The Fate of Lt. Colonel West: You can help!

[michaeledward]

This is a true story, the movie was made to educate and get the word out rather than entertain, it was made to honor our soldiers and show the people what happens in these foreign conflicts when you're dealing with 'primitive barbarians'.

Well, I am so relieved that we are not actually bombing human beings.

I took the advise of Jay Sevrin, an extremely popular radio talk show host who used to work at the White House, I believe. He had suggested before the war in Iraq that we should see this movie.

I listen to Jay. I hold the vitriolic and bigoted points of view he spews with the same respect I hold for the dog waste I pick up from my two dogs. Popularity is not a good way to measure right from wrong.

Mike, we are not talkng about Thomas Jefferson. This is the 21st century

Let us together give thanks to Thomas Jefferson, who concieved of the First Amendment to the Constitution, so that you and I, and Jay Sevrins would have the ability to speak freely.

Peace - Mike

 

[Disco]

Rich, first I am sorry for the situation you had to indure. You had a first hand hosing by the system. You were unjustly treated and I am disgusted with the badge heavy treatment given by the officer's. I've always hated guys that hid behind the badge and I knew a few of them. I would'nt work with them. Secondly, the comment of condesending attitude was not for you. We have agreed on several points. An opinion is just that, somebodies viewpoint that is OPEN to discussion. When somebody dictates that they don't give a damn for what has happened, that is closed minded and not open for discussion. They have stipulated that their viewpoint is unyielding and therefor a waste of time to try to engage in dialog.

There is a major point that I think everybody has overlooked. The Col. did not tortue this prisoner, he threatened/bluffed him. We see people in everyday life issuing threats. You have most likely done thin yourself sometime in your life. We all have, including yours truly. Our jails and courts would be totally inundated with people from all walks of like if we tried to punish everybody that makes a threat. If it's followed up with action, now that's another story.

You kind of got a little over the top with the car and spitting and shooting retort. Kind of lost me there sport. I can understand were your coming from and why your position is as it is. You were unjustly accused and they tried to make themselves look good at your exspense and then blocked any counter. Not to be to off course, it happens every day in this country. Can it be eliminated? yes to a large degree. Will it happen? No because our laws evolve around lawyers and money, but that's another thread alltogether. What I find perplexing is that the Col. is going thru something similiar in nature to what you experienced. Did you do anything wrong? No..... Has the Col. actually done anything wrong? To many of us No..... He is being accused of a crime that has not been committed. Semantics in a court room is the high point of law. Perhaps many would care to rethink their position with this aspect in mind.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Disco
Rich, first I am sorry for the situation you had to indure. You had a first hand hosing by the system. You were unjustly treated and I am disgusted with the badge heavy treatment given by the officer's. I've always hated guys that hid behind the badge and I knew a few of them. I would'nt work with them. Secondly, the comment of condesending attitude was not for you. We have agreed on several points. An opinion is just that, somebodies viewpoint that is OPEN to discussion. When somebody dictates that they don't give a damn for what has happened, that is closed minded and not open for discussion. They have stipulated that their viewpoint is unyielding and therefor a waste of time to try to engage in dialog.

Disco,
I am always open, as it is people with different views that I may learn from. Yet, if they do not have an open mind then there is no point, for it is not both directions.

Originally posted by Disco
There is a major point that I think everybody has overlooked. The Col. did not tortue this prisoner, he threatened/bluffed him. We see people in everyday life issuing threats. You have most likely done thin yourself sometime in your life. We all have, including yours truly. Our jails and courts would be totally inundated with people from all walks of like if we tried to punish everybody that makes a threat. If it's followed up with action, now that's another story.

Ahh torture or the the threat of torture. I have threaten to beat lots of people. No witnesses and therfore unable to prove beyond a doubt, and therfore hard to bring to case. If you threaten someone here on this board with bodily harm you will get time off. It is about (Credible) witnesses and being caught.

