Makes sense!

[RLENT]

Or it could be he didn't tow the establishment party line, and didn't get much support from them in his reelection bid.

Further evidence of "radioactivity" ...

He gets to join the illustrious "GOP Wing-Nut Hall of Shame" instead ... along with the likes of Todd Adkin, Joe Walsh, and others ...

It should be a badge of honor for him.

Yeah ... kinda like his being forced into early retirement from the US Armed Forces ... rather than having to face a Court Martial for misconduct ...

 

[cheri1122]

I have to say regardless how disgusting or stupid what sterling said was the fact he can be forced to sell does not sit right with me. The thought police in today's society is a scary thing.

A very wise man had one of the best takes I have heard on this.
LA Times


Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123

What you refer to as "thought police" [?] has been part of society as long as society has existed: there are things one can say in public, and things one should not.
That he didn't say them in public is a moot point, since he said them, and they have been heard by the public, and you can't unring the bell. [As every good lawyer, and Mitt Romney, knows]
Being forced to sell is a penalty not generally available, but his is a different sitch - like belonging to a homeowners association. You plays by their rules, or you lose. He agreed to that, when he became part of the Association.
If the "thought police" didn't exist, there'd be an awful lot of unpleasant speech in public, sigh.

 

[muttly]

West was trying to save his troops from an attack. Scaring a prisoner, and thwarting a potential attack by firing his gun in close proximity to him, I don't have a major problem with that. I'm sure most of his troops that got to go home safely to their families don't either. So let me pose a hypothetical for any who may be appalled by Allen West's actions. Let's say you had information that a deadly, imminent attack was going to occur towards one of your loved ones, such as a daughter, son, wife, or other. Would anyone fire a weapon in close proximity,to get the information and save their lives? Yes or no?

 

[LDB]

Let's say you had information that a deadly, imminent attack was going to occur towards one of your loved ones, such as a daughter, son, wife, or other. Would anyone fire a weapon in close proximity,to get the information and save their lives? Yes or no?

Let's say you had information that a deadly, imminent attack was going to occur towards someone's loved ones, such as a daughter, son, wife, or other. Would anyone fire a weapon in close proximity,to get the information and save their lives? Yes or no?

Even with the corrected question there's a right answer and a wrong answer which pretty well aligns with a right person and a left person. Those who are right know the right answer and everyone else is wrong as usual.

 

[RLENT]

Even with the corrected question there's a right answer and a wrong answer which pretty well aligns with a right answer and a left answer.

Well, I guess, for some folks, that type of simplistic characterization is apparently the only way that they are capable of considering the issue.

Facts are:

1. Based on an allegation of a threat (which at this point appears was not credible), for which no actual evidence was ever found, West allowed four of the troops under his command to beat a then unarmed civilian Iraqi man on the body and head ... and did not intervene to uphold discipline and stop it.

2. West himself threatened to kill the man ... and then fired multiple rounds from his side arm, including at least one - and possibly as many as three - near the man's head ... knowingly and deliberately violating Army rules, regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice ... and torturing and terrorizing the man.

3. West himself was not trained in interrogations, and prior to this incident had never even witnessed an interrogation, let alone actually performed one.

4. West himself admitted - under oath and the penalty of perjury - what he did was wrong.

5. West actually lied under oath, saying that he had no ill will toward his victim ... when in fact he had already stated in his own confession after the incident that he was so angry and enraged that he was unable to actually remember how many shots he fired ...

"Frustration and anger overcame his professional ethics and personal values, and he performed what he knew to be illegal and immoral acts," said the statement issued by the Army's Fourth Infantry Division.

6. West is very lucky he wasn't prosecuted for the lying under oath as well.

7. As a consequence of his experience, West's victim - who had worked with and assisted US forces prior to this incident - subsequently refused to do so.

Thank you Colonel Dumb*** for helping us "win hearts and minds" ... as well as upholding discipline and setting an example for those under your command.

8. As a consequence of above, West has shown that he is not only unfit to lead, but is unfit to serve in the military as well - as evidenced by his being forced to retire ... and is, in fact, nothing more than a criminal terrorist.

