Breaking: Beauchamp signs military statement recanting TNR pieces; Update: “armylawyer” comments
posted at 10:32 pm on August 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
According to Goldfarb. No independent evidence is offered aside from the recantation itself so we’re where I thought we’d be two days ago — with a confirmed liar and no way of proving which side he’s lying to.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
That’s a nice catch on the dates. Here’s the post at the Plank on July 26 in which TNR outed Beauchamp; they acknowledge in the first paragraph that the military investigation has already begun. Which means, assuming Goldfarb’s source is right, that Beauchamp hung TNR out to dry by letting them publish his denial even though he’d already formally recanted to the military.
The question now is how much tougher TNR wants to make things for him and the guys who corroborated his story. If they challenge the recantation and burn their sources, they’re putting six men in potential criminal jeopardy. That plus the fact that Beauchamp is married to one of their staffers means they probably won’t, that we’re probably in store for a pithy “we stand by our story” with a soft landing provided by the shrieking nutroots and smirking “reasonable conservatives” like Ross Douthat and John Cole.
Update (Bryan): Beauchamp was backing up his wild tales to the TNR as he was confessing that they were false to the Army. How interesting.
I had just about lost interest in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp story, not because it’s not interesting, but because it was following the trajectory that I had come to expect circa July 24. I’d figured out that he was a real soldier in Baghdad, who was using his real experiences to fabricate stories to smear the military (the stratified children’s mass grave was really an amalgamation of a landfill on one part of FOB Falcon and a children’s cemetery that was on another part of FOB Falcon, combined into one location by the fabulist Beauchamp and then sprinkled with the grisly story of the skull crown implausibly worn inside a troop’s combat helmet, etc). I’d also decided that TNR wasn’t going to come clean, and was going to stonewall, obfuscate, misdirect and mislead, so that it could maintain a shred of credibility with its supporters on the left while slinging mud at its justified critics on the right. I figured we’d never get a satisfactory solution out of Franklin Foer, his bosses weren’t going to fire him, and I figured the Army might end up keeping its findings out of the public domain, so we’d never really have a “Wasn’t that swell!” kind of ending. The whole thing would just fizzle into yet one more left vs right fist-shaker.
Of course, after I wrote the bit about the cemetery and landfill getting fused by Beauchamp to form the basis of his skull story, everyone got interested in the NYT/TNR back and forth over whether or not Franklin Foer knew for sure or just kinda knew that Beauchamp was actually a soldier or not. Well played, TNR. Well played, indeed. No one cared that I’d basically figured out the whole story without talking to or emailing anyone in Iraq, or talked to anyone married to anyone at TNR, or anything. But that’s just how it goes sometimes.
Anyway, as it turns out, I got that last part about the unsatisfying ending to this whole thing wrong. We do get a satisfying ending, courtesy the Army as Allah quoted above.
So Beauchamp was lying the whole time, and now that he has two entirely different stories, he was either lying to TNR, which probably paid him $50 per article and which can’t put him in prison for lying to them (because he’s not under oath when he’s spouting off to Franklin Foer), or he lied to the Army, which pays his entire salary and can and will put him in jail for quite a while if he lies to them (he is very much under oath when he’s being investigated by the US Army — for you liberals, that’s what “sworn statement” means).
So guess which one Beauchamp is more likely to have lied to — the people who couldn’t jail him, or the ones who could. And would.
That’s about as definitive a refutation as we’ll get in this saga, but it’s a good one.
And isn’t that swell!
Update (AP): To answer Bryan’s point, if I were in Beauchamp’s predicament I’d be more inclined to tell the Army whatever it wanted to hear to try to make amends for the bad press I’d given it in TNR. He’s in trouble no matter what he does: if he tells them the incidents were true he’s burned for participating in them and then not reporting his misconduct, and if he tells them the incidents were false then he’s burned for besmirching his unit in the American press with stories about what miscreants they are. In that case, the smart thing to do is to throw TNR under the bus and deny the incidents happened. He’s still in trouble with the Army but at least he’s restored their good name somewhat. That’s his best chance for leniency, I’d think.
