You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Lurid Crime Tales-
PVT Narcissus recants in sworn statement to military
2007-08-07
The New Republic's little canoe in Lake Me is about to get swamped by that tsunami over yonder...
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.
A 'smidgen' is pretty darned small, as I recall.
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."
Scott Tom got in over his head. For all his 'sophistication' and elitism, he evidently had no clue how the blogosphere works. If a progressive knucklehead writes something stooopid, the rightie blogs are all over it. If a wingnut knucklehead writes something stooopid, the leftie blogs are all over it. Either way, we bloggers will fact-check your ass.
The magazine's editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety--meant to illustrate the "morally and emotionally distorting effects of war"--took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been "melted" by an IED.
Which means his loutish attack on the woman was not because of the 'trauma of war', but simply because Scott Tom is an insensitive asshole. Brilliant move publishing that piece, Mr. Foer.
Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic's editors complained that the military investigation was "short-circuiting" TNR's own fact-checking efforts.
Gee, go figure. You thought Scott Tom would keep his cell phone? You thought he would continue to waltz around the FOB? Just how clueless are you, Mr. Foer?
"Beauchamp," they said, "had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you."
By any chance, did you wonder why his 'fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters'? Couldn't possibly be because TNR published the account of a liar. No, no, certainly not.
Now that the military investigation has concluded, the great unanswered question in the affair is this: Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?
H/T The Corner
Posted by:Sherry

#26  'Male', yes....

I'm still of the notion that the instant-recantation was a planned contingency.

One of two things will likely happen: they'll either let him finish out his term as permanent 'duty sh*tbird', or administratively process him out. There's also the chance that he'll straighten out and fly right (it has happened), but...
Posted by: Pappy   2007-08-07 21:15  

#25  USN Ret, what is 'rimmed?' I am imagining something involving male reproductive fluid, but I just wanted to be sure.
Posted by: Free Radical   2007-08-07 19:26  

#24  Look! Up in the sky!
Is it a bird? A plane?

No! It's a TON OF LEAD headed for FOB Falcon!
Posted by: mojo   2007-08-07 14:56  

#23  USN Ret given that he probably came is as a PFC and a ?year? later is now a PVT I bet he has been on the recieving end of a lot of harassment (official and otherwise). In the "old days" the SNCOs would take young Scott aside for some "wall-to-wall" counseling.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-08-07 14:19  

#22  regardless of what 'official' sh!t happens to him; assuming he is allowed to stay for the duration of his enlistment, the hell he is going to go through with those he is stationed with will be priceless. expect continuous annoyances; lost shoe ( singular), keys missing, coffe cup 'rimmed' ( a time honored often secret ceremony) and other fun time activities. shunned is a word that comes to mind.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2007-08-07 14:10  

#21  "He will be the 1SG's b#tch for the rest of his stay with his unit." Nicely put, N Guard.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-08-07 14:07  

#20  Speaking as one with more than 1 article 15 in my chequerd military carreer,(and hence not a little experience with being on the 1SG's "poop detail roster") this looser has probably been given a 15 and 15,(extra duty and restriction to qtrs) and a bar to re-up. He has had the living daylights scared out of him, if his instant recantation is anything to go by. He will be the 1SG's b#tch for the rest of his stay with his unit.


Once he ETS's, I will be slightly interested to hear what the little self absorbed twit will claim after the fact.
Posted by: N Guard   2007-08-07 13:39  

#19  armylawyer has recently added this:

I always thought the conduct, if true, was more warranting a 134 charge (in addition to any 92 violations). But yeah, I think national publication of allegations playing yarmulke with a child’s skull cap might qualify as “service discrediting.”
Posted by: Sherry   2007-08-07 11:25  

#18  From armylawyer who posts frequently at Mudville Gazette
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 heÂ’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 5 yrs and a dishonorable discharge). Lying to investigators is often worse than the misconduct itself. So even if Beauchamp IS lying, he sure canÂ’t ever say so while in uniform, as that subjects him to the more serious Article 107 charge.

And since the PAO has said that it found no evidence of criminal conduct (again, fakey stories about misconduct is harder to quantify as criminal than is a failure to report ACTUAL misconduct), that whatever happens will be administrative in nature. A couple points on that:

Administrative action is NOT punishment. So if they say administrative action, he ainÂ’t getting an Article 15 nor a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

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.

TYPO FIX: False Official Statement is 5 yrs max, not 7.
Posted by: Sherry   2007-08-07 11:19  

#17  Ex-Jag correct me if I am wrong, but Art 134 is mostly used for NCOs and Officers. Junior Enlisted personnel really don't know better (legalistic ways). He sounds like a fine soldier that everyone want to serve with and should run for public office./snark
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-08-07 10:50  

#16  In his creative writing

My first impression was this guy was a Chuck Palahniuk wannabe. When the military guys started kicking his details in the nuts, it only added to it. As a storyteller, Beauchamp's major structural flaw was not starting his tales with the tradition opening "This is no bullsh*t..."

Of course, for The New Republic it is all about The Narrative. Fact, fiction - who cares?

note: Palahniuk is the author of Fight Club and Rant - raw, dark, shocking fiction. Talented writer but not for the faint of heart.
Posted by: SteveS   2007-08-07 10:45  

#15  Either way he should be tried and hung from the street lamp.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-08-07 10:39  

#14  Is a smidgen less than a skosh?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2007-08-07 10:34  

#13  Too bad, kid. Ya went from Ernie Pyle to Ernie Pile. That didn't take long, did it?
Good luck in your career. I look forward to you enlightening us with fascinating inside tales of the New York bike messenger scene in the near future. If any publisher will get within a mile of you...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-08-07 10:29  

#12  For the non-military types here is what non-judicial punishment is about. The lad, or anyone else facing an Art. 15, can decline the 'non-judicial' punishment and elect to face a courts martial.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-08-07 09:38  

#11  Art. 134. General article

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.

In his creative writing he made certain 'claims' which would have subject him to -

Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

for not reporting the events to his chain of command [if they were true].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-08-07 09:31  

#10  AlanC, There are other provisions of the UCMJ under which they could charge him. I don't remember the details, but bringing disrepute on the US, the armed forces, etc could be chargeable offenses. The penalty would be much less than what he would get for lying to the Army, though.
Posted by: Rambler   2007-08-07 09:17  

#9  Hey you military types.

I read that this little turd might not be subject to criminal court martial but only an administrative punishmnent.

After all it's not criminal to lie to the NR and he apparently hasn't lied to the military.

That sound right?
Posted by: AlanC   2007-08-07 09:01  

#8  fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth,"

The "smidgen"s being in the form of the articles (e.g. "the", "a", etc.) and the indefinite pronouns, otherwise, a metanarrative of untold beauty.

[/smirk]
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2007-08-07 08:27  

#7  Cries of "Censorship" and "Recanting under duress/torture" blamed on the evil Bushitler/Cheney crew in 3, 2, 1...
Posted by: BA   2007-08-07 08:17  

#6  Big Mama isn't going to be happy with Tommy when he gets home. Looks like he's lost all around and his 15 minutes of fame are over. Don't let the door hit cha...
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-08-07 07:47  

#5  Does this mean the story was fake, but not accurate?
Posted by: Dan Rather   2007-08-07 06:41  

#4  Did Scott Thomas Beauchamp lie under oath to U.S. Army investigators, or did he lie to his editors at the New Republic? Beauchamp has recanted under oath. Does the New Republic still stand by his stories?

This is the real issue right here. And you can bet that this issue will not be resolved, and there will be no major media coverage, and it will all dissolve into a smirking "who cares, anyway" fiasco like the Stephen Glass affair did.
Posted by: gromky   2007-08-07 03:25  

#3  ...recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation.

Heh. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting.
Posted by: PBMcL   2007-08-07 01:29  

#2  When does this scumbag get court martialed?
Posted by: Zenster   2007-08-07 01:26  

#1  Fisked and Dismissed!
Posted by: Nero Unaising9066   2007-08-07 01:09  

00:00