If anyone finds out about a legal defense fund, I would like to know about it and contribute.

My Veteran's Day post on Col. West is http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/009000.html.

According to the article, his wife is in the process of setting up a legal defense fund.

He should be convicted. If he goes to prison, Bush should pardon him as he leaves office.

Bush should pardon him "...before he leaves office". Why that would be in 2008. He should pardon him if he is ever convicted.

2009, you mean.

You are correct, 2009. What was I thinking?

If this man gets convicted that would be a tragedy. Sounds like we need to send him back to Iraq ASAP.

I don't understand why random thinks he should be convicted and pardoned. Isn't that inconsistent?

They should make field trials easier to convene. This enemy combatant was, in violation of the laws of war specified in the Geneva Convention, wearing the uniform of the Iraqi police (a friendly force) while fighting against the coalition. He could have been tried in the field and shot as a spy. Had Col. West done that, I wonder what the response would have been?

It would have been perfectly legitimate (and maybe just as effective) for Col. West to have threatened the man with a court-martial. Col. West could have especially noted that the man might be hanged or sent off to Gitmo for the rest of his life.

And if the man had stayed quiet but was later publicly hanged, wouldn't this help win the war in the long run?

But as it stands, Col. West simply threatened to kill the man then and there. Some discipline is appropriate though compelling the colonel to resign seems vastly excessive.

Paul is right, but Peter has a point. Disturbingly.

The whole notion of war crimes and the rules binding combatants originated on the basis of reciprocity. The Nazis put paid to that, but the left and also much of mainstream, decent society wants the rules to apply unilaterally and literally. Context doesn't matter, and neither does the overall justice of the cause. Is it possible the American public is so determined to be on the side of abstract righteousness that it has come to demand inhumanly high expectations of its forces?

I remember, after Gulf War 1, reading a laudatory article of how American forces swept through Iraqi lines decimating the Republican Guard. Right behind were troops administering first class medical aid to the enemy and providing provisions. It was a glorious story, but I recall wondering whether the limits of psychological human endurance weren't being tested here. Maybe post-traumatic stress syndrome was more serious a problem than many thought, but maybe also it wasn't as directly related to actual combat as most supposed.

No obvious answers, but the man is clearly a minimally flawed hero at worst. Where do I send my cheque?

Somehow there's this notion that all the ideals of civilization are restrictions on one party to a dispute, but not the other. It's not just the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, but look at some of the discussions of this weeks court ruling in Mass. A lot of supporters of that ruling are gleefully commenting on the lines of "lets see how supporters of Federalism oppose this." Well, Federalism doesn't require a person to agree to submit to it's destruction, and sometime you have to accept less than an ideal situation in order to preserve the greater concept. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

The same goes here for the way we are waging this war. Our enemy only understands brute force, and considers our adherence to our high standards as a sign of weekness. We should make it clear that as long as they wage war in violations of the norms of civilized warfare**, we will deal with them harshly. Doesn't mean we start shooting at random, taking hostages and razing whole villages, but as was suggested earlier, those civilized norms do give us tools they can understand like field tribunals and summary executions, and we should use them to our full advantage. Let them know who's the alpha dog in this pack, and given their culture, eventually they'll submit, or die.

**Please, no sophomoric comments on that being an oxymoron, because all you will be doing is proving you're the moron, or at least in need of new material that's not decades old.

As any avid viewer of the series JAG could tell you (and by the way, this series is the anti-West Wing, anti-Rosie, anti-Michael Moore) the best outcome will be for Col West to be found guilty of a fairly black and white technical charge and given no punishment - no loss of pay, rank, or brig time. It always makes for a great ending.

BTW, PJ is correct.

The Law of Armed Conflict would allow the Iraqi to be shot on the spot as a spy.

The 4th Geneva Convention ( http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html ) seems to indicate that the Iraqi could have been legitimately detained as a possible spy and eventually tried and executed for espionage. However, even an accused spy or saboteur must be "treated with humanity".

So the Iraqi could have been tried and hanged, but not killed on the spot or threatened.

A good friend of my father's, since deceased, lied about his age to enlist in the Marines after Pearl Harbor. He fought his way through the Pacific. Once, when I was in high school, he talked a little bit about his experiences and laughed at my naive beliefs about how prisoners should be treated. Basically, Japanese prisoners were shot out of hand. The Marines didn't have enough food to feed themselves, let alone prisoners. They didn't have men to spare for guard duty. And they really, really hated the Japanese.

As for Col. West, I don't know enough about the situation or about military law to judge whether what he did was aggravated assualt. Given how it turned out, I'm certainly glad he did what he did. But an order is an order, and this is close enough to a Rule of Engagement to be a very serious order, so I don't think it should be flouted.

Sometimes it is possible to get yourself -- or just find yourself -- in a situation in which, no matter what you do, you will violate the law. The fact that you're in that situation is no defense against prosecution or suit. In the end, you have to do what you think is right, and then take what you've got coming. One of the most admirable things that Col. West was to report himself after the fact.

If, as appears to be the case, he wants to retire, I think he should be allowed to do so honorably, with his current rank, a full pension, the gratitude of the nation and, if he did violate his orders, a reprimand in his file.

MG:

JAG is also anti-intellectual, in the sense that its plots are simple and predictable.
However, I do watch it, but only because it co-stars Catherine Bell.

I still have not bothered to learn the facts of West's case, as I think the whole hullaballoo misdirected.

Yes, a Geneva Convention exists; but, no, it has never had any force east of Suez. No American combatants or civilians have ever enjoyed its supposed protections in any conflicts in Asia since the document was signed.

It's a myth in Asia, a unicorn. To pretend otherwise is fantasy.

Works two ways, too. David's friend from the Marines may have been talking about Guadalcanal. In other actions, the Marines had food. But see "With the Old Breed," a book on my short list of things everybody should read.

Americans were willing to take Japanese prisoners until they encountered their first ones, who boobytrapped themselves or tried to kill their captors after surrendering.

My father, who was Navy, not Marines, attempted to take 300 Japanese prisoner after he sank their destroyer off Iwo Jima. They preferred to drown.

Asians are not like us. I do not pretend to understand how or why, but I do claim to be able to describe observable events.

Colonel West goes on trial while Cornel West goes on to Princeton.

A strange, strange country, indeed.