Meanwhile, one of our commenters makes a good point. The TNR piece on the 26th noted that Beauchamp had had his communications privileges taken away after the Army investigation began. Presumably, then, the timeline went something like this: He sent his statement to TNR on or about the 24th, the investigation was launched on the 25th, and then he formally recanted for whatever reason on the 26th when he no longer had any way to inform TNR of his decision. The question is, knowing that the Army was going to want a word with him when his identity was revealed, why did he issue a statement to TNR under his real name standing by his story if he only planned to recant it when the Army came knocking a few days later? Where’s the logic in that?
Update (Bryan): He formally recanted in a sworn statement because he had nothing. The Army wasn’t going to be satisfied with a lot of smoke and wasn’t going to be distracted by questions over whether or not he exists or who he’s married to like most of us were. Its investigators probably did what I was doing at that time and asked him a simple, direct question: Where’s the mass grave of children? His entire story about that episode hinged on there actually being such a place. If it’s not real, his story is a lie. He couldn’t tell them where it was because it didn’t exist. Then they probably asked him more direct questions that he couldn’t answer, perhaps about his knowledge of guns given what he’d written about Glocks, and they probably tripped him up once or twice, and he figured out that the game was up and it was time to recant. By then he’d already sent off the note to TNR figuring that he was smarter than the investigators he’d face so he’d be fine. Like many petty criminals, he found out that he wasn’t so smart, and he found out the hard way.
There’s no rational logic in much of anything that this guy did. Why did he think he could get away with writing nonsense in a national journal, where there was always a potential that someone could read it and call him out on it? Why did he write about murderous US officers in Iraq when he was still in Germany or wherever. Why did he do any of what he did, including joining the Army on the presumption that he would a) survive the war at all and b) become some famous writer out of it. We’re not dealing with an entirely rational actor here.
When the investigation of his work began, he evidently was playing one side, then the other, and finally got himself squeezed too hard and decided that enough was enough. If you’re looking for a tight, logical answer to each move that he made in this, you’re going to be dissatisfied. The model you’re looking for is more along the lines of a trapped animal than a cold, rational and logical operator.
Update (AP): One of our regular commenters, “armylawyer,” has a post up weighing Beauchamp’s options. Read it all, but here’s the thrust:
Here’s the thing, if he was lying, there’s not much that he can be charged with. At most it would be some variant of an Article 92 violation for publication without permission or something similar (presuming such a prohibition existed within his command). At most, that’ll get him 2 years if it’s a general order, more than likely it’d be violation of an “other lawful order” which is 6 months max confinement.
Now some may argue that he’s lying to investigators but he told TNR the truth. Problem there is that the penalties for a False Official Statement are far harsher (7 yrs and a dishonorable discharge). Lying to investigators is often worse than the misconduct itself. So even if Beauchamp IS lying, he sure can’t ever say so while in uniform, as that subjects him to the more serious Article 107 charge.
I would have guessed that libeling my unit in an internationally read magazine would earn me more trouble than telling the Army a lie it wanted to hear but it sounds like that’s dead wrong. Which way would Beauchamp have guessed, I wonder? He doesn’t strike me as a real stickler for the regs so who knows if his knowledge base is closer to mine or AL’s.
Question: If in fact Beauchamp lied to the Army when he claimed the incidents didn’t happen, why did he do it on the first day of the investigation, when he didn’t yet know if they’d turn up any conflicting testimony from someone else in the unit? Assuming AL’s right and the thing Beauchamp is/should be most worried about is getting caught committing perjury, then he should either tell the truth right away or wait until the end of the investigation to lie, when he might have a better sense of what the investigators know and can conform his own story accordingly. What incentive does he have to lie to them right off the bat?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
If you lie to the IG guys or JAG officers, they will disembowel you and the rest of your life will turn to Sh++
So, believe what he says to them, not what he says to anyone else
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Another one bites the dust. (leftist, that is).
