq would become a quagmire.

Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'

A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, “cherry-picked the intelligence stream” in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
…
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. “There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal,” Mr Cannistraro said.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/31/1054177765483.html

Cheney Investigated Forged Niger Uranuium Document

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested – until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
…
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6e9d5502599dc6a2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=5858&mesg_id=5858&page=

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
…
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

“Go massive,” the notes quote him as saying. “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” (Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 attack)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=53315&mesg_id=53315&page=

A call to maintain CIA independence.

As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.

This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: “A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war,” the news service reported recently. “They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.”
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-bamford_x.htm

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
…
The DIA was “exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD,” or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had “no guts at all” to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up “fraudulent” intelligence, “a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi.”
…
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a “moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas.”

CHEMICAL WEAPONS REPORT 'SIMPLY WRONG'

The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was “simply wrong” in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.

Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.html

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

“It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy,” said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. “That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days.” ---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_intelligence_4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID61/18413.html

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The group’s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was“cooked” to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced “a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions”. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: “While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.

“You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin — cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.”
…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-698028,00.html

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm

U.S. diplomats also tried to stop this invasion:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html

Letter of Resignation (Mary Wright)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/marywright.asp

U.S. Mongolian Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq (Fourth U.S. Diplomat)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&e=84&u=/ap/20030327/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/war_diplomat_resigns_2

Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy
http://truthout.org/docs_03/032303G.shtml

Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/03.03/0314krieger_diplo_resign.htm
U.S. diplomat resigns over Iraq war plans
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10105063.htm

Niger-Uranium Timeline
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND WMDs: THEN AND NOW
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

[Jeff White]

w4rma,

Ok, you don't fit in with most of your party. So there is no need to defend yourself. But you can't deny that all of the Democratic Candidates but Dean were hawks on the war before it started.

Containment never works. Sooner or later people are going to have to realize that the for there to be peace one side must lose. Our record of success in returning things to the status quo is not the best. And if we don't start forming Western style republics in the middle east, there will never be peace there.

You and Howard Dean may criticise the war. You were against it from the start. The rest of them, especially Clark are simply dancing on the graves of men who they aren't fit to clean up after.

Jeff

[w4rma]

I'm a pretty typical Democrat, IMHO. As Will Rogers said (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Will_Rogers), "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

Here is my understanding of the Democratic presidential candidates' positions on the invasion of Iraq: Rep. Gephardt and Sen. Lieberman were pro-invasion. They actually undercut efforts by many members of the Senate and the House to bring a vote on a limited version of the Iraq War Resolution bill (which was essentially a blank check). This weaker version was the Biden/Lugar bill. Sen. Edwards was pro-invasion, but wasn't at the rose garden ceremony with Rep. Gephardt and Sen. Lieberman. Sen. Kerry was anti-invasion behind the scenes but tried to appear pro-invasion. Gen. Clark was somewhat anti-invasion. IMHO, he was trying to slow things down to get folks to maybe stop and think:
'Let's Wait to Attack' by General Wesley K. Clark (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/) (October 10, 2002)
Obviously Gov. Dean was anti-invasion (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm). He was very outspoken against this particular war. He supported Afghanistan, though. Sen. Graham was anti-invasion and voted against the Iraq War Resolution in the Senate. It is my understanding that he thought that it detracted from the War on Terror. More info. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=16629&forum=DCForumID61) Rep. Kucinich is anti-invasion and voted against the Iraq War Resolution in the House. Rev. Sharpton and Amb. Braun were probably always anti-invasion.Rumsfeld Says No Early U.S. Pullout from Iraq
Fri, Nov 14, 2003

ANDERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Guam (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told U.S. forces in the Pacific on Friday there was no plan for an early withdrawal from Iraq, but Iraqis would get more power more quickly than initially thought.

"There is no decision to pull out early, indeed quite the contrary," Rumsfeld said when asked by troops stationed on the Pacific island outpost of Guam about reports of a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

"We will stay there as long as necessary to see that that country is put on a path" to democracy, he said.

