Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Beauchamp: allegations "found to be false".
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, August 04, 2007

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee publishes an email answer to questions sent to COL Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus:
To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas?

Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.

As to what will happen to him?

Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.
Apparently, given COL Boylan's answer, none of those who "corroborated" the Beauchamp stories previously were willing or able to do so when interviewed by the command. That's probably because they were required to give a sworn deposition. It's one thing to anonymously back a buddy's claim to a BS story to some editor in the states and another to swear under oath to something and sign your name to it.

That's the problem with anonymous "corroboration" over the phone, isn't it? No risk at all to backing a BS story, is there?

And a COL declaring the allegations to be 'false' doesn't leave much wiggle room for equivocation, does it?

Anyway, still waiting for the whole report.

Meanwhile, TNR's editor remains on vacation.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
In fact, members of Thomas’ platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.

Just like Kerry: Another liberal war hero Swiftboated.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.
I can’t help but think that that information will come out sometime between now and November of ’08, from Beauchamp, himself. he, after all, is under no restriction from revealing the information, and it will it least rally the nutball left.

it also occurs to me, that he’s managed to work his way into a promising career at left is papers and web sites such as TNR.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Beauchamp didn’t enter the service to serve his country, he did it so that when he started criticizing the war he’d be able to do it as a "veteran." He figured he’d do a quick tour of service, get some "combat veteran" status, and then be the darling of the left when he go out and did his "winter soldier" bit. He never firgured that the job would also entail menial labor like mopping and buffing floors, hence his outrage at having to perform those tasks. The funny thing about Beauchamp is that he couldn’t even wait to actually observe any atrocities and report on them...nope, that would take time. Instead he was making them up before he even hit the ground in Iraq.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Beauchamp didn’t enter the service to serve his country, he did it so that when he started criticizing the war he’d be able to do it as a "veteran."
Personally, I’m not convinced that he has the brain power to think quite so far ahead. I am more inclined to believe that the loser needed a way to pay for his liberal arts studies, and the army seemed a perfect way out of it, until such time as he discovered, as you suggest, there was actual work involved.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
The funny thing about Beauchamp is that he couldn’t even wait to actually observe any atrocities and report on them...nope, that would take time.
Or might not even happen, and then where would he be...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Bithead, I agree with Bob. He stated he entered the Army to give himself "cred."
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
I popped over to Cole’s site to see if he had a reaction. Big man that he is, he points out that of course no one corroborates Beauchamp’s stories, they don’t want an Article 15.
What it means is that the military can’t corroborate it, and of course they can’t- what idiot is going to cop to what Beauchamp described under the threat of punishment? Seriously. If interviews were the only thing done in this investigation, it proves nothing (“O.J.- did you kill your wife? No? Ok.”)
This of course, ignores the fact that in all three stories, Beauchamp tells of rather visible behaviors and actions. There are in fact, three distinct possibilities.
One, no one else saw nor heard of the things Beauchamp describes. This means that at best, Beauchamp significantly embellished what were rather minor and innocuous events.
Two those that saw and heard are now lying to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers. Could be, but it doesn’t fit the military culture described on this and a host of other sites. Furthermore, if there is such a company wide cancer of lying malicious solders, I would think the Army would be very observant least another Abu Ghraib takes place.
Three what Beauchamp describes did not happen. And since it has already been determined that he is... sloppy with facts, it seems that one and three are the most likely. And as this site points out, both irreparably damage the entire theme Beauchamp was trying to set forth.

Cole of course, can’t admit that "wingnuttia" had a valid point. And that stories such as this fabrication help his allies on the hate-Bush side of things.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Unfortunately, John Cole’s comment rings true:
“And no- these were not proven “false.” Not in any sense of the word- not from interviews alone. What it means is that the military can’t corroborate it, and of course they can’t- what idiot is going to cop to what Beauchamp described under the threat of punishment? Seriously. If interviews were the only thing done in this investigation, it proves nothing (“O.J.- did you kill your wife? No? Ok.”).
And this is not to blame this on the military or the poor bastards at the Public Affairs Office who have been dealing with idiots like Owens for the past two weeks- what are they supposed to do? Search for canine corpses in the desert? Go the the KBR records and line up a name with every meal served in Kuwait?
No- they did the only thing they could do- they asked the soldiers, and surprising no one, found no one willing to cop to the behavior.
It is time to throw out the teapot and spend our time and effort on more productive things
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
After Cole’s last appearance here, I came to the conclusion that he had shed his intellectual honesty. It’s pretty clear he won’t admit the stories were false, not as long as he can make it look like the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is at work.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
No- they did the only thing they could do- they asked the soldiers, and surprising no one, found no one willing to cop to the behavior.
Of course (and unsurprisingly) that ignores any witnesses to that behavior. We’re supposed to believe they, who would risk nothing by confirming those allegations, didn’t come forward either.