Zorro on August 6, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Consider the fact checking. And then consider Mahmoudiya.
You can lie to TNR all you like, and they don’t much care. Lie to your command and they will hurt you.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:40 PM
[[** Army bad... all army bad, bad, bad.]]
Mcguyver on August 6, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Since he’s wandering around down there, I wonder if Matt Sanchez might not have a little chat with him. Perhaps on video.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:41 PM
That’s actually a good argument for why he might indeed lie to them. He’s looking at a dishonorable discharge and maybe a court-martial if he doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Everyone’s a reasonable conservative.
Except the conservatives.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Yeah, but if he gets caught lying to the Army, I can’t imagine he’s in any better shape than telling the truth, because I imagine the Army will figure this out.
Bad Candy on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
He’s looking at that if he lies to them under oath. The 5th Amendment still applies, and he could just as easily clam up. He’s not required to incriminate himself.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Ah, I see you beat me to it (ignore my email).
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
And any JAG worth their salt would tell him that.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Thanks, Pablo!
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 10:45 PM
It just made sense. No way anybody was going to lie for him during an official investigation and he knew it. He also knew the consequences of lying would make his situation even worse.
I guess I’ll have to ponder how a confession put us where you thought we were 2 days ago though. Doesn’t seem like a he said/she said situation any more to me.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 10:45 PM
He’s already looking at that with the confession isn’t he?
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Me no savvy: Sir Real Scott can try to tap-dance out of whatever he’s facing by misdirection and meandering, but if he lies and gets caught lying, he’s toast.
His buddies won’t cover for him, so if he lies about what others did, he will get caught
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 10:47 PM
You’re quite welcome, Baldilocks. With relish. :-)
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:47 PM
He’s looking at punishment no matter what he tells them. If the incidents were true and he didn’t report them at the time, he’s in trouble. If they weren’t true and he made the whole thing up to sell stories to TNR, he’s in trouble. In those circumstances, the smart thing to do is to say you lied to TNR; that preserves the Army’s good name, at least, by denying that the incidents happened, which I would think is apt to get you lighter treatment.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Presumably they read him his Article 31(b) rights when they questioned him having suspected him of some offense (I’ll defer to what specifically they advised him of).
But he has every right to refuse to talk. If he was not read his rights (i.e. not suspected of any criminal offense) and refused to talk, then he could be ordered to give a statement and failure to do so could subject him to punishment under the UCMJ.
Either way, this is funny.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Not that I’d ever defend that lying little maggot, but Beauchamp may not have had a choice in hanging TNR out to dry, since his phone and Internet privileges were taken away. He had no way to inform TNR of the changes in his situation, and rightly so given the investigation going on.
ReubenJCogburn on August 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM
False Official Statement = 7 yrs max confinement, Dishonorable Discharge
Failure to Obey General Order = 2 years max, DD
The other Art 92 offenses (failure to obey other order and dereliction of duty max out at 6 months and a Bad Conduct Discharge (i.e. less than a Dishonorable Discharge).
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Allah:
In other words, he’s in less trouble by telling the truth to investigators than by lying about it on a sworn statement.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Well, now we know for sure.
Of course, it will be alleged that Beauchump signed the sworn statement of admission under duress, or threat of a less than honorable discharge… or a years worth of KP and Latrine duty.
The moment I learned that Beauchump was married to a TNR staffer, I became very concerned that the whole thing was shenanigans. And I still stand by my theory that the only reason Beauchump ever enlisted in the military was because he was married to a TNR staffer, and it was strictly to set up an opportunity to do just what he did, and not as a choice of career. He’s still a private for pete’s sake. It only takes like a year at the most to make the rank of corporal, unless you’re a complete f***-up… oh wait… nevermind.