Rumsfeld said the initial plan had been for a transfer of sovereignty after a new Iraqi constitution had been ratified and elections held.

But the process was likely to take about two years and the Iraqi Governing Council and U.S. administrator Paul Bremer would try to find a way of transferring some responsibility before that.
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031114/ts_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_dc_4

[Sergeant Bob]

Preacherman IIRC, the initial reports of this incident stated that Col. West's troops physically assaulted or tortured those being questioned, and that when this didn't produce the desired information, Col. West staged his shooting stunt. IMHO, this definitely warrants a court-martial: mistreatment of prisoners in the presence of the commanding officer, who then joins in the mistreatment! There's no way on earth that this conduct should be condoned.
Not saying you're wrong but, I wouldn't put alot of stock in what the media gave out in initial reports. If the torture claims were true they (along with the Bush haters) would still be trumpeting it from on high. They are usually in such a big hurry to get the story out first, they don't care if they have to stretch the truth a bit, or slant it any way that $ell$. They're into that body count thing just like Viet Nam, and I think most of them would like nothing better than to find another Lt Kally (sp?).
Look at the Jessica Lynch debacle.
Look at all the "quagmire" reports. How much all the Iraqi's hate us. G.I.'s with no food or water during the invasion, down to one MRE and one bottle of water per day, even when embedded (Fox) reporters with the troops were saying to the world it wasn't true!
Ask some of the members of this board who are currently over there or were there and see what they have to say. What I've heard from them is nothing like I've heard from the media.
Sorry for the rant but it just burns me that there are people who seem to relish the thought of failure just to sell advertisements or bring down the "NeoCons".
Sorry Preacherman, most of that wasn't really directed at you. It's just that once I started I got kind of wound up.

[Sean Smith]

w4rma,

You might be a bit more credible as something other than a Democratic Underground troll if you ever used this forum to talk about... guns. ;)

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=441529&sortby=&sortorder=&pagenumber=1

[Jeff White]

Sergeant Bob,
Something was wrong in that brigade. The charges against LTC West were filed after an investigation into the command climate of the brigade. The media reports have focused on LTC West, but there were obviously other things wrong there. When the Army looks into ccommand climate they are concerned that the entire chain of command is doing their own thing without regard to the regulations. I would imagine that LTC West's commander is on the hot seat too, not only for allowing the incident to happen, but because he initially did nothing about it when it was brought to his attention.

None of us knows what was happening in that brigade. Let's allow the system to work. If LTC West was so sure he was right, he'd have no need to try his case publically like he's doing.

Jeff

[hops]

Sort of related, even if indirectly - from the AP.

U.S. Soldiers Will Be Charged
With Abusing Iraqi Prisoners

Associated Press

CAIRO, Egypt -- U.S. military officials have decided to prosecute three American soldiers from Pennsylvania on charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners of war, a U.S. Army spokesman said Friday.

Maj. Victor Harris, spokesman for the Kuwait-based U.S. Land Forces Component Command, said the three will be formally charged on Saturday in an arraignment hearing at Camp Doha, Kuwait.

The charges grew out of an alleged incident May 12 at a U.S. detention facility, Camp Bucca, in southern Iraq. The three soldiers, from the 320th Military Police Battalion, based in Ashley, Pa., are accused of punching and kicking Iraqi POWs while escorting them to Camp Bucca.

After an inquiry, U.S. military investigators recommended bringing charges, which since have been filed by the Third U.S. Army's commanding general, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan. Saturday will be the first time the charges are formally read out to the accused soldiers.

The soldiers have said they acted in self-defense, that conditions were chaotic at Camp Bucca and that guards had been harassed and assaulted daily by unruly prisoners.

The three soldiers, Master Sgt. Lisa Marie Girman, 35 years old; Staff Sgt. Scott A. McKenzie, 38; and Spc. Timothy F. Canjar, 21, are accused of dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment of enemy prisoners of war, filing false official statements, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

A fourth soldier originally held on the same allegations, Sgt. Shawna Edmondson, 24, has received a discharge from the military, which she requested rather than face court-martial proceedings.