Originally posted by Disco
You kind of got a little over the top with the car and spitting and shooting retort. Kind of lost me there sport. I can understand were your coming from and why your position is as it is. You were unjustly accused and they tried to make themselves look good at your exspense and then blocked any counter. Not to be to off course, it happens every day in this country. Can it be eliminated? yes to a large degree. Will it happen? No because our laws evolve around lawyers and money, but that's another thread alltogether. What I find perplexing is that the Col. is going thru something similiar in nature to what you experienced. Did you do anything wrong? No..... Has the Col. actually done anything wrong? To many of us No..... He is being accused of a crime that has not committed. Semantics in a court room is the high point of law. Perhaps many would care to rethink their position with this aspect in mind.

The Car thing. It is ok to shoot a gun while questioning a prisoner, and then you tell me that the life and defense we practice on the street are the same thing, and that I was trying to save lives myself by designing a better tank. Therefore these detractors deserved death or threat of death because they were inhibiting me from doing my job of making a better tank so less of our boys could die and more of theirs could. Does it make sense now sport? BTW: it is the little things in life that deal with the tone of the written word. Either you just wrote this out of habit, our you meant something by it. This is how I read it. Got it Sport. Kind of condenscending, in my book.

As to semantics, there are witnesses to his actions. If someone as an officer of the law was to pull there weapon and fire it with wtinesses, there would be an investigation. And yes our laws are all about semantics.

As to the event being a bad thing. I found it funny/wierd, how I remember it like it was yesterday over 20 years later.


Now as to the similarities to this case and mine. Like I said, I did nothing I was no where in the area. This is the case of he did something in front of witnesses and admits to it. His greatest problem is that he got caught.

:asian:

 

[Disco]

You want to make an issue out of nothing, be my guest. We can agree to disagree. You've got a burr in your saddle because of what happened and now it seems anyone in authority should be taken to task if you feel they are wrong. OK, your opinion and viewpoint have been dually noted. We were having a fairly adult discussion until you chose to interject total BS. By you working in a factory being a small part of building something that may or may not even be brought into action and then use that as an equal example to what has transpired, is beyond contemplation. You want the moral highground..... Hey it's yours and best of luck with it. As you readily admit, you have never been there so a totally objective viewpoint is out of the question. The only thing that can be accomplished here is that people will get banned because it's starting to get too personal. I suggest closing the thread. This horse has been beaten enough and the people really affected by all this could give a damn about what we have to say.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Disco
You want to make an issue out of nothing, be my guest. We can agree to disagree. You've got a burr in your saddle because of what happened and now it seems anyone in authority should be taken to task if you feel they are wrong. OK, your opinion and viewpoint have been dually noted. We were having a fairly adult discussion until you chose to interject total BS. By you working in a factory being a small part of building something that may or may not even be brought into action and then use that as an equal example to what has transpired, is beyond contemplation. You want the moral highground..... Hey it's yours and best of luck with it. As you readily admit, you have never been there so a totally objective viewpoint is out of the question. The only thing that can be accomplished here is that people will get banned because it's starting to get too personal. I suggest closing the thread. This horse has been beaten enough and the people really affected by all this could give a damn about what we have to say.

Disco Sir,

First, I do not deserve teh high ground. I was trying to say that by using your arguement, in defending lives of Americans and doing what it took, I had the right to do what it took to do this task. I personally do not think I do.

As to working in some lant somewhere, Nope Sorry, I am an engineer I write and design and test software. You know the point and shoot technology that everyone loves.

As to a totaly objective viewpoint. Have you lead men into a firefight under command, in the armed forces? As to authority, I respect authority, I do not like the abuse of authority or powers granted by posistions of authority.

If you think I am really out of ordern, then please feel free to report this post or any other post I have made to the moderators. In this case it will go to Nightingale and KenpoTess and all of the Adminsitrators. Or feel free to make a PM to any of the Mods mentioned or the Admins. Your report or message will be taken seriously, even if it is nothing more than just closing the thread at your request.