By the way, lest we forget (and in case it mysteriously disappears) what TNR and Beauchump published just 11-days ago:
P.S. The comments attached to that article are sooo tasty to read after Beauchump has admitted he outright lied and exaggerated his entire series of diarys… muahahah
SilverStar830 on August 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
This has been pointed out over and over again, but it can’t be repeated enough. It’s a fact that seems to fly right over the head of Beauchamp’s defenders, most pertinently TNR.
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
So clear it up AL. Is he looking at a BCD now?
What’s worse, not reporting the incidents in the first place or getting caught lying during an investigation?
Is there any incentive for him to “tell the Army what it wants to hear” as AP suggests?
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
.
Agreed; the HONORABLE thing to do is tell the truth, but Sir Real left that bitch in the road a long time ago
DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY == You were never even close, were you, Scott?
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I’m not AL, but if I had to guess, since he quickly told the truth to investigators and thereby recanted all the bad things he’d made up for TNR, he’ll end up with a general discharge. Not honorable, not dishonorable or bad, just general. If he’d strung out the investigation at all and the Army found out he was lying, say, a month or six down the road, it would have been a whole lot harder on him.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM
What a flippin’ disgrace this sad sack of crap is! It isn’t bad enough that we have to deal with a democrat majority that wants our troops to put their lives on the line and surrender just so they can embarass an administration, but now they have to worry about rogue impostors who want to undermine their mission. God I hope they throw the book at this traitor!
whtabtbill on August 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
That’s what I was trying to get at. Good thing we have an Army Lawyer to do it for me.
Bad Candy on August 6, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Either way, we’re not talking about crimes of the century. People are acting like he deserves prison time. He doesn’t. And in Beauchamp’s circle, a dishonorable discharge is not a bad thing. Personally, I wonder if he exaggerated and made up stories to impress the girl. Wouldn’t be the first time a guy’s dick got him in trouble.
Blake on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
You know better than me, but that is what my first comment meant/
( my previous comment disappeared; I used the word ‘bitch’ in a Southern, colloquial, non-gender, non-reference-to-any-human sense, but Filters are Filters )
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
They’ve said they’re not charging him, so administrative action is the worst that will happen. What is the max punishment that can be attached to an Art. 15?
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Assuming the story is correct and assuming he told the truth on the sworn statement, then yeah, the most he’d be subject to (if it went to a court-martial) would be 3-6 months and a BCD. Assuming they charged it as an Art 92 violation for writing fakey stories without permission.
But how realistic is that? He made up stories about misconduct. If there was misconduct, you would have something, but if nothing happened, then whaddya do? Like I said, at most it’s some offense borne of a prohibition on publication without permission.
So yes, there’s incentive there. If it’s all fake, then there’s not a lot to punish.
But if he ever comes out and then says “Nah, I was just telling the Army what it wanted to hear.” Then it’s a False Official Statement and a lot worse.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
It’s been stated already but a less-than-honorable or dishonorable discharge is a modern day curse that will last a lifetime.
Have fun putting that on a resume for a civilian job or when purchasing firearms.
And don’t even think about applying for a job at the State or Fed level.
Repeat after me and get used to saying it … “Would you like fries with that?”
BowHuntingTexas on August 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Mmmm, careful with that logic. How Scotty B is handled is very much dependent on his chain of command, and how they interpret the facts of the case.
This is all speculation, of course, until the Army gets off their collective asses and issues a press release. If Beauchamp really was lying to TNR and the Army proved it, then they are being colossally stupid by sitting on the story.
They should have aggressively sought out the mainstream media with their findings, instead of making bloggers like Mike Goldfarb and Bob Owens hunt them down for ambiguous fractions of the story that allows for just enough doubt for TNR to skate.
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Pablo:
Article 15s are punitive. Administrative actions are non-punitive. So when they say “administrative action,” Article 15s are out.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Probably, Bryan, but you know what a general discharge is
the term “kiss of death” comes to mind………..
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM
So there’s nothing they can do to him for libeling his entire unit in an internationally read political magazine?