The soldiers, who had been stationed at Camp Bucca, were moved to Camp Doha several months ago and suspended from normal duties, but are performing administrative tasks.

During Saturday's arraignment, the three soldiers will be able to enter pleas, and a date for the court martial is expected to be set. The court martial will be held at both Camp Doha and at Camp Bucca to allow Iraqi prisoners of war to testify.

Copyright © 2003 Associated Press

[Khornet]

"Bush's FAILED leadership"

That's a laugh. You mean your FAILED followership. You gotta wonder what kind of results we'd have by now if there hadn't been so much obstruction.

[longeyes]

This thread needs a cynic. Let me volunteer.

When the future history of the Middle East is written no one will remember which
military force was kinder or gentler, only who won.

I think that just as there are two Americas fighting a cultural war
internally, we are seeing the same phenomenon inside our own military.
The repercussions of that could be vast. Going after our own sounds very
civilized but what message are we really trying to send, and to whom exactly,
and from where exactly is it coming?

America needs to get to believing in what it has to offer the world and protect
that legacy with every ounce of its strength.

[Jeff White]

Longeyes said,

Going after our own sounds very
civilized but what message are we really trying to send, and to whom exactly, and from where exactly is it coming?

The message we are trying to send is that it's not ok for American soldiers to violate the UCMJ and the Law of Land Warfare, even if the ends do justify the means. This has got nothing to do with making us look like a kinder, gentler army and everything to do with maintaining good order and discipline.

Where do we draw the line? Perhaps next time if we only knee cap the detainee it's ok as long as we get the info we need. How about hooking a detainee's scrotum and nipples up to a TA 312 and turning the crank while we interrogate him. Let's see, another one I've known about is to strip the detainee naked and wrap his body with time fuse. Light the fuse and as it burns, the plastic waterproof coating bubbles with the heat causing a nice burn on the detainee' body as the flame burns the length of the fuse. Maybe just a good beating would be in order. It's all ok as long as we get results right??
:uhoh:

Regardless of what the PAOs may say. Our soldiers will get tired, they will be scared. They will want to go home. They will look at people form a culture that is strange to them and it will be very easy to de-humanize them. Some of these same people who they will find hard to understand, are trying to kill them. So we let a battalion commander get by with this, how will we stop the rank and file from carrying it farther?

There is no way we can condone a field grade officer, a man who commands an artillery battalion, violating the law of land warfare and the UCMJ. If we do that, we might as well give our soldiers license to do the other things I've mentioned. There is an old saying that says; "Everytime you let a soldier disregard the standard, you have established a new lower standard."

BTW...We can and will win without resorting to those methods.
Jeff

[Jeff White]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-292925-2400004.php

November 14, 2003

Hearing set for officer who used scare tactic

By Jane McHugh
Times staff writer

A battalion commander in Iraq who fired a pistol near an Iraqi policeman who was refusing to divulge what he knew about an impending attack on American soldiers will have a pretrial hearing next week.

The scare tactic worked, and the man told of a planned ambush, according to the officer’s lawyer.

Lt. Col. Allen B. West’s Article 32 hearing on charges of assault and communicating a threat is tentatively set for Nov. 18, said Master Sgt. Robert Cargie, a spokesman for Task Force Ironhorse, 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit.

West, who has 20 years of service, hired a civilian attorney, Neal Puckett, a former Marine Corps judge, to defend him in court.

The case has raised the ire of pro-military people across the country and has been much discussed on talk radio and television. West headed the 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment but was relieved of his command and transferred to the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

West, who reported the gunshot incident right after it happened, was “given an ultimatum” to either resign, which would take away his pension, or face charges, Puckett told Army Times in an e-mail.

West’s retirement date came up Nov. 1, and the ultimatum came Oct. 18, he said.

In an e-mail to Army Times, West said the support he’s gotten in the media is “humbling and helpful.”

