Well known quitter, traitor, crybaby, liar, surrenderer, and possible bed wetter Harry Reid says he wants to to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq. In the past he has said things like:

Apparently now Reid ackno…

ABSOLUTELY FABULIST
August 8, 2007

Not the troops broadly– they’re babykillers. The MSM supports the brave Winter Soldiers who admit they’re babykillers, or claim their fellow soldiers are. Michelle Malkin goes through a brief history of of anti-war fabulists, beginning with John “J…

Beauchamp probably looks up to TNR as the brilliant minds and views the Army as a collection of warmongering dolts, but he fooled TNR and didn’t fool the Army. Whenever he gets around to thinking that through, the implications will come as quite a shock

.

Not really. It’s child’s play to fool someone who really really wants to believe. TNR wants to believe the worst of the military and grasped Beauchamp’s fables with both hands…”The moral of the story is that military training and warfare brutalizes even sensitive poets, as we’ve believed all along”.

Once again lefties reckoned their strong feelings about something (truthiness) trumped actual facts. Even when the facts eventually trip them up, they seldom convert, despising rational thought as inferior to their “noble instincts”.

I’ve been keeping an eye on the Brobdingnagian factcheckathon™ that is the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair for the past couple weeks, and now that it is claimed that he has recanted his story, I’ve gotta say that I’m scratching my hea…

As I suspected the stories of the Baghdad Diarist have all turned out to be lies. Ok Ill be generous as he said there was a smidgeon of truth in some of them. They have turned out to be lies and exaggerations. Extreme exaggerations. He is a self procla…

Here is the descriptive text of article 134:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

During my early service in the Navy, this was the one article that always hung over my head when I contemplated doing something stupid, silly, or just plain wrong that wasn’t specifically mentioned by any other UCMJ article. On page 3 of that link, there is a pre-determined list of offenses that virtually guarantees being hauled in front of the CO or worse. However, the text of the article in no way limits the chargeable offenses to that pre-determined list. That’s why I seldom pushed my luck in my young and dumb days as a new sailor.

In this particular case,

…all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces…

seems to fit the bill nicely. I’m sure this man will be hauled in front of his CO for NJP unless he demands a trial by court-martial.

If he demands trial, I’m not sure how the burden of proof changes, but I’m sure a “jury of his peers” will not look kindly upon his actions.

I’m not sure if they can award a punishment in excess of article 134 limits, but I’m willing to bet a trial would net him as much punishment as allowed by the UCMJ. Armylawyer might be able to provide more insight if he is so inclined.

razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan

In my head?

We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement.

Link

When we [TNR] called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”
–The Editors
William Amos on August 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM

There you have it: another evil coverup.

The Army is refusing to fully disclose all of the details of how they performed every step of their investigation. Instead, all they hand over is one measly signed affidavit from TNR’s only named source, swearing under penalty of incarceration that he his entire story was a fabrication.

But did the Army provide a signed affidavit from even ONE of TNR’s new anonymous sources to prove that they are lying about what TNR claims Beauchamp said? Huh. I didn’t think so.

Say what you want about TNR, but you have to admit they are leaving absolutely no doubt about which side is hiding the ball in this case.

A STATEMENT ON SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP:
We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, “I have no knowledge of that.” He added, “If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.” When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, “We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.”

–The Editors

In an earlier posting on The New Republic / Scott Thomas affair, I asked some questions. It seems now we’ve got answers. The Weekly Standard reports that Pvt. Beauchamp (Thomas) has recanted everything.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a mil…

1. I do not have to answer any question or say anything.
2. Anything I say or do can be used as evidence against me in a criminal trial.
3. (For personnel subject othe UCMJ I have the right to talk privately to a lawyer before, during, and after questioning and to have a lawyer present with me
during questioning. This lawyer can be a civilian lawyer I arrange for at no expense to the Government or a military lawyer detailed for me at no expense to me,
or both.

Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Hahahahahahaaha!

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

I’m not so sure the 5th Amendment applies, you have to remember he’s in the military, and thus, under the UCMJ and not the Constitution. In other words… he is not “At Law” but rather he is “At equity.” And “At equity” in law simply means he is under contract to do whatever he signed up for via the enlistment contract. The UCMJ gives you some protections… but for the most part the military “owns” you.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html