That seems … unusually lenient.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 11:09 PM
OK, so what’s the difference, terminologywise, between punitive action within the command and court martial? Or is there one?
And if there’s no Art. 15, he’s not getting discharged over this, is he?
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Oh yeah, and here’s a recent editorial by TNR where they try to back up Beauchump’s assertions with anonymous collaboration and hearsay… (???)
Dogs “flock towards” convoys of very loud rumbling earth shaking gigantic metal monsters belching smoke and fumes?
gimme a break!
SilverStar830 on August 6, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I’m sure they could shoehorn it into a UCMJ violation if they chose to do so. There’s a catch-all or two in there. Apparently, they’ve chosen not to.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
“can” is the operative word, as in “are able to do” to him
They CAN do a truly impressive list of Things, from Article 15 to a Hard Time at Leavenworth.
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I had the same question Allah…
Ha, Army Lawyer, can I just reproduce the email you sent me on this a few days ago?
AL said:
I’m no lawyer, but this sounds reasonable to me.
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Drudge just picked up this story btw, linked to the WS blog.
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
It may be a strategic decision to not be seen as trying to trumpet this, and instead letting others do it for them.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
You do realize that liberals will now say he lied about the “truth” because he did not want to go to jail.
The damage has already been done.
F15Mech on August 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I see radicals who committed bank robbery and murder get out of prison and get high paying jobs. Why? Because the leftards take care of their own. The type of jobs he applies for and the notoriety of the dishonorable discharge if he gets one won’t hurt him.
Blake on August 6, 2007 at 11:14 PM
The military has been difficult on this story, as it has been on many stories relating to Iraq. Individual officers, such as the ones I’ve been in contact with at FOB Justice, really understand the need to be pro-active with the media and get information out whether it’s good or bad, but most still seem (understandably) wary of releasing any information unless they deem that they absolutely have to. I don’t blame them for having that attitude as a default, but cases like this justify a little more openness imho. Then again, if I’m the officer at Falcon in charge of this investigation I might have a different attitude. Sitting here, it’s not my rank and career on the line.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Where’s the logic in any of this mess?
Good Lt on August 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Yeah, that’s probably what they’ll say. It’s nonsense, but that hasn’t stopped them before.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM
AP:
No, not nothing. But there’s not really a specific offense or regulation dealing with “libeling his entire unit in an internationally read political magazine.” At best, they’d have to find some order about publication without permission.
Pablo:
No real difference. Article 15s (non-judicial punishment) and courts-martial (judicial punishment) are both punitive. Only a courts-martial can punitively discharge a soldier (BCD or DD). Art 15s lack that power.
That being said, there are things called involuntary administrative separations. Without knowing more of the specific facts of what specific order he may have violated, soldiers can be separated under ch 14-12c of AR 635-200 for commission of a serious offense (i.e. one warranting a punitive discharge if taken to trial).
Separation under 14-12c usually comes with an Other Than Honorable Discharge (the worst non-punitive discharge possible) and occassionally a General Discharge.
Administrative separations have a lower burden of proof (preponderance) than Article 15s or courts-martial (proof beyond reasonable doubt) and are often preferred when you want to get rid of a soldier without taking them to trial.
Depending on the command, that may be an option.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Put up a post about this, AL, and I’ll link.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Because geniuses like this think they will be able to play all sides against the middle. I have no doubt this fool thinks he’s better and smarter than the officers that he serves under and that he would dazzle them with BS and skirt around it all (all the while collecting new material for the inevitable book he thought he would write).
It seems that plan may have worked, for about 3 minutes.
Drew on August 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Problem is AP, if they really happened somebody would tell the truth during the investigation and then he would be in a world of trouble. Nobody is going to go in their and lie unless they all get together and agree to lie (ie., conspire) otherwise, they can’t be sure what the others will say.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Drew just said mosta what I wuz gonna say: it’s Political now, and Sir Real believes that he can essentially blackmail the Army into leniency.
It might work………..
