HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked senators last week whether Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should intervene to prevent the court-martial of Lt. Col. Allen B. West, who twice fired a pistol to intimidate an Iraqi detainee into revealing information about a planned sniper attack (see "Rumsfeld Should Restore Col. West").
Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a heavily decorated World War II veteran who lost his right arm in combat, conceded he didn't know the facts of case, but said of Lt. Col. Allen's general situation: "I think that a lot of GI's would have done that."
Lt. Col. Allen West is serving in Iraq. He is now facing a court-martial for firing his gun twice to intimidate an Iraqi guerilla into divulging details about an upcoming sniper attack on U.S. troops. He is at this point facing a court-martial-
SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D.-HAWAII): Not knowing what this is all about, I can't comment.
Do you think that in a situation like that-where an officer doesn't actually use lethal force or injure the person being interrogated-
INOUYE: As I said, I really don't know the facts. Strange things happen.
If he saved some U.S. soldiers by preventing that sniper attack-by finding out about it by scaring the guy-he fired the gun while standing behind the guy. So the guy did not know where he was pointing it-
INOUYE: I think that a lot of GI's would have done that.
Do you think he should be court-martialed? Or should Rumsfeld intervene?
INOUYE: I think the administration should look into it.
Lt. Col. Allen West is serving in Iraq. He was interrogating an Iraqi guerilla. And as part of the interrogation, to scare the guy into talking, he stood behind him and fired his gun in a different direction, twice. The guy got scared and said there was an attack that was going to happen, and they were able to avoid the attack. But Lt. Col. West is now facing a court-martial. In your opinion, should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to stop this from happening?
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D.-LA.): I'm not familiar with the details, but as you've just described it, we'd have to look at it very carefully. Obviously you want to interrogate-interrogation is not a pretty picture. But I would imagine that there are certain rules that govern the procedures for interrogation that govern our police and our military. If they were violated, then he should be held accountable. I'm not saying that they were violated, but I would imagine that even in a time of war there are certain rules that need to be followed. . . . If he violated the rules, then he should be held accountable. If he didn't-now if you want to ask me, should the rules be changed or amended, then that's a different question.
If he saved American lives, then in your opinion can such a violation be overlooked-no one got hurt, the guy just got a little rattled by the gunshot-
LANDRIEU: Well, that's an interesting question, because if you're saying that if a life can be saved then any torture is appropriate, then that's a very slippery slope. In this particular case, there was nobody that was hurt, so maybe this case would warrant a second look. But if you're asking me, just because you could elicit a confession from someone and save a life, is any amount of torture appropriate, I'm sure that the answer to that is no.
Lt. Col. Allen West was interrogating an Iraqi guerilla this summer, and fired his gun twice to scare the man into divulging an upcoming attack on U.S. soldiers-which they then thwarted. He is now facing a court-martial for what he did. In your opinion, should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to stop the court-martial?
SEN. ZELL MILLER (D.-GA.): I don't have the facts of the case, first of all. I'm sure there's information out there that I don't have. But I certainly am glad that he chose to defend himself at a court-martial instead of resigning, so we can find out what the facts are. Because I would hate to see a good soldier, with the record he's had for so many years, mistreated in any way. My statement is, I'm glad he chose to defend himself in the court- martial, and let's hope that he's got a good defense, and that the facts come out that what he did saved American soldiers' lives. And if he did, then I'm hoping that he will be judged fairly. I don't know. My heart goes out to him. But at this distance, who am I to say what the facts are?
Lt. Col. Allen West is serving in Iraq. He was interrogating an Iraqi guerilla, fired his gun twice behind him to intimidate the man into talking. The guerilla talked and gave up plans for an attack on U.S. troops-and they were able to stop the attack from happening. Lt. Col. West is facing a court-martial now. Should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to prevent this from happening?
SENATE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN PAT ROBERTS (R.-KAN.): I don't know the case at all-this is news to me, although something's ringing a bell. Although I think probably the Armed Services Committee ought to look into it. I just don't know anything more about it as concerns the circumstances. But it gets into the rules of engagement, and how you can treat prisoners of war. There are certain things you can do, and certain things you can't.
Divorced from the particular circumstances of the case-in principle, if something like this, which doesn't hurt the person being interrogated but saves some American lives-can such a breaking of the rules be overlooked?
ROBERTS: I wouldn't say I'm for breaking the rules. We have, especially on the Intelligence Committee, come up with different memoranda of understanding from the executive about what you can and cannot do with terrorists. And it's to meet the current threat, which is very different from what we had in the past. And in terms of the military, and their rules of engagement and how you interrogate, that has changed too to some degree. But I think you always have to assess the threat. The threat in Iraq is very severe. I'm not excusing what he did, because I don't know the details, but a constant re-assessment of how we can interrogate prisoners and learn information and save lives is absolutely necessary.
Lt. Col. Allen West is serving in Iraq. He was interrogating an Iraqi guerilla, fired his gun twice to intimidate the man into giving up details about a sniper attack on U.S. troops-which they were able to foil because of that. But he is now facing a court-martial. Should he be court-martialed, or should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to prevent this from happening?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R.-ALA.): My general philosophy on these matters is that you have to have discipline in any organization, particularly the military, but when something comes up like this, sometimes the circumstances can mitigate the punishment. Maybe there's a violation, but sometimes the circumstances could be such that we can be much more sympathetic. When nobody's hurt, when lives are saved, and in an emergency. As a person involved in law enforcement for many years, having prosecuted for a long time, and wrestled with some of these issues, I guess that's my general philosophy. Maintaining the integrity of the legal system-the rules of conduct-is very important. But they can sometimes be maintained without a heavy punishment being proposed.
Lt. Col. Allen West is serving in Iraq. He was interrogating an Iraqi guerilla, fires his gun twice during the interrogation to scare the guy. He intimidates him into giving up plans for an attack on U.S. troops-which is thwarted because of that. But he is now facing a court-martial. Should Secretary Rumsfeld intervene to prevent a court-martial if West's action actually saved American lives?
SEN. CRAIG THOMAS (R.-WYO.): Well, I don't know. I'm not familiar with what you're saying. We do have rules for interrogation of people who are not involved in an act of violence. It's different if they're in an act of violence. But if they're interrogating someone, and using violence as a way of seeking to get information, I think that's not in keeping with our rules.
Would you say it's better or worse that he did that, if it prevented an attack?
THOMAS: Well, what if it didn't? I mean, are you going to let the system work, regardless of whether you prevented anything or you didn't? I'm not sure that can be the criterion. I mean, I understand-you say it's a good thing he did it. But what about the five guys you do that to, for whom there is no saving grace?
He didn't actually shoot the guy, he just shot his gun-
THOMAS: There are rules-I think you have to abide by the rules.
