Beau(champ) Geste
Dueling statements. The Standard. TNR. The Standard again. What we don’t have is an on-the-record statement by a named military official or by Beauchamp himself that Beauchamp has signed a sworn recantation. So we’re not even in a position to speculate whether the recantation is truer than the original stories because we don’t know whether the recantation exists. Nor can we say that, whether Beauchamp was honest in his recantation or not, his very willingness to sign it impeaches everything he’s written, because we don’t know whether the recantation exists.
The NYT picks up the story, but adds nothing in the way of information.
The balance of interests tells against the Army investigation being definitive, since it amounts to official channels asking soldiers to confirm conduct that could put them on the wrong side of the UCMJ. But there’s enough room for doubt about what Beauchamp wrote that I don’t think people should use his columns as proving anything one way or the other about the Iraq War. Which nobody was doing anyway. I came closer than anyone to doing that with my section about the Kuwait mess hall anecdote last night. And I only got interested in Beauchamp because of the howlersphere action.
Howard Kurtz, of all people, digs up the definitive – at this time – quote:
Mark Feldstein, a journalism professor at George Washington University, called the Army’s refusal to release its report “suspect,” adding: “There is a cloud over the New Republic, but there’s one hanging over the Army, as well. Each investigated this and cleared themselves, but they both have vested interests.”
That last sentence about sums it up. Add Beauchamp’s own vested interests and it’s a perfect storm of unreliability.
Comment by Steve —
August 7, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Is there any sensible reason for the Times to be reporting on this in the absence of more conclusive proof of what’s going on? I know Howie Kurtz is willing to trot out any nonsense some guy with a blog is willing to repeat long enough, but that at least isn’t in the context of hard news.
Comment by Dave W. —
August 8, 2007 @ 6:29 am
I don’t think people should use his columns as proving anything one way or the other about the Iraq War.
His columns prove that if a soldier does witnesses crimes, or even just bad behavior, by coalition troops, then there is no reliable way to get that info to the American public.
Beauchamp’s story helps makes that clear whether his TNR stories are true or false. His story proves that the Army will censor info, not just to protect information about troop movements and confidential weapons systems and fighting tactics, but rather for much flimsier and petty reasons.
The military is sending out the signal to volunteers that there is an 8 year chunk of your life that you will not be able to speak freely about (at least not if you want to keep your welfare). You will be denied not just the right to speak freely about what happened “at work”, but also denied the right to speak freely about petty indignations in the mess hall, or about day to day non-combat interactions with natives in a foreign land.
For many soldiers, this is probably not much of a sacrifice. However, if you want to be a diarist, like Beauchamp, or even just have naked pictures taken of yourself before your body gets an injury, like Lynch, then this becomes a big problem. Self-expression is definitely not for everyone, but for those who do like to indulge, it can be quite compelling. However, we need to make our 18 year olds realize that this is a right you give up when you enlist.
If we brought the draft back, the military probably wouldn’t be playing the hard-ass with Beauchamp here the way it is.
Comment by BruceR —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Oh, come on. Soldiers in war zones do not have unfettered First Amendment rights. Never had, never will. Soldiers accept that.
But never mind that no one who has ever served is going to cry a single tear for a Private who was restricted from getting paid for writing bad things about his team members. Boo hoo. What other office could put up with that kind of behaviour.
Hey, you may have missed it, but it was a TNR staffer which leaked Beauchamp’s identity, prompting his “coming forward.” TNR promptly fired that individual, presumably for exactly the same kind of betrayal of trust situation, in much less serious circumstances. All my many employers, if I crossed that line and put them into disrepute through blogging, would undoubtedly do the same to me.
Beauchamp had plenty of options if he thought he’d seen anything criminal. He could have actually blown the whistle, being up front about his name, unit, and other particulars. He could have waited until his tour was over and written the Great American Novel about it. And he could have complained to his superior.
If anything, the fact he was receiving a paycheque from TNR for not complaining, rather saving up the story for his next article, makes him more likely than the average soldier to tolerate crimes going on around him.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:44 am
I doubt that – the Army has and presumably always will come down hard on embarrassing things, given any opening. Most such things will, of course give the Army such an opening. The only time that the Army would be restricted is if there are political complications, such as in the My Lai incident, where the soldier who reported the massacre to the Army also reported it to Congress.
Note: Maj Colin Powell was assigned by the Army to investigate these disturbing allegations; he found nothing – way to fast track!
In the end, the military, while not totalitarian, is highly authoritarian, and therefore has many characteristics of an authoritarian system. One prominent charactertic is the ability and willingness to limit the flow of information, not just for reasons of operational security, but also to protect the careers of high-ranking officers. A second characteristric is the ability to punish people who squeal.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:46 am
I was referring to DaveW’s statement about a draft altering such things.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:48 am
BruceR: “Beauchamp had plenty of options if he thought he’d seen anything criminal. He could have actually blown the whistle, being up front about his name, unit, and other particulars.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh, that’s a good one (wipe tears of laughter from my eyes).
One thing I was going to add to my previous post – remember Colin ‘I saw NUTHINK!’ Powell’s comments about Aub Ghraib? (quote from memory) ‘Watch us. Watch how we deal with this.’
Well, we watched. We saw some EM’s and NCO’s get slammed, a reserve (NG?) one-star get told to retire. Meanwhile, the generals and other high-ranking scum who SET UP A DELIBERATE PROGRAM OF TORTURE went on their merry way.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Jim: “Nor can we say that, whether Beauchamp was honest in his recantation or not, his very willingness to sign it impeaches everything he’s written, because we don’t know whether the recantation exists.”
His willingness to sign it, assuming he did, does not impeach everything else he’s written, any more than any other such document signed under duress.
Comment by Dave W. —
August 8, 2007 @ 9:54 am
I was referring to DaveW’s statement about a draft altering such things.
And let me be clear:
when I was talking about the military playing “hardass” with Beauchamp, I wasn’t referring to the possibility that they might terminate his employment the way a private employer would. In context, that isn’t “hardass.”
Rather, I am referring to the fact that the military is (I am sure) threatening criminal action (for a type of confidence breach that should not be considered criminal). That is the hardass part. That is the part that I do not think would happen if Beauchamp were a conscript.
Comment by General Taguba —
August 8, 2007 @ 10:56 am
So people might’ve listened to me if I had tossed in some animal cruelty, is what you’re saying.
Comment by Davebo —
August 8, 2007 @ 11:01 am
I wonder how the Army plans to react to this.
Not from a private, but a lieutenant colonel.
Comment by BruceR —
August 8, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Barry, that’s an apples-and-oranges comparison: whether the military justice system works or not is a separate issue from whether the army punishes whistleblowers.
In the Abu Ghraib case you’re talking about, that whistle-blower was Sgt. Joe Darby. The army protected his anonymity until the day Don Rumsfeld accidentally blurted out his name in a Congressional Hearing, gave him an immediate emergency leave because his wife was being harassed by the press, put them under protective custody for months when yahoo civilians threatened them, and continued to employ him until he left the service to pursue other employment last year.
Could it have gone better for him? Probably. But whistleblowers always have had it rough, and always will. I don’t think your army has proven itself any better or worse than any similar employer in that regard.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
August 8, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
The army protected his anonymity until the day Don Rumsfeld accidentally blurted out his name
Accidentally. Right.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
BruceR: “Barry, that’s an apples-and-oranges comparison: whether the military justice system works or not is a separate issue from whether the army punishes whistleblowers.”
No, because honesty is the central feature. The Army can deal with things in a very corrupt manner, a very honest manner, or any where in between. In Beauchamp’s case (assuming that what he said was pretty much true), he could have been told to STFU, and things left as they were. He could have been punished quite a bit, just to punish an undesirable story-teller/deter any others – tellers of *undesirable* stories, that is. Tellers of tales of Bush-loving America-lovers Fighting a Winning Battle Against Evul Librul Al Qaidemocrats, of course, might get away with almost anytying.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, that would be a big scandal. In the short term, at least, whistleblowers are in better shape – the decision to trash them has to come down from higher authority. In the case of Sgt Darby, Rumsfeld decided to blow his cover (do you think that that was an accident?). My guess is that the various Army officials involved acted as they did to keep sh*t from splashing on him, as well as from some degree of honesty.
Comment by Bruce Bartley —
August 8, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I noticed this parallel story going on in Canada right now, though the issue seems less focused on the veracity of the reporter than on his right to bring this stuff before the public eye.
http://www.gulfislands.net/news.asp?ID=1794
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Davebo, the Army has additional options in the case of a LTC. They can stop his career, immediately force him into retirement, and strive to make sure that he doesn’t get a nice post-Army job in the military-industrial complex.
That sends the two proper messages (a) don’t do this if you value your career and (b) officers get gentler punishment than EM’s (IOW, responsibility rolls downhill).
Comment by Tom Scudder —
August 8, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Incidentally, I think Scott Eric Kaufmann got it right (10 days ago) about the significance of the Beauchamp story and the reaction on the right.
Comment by BruceR —
August 8, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Barry, you’re making the argument that because an organization with hundreds of thousands of people is “corrupt” in some things, it should be given no benefit of the doubt in other things. That’s unfair. (Saying your army food is horrible, which it is, does not change the fact that your tanks are really quite good.)
Also, as a practical matter I’m not sure how you tell an anonymous correspondent from the New Republic who you’ve found out is in your platoon to “STFU” without sending him home or bringing disciplinary action to get him to desist. And as I said before, writing for a major magazine and casting a negative light on your employer without their prior consent is a dismissable offense in lots of places besides the army.
The direct order that Beauchamp would have disobeyed in doing this has long been widely promulgated. No one has to trump up a service offense: he manifestly committed one. If anything, the fact he’s a TNR writer and isn’t just a faceless blogger will likely mitigate any punishment, not accentuate it.
Bruce B., the Canadian issue isn’t with the veracity of the doctor’s article, which was clearly sourced, had sheafs of verifiable fact, and is in about a hundred ways more useful reportage than the whole Beauchamp oeuvre. The specific question there is whether his naming the dying soldier on his table and describing his death throes so shortly after his death was unseemly, and/or violated any medical privilege that would have pertained.
Comment by Barry —
August 8, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Comment by BruceR —
:Barry, you’re making the argument that because an organization with hundreds of thousands of people is “corrupt†in some things, it should be given no benefit of the doubt in other things.”
The ‘other things’ we’re talking about is, in fact, corruption. And when corruption is so apparent at the higher end of an authoritarian organization, I assume that it’s rampant at the lower end.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 8, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Still no comment by Jim on the selection of Zachary Quinto (a/k/a Sylar) to play a young Spock in the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot?
As long as the Kobayahsi Maru’s in it, I’m there.
Comment by Barry —
August 10, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Just in case anybody’s still watching:
John Cole at Balloon Juice linked to this story about some Marines murdering a guy in Iraq:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070808-9999-1m8hamda.html
What’s the killer is this paragraph – most of the Marines took plea bargains, however:
“The remaining Hamdaniya defendants went through courts-martial.
Two of them – Cpls. Trent Thomas and Marshall Magincalda – were demoted to the rank of private and released from the brig at the end of their trials. Each had spent about 450 days in prison by then. ”
450 f*cking days for deliberate murder.
Tell me that the Marine Corps is not racing the Army in the corruption sweepstakes.
Oh, I know – they still have good chow, or good tanks, or something, right?