As to the sport comment, I replied, not to cause you to get upset. To mention that this in my opinion was some of those condenscending comments that you were upset about from others. Just so that you would not be projecting attitudes you yourself did not like.

My Apologies to you and the rest of those on this thread.
:asian:

 

[Disco]

Rich, It's I who apologize. I misconstrued the intent of the writtings. Surfice to say, we can discuss pointed subjects somewhat objectively. If we all thought alike, it would be a very boring planet. Much like the engineer's and scientists who created the bomb, they were torn between two alternatives. You have my respect for engaging in the genesis of something used for destructive purposes and still feel that restraint in actions is paramount to civilized societies. It's a very thin line that is easy to cross in the heat of the moment.

Did I ever lead men in combat? No. Have I ever been lead into combat? Yes. We are in agreement as far as abuse of authority is concerned.

Do we need to have our discussions reported to / regulated by a third party? Not to my way of thinking. We've just encountered a glitch in our communications interface.

Respectfully
Disco

 

[Karazenpo]

Alright, I'm hearing about 'condoning' torture, that we are better than that, etc., etc. Let me run this past you because it has happened and is currently happening right now in a missing girl who is believed to possibly be kept somewhere alive. Police have the suspect in custody. I'm sure you heard of it, it's getting national attention. Here's my example and I would like an honest answer with no 'spin' what-so-ever, fair enough? Okay, you have a five year old child, some sexual predator has kidnapped. The police have the suspect in custody and there is no doubt it is him in your mind and the police. Your five year old child is buried alive in a box with enough oxygen to last one hour. The maggot isn't talking. What would you say to the police if they began 'aggressively' interrogating him? Please don't hit him, don't scare him, don't abuse his constitutional rights, please go by the rulebook, whatever you do, please don't fire a gun near him, after all that's not right, you would have to be punished for that! After all two rights don't make a wrong. This man has his rights!!!
Bullsh_t!!!!!!! and you know it! If you disagree with this example in any way shape or form, please don't call yourself a parent 'cause you're not! By the way, for the poster who badmouthed Jay Sevrin, my example was taken from his show today. It's a little different when it hits home, isn't it? because I'll tell you this, if it were my loved one, parent, child, wife, etc., I would do everything I had to do to save them. I can't believe, for the life of me, someone will call me on this one but they probably will and if they do, I say BULLSH_T! Sincerely, "Joe"

 

[arnisador]

Sure, but it's the same story as usual--if someone murdered your child you'd want to kill them, but would you really want a general policy of people going around killing people who had wronged them?

Isn't this the question that was asked of Michael Dukakis?

 

[Karazenpo]

Ah, but Arnisador, respectfully, I think you missed my point. You wrote:

Sure, but it's the same story as usual--if someone murdered your child you'd want to kill them, but would you really want a general policy of people going around killing people who had wronged them?

I say I'm not talking about reeking revenge on someone who has already killed a child or loved one BUT to SAVE the child or loved one's life!!!!! Big difference! Once the child is killed nothing, obviously, can bring them back BUT you have a chance PREVENT his/her untimely death, see what I mean? A whole different ballgame. Who wouldn't go that extra mile if they could? Not revenge but rescue! Respectfully, Joe PS: See ya tomorro, I'm going to bed.

 

[michaeledward]

The police have the suspect in custody and there is no doubt it is him in your mind and the police.

What is in "my mind" is irrelevant. The man has the right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. That is the way our system is set up. If you don't like it, move to some other country, which perhaps doesn't have such a forward thinking system ... let's say North Korea.

Your five year old child is buried alive in a box with enough oxygen to last one hour.

This assumption doesn't make sense. How could such facts be 'known', without being able to save the child. As long as this fact is in the realm of 'uncertain', then our actions must be guided by the principles of law.

If you disagree with this example in any way shape or form, please don't call yourself a parent 'cause you're not!