[longeyes]

"The message we are trying to send is that it's not ok for American soldiers to
violate the UCMJ and the Law of Land Warfare, even if the ends do justify the
means. This has got nothing to do with making us look like a kinder, gentler army
and everything to do with maintaining good order and discipline."

Ah, I see. Now for me the time to be morally superior is BEFORE you
reach the battlefield. Know your cause is just and right, then do what is necessary to prevail. Good order and discipline are desirable because they enable victory, not because they provide a better defense at some future Nuremburg.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

We must never compare our actions to that of the enemy. We must never justify our actions by those of the enemy. We must never allow our actions to violate the integrity of our standing SOP. As much as I would like to support the Col., he will have a fair hearing with all of the facts. After the facts are learned, then I can make up my mind. Right now, we are in a world of spin.

Wherever the US flag is worn on the uniform, the indigenous people are treated fairly and respectfully, as a rule with few exceptions. The PR value of acting according to the rule of law is invaluable. Doing whatever you may think is necessary may be wise at the moment, but may have consequences. I hope the facts support the Col.

[w4rma]

Sean Smith, in short, here is my view on why enough Americans, to keep the powers that be on their toes, should stay armed:

I think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one.

I think too many folks think that the government is the only power with the potential for oppression. They are darn correct that the government has the potential for oppression, but to say that a government is the only power with that potential is incorrect.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

There are *many* progressives who are pro-gun.

Khornet, Bush* was given a blank check by the Iraq War Resolution. On Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation, he has received everything he asked for from within the country.

On topic: Whatever Lt. Col. West did, my ire is directed at the politicians and businessfolks who put him in this position where he thought (and may have been correct) he had to do what he may have done to survive and bring other Americans home alive. I hope this situation is handled well and respects his hard and loyal work for America, the Constitution and laws of the U.S. and our military institution.

[gunsmith]

Iraq is not Vietnam.
That article from reuters originated from
Al Jazeera.
FREE COL WEST JAIL THE FED BUREAUCRATS NOW

[longeyes]

"I think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one."

You're a mite late, aren't you? The Enron bankruptcy is to supposed to cost a billion dollars. That's a lot of wealth going to people who take no risks and create nothing. It will be a boon, though, to the Ivy League schools those lawyers will send their broods to.

And you've surely been reading about Dick Grasso and his $140M pay-out? Not bad for a guy who was really a bureaucrat, not even a trader. And of course, on the trading side, you have the Wall St. elites doing their part. Mutual funds, supposedly the vehicle for "the little guy," skimming millions. More good news for Brown, Penn, and Princeton.

You are right: we do need to stay armed. But the aristocracy is already in place. Big Teddy and Big Hillary are watching you.

A lot of us think the ACLU already runs America.

[Redlg155]

I'm waiting to see what information comes out under oath at the court martial. Right now what I do see is a lot of reports that have different views of the incident.

I say let the court martial run its course. Only after hearing the true facts can we really make a decision.



Good Shooting
Red

[Dashunde]

This whole situation disgusts me.
During most of our wars, regardless of who we are fighting, our American POW's have been treated pretty poorly by the opposition... and we are still missing many of them. Our POW's are/were often starved, beaten, tortured, and outright killed. It's not to say that we dont do some of the same things, but overall we Americans tend to be far less brutal than our opposition.

I pretty much have a "so what?" attitude towards West's actions.
Right now, today, we will probably lose another few of our guys to these sneak-attacks. If we have to occasionally scare the living ????? out of a detainee to help thawart an ambush... again, I say "so what?".

[Gary H]

w4rma:

All of your post are on this Forum (Legal and Political) and I bet they all allow you to bash Bush. Now, I do think that Bush deserves some criticism, but why are you on this board if you have no interest in guns? If you have interest in guns then why are all your post here?

[c_yeager]

We should not hold ourselves to the standards of our enemies. We are better than them. To forget that is to lose the moral ground that we have in any war. We can become like them and we too will be just as evil as they.

[WonderNine]

I'm glad I never joined the military...

Who in their right mind would want to deal with the B.S. nowadays.