Janos Hunyadi on August 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Because he is a knucklehead. He wasn’t thinking ahead. He thought that he could get away with the statement to TNR. He did not think that his commander would start an investigation to find out what really happened.
slp on August 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Not necessarily. Beauchamp might — might — have had enough honor to go to the guys who corroborated his story during the TNR investigation and tell them that if the Army comes calling, they should just deny everything and he’ll take the fall.
Allahpundit on August 6, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Yeah, we’re on the same page here Bryan. My fear is that they’re viewing this is an internal discipline issue, and treating it as such.
I think the thing could have been put to bed a week ago, but the reluctance that you’re referring to is unnecessarily dragging it out.
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 11:23 PM
*as an internal discipline issue
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
They weren’t the only witnesses. 5? OK maybe. The whole Platoon? No way. (The whole Platoon saw the skull incident as I recall).
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Let’s remember that when he was writing, he was anonymous. He didn’t expect he’d have to answer for his fiction until TNR started taking heat for it. Then, he’s got a problem with his wife’s employer and needs to find a way around it. Maybe he’s thinking that the Army isn’t going to bother with his silly stories in TNR and decides to out himself for Elspeth’s sake.
Thing is, there’s a basic problem with being a serial liar. It always catches up with you. Scott, meet Rock and Hard Place.
Everyone else, Occam’s Razor. Except for those who aren’t interested in the truth. You may howl at the moon.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Done.
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Question here. Wouldn’t Beauchamp have some kind of legal representation by now?
Not only is he in legal jeopardy, but it’s a high profile case.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:31 PM
This can be dissected until the troops come home… bottom line is, he admits under oath he lied and made up his reports.
The nutroots can slather themselves in accusations of duress and whatnot all they want to, and you know it’s coming, but he swore a statement that his reports were all just fantasy, knowing that he signed a “sworn statement” under a helluva bigger penalty than just sticking to his stories, and that should be good enough for any stable minded person.
SilverStar830 on August 6, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Wouldn’t it be just too funny if he didn’t? What if TNR or his wife on his behalf, put out that statement? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I know you’re just trying to maintain some objectivity with that, but fortunately for me I don’t have to. A P.O.S. like Beauchamp wouldn’t know the meaning of honor if it crawled up his leg and bit him on the ass.
ReubenJCogburn on August 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Too many people. And the culprits are skull dancing boy and the BFV joyrider and those supervising them, not Fauxchamp.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I’m really starting to think TNR threw him under the bus. He had zero incentive to reveal himself as you say. If the incidents never happened they had no way to track him down. He was safe. Even if they were threatening to can his wife, so be it. What’s a job compared to jail time? Or, maybe his wife so believed in him, did it for him…. we’ll probably never know.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Enough honor to tell his buddies to obstruct justice and lie to Inspector General or JAG investigators?
Some honor that would be.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM
…at least not until TNR comes back from their extremely well timed two-week vacation. By then, this whole thing will probably be snooze news.
SilverStar830 on August 6, 2007 at 11:40 PM
There needs to be more:
1) Beauchamp should receive a dishonorable discharge.
2) Editors at TNR should be terminated.
3) Beauchamp’s fiance should also be terminated.
4) TNR needs to issue a statement apologizing to the military, the U.S. government, and the TNR readers.
jediwebdude on August 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM
jediwebdude, well, that would be nice.
Never in a million years will all those four things happen.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
TheBigOldDog,
Remember, they’re newlyweds. And he’s put her in a bad spot by being a liar. Plus, he’s America’s Next Great Poet, so what could go wrong?
Once again, the coverup is worse than the crime.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 11:47 PM
I doubted he outed himself knowing whether his stories were true or false he was screwed just to save her job. No way, unless as Bryan theorizes, he’s just an idiot (always possible). He could have refused to let them ID him while continuing to profess his truthfulness - that would have been the logical thing to do.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Fixed that for you, Beauchamp.
I’m in ur soulpatterns, messin with ur mindthoughts.