And in terms of simplistic characterizations, I guess one could say that the difference between the two answers might be that one would be provided by those who are hypocrites ... and the other one would be provided by those who aren't ...

 

[LDB]

a deadly, imminent attack was going to occur

Not an allegation, information that it was going to happen. You are stuck on denigrating Allen West and what happened. I am responding to a different post by another user. I understand though, that overwhelming urge you can't avoid.

 

[muttly]

He wasn't even court marshaled.

 

[RLENT]

He wasn't even court marshaled.

Like I said (before, if not here specifically): he was incredibly lucky ...

The prosecutors on the case wanted to try him in a Court Martial and that was what West was facing when this matter came to light initially ... but they were overruled by those up the chain of command, in a continuing pattern of minimizing and covering up misdeeds in the armed forces.

A good example of how some in the lower ranks have the correct priorities vs. those in the higher ranks who don't.

But while West's supporters call him a hero, military prosecutors said his actions amounted to torture and violated articles 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Prosecutor Capt. Magdalena Pezytulska said West should be tried for assault and for communicating a threat. "This is a case about a man who lost his temper," she argued. "There are consequences for [West's] actions."

 

[RLENT]

Not an allegation, information that it was going to happen.

LOL ... ok.

But your argument is actually circular:

Let's say you had information that a deadly, imminent attack was going to occur towards someone's loved ones, such as a daughter, son, wife, or other. Would anyone fire a weapon in close proximity, to get the information ...

It seems likely that this could be an allegation, but I'll grant that it wouldn't necessarily have to be ...

In any event, it would seem that whatever "information" one does have in the scenario you offered is at least somewhat sketchy at best ... otherwise there would be no additional, subsequent need "to get the information" ...

One can construct endless hypothetical scenarios ... in order to rationalize and justify some conduct.

You are stuck on denigrating Allen West and what happened.

I couldn't possibly denigrate West anymore than he has already denigrated himself.

But yes - I'm dealing with real world events that actually took place and involved real people ... not some hypothetical event in some fantasy land I've constructed in my mind.

I am responding to a different post by another user.

I know what you are responding to.

I understand though, that overwhelming urge you can't avoid.

As I understand the overwhelming urge you and others have to lionize an individual who was incapable of controlling his own emotions, and who failed to follow the rules, regulations, and law that governed his conduct, and failed to uphold discipline and order, and set a good example for the soldiers under his command.

Certainly something to be admired and fawned over ...

 

[muttly]

At the same time there are some who label him a wing nut for choosing to protect his troops . In an environment with a lot of chaos he chose to take action at a possible threat, while others slept soundly in their beds, sprinters and trucks . Then they Monday morning armchair quarter back about how it should have been done.

 

[LDB]

No lions or other zoo animals involved. I haven't spoken of Mr. West, only a situation where it is known for certain an attack is going to take place. What would one be willing to do to stop it? In the circumstances given, if I knew an attack was imminent and I knew taking the same action Mr. West took would save many lives I would do the same. I pity those sad individuals who wouldn't.

 

[cheri1122]

No lions or other zoo animals involved. I haven't spoken of Mr. West, only a situation where it is known for certain an attack is going to take place. What would one be willing to do to stop it? In the circumstances given, if I knew an attack was imminent and I knew taking the same action Mr. West took would save many lives I would do the same. I pity those sad individuals who wouldn't.

Can't say what I might be willing to do to stop an imminent attack, but I know what I wouldn't do: take the same action West took. There'd be no need or reason to. Why would I torture someone for information I already have?
You can't have it both ways: either West knew an attack was imminent, in which case he didn't need to torture anyone for information, [like that ever works anyhow], or West merely suspected an attack was imminent, in which case he tortured someone to find out more. Which is illegal, immoral, and pretty stupid behavior.
There is no defending West's actions or justification for them. When the going got rough, so did he, and that is not admirable behavior in any leader.

 

[cheri1122]

At the same time there are some who label him a wing nut for choosing to protect his troops . In an environment with a lot of chaos he chose to take action at a possible threat, while others slept soundly in their beds, sprinters and trucks . Then they Monday morning armchair quarter back about how it should have been done.

