View Full Version : Int'l Issues Scott Thomas Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" Redux
So this story was touched on here briefly a few years back, but it's taken a much worse turn.
Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote a series of articles for The New Republic, one of which was called "Shock Troops" in which he described some out of control, violent and generally nasty behavior by his fellow soldiers.
For reference, here's the original article and wiki on the story:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=860c9bec-a77a-4786-a869-cc893a43c8b2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy
In response to the article Beauchamp’s First Sergeant John E. Hatley published the following email on a conservative blog:
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/update-on-the-new-republics-man-in-iraq/
SFC McElroy,
I’m not in the habit of answering these email’s. It would be far too many. I appreciate all the support from home and I can assure you that not a single word of this was true. [...] My soldiers conduct is consistently honorable. [...] No one at any of the post we live at or frequent, remotely fit the descriptions of any of the persons depicted in this young man’s fairy tale. [...] Again, this young man has a vivid imagination and I promise you that this by no means reflects the truth of what is happening here. I’m currently serving with the best America has to offer. I have worked and fought closely with every soldier within my company and they are consummate professionals in an area most people can’t fathom. [...]
Sincerely,
1SG Hatley
Why is this old news new again?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYtcV7GUHRC88uGXnQ8Hl6I5lvbAD97JK7EG0
US Army soldier sentenced to life in prison
By GEORGE FREY – 1 day ago
VILSECK, Germany (AP) — A U.S. Army soldier convicted of murder in the 2007 killings of four bound and blindfolded Iraqis was sentenced on Thursday to life in prison.
Master Sgt. John Hatley, 40, also will have his rank reduced to private, forfeit all pay and receive a dishonorable discharge, a jury of eight Army officers and noncommissioned officers decided. He has the possibility of parole after serving 20 years.
The sentence came a day after Hatley was found guilty of premeditated murder and conspiracy in the execution-style killings of the detainees.
He was found not guilty of premeditated murder in a separate January 2007 incident in which a wounded Iraqi insurgent was shot and killed.
...
Prosecution lawyer John Riesenberg had argued the case was about how Hatley used his reputation to lead his soldiers down "the brutal path to murder."
"This is among the most colossal failures of leadership," Riesenberg said. Defense lawyer David Court said Hatley was not the evil person the defense was portraying him to be.
"You have to think about what they (these men) were going through (in Iraq) to judge fairly. He loved his soldiers too much, that was his crime," Court said.
According to testimony this week and at previous courts-martial, four Iraqis were taken into custody in spring 2007 after an exchange of fire with Hatley's unit.
Court has argued that Army prosecutors based their case on assumptions and conflicting testimony from this week and other courts-martial, saying there was no physical evidence that anyone was shot or killed. The bodies of the victims have never been found.
Previous courts-martial related to the incident resulted in murder convictions of two other soldiers who served in Hatley's unit.
KC Jones
04-17-2009, 09:57 PM
I hadn't heard of the 'shock troop' diaries before, but it would be hard for me to think that stuff like that doesn't go on. I know what med students do with cadavers, and a big part of it is finding an outlet for the strain of being so vividly confronted with human mortality and the dismemberment of a fellow human. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be in a war.
RINGLEADER
04-18-2009, 10:00 AM
I hadn't heard of the 'shock troop' diaries before, but it would be hard for me to think that stuff like that doesn't go on. I know what med students do with cadavers, and a big part of it is finding an outlet for the strain of being so vividly confronted with human mortality and the dismemberment of a fellow human. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be in a war.
Of course this stuff goes on.
You're going to have a small percentage of any population (be it military or the general public) that is sick in the head.
Of course this stuff goes on.
You're going to have a small percentage of any population (be it military or the general public) that is sick in the head.
I think it is only fair to re-investigate the Scott Thomas stories. They were far less agregis than what was ultimately proven to have happened. And while we are acknowledging that stuff like this goes on, it's fair to acknowledge that coverups happen too.
And with a convicted murder at the center of the criticism of Beauchamp's stories, it's only fair to him to reconsider the issue, IMO.
patteeu
04-18-2009, 11:44 AM
I think it is only fair to re-investigate the Scott Thomas stories. They were far less agregis than what was ultimately proven to have happened. And while we are acknowledging that stuff like this goes on, it's fair to acknowledge that coverups happen too.