Bad Candy on August 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM
He can be court-marshalled… Seeing how much press it got… there is always article 134 “bringing discredit upon the armed forces”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000934—-000-.html
m1a1usmc on August 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM
He can be court-martialed, but apparently won’t be if I’m to believe the army.
Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Shall we bet on how long it takes for a ‘slip-and-fall’ lawyer to accuse the Army of ‘water-boarding’ him to get him to confess.
Even if he spends time in the clink and gets a dishonorable discharge, MSNBC will be offering him a job. In the eyes of the MSM, being a military ne’er-do-well is a plus on a resume.
pocomoco on August 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM
You people ought to see John Cole talking smack. What a little punk.
Bad Candy on August 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM
The thing is: If Boochamp had been telling the truth, there’s not a damn thing the Army could’ve done to hurt him. The truth is an absolute defense, and any attempt by the Army to bludgeon somebody telling the truth just to “get back at him” would lead to a PR nightmare for the Army, with national headlines 24/7 AND Lil’ Boochamp becoming a national hero and martyr to everybody who ever questioned the Army’s authoritah. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the impression that Boochamp’s writings leave you with regarding his real motives for his bullshit extravaganza.
To put it less delicately: That martyr’s crown, those endless speaking engagements and books about “the price of speaking truth to power™” were EXACTLY what Boochamp had been hoping for. And now you’re telling me that he gave all of that up because they were about to give it to him?
Right. Pull the other one.
Misha I on August 7, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Speaking of a lawyer, pocomoco, I asked the question earlier and don’t see it was addressed by someone who would know.
Does he have one?
AP up above was not sure if Beauchamp would know the smart thing to do here (and may be too dumb to tell the truth)… well, does he have a lawyer to advise him?
Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 12:16 AM
I’ll put everything I’ve got on that.
Pablo on August 7, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Assuming they’re on station, he’d have access to counsel once he was under investigation. He wouldn’t “have a lawyer” per se, unless he was charged, but he’d have the opportunity to talk to them.
Pablo on August 7, 2007 at 12:20 AM
I really do think that irrationality, stupidity and hubris explain quite a lot of Beauchamp’s actions. Logic doesn’t seem to be his strong point.
Bryan on August 7, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Dead on.
TheBigOldDog on August 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Makes sense. Thanks, Pablo. If not, in the Canadian Forces an officer is always assigned to assist an enlisted man who may face legal jeopardy where a lawyer is not immediately available.
Do you have a similar policy in your armed forces?
Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Bet they had to lock that boy up for his own safety.
AZ_Redneck on August 7, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Wouldn’t surprise, me, AZ Redneck (you’re probably right), or at least have a good talking to with the men of his unit telling them to let the system handle it.
Christoph on August 7, 2007 at 12:42 AM
He would have had TDS (Trial Defense Services) representation as soon as any punishment was read to him (or he sought them out). By “read” I mean where the commander informs the soldier of exactly what he is being charged with. If they were going to punish him (in all except the absolute lightest “summarized Article 15″) then he HAS to have representation by TDS before the commander hears the case.
During an investigation (ie the AR15-6) which more than likely was an informal 15-6 (conducted by an appointed officer, not a CID/MPI investigator), he more than likely would NOT have seen a lawyer prior to speaking with the investigating officer. He WOULD have been read his article 32? rights (like miranda) before hand and given the chance to “plead the 5th”. Where he is really screwed is his buddies. They have little incentive to protect him as they cannot “decline” to comment to the investigator or get a lawyer (unless they are suspected of a crime)… and if they lie, they are really screwed. I think this is the most “telling” aspect. Either way, if it come out later this is all true (and, if true, it always does)… then they are in for a double whammy… one for doing it… one for lying about it. Any lawyer worth a damn knows that…
BadBrad on August 7, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Yup, I’d say those three explain ALL of Beauchamp’s actions.
I still can’t believe how vigorously the left defended him. But, then again, nothing much about the left surprises me anymore.
John from OPFOR on August 7, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »