Allen West is a disgrace.

[Jack Fate]

Breitbart.tv » Rep. Allen West: ‘You’re Not Going to Intimidate Me’; Heckler Arrested at Town Hall

 

[The Gadfly]

I think I'll stick with the definition of torture we had before Bush changed it. It matches my personal code of ethics and makes common sense. How about you? Would you say that West "conducted an enhanced interrogation?" That's eleven syllables, but it's still torture.

(with no interrogation training)

"personal code of ethics"? Someone votes democrat, and talks of "ethics"? Well, do let me refresh your memory. Back when one Bill Clinton was our dope-smoking, draft-dodging, skirt-chasing, perjured deposition-procuring, Commander-in-Chief, which party was it that insisted "Character doesn't matter!", huh? That would be a democrat talking point. Of course, now that Slick Willie is out of office, and of no further use to you, you all "deplore his conduct"?My, my, a touch hypocritical, perhaps? Then, there's the little matter of who the Obama has chosen to so closely associated with. William Ayers? A confessed terrorist, communist revolutionary, and murderer who escaped justice on a technicality. He admits he did it, no question about that; he admits he's still a communist, no question about that. The defense? "But, but, Ayers hasn't been convicted of a crime!" Neither have I , but you rather questioned the "ethics" of what I did in Vietnam (i suppose I should be grateful you stopped short of accusing me of murder). If someone on the right associated with some former skinhead who had done something similar to what Ayers admittedly did, you'd be screaming; when your guy associates with the left-wing version, it's all good. You've accused me of following insanity, if not encouraging it. How does what Ayers did, compared to ANYTHING I did? How does it compare, to what Col. West did? Obama starts his political career from Bill Ayers' house, and that's OK with you? Now there's a REAL disgrace, but you can't admit that. If Col. West was a leftist, you wouldn't care what he had done, or might have done, or why; because he's on the other side, you, and Mike, and Zona scream condemnations..

Your definition of "ethics" is whatever suits your political view, and the interests of the party and candidate you support, and the ideas you support. If you are so damn "ethical. I want to hear you condemn Ayers; and those who knowing what he did, associate with the maggot. I want to hear you condemn Clinton just like you condemned Nixon. Until then, you people have no standing to prattle about ethics.

P.S I see you still don't see the difference between duty and "mindless group-think". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, because no one is better indoctrinated in "mindless group-think" than the Left. You encourage it, on everything from the proper role of the military (which you never served a day in) to race (all minority members simply MUST march in lockstep, don't you know), to political talking points (on which you sound like a chorus of dutiful trained parrots). I swear, that's what you are; scratch one of you, and the whole flock repeats the ideologically correct refrain, right on cue, in unison. My God, son, it takes a good drill sergeant weeks to get a platoon of soldiers to do that, first time, every time, and you do it without any prodding (not so much as pushups or a "blanket party"). Amazing thing, that mindless group think!

 

[The T]

I think I'll stick with the definition of torture we had before Bush changed it. It matches my personal code of ethics and makes common sense. How about you? Would you say that West "conducted an enhanced interrogation?" That's eleven syllables, but it's still torture.

(with no interrogation training)

"personal code of ethics"? Someone votes democrat, and talks of "ethics"? Well, do let me refresh your memory. Back when one Bill Clinton was our dope-smoking, draft-dodging, skirt-chasing, perjured deposition-procuring, Commander-in-Chief, which party was it that insisted "Character doesn't matter!", huh? That would be a democrat talking point. Of course, now that Slick Willie is out of office, and of no further use to you, you all "deplore his conduct"?My, my, a touch hypocritical, perhaps? Then, there's the little matter of who the Obama has chosen to so closely associated with. William Ayers? A confessed terrorist, communist revolutionary, and murderer who escaped justice on a technicality. He admits he did it, no question about that; he admits he's still a communist, no question about that. The defense? "But, but, Ayers hasn't been convicted of a crime!" Neither have I , but you rather questioned the "ethics" of what I did in Vietnam (i suppose I should be grateful you stopped short of accusing me of murder). If someone on the right associated with some former skinhead who had done something similar to what Ayers admittedly did, you'd be screaming; when your guy associates with the left-wing version, it's all good. You've accused me of following insanity, if not encouraging it. How does what Ayers did, compared to ANYTHING I did? How does it compare, to what Col. West did? Obama starts his political career from Bill Ayers' house, and that's OK with you? Now there's a REAL disgrace, but you can't admit that. If Col. West was a leftist, you wouldn't care what he had done, or might have done, or why; because he's on the other side, you, and Mike, and Zona scream condemnations..

Your definition of "ethics" is whatever suits your political view, and the interests of the party and candidate you support, and the ideas you support. If you are so damn "ethical. I want to hear you condemn Ayers; and those who knowing what he did, associate with the maggot. I want to hear you condemn Clinton just like you condemned Nixon. Until then, you people have no standing to prattle about ethics.

P.S I see you still don't see the difference between duty and "mindless group-think". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, because no one is better indoctrinated in "mindless group-think" than the Left. You encourage it, on everything from the proper role of the military (which you never served a day in) to race (all minority members simply MUST march in lockstep, don't you know), to political talking points (on which you sound like a chorus of dutiful trained parrots). I swear, that's what you are; scratch one of you, and the whole flock repeats the ideologically correct refrain, right on cue, in unison. My God, son, it takes a good drill sergeant weeks to get a platoon of soldiers to do that, first time, every time, and you do it without any prodding (not so much as pushups or a "blanket party"). Amazing thing, that mindless group think!

Well said.

 

[digger]

The military decided against court-martialing Colonel West. He was fined $5,000, and he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective this summer, when he will retire with full benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/w...is-career-menacing-detainee.html?pagewanted=4

Never mind, you're right. They fined him $5,000 because he's a hero and he retired right afterwords for personal reasons.

Makes me sick that they slapped him on the wrist. We now have documented evidence that people get away with torture in the US Army.

 

[The T]

The military decided against court-martialing Colonel West. He was fined $5,000, and he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective this summer, when he will retire with full benefits.

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - INTERROGATIONS - THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - INTERROGATIONS - How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost - NYTimes.com

Never mind, you're right. They fined him $5,000 because he's a hero and he retired right afterwords for personal reasons.

Makes me sick that they slapped him on the wrist. We now have documented evidence that people get away with torture in the US Army.

Go cry a river, OAF.

******** DUMBASS*

 

[digger]

I think I'll stick with the definition of torture we had before Bush changed it. It matches my personal code of ethics and makes common sense. How about you? Would you say that West "conducted an enhanced interrogation?" That's eleven syllables, but it's still torture.

(with no interrogation training)

We had no definition of Torture BEFORE President Bush that we don't have now.

We just never included some of the shit BEFORE you rabid liberal attack pussies went on the attack.

Not all unpleasant crap constitutes "torture." And thankfully your alleged "personal code of 'ethics'" is not controlling on anybody else.

And to whatever extent that Lt. Col. West did engage in some enhanced interrogation technique, no that does not constitute "torture" just because a partisan tool like you wants to believe it does.

This is what most of the world thinks when you say the word torture :

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

 

[digger]

American officers who aren't trained in interrogation are being heroised for torturing Iraqi policemen on unconfirmed rumors. That makes me feel so much safer from terrorism.

 

[Wicked Jester]

American officers who aren't trained in interrogation are being heroised for torturing Iraqi policemen on unconfirmed rumors. That makes me feel so much safer from terrorism.

 

[Jroc]

This is what most of the world thinks when you say the word torture :

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

I think my wife tortured me today

 

[pinqy]

Nowhere can you show he was forced to retire.....Nowhere did Odierno say he was forced to retire.....Nowhere in the article 15 proceedings does it say he was forced to retire.

An Article 15 would never say someone was forced to retire. Are you trying to claim it would?

Facts: An Article 15 is a career killer for an O-5.
Relieved of command for cause is a career killer for any officer.

LTC West would never have made Colonel if he had stayed in, certainly never put on a star.

So, faced with a career that will not advance, he retired as soon as possible.

How again is that a free choice and not essentially being force out?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because it was his choice. He could have continued to serve as a LTC. And you never know what could have happened 5 years down the road. A career Killer, maybe, but it depends upon the Officer. It is possible to overcome an article 15 even for an O5.

LTC West decided to continue his education and become a school teacher, which is exactly what he did. Until as he saw it, duty called once again and he entered politics.

Was he wrong firing that one shot? Possibly. Did it work? The attacks stopped..... You know the entire point of the whole thing... The Attacks STOPPED.......

 

[pinqy]

Because it was his choice. He could have continued to serve as a LTC. And you never know what could have happened 5 years down the road. A career Killer, maybe, but it depends upon the Officer. It is possible to overcome an article 15 even for an O5.

But very unlikely. Technically, no, he wasn't "forced" out...but then no one ever is except for things like RIF in the 90's or by age. On the other hand, we don't know the whole story...it's possible that he was threatened with court martial if he didn't retire. I doubt it, though I do believe it would have been strongly hinted.

Was he wrong firing that one shot? Possibly.

Not "possibly." Absolutely. He was wrong to even attempt an interrogation. He violated regs and committed assault. If he felt he didn't he could always have requested a court martial.

Did it work? The attacks stopped..... You know the entire point of the whole thing... The Attacks STOPPED.......

That the attacks stopped does NOT mean his actions caused it. And since there is absolutely no evidence that any of the info he obtained was true, it seems unlikely. Even West has admitted that his actions were likely pointless. I scratched my ass that day, but I don't think that made the attacks stopped.

 

[Jack Fate]

Because it was his choice. He could have continued to serve as a LTC. And you never know what could have happened 5 years down the road. A career Killer, maybe, but it depends upon the Officer. It is possible to overcome an article 15 even for an O5.

But very unlikely. Technically, no, he wasn't "forced" out...but then no one ever is except for things like RIF in the 90's or by age. On the other hand, we don't know the whole story...it's possible that he was threatened with court martial if he didn't retire. I doubt it, though I do believe it would have been strongly hinted.

Was he wrong firing that one shot? Possibly.

Not "possibly." Absolutely. He was wrong to even attempt an interrogation. He violated regs and committed assault. If he felt he didn't he could always have requested a court martial.

Did it work? The attacks stopped..... You know the entire point of the whole thing... The Attacks STOPPED.......

That the attacks stopped does NOT mean his actions caused it. And since there is absolutely no evidence that any of the info he obtained was true, it seems unlikely. Even West has admitted that his actions were likely pointless. I scratched my ass that day, but I don't think that made the attacks stopped.

I like American soldiers that try to save lives. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Alan West is a hero.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think I'll stick with the definition of torture we had before Bush changed it. It matches my personal code of ethics and makes common sense. How about you? Would you say that West "conducted an enhanced interrogation?" That's eleven syllables, but it's still torture.

(with no interrogation training)

We had no definition of Torture BEFORE President Bush that we don't have now.

We just never included some of the shit BEFORE you rabid liberal attack pussies went on the attack.

Not all unpleasant crap constitutes "torture." And thankfully your alleged "personal code of 'ethics'" is not controlling on anybody else.

And to whatever extent that Lt. Col. West did engage in some enhanced interrogation technique, no that does not constitute "torture" just because a partisan tool like you wants to believe it does.

This is what most of the world thinks when you say the word torture :

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]

So, we're gonna let the UN tell us how to conduct war?

Whatever the United Nations thinks is obviously intended to thwart us and should be roundly rejected. Especially by our own citizens.

 

[pinqy]

I like American soldiers that try to save lives. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Alan West is a hero.

That actually brings up the question of whose life he was trying to save. The attacks had been going on for a while. Why did LTC West get involved and order an unauthorized interrogation only after he learned that he was specifically targetted? Why does it seem that right after he learns he's a target for assassination he goes all gung-ho?

But in any case, there's no benefit of the doubt, because there's nothing to doubt.

• He was not authorized to conduct interrogations.
• He had no training or knowledge of interrogations.
• He was not trained in intel at all.
• Hamoodi was detained solely on West's orders, not from S-2 recommendations.
• West committed assault as defined in Art 128.
• No corroboration of anything Hamoodi said was ever found: no weapons, no plans, nothing.

So what benefit of the doubt are you giving? Do you dispute anything in that list?

 

[MikeK]

[...]I like American soldiers that try to save lives. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Alan West is a hero.

That reasoning strongly suggests you must also believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was motivated by sincere intention to remove weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraqi people from oppression.

 

[MikeK]

[...]That the attacks stopped does NOT mean his actions caused it. And since there is absolutely no evidence that any of the info he obtained was true, it seems unlikely. Even West has admitted that his actions were likely pointless. I scratched my ass that day, but I don't think that made the attacks stopped.

 

[Jack Fate]

I like American soldiers that try to save lives. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Alan West is a hero.

That actually brings up the question of whose life he was trying to save. The attacks had been going on for a while. Why did LTC West get involved and order an unauthorized interrogation only after he learned that he was specifically targetted? Why does it seem that right after he learns he's a target for assassination he goes all gung-ho?

But in any case, there's no benefit of the doubt, because there's nothing to doubt.

• He was not authorized to conduct interrogations.
• He had no training or knowledge of interrogations.
• He was not trained in intel at all.
• Hamoodi was detained solely on West's orders, not from S-2 recommendations.
• West committed assault as defined in Art 128.
• No corroboration of anything Hamoodi said was ever found: no weapons, no plans, nothing.

So what benefit of the doubt are you giving? Do you dispute anything in that list?

I don't doubt anything on your list. We don't give a damn about your list. You don't get it. Alan West is fighting a vile vicious evil entity. You are my enemy. I look at you and see the same thing.

 

[TheBrain]

Short of treason, no one who has served in the military long enough to reach the rank of LTC is a disgrace. Being in the military is no guarantee of not making mistakes. Did West make a mistake? Certainly he did, and the fact that he retired rather than face a court martial shows that he knows he did.

Pathetic that someone would call him a disgrace.

 

[Jack Fate]

[...]I like American soldiers that try to save lives. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt every time. Alan West is a hero.

That reasoning strongly suggests you must also believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was motivated by sincere intention to remove weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraqi people from oppression.

I believe what history tells us. Do you want the quotes from all the Democrats about Saddam and Iraq before Bush was President? No? Didn't think so. Buzz off, rookie.