And with a convicted murder at the center of the criticism of Beauchamp's stories, it's only fair to him to reconsider the issue, IMO.
Why? Were Beauchamp's stories discounted because people took this guy's word for it or because several of Beauchamp's claims were found to be false and, in the end, Beauchamp himself recanted? :shrug:
Beauchamp Recants (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp)
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.
...
Why? Were Beauchamp's stories discounted because people took this guy's word for it or because several of Beauchamp's claims were found to be false and, in the end, Beauchamp himself recanted? :shrug:
How do we know that the anonymous report above (which you are parroting as fact) isn't from Hatley and itself containing "only 'a smidgen of truth'"?
Why? Were Beauchamp's stories discounted because people took this guy's word for it or because several of Beauchamp's claims were found to be false and, in the end, Beauchamp himself recanted? :shrug:
Hell, it doesn't even take a murder conviction to call into question the Goldfarb reporting. The New Republic got the Army to go on record denying the reported recanting the following day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy#Alleged_recantation
Alleged recantation
On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators.[13][14] [15]
On August 7, The New Republic reported:
“ "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.'"[8]
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.'"[8]
And to my point, since we have no idea what the investigation found, or what the process was, we don't know if Hatley himself was (as is reasonable to assume) invovled in the investigation.
Baby Lee
04-18-2009, 02:38 PM
I think it is only fair to re-investigate the Scott Thomas stories. They were far less agregis than what was ultimately proven to have happened. And while we are acknowledging that stuff like this goes on, it's fair to acknowledge that coverups happen too.
And with a convicted murder at the center of the criticism of Beauchamp's stories, it's only fair to him to reconsider the issue, IMO.
egregious?
egregious...
... spelling error. :)
And to my point, since we have no idea what the investigation found, or what the process was, we don't know if Hatley himself was (as is reasonable to assume) invovled in the investigation.
Sorry, I missed this.. But it proves my point directly.
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.
patteeu
04-18-2009, 03:12 PM
Hell, it doesn't even take a murder conviction to call into question the Goldfarb reporting. The New Republic got the Army to go on record denying the reported recanting the following day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy#Alleged_recantation
Alleged recantation
On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard's blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators.[13][14] [15]
On August 7, The New Republic reported:
“ "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.'"[8]
That's not a denial of the reported recanting, as you suggest. It's a refusal to confirm or deny.
The New Republic even admits (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=be58af95-1a50-4033-a62f-9ee7289e0619) that the Army's position after the investigation referred to above was not just that they couldn't confirm Beauchamp's story but that they had "found it to be false."
Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."
patteeu
04-18-2009, 03:16 PM
Sorry, I missed this.. But it proves my point directly.
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.
If Hatley was the guy who performed the investigation (which I doubt), then the Army would have reason to reevaluate it's conclusions. If he was merely one of many interviewed then I don't see much reason to doubt the conclusions (unless the specific allegations of Beauchamp have been proven true by this guy's trial). The bottom line is that we don't know about the details of the Army's investigation so it's impossible for any of us to know whether this development warrants another look at Beauchamp. Maybe there is such a reason, but I think it's unlikely, particularly if the leak about Beauchamp recanting the stories is true.
If Hatley was the guy who performed the investigation (which I doubt), then the Army would have reason to reevaluate it's conclusions. If he was merely one of many interviewed then I don't see much reason to doubt the conclusions (unless the specific allegations of Beauchamp have been proven true by this guy's trial). The bottom line is that we don't know about the details of the Army's investigation so it's impossible for any of us to know whether this development warrants another look at Beauchamp. Maybe there is such a reason, but I think it's unlikely, particularly if the leak about Beauchamp recanting the stories is true.
One of the almost certain witnesses interviewed, and presumably the most senior leader among the people interviewed... was just convicted of murder... in a far worse scenario than Beauchamp ever dared describe... and you can't bring yourself to imagine that an investigation where "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims" might not be questionable?
Come on.
The New Republic even admits (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=be58af95-1a50-4033-a62f-9ee7289e0619) that the Army's position after the investigation referred to above was not just that they couldn't confirm Beauchamp's story but that they had "found it to be false."
Pay attention.
They are clearly quoting this statement where the Army directly claims that they conclude it is false because "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims".
The judgement is "false" but the reality is "unsubstantiated by others".
patteeu
04-18-2009, 07:43 PM
Pay attention.
They are clearly quoting this statement where the Army directly claims that they conclude it is false because "His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims".
The judgement is "false" but the reality is "unsubstantiated by others".
You are speculating and your speculation is unwarranted. We don't know what grounds the army had for concluding that his story was false. If it was merely unsubstantiated, they could have said so, but instead they went further and judged his claims to be false.
You are speculating and your speculation is unwarranted. We don't know what grounds the army had for concluding that his story was false. If it was merely unsubstantiated, they could have said so, but instead they went further and judged his claims to be false.
You amaze me.
Your part in this discussion started with you claiming that "Beauchamp himself recanted". Now mind you, your evidence for this claim is an unsubstantiated, anonymous rumor reported by a partisan magazine.
A claim that you yourself will admit the Army itself refuses to endorse when asked directly.
Yet you will repeat the claim as fact without qualification or hesitation.
But when faced with the actual 2 sentence statement made by the Army... in which they claim that Beauchamp's "allegations ... were found to be false" and support that finding by explaining that "(h)is platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims"... you claim that "(w)e don't know what grounds the army had for concluding that his story was false".
They tell you in sentence #2, why thy claim what they do in sentence #1.
But that's not as reliable a statement as the anonymous rumor claimed by a partisan magazine and all but denied by the Army.
This discussion goes a long, long way toward proving you have not personal integrity what so ever.
You shown you will claim as fact anything, no matter how baseless... as long as it supports your political agenda... and you will dismiss as speculation the actual facts of the matter because they threaten your agenda.
patteeu
04-19-2009, 10:05 AM
You amaze me.
Your part in this discussion started with you claiming that "Beauchamp himself recanted". Now mind you, your evidence for this claim is an unsubstantiated, anonymous rumor reported by a partisan magazine.
A claim that you yourself will admit the Army itself refuses to endorse when asked directly.
Yet you will repeat the claim as fact without qualification or hesitation.
But when faced with the actual 2 sentence statement made by the Army... in which they claim that Beauchamp's "allegations ... were found to be false" and support that finding by explaining that "(h)is platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims"... you claim that "(w)e don't know what grounds the army had for concluding that his story was false".
They tell you in sentence #2, why thy claim what they do in sentence #1.
But that's not as reliable a statement as the anonymous rumor claimed by a partisan magazine and all but denied by the Army.
This discussion goes a long, long way toward proving you have not personal integrity what so ever.
You shown you will claim as fact anything, no matter how baseless... as long as it supports your political agenda... and you will dismiss as speculation the actual facts of the matter because they threaten your agenda.
First of all, it was the article I quoted that said he recanted not me, but I'm willing to accept that as the baseline truth until there is something substantial suggesting that it was a false report. At worst, it's a case of he said she said with Goldfarb on one side quoting an anonymous source and TNR on the other side saying that Beauchamp denies recanting.
And I have no problem sticking with the position that we don't know what the Army's conclusions were based upon. We know they performed interviews, but we don't know what other actions they took as a part of their investigation. We do know that even TNR admits that there was at least one major "mistake" of fact in Beauchamp's writing that had to do with something that he said happened in Iraq when the location that he described was actually in Kuwait.
It's implausible to me that the Army's investigation rests on the testimony of one man. As long as that's not the case, I don't see any reason why the lack of credibility of this one man should bring the investigation results into serious question. But as I said, only the Army is in possession of enough of the story to know whether a reinvestigation is warranted. One of us is making baseless assumptions and it isn't me.
First of all, it was the article I quoted that said he recanted not me
Like I said, you will lie, no matter the facts...
Beauchamp himself recanted
patteeu
04-19-2009, 04:22 PM
Like I said, you will lie, no matter the facts...
Speaking of dishonesty, that was a part of a question, which isn't apparent when you selectively quote it like that (which is, of course, why you did it). It's not an independent assertion of fact. I don't have any reason to believe that the report that claims that it's a fact is wrong though and it's definitely a premise on which my question is based. What I did was what you and everyone else in this forum does every single day. I linked to a report from a reputable source and relied upon that source for the basis of my question. So far, you've been completely unsuccessful at discrediting the report even though you've clearly made a significant effort to do so, including an attempt to misrepresent the statement from the Army. It's not clear to me whether that misinterpretation was an accident on your part or just dishonesty.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.