But accused criminals are guaranteed to the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Not to a trial by a victims parent. In our system of jurisprudence, many people are wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Perhaps you have heard the state of Illinois has put a moritorium on state executions because of the uncertainty of the convictions of the current 'death row' inmates.

By the way, for the poster who badmouthed Jay Sevrin, my example was taken from his show today.

Like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. The 'Non-Guested Confronational Radio Show' is really not a very good source for policy decisions reguarding our society. We should be allowed to freely examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion. Yet when these radio guests have 'callers' on their shows, there is no discussion going on. The caller makes a statement, the host disconnects the phone line, and either re-inforces their own unchallenged point of view, or defames (as O'Reilly puts it) the caller.

Please bring your own thoughts to the discussion. If I wanted to rant at Severin, I can turn on the radio.

Our society has decided that it is better to occasionally let a guilty man go free, rather than imprision an innocent man. Despite this cautionary approach, sometimes we still screw up. And until we can remove all such screw ups from our system, we do need to err on the side of caution and preservation of civil liberties for all.

And you don't need to swear at me - Mike

 

[Karazenpo]

Hey Mike, I apologize if you took it that I swore at you, when I wrote Bullsh-t I only mean't it as a generic self expression at my fustration and passion on this issue, not at you but at what may be said. In my opinion I really don't consider it a swear but I will use a more appropiate adjective in the future, like "BullFeathers!" lol. It was not directed at anyone personally. As far as the example of the five year old kidnapped and having the suspect in custody-that's about as real and on the money as you're going to get!!! It's playing out right now in real life, the only difference is, it's a 22 year old woman! You are telling me you would still have this viewpoint if she were your daughter or loved one? I really hope not. There is nothing wrong with bringing other viewpoints to the forum by quoting someone as I did Jay Severin. If you check prior posts just about everyone here has quoted something or other that someone has said, be it a no- name or celebrity-type status. Just because you may not care for Jay and his views is no reason to tell me I can't quote him or bring up a topic from his show. This is the "Locker Room", isn't it called that because it's about the talk in the locker room, more or less? As you said, to paraphase, it was people like Thomas Jefferson that allows Mr. Sevrin to speak his opinions on the radio, well that goes for me too! The other thing is many, many people, both civillian and police are soooooooo sick of hearing of the rights of criminals and please don't mention innocent until proven guilty, I'm for everyone having a fair trial, if I were on a jury I would carefully listen to both sides to make a fair and honest judgement.
Hey, sometimes I go on a call and at the beginning, I may feel one party is wrong but I don't pass judgement until I hear both sides and I have changed my original opinion many times when this happens. The liberal left is always talking of criminal rights, hell, they even make it easy for them with a get out of jail early card. Let me say this, in many cases forget about rehabilitation because it doesn't work. This guy on the missing 22 year old girl was cleared and deemed rehabilitated after 23 years for kidnapping and raping another young woman! Go give your viewpoint to her family and see what they have to say. They speak from the trenches. Our liberal criminal justice system let him out! I cannot believe anyone would think he would not strike again. These people cannot help themselves anymore than I can help my self from being hetersexual or a gay man from being homosexual! So, if we are going to protect our loved ones it's about time we started thinking more of the victims' rights and not these low lifes. They say a 'conservative' is a 'liberal' who was mugged! In my opinion there's some credence to that. Respectfully, Joe

 

[Karazenpo]

Let me give this clear example. I would appreciate as many responses as possible. Yes, it is hypothetical but it is based on a real ife situation. Now, please, just a yes or no answer, no 'spin' no gray areas, nothing, that's what I mean by hypothetical or better yet, we'll call it an experiment with controls but no variables. It will be a barometer to measure everyone's viewpoint on this issue-I would like to see if I am alone on my views and what the popular opinion really is. That being said, please don't critique the example, it's just an experiment (but based on reality).

