| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| The Scott Thomas Affair: New Statement from TNR |
| 2007-08-02 |
| Via The Corner --TNR issues a new statement — and reports on Army "short-circuiting" of their investigation. A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp by the Editors Only at TNR Online | Post date 08.02.07 Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a U.S. Army private serving in Iraq. He came to THE NEW REPUBLIC's attention through Elspeth Reeve, a TNR reporter-researcher, whom he later married. Over the course of the war, we have tried to provide our readers with a sense of Iraq as it is seen by the troops. Usually, these stories have been written by journalists who have traveled to Iraq and interviewed soldiers there, but last January Beauchamp sent us a first-person vignette that seemed a powerful contribution to the genre. It told the story of a young Iraqi boy who befriended American troops and subsequently had his tongue cut out by insurgents. Conservatives and liberals alike praised this essay. We granted Beauchamp a pseudonym so that he could write honestly and candidly about his emotions and experiences, even as he continued to serve in the armed forces and participate in combat operations. Over the next six months, he published two other short personal accounts in our pages. Beauchamp's latest, a Diarist headlined "Shock Troops," was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war. The piece was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers. All of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account. In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.) Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right." The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake. In the second anecdote, soldiers in Beauchamp's unit discovered what they believed were children's bones. Publicly, the military has sought to refute this claim on the grounds that no such discovery was officially reported. But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp's combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children's cemetery near Beauchamp's combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.) More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: "I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations." On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: "It fit like a yarmulke," he said. A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece. The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier, who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys. Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp 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. the Editors |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #17 So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives? 'moose is onto something here. I've often thought that liberals are so worried about appearance (not substance), that when truly confronted with real-life stuff/evil, they will take it and take it, until they lash out like a cornered cat. A sort of passive-agressive type mentality writ large. For example, look at Obama's recent statements. If'n he had been in office 3-4 years and facing Hillary in a few months and (God forbid) something happened in the homeland, would he really invade Pakistan (we know he wouldn't). BUT, if pushed into a corner, by both the media and the public, would he go out and do something stupid like nuking Islamabad (OK, maybe not such a bad thing /sarcasm)? They are all so worried about appearance that one has to wonder (if pushed hard enough) whether they'd do something completely stupid if they were in Bush's shoes. Bush is so calm, cool and collected (and self-assured/confident) that he doesn't react based upon emotion, whereas libs generally do. That can be an even worse situation, in my mind, if we're ever hit again and the public is calling for blood. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-08-02 21:32 |
| #16 I'm sorry, but most of the soldiers I know would listen to about 2 seconds of somebody laughing at a burn victim, then go over and slap him in his goddamned head. |
| Posted by: Lionel Ulaiter7581 2007-08-02 21:27 |
| #15 Under what sort of scenario would a grossly disfigured woman in uniform, with half her face and scalp 'missing', still be on active duty in a combat theater? IIRC, TNR/Beauchamp referred to the scarred woman as a 'contractor' - the only non-military character in the Scott T. Beauchamp chronicles. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-02 20:57 |
| #14 I have never before made a comment about this "human interset story", but I will step in now to address a point that I have never before seen anyone address. Under what sort of scenario would a grossly disfigured woman in uniform, with half her face and scalp 'missing', still be on active duty in a combat theater? For the disfiguring wounds described, I am assuming that the injured woman would have initilly been medevacced to an out-of-theater hospital or burn center - most likly stateside. After healing, such an individual would presumably be medically retired. Under what sort of circumstances would such a grossly deformed burn victim be redeployed BACK into an operational theater? Whether military, or State, or CIA, or private contractor - even upon volunteering - I have difficulty imagining an 'employer' sending such an individual back into theater. This was the very first thought that came to me when I first read the "Shock Troops" article - and that thought still remains with me. Someone with a bad scar - OK. Someone with some scalp hair shaved off where medial attenion was given to their cranium - OK. Someone with "half her face and one side of her scalp sort of melted off" - 'give me a break. I visualize Jim Carrey as "Fire Marshall Bill" - smoldering - and then try to imagine a hideously burned soldier - male or female - being deployed to a forward combat base - even as a volunteer. 'Can't happen - didn't happen. At least not in the manner described. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2007-08-02 20:53 |
#13 So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives? Nah. Just more likely to brag about it and try to blame everyone else afterwards. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-08-02 20:34 |
| #12 Not that it's likely, but if this matter progresses to formal charges against Beauchamp et al., does the UCMJ allow a military court to subpoena the editors of TNR? |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-02 19:44 |
| #11 If crimes indeed were committed by him, it should be pointed out that Pvt Beauchamp was a liberal who supported left wing causes before he entered the military. Crimes were also asserted as having been committed by himself by John Kerry. So it should raise the question: are liberals more prone to commit war crimes than conservatives? This is not as ridiculous as it sounds, in that the vast majority of serial killers and multiple killers who "go postal", with a few exceptions, are not, in fact, conservatives as portrayed by the media, but are liberals and supporters of left wing causes. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-08-02 19:05 |
| #10 Figgured as much. Looks like they are going to try for the Military Coverup(tm). The fall back if that dosen't work is some variation of "fake but accurate". They are never going to admit any culpability, for they are the Pure and Just. They are never wrong in their minds. |
| Posted by: N Guard 2007-08-02 19:01 |
| #9 The way he described driving a Bradley was totally bogus. The guy is a Piker. A lying sonufabitch. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-08-02 18:58 |
| #8 Let the Whitewash Begin, wuddnt us, he fibbed, we checked, but somehow this little fib got through (Etc, Etc) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-08-02 17:54 |
| #7 I guess he is a "Shock Troop" that collect Art. 15 paperwork. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:49 |
| #6 Good catch Army Life that one blew right past me. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:48 |
| #5 "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott." So PV2 beauchamp (Super Liberal) and buddy were in fact the ones making fun of a disfigured woman and that would make him the "Shock Troops". Oh I bet his NCOs are going to love him after they read that (I know I would). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-08-02 17:47 |
| #4 Here's a fun fact; if Scott had completed college and then came into the army, he would come in as an E-4 (Specialist). If he had over 60 credits he would come in as an E-3 (Private First Class). Now he is just plain old private. Seems like he got some UCMJ loving and got demoted before he deployed. |
| Posted by: Army Life 2007-08-02 17:25 |
| #3 When this first emerged on the web, it seemed like self-serving liberal BS and I tended to dismiss it as bull$hit. I still view it as tripe. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-08-02 17:11 |
| #2 Right...and that's going to matter when they haul him in for court martial as well. I get the feeling that these other soldiers won't be testifying on the Scott's behalf. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-08-02 17:05 |
| #1 (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.) Well, that's convienient... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-08-02 17:00 |