Trying to justify his illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid action with reference to "protecting his troops" and "An environment with a lot of chaos" is just making excuses for a poor decision. The persons you refer to as engaging in 'Monday morning quarterbacking' were not "sleeping soundly in their beds, Sprinters, and trucks", the military prosecutors were in the same environment, and they found his actions violated military regs.
Those who label him a wing nut have much more than this one incident to support their beliefs, because a wing nut can not stop proving it. That's what makes them soooo special!

 

[muttly]

The troops under his command didn't think it was a poor decision. I doubt they care either what the MMQB's consider an excuse. They didn't incurred any more attacks and made it more likely to return home safely.

 

[muttly]

He didn't have the details of how and who was going to carry out the attack. So how would he be able to stop it?
Why Allen West was drummed out of the military... - Elite Trader

 

[xiggi]

Can't say what I might be willing to do to stop an imminent attack, but I know what I wouldn't do: take the same action West took. There'd be no need or reason to. Why would I torture someone for information I already have?
You can't have it both ways: either West knew an attack was imminent, in which case he didn't need to torture anyone for information, [like that ever works anyhow], or West merely suspected an attack was imminent, in which case he tortured someone to find out more. Which is illegal, immoral, and pretty stupid behavior.
There is no defending West's actions or justification for them. When the going got rough, so did he, and that is not admirable behavior in any leader.

None of us who have not been in the heat of war have any idea what we would do. Anyone who thinks they would are not only trying to fool others they are fooling themselves. To pretend we know we would or would not do something, we have no real idea.

Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123

 

[RLENT]

In the circumstances given, if I knew an attack was imminent ...

The problem comes about with people thinking that they "know" certain things ... when actually they don't ...

Some folks seem particularly susceptible to it ... but certainly no one has an exclusive ... and all are prone to it, to one degree or another.

 

[RLENT]

The troops under his command didn't think it was a poor decision.

Well now ... that's certainly very special isn't it ?

Yippee !

Maybe they should have gotten to vote on whether to charge him or just handle it through an Article 15 ... or maybe just let him off altogether ...

After that, maybe West could implement some sort of democratic council, whereby all his decisions and orders could be evaluated by all those under his command for their inherent "wisdom" before his juniors actually decided to follow them, maybe submitting them to a vote by secret ballot ...

I doubt they care either what the MMQB's consider an excuse.

And I don't give a flying flip what they thought about it - I want someone who is distanced from the event and hopefully has a dispassionate, objective eye ... and who is intelligent enough and sufficiently unemotional enough to understand the bigger picture: that the sacrifice of an idiot - who can't even control his temper when he isn't under fire - is a very small price to pay to uphold discipline, the moral integrity, and honor of the US armed forces.

They didn't incurred any more attacks and made it more likely to return home safely.

They also found absolutely no evidence of any planned attack ... so your assertion that it made it "more likely" to return home safely is, or may well be, specious ...

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

 

[RLENT]

At the same time there are some who label him a wing nut for choosing to protect his troops.

Nah ... he's labelled a wing-nut for the demented crazy he's spewed since that time.

For what you refer to above, I'd just label him as a criminal thug ...

In an environment with a lot of chaos he chose to take action at a possible threat, while others slept soundly in their beds, sprinters and trucks . Then they Monday morning armchair quarter back about how it should have been done.

Yup ... for those that unfamiliar with the specific paradigm we use here in the US: the military is ultimately answerable to civil authority.

For those that wish it were otherwise, I think there's still a few places left in the world where the inverse prevails.

 

[RLENT]

He didn't have the details of how and who was going to carry out the attack. So how would he be able to stop it?
Why Allen West was drummed out of the military... - Elite Trader

What you link appears to be an article which was originally published in National Review. The article is inaccurate in at least one respect that I'm aware of (the characterization of the events leading up to West's discharging of his weapon) ... when compared with the actual, redacted report documents of the incident and investigation that were released by the US military.

Further, the article appears to have been written by Jed Babbin - who was the leading covert mouthpiece for the Pentagon, delivering spin and propaganda for the 5-sided Wind Box ... at least until he was exposed:

Jed Babbin: The Pentagon's Most Prolific Pundit | PR Watch