The scenerio that is going on in real life as we speak is a 22 year old woman who was at a shopping mall parking lot speaking on her cell phone to her finance. Suddenly she was heard saying something like, Oh no! or Oh my God, no! and was cut off. A short time later another call went through to her finance but again the line went dead. I believe much later there may have been a third call, not sure though. The police arrested a 50 year old sex offender who did, I believe, 23 years for the kidnapping and rape of a young girl. He was supposed to have gotten something like life as a max but they let him out after serving the lower end of the sentence. You know how that goes, like when they give someone 20 to 30 years, they can let you out on the 20. He was cleared as being 'safe' to let out on the streets. Police aren't saying much right now and rightfully so, but from what I understand he was positively identified as being in the mall lot at the same time the girl was reported missing. He also didn't show up for work that day. Obviously, the police, to have a judge ok and arrest warrant have more probable cause than this. The DA and police are speaking as if the girl is still alive being imprisoned somewhere. Okay, this is what I am going to base our hypothetical situation on:

It's your finance that was abducted. The suspect is arrested. He tells police yeah, he took her. (remember, this is hypothetical, now, so let's not question the facts and circumstances, this is what you have to base your answer on). So, he says he took her, he's got her held somewhere and she'll be lucky if she survives the weekend. Women reading this post just pretend it's a 'he' and it's your fiance being held. Okay, this dirtball says you may have me arrested but she's going to die because I'm not telling you anything. You have the sole authority to have the police use very aggressive means to extract the whereabouts of your fiance before she expires, however, his rights will be violated such as in the case of Lt. Col. Allen West. Remember, this is just a test case to see where the majority stands so let's not pick the scenerio apart, what's important is your answer. One of two words: "YES" or "NO" -nothing else. Let's try this. You know where I stand.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Let us assume just for a moment that they have a person locked up for questioning under investigation for a suspected crime.

Lets call this person Rich or maybe Karazenpo.

So if either of these guys was locked, and being asked questions about some crime. Now each of these guys know they did not do it, yet there is circumstantial evidence that makes a lot of people believe the might have done it. Would you know condom the use of torture to get the information?

Would not the information in question be suspect, knowing that the infomration was gathered under duress, and said person may have said anything to get the pain to stop?

I know this Rich did not apprecate being beaten for information I did not have or know about.



(* Now to discuss the other Hypothetical *)

Yes, if a loved one is in danger, any normal person would want to do anything to save that person in danger. So, I could see people thinking about violence and even venting their frustration. Yet I still do not see myself torturing or killing someone to get possible information.

It Sucks.

You have some options, discuss it here and elsewhere and try to raise a level of concern to get laws changed.

Or you can move to some other country that has Military Law, or Subjects or what have versus Citizens and their rights as written in th U.S. Constitution.

Everyone is for this violence as long as it happens to someone else.

Just My Opinion
:asian:

 

[arnisador]

I don't think it differs too much--would you want people torturing people they think know something? Would you authorize the govt. to do it? It may sound defensible in any single case, but is it defensible policy?

 

[Karazenpo]

Rich, you're right, it does suck! It's a horrible situation to be in but it does happen as we know with the Colonel. Arnisador, respectfully, I don't say on information he 'might' have but information that you 'know' he has access to but you don't know the exact details that you need to prevent it. I don't condone torture in the sense of the things Sadam and his sons did but I could relate to what the Colonel did. So they guy had to change his underwear after the shots went off, no harm done, just a laundry bill, LOL. Great discussion guys!

 

[OULobo]

The big problem is that it is impossible to say for sure that this person is indeed the kidnapper and that, even if he is, his info can be trusted. How will that parent in the case feel if he was torturing, say another parent, and then found out that, not only was the suspect not guilty, but totally uninvolved. Could you face the child of the tortured innocent man and say, "I'm sorry for emotionally scarring and psychologically traumatizing your father without a trial and to no productive end besides exercising my own frustration and anger on an innocent man."? Even if he is guilty and lets say the torture worked. What if he tells you she is already dead? Then the idea of saving someone who is living verses vengance is after the fact isn't it. What if he gives you the location and for some, unseen by the kidnapper, reason she is gone. While it might inspire no sympathy for the guilty, the torture would continue because the torturer would just think he is lying and will tell the truth with more torture, but the truth has been told and now he is being tortured for no reason besides spite and vengance. Obviously these are hypothitical and that is the problem, nothing can be confirmed until after the fact so there is no justifiation for torture to effect the future.

 

[OULobo]

A second posting about the loss of American lives because we won't torture people. The loss in American life is because we believe in the unhumanity and injustice of torture, and American people have been dying for centuries to uphold and inforce American morals and values, the morals and values of the Constitution.

 

[Karazenpo]

Yes, but OULobo, I don't think that's the case. In other words, I believe our government to insure national security over the years has done a lot of things that may even shock the conscience. The only thing Colonel West did was he was open and honest about it. I can only imagine what is in the files of the Central Intelligence Agency. No country can survive, be as strong and hold the position of being the #1 spot in the world heirarchy and be lily white and innocent of bending the so-called rules from time to time. Remember, in my example, I said we are sure we have the right man and if she is dead when we get to her, I have no reservations wht-so-ever about what I did because I know I did everything in my power to save my loved one. I have ot believe life is about choices, the choices you make dictate the lives you lead and with these choices come consequences. I would take the consequences to protect my family. The problem with the criminal element is they hurt people, they know what they're doing but they're also too cowardly to accept the consequences of their actions, so they cry for their rights! Personally, I could not live with myself knowing I could have done something to save a loved one. Hopefully, it will never come to that because as stated earlier, it sucks!

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by Karazenpo
You have the sole authority to have the police use very aggressive means to extract the whereabouts of your fiance before she expires, however, his rights will be violated such as in the case of Lt. Col. Allen West.

[snip]

One of two words: "YES" or "NO" -nothing else. Let's try this. You know where I stand.

NO. I would want probably want to beat it out of him for the immediate gratification, but the law works for long-term consequences. My beating him is only to work out my frustration and emotions. That's why the victim's family doesn't get to question the guy. I have no real proof that the guy is telling the truth (maybe he says he did it because he wants television exposure) and I know I wouldn't want to torture an innocent man. I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

And I would like to know that if I were accused and was sitting in his spot, I wouldn't want to be tortured over something I was innocent about.

In the case of Col. West, he didn't know what the guy knew or not (supposedly). All he knew was that he was going to force something out of him. Torture such as that doesn't always get the truth anyways. Typically the subject will say *anything* in order to get you to stop.

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

I will say that the Col. is getting a bad rap. I will say that military actions are not / should be subject to civil law, but there other rules for them to follow. Yes, our country has done nasty things, but as was stated earlier, they were done legally (read: loophole) or they were done and never discovered (back to the "just don't get caught" thing). When our country does something ethically wrong and actually illegal, the criminals do pay the price. That's what the Ethics and Intelligence comitees in congress are for, I believe. The issue here is that he chose to do it in a blatant way and against well known policies. Punishment is expected and due. This is regular army, not black ops or CIA, he knew this would happen and took his chances to save his soldiers. In my opinion he made a good, but not the best, choice. My personal belief is a retirment that saves his pension and all that he has gained for his service, but he must be discharged, to a man like this, that is punishment enough. This is prolly a good example of where an intelligence officer could have handled the situatuion with more. . . tact.

As for my previous post, my objection is to agknowledged torture, in any form, as acceptable, in any situation, on US soil. There are rights for US citizens and as has been said before, if we take them from anyone the possiblity is there to have them taken from everyone. If you torture a suspect, personally, I don't condone it, but I can't / won't stop you, however I think that you must also accept the punishment for your illegal actions. The sticky part is that the police are required to stop it.