Additionally, what most likely happened is there were interviews which were conducted by officers who began the interview by reading each soldier his rights under the UCMJ. When that’s done, and I’ve seen it any number of times, suddenly all the BS ceases and soldiers recognize the gravity of the situation and tell it like it happened and not like they may have been willing to claim otherwise to "help out a buddy".

Lastly ... if TNR’s whole claim rests on corroboration from his buddies in the unit, yet the Army produces documentation that no one in his unit backed his allegations, where does that leave TNR’s corroboration?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
No- they did the only thing they could do- they asked the soldiers, and surprising no one, found no one willing to cop to the behavior.
By this logic, Beauchamp could make any wild claim he wanted and if the unit members denied it....well they’re just unwilling to cop to their behavior.

I agree with McQ, once soldiers are asked to put their statements on paper and swear to them, then things get serious in a hurry.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Additionally, what most likely happened is there were interviews which were conducted by officers who began the interview by reading each soldier his rights under the UCMJ.
WHere there is no right to council, no protection from self-incrimination.

You will tell them what you know, you will tell them what happened.

Failure to do either truthfully is just worse in the end.

These soldiers were unlikely to BS. TNR should be readying a statement about how they were all duped by those evil, blood-thirsty war-tards...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
What it means is that the military can’t corroborate it, and of course they can’t- what idiot is going to cop to what Beauchamp described under the threat of punishment? Seriously. If interviews were the only thing done in this investigation, it proves nothing (“O.J.- did you kill your wife? No? Ok.”)
A thought just came to me.

The guys who "coorborated" STB’s story are in Iraq, right?

There are a very limited number of methods by which these guys can communicate with the outside world, and thus it would be fairly easy for the military to find WHO talked to TNR. Which means they got a special talking to.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
WHere there is no right to council, no protection from self-incrimination.
Not true.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
There are a very limited number of methods by which these guys can communicate with the outside world, and thus it would be fairly easy for the military to find WHO talked to TNR. Which means they got a special talking to.
Not necessarily. If no one in the company corroborated Beauchamp’s story, there’d be no reason to seek them out. They’d simply be made to sign their sworn statement like everyone else and then it would be assumed that whoever they are, they lied to TNR.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t want to be like Retief, who is, after all, a licensed member of the California Bar (who isn’t?) but:
"I’ve seen it any number of times, suddenly all the BS ceases and soldiers recognize the gravity of the situation and tell it like it happened and not like they may have been willing to claim otherwise to "help out a buddy".
"

Doesn’t cover this situation at all. The guys who didn’t speak up are those who could already be charged along with Beauchamp, are they not? Not speaking up to protect one’s own @ss is a much different matter from backing off support for a buddy.

I was read my rights under the UCMJ on occasion while serving in the Army, even once had the full "lights in the eyes", full bird colonel with steno taking notes, "Leavenworth awaits" treatment and I don’t recall being tempted to blurt out any guilt, although McQ is right, I might not have continued backing a buddy who was guilty if it meant newly becoming guilty of a crime myself. For all of that, if they participated in the contested events, it is not at all unlikely for guilty participants to remain silent and claim no knowledge of these occurrences, even if that might be untrue.

P.S.
In my case it was all a "misunderstanding" and all charges were dropped (after I mentioned engaging a civilian attorney, I might add). Sometimes the Army has its head...well, I served proudly and honorably and received an honorable discharge at normal TOS and a letter of commendation. Sometimes the head comes out (with a little help).

Why am I thinking of the term "confirmation bias"?
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
Doesn’t cover this situation at all. The guys who didn’t speak up are those who could already be charged along with Beauchamp, are they not? Not speaking up to protect one’s own @ss is a much different matter from backing off support for a buddy.
This is why I think they would spend the time to figure out who those who "backed up" STB’s story. If they lied to TNR, they have violated the UCMJ by downing the US Army. If they didn’t lie to TNR, they violated the UCMJ by not reporting what they’d witnessed. I’m sure propper inducements could be made to find out the truth...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Doesn’t cover this situation at all. The guys who didn’t speak up are those who could already be charged along with Beauchamp, are they not?
Except that the command said that investigation found that the incident hadn’t occured. If Beauchamp and his buddies had been charged they wouldn’t be denying the incident.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Firstly... nothing wrong with joining the military for "creds" so long as a person joined in good faith. It’s not all that different than joining for college money or adventure or to get away from your mother. At the very least a person probably thinks that the military is overall a good thing even if it isn’t an excess of patriotism fueling enlistment. It does seem likely, however, that Beauchamp went into the Army already despising it. But maybe not. Maybe he’s just one of those who don’t seem able to adjust and never quite catch on to the life.

Secondly... How much trouble is a soldier going to get into for admitting he or she witnessed the killing of a dog? Maybe I’m wrong but any punishment for admitting these misdeeds isn’t going to be huge. And I’d expect (just going by logic) that those in command will be most interested in finding out which of those they trust to supply adult supervision to the few who need it (and there are always a few) haven’t been doing their jobs.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
"Except that the command said that investigation found that the incident hadn’t occured. If Beauchamp and his buddies had been charged they wouldn’t be denying the incident."
Come on, Bob. Assume that you are correct and the command said that investigation found that the incident hadn’t occured. Then one soldier says that it did. ...? Exactly what is the meaning of the word "is"?

And this one:
"If Beauchamp and his buddies had been charged they wouldn’t be denying the incident."
Getting a little late there, is it?

 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
Of course, what Johnny "of course they can’t corroborate it" Cole overlooks is that by his logic, TNR CAN’T EITHER!!!!!!!!

Which pretty much leaves us where we have always been: those with a predisposition to hate and slander the troops will believe any wild story; those without it.... won’t.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Well, case closed then, I guess.
cough-Pat Tillman-cough.

Cheers,
Retief
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
cough-Pat Tillman-cough
Um, you’re doing it again.

You’re comparing the shooting of a human being to STB’s claim that he acted like an a-hole.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And Retief uses the standard Leftard tactic of reporting half-truths.

Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire.
For whatever reason, his superiors put out a story that he wasn’t.
The Army investigated, found out that they had, and prosecuted the offenders.

When TNR gets around to firing STB (and possibly his wife —- shades of Wilson and Plame), let me know.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
How much trouble is a soldier going to get into for admitting he or she witnessed the killing of a dog? Maybe I’m wrong but any punishment for admitting these misdeeds isn’t going to be huge.
Wasn’t Beauchamp’s charge that this guy not only ran over a dog for fun, but ran over a bunch of other stuff too? I admit I don’t know much about the Army, but wouldn’t such reckless conduct reflect badly not only on that soldier, but on his superiors for allowing it?
 
Written By: Jim Treacher
URL: http://dailygut.com
Wait! Hold that teapot!

Daily Kos has apparently deleted a diary on the issue of shutting down the soldier attempting to speak. I don’t know anything about Soltz, but it looks like another example of progressive hypocrisy. Or is that redundant?
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
You simply MUST view this video of the soldier challenging (Captain) John Soltz at the Kos event and the playing out of their interchange.

The MUST is not for political reasons, but to view a classic example of the new media in action. If you were actually there looking over the shoulders of the participants, you could not have a better idea of what happened and how it played out.

You can then see how the MSM and others treat the story of this event, and thereby learn much.

Although the sound of the video at times leaves something to be desired, the follow-up interview with the soldier, after he has been threatened by John Soltz in a private room (in order to get away from the video) gives the viewer a real insight into what was on his mind. Stolz gave no follow-up.

 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
There is lots of video of John Soltz giving his side of the story on Iraq. Lots of spin being generated on both sides of this story.

The real story is how one can view videos online to ascertain the truth behind all the spinning.

One aspect that has not been followed up so far is the extent to which the soldier had been "prepped" for his appearance at Kos. His presentation was pretty much politically flawless, not what one might expect without knowledgeable prepping by trained political operatives.

It is a popcorn affair; I just wish I had more faith that these two soldiers were totally sincere in their respective presentations. Guess that is too much to hope for in these times.

I score it so far in favor of the anti-progressives. Soltz looks bad (as he was no doubt set up to look). Look for the progressives to run from this story although it is unlikely they can all go on vacation like the TNR editor.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
See what I mean? Instapundit is all over this story.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aa31rights.htm

"To which interrogators does Article 31 apply? Article 31(b) requires a "person subject to this chapter" (UCMJ) to warn an accused or suspect prior to requesting a statement or conducting an interrogation. The term "person subject to this chapter" has been the subject of some confusion. If this provision were applied literally, all persons in the military would be required to give warnings regardless of their position in the command structure or their involvement in a case. It is clear from the legislative history, however, that Congress never intended a literal application of this portion of the Code. Basically, all military personnel, when acting for the military, must operate within the framework of the UCMJ. Thus, when military personnel act as investigators or interrogators, they must warn a suspect under Article 31(b) prior to conducting an interview of the suspect.

The warning requirement similarly applies to informal counseling situations conducted in an official capacity. Statements obtained from an accused or suspect would not be admitted in a subsequent court-martial unless the "counselor" complied with Article 31. United States v. Seay, 1 M.J. 201 (C.M.A. 1975)......

When and who must warn, particularly in unofficial interrogations, has led to considerable confusion in the judicial system. The Court of Military Appeals clarified this area in United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1981). In Duga, the court held that the Article 31(b) warnings are required if:

a. The questioner was acting in an official instead of a private capacity; and

b. the person being questioned perceived that the inquiry involved more than a casual conversation."

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/interrogating-military-suspects-podcasts/interrogating-military-suspects-transcripts/article-31b-ucmj-transcript.html

"Miller: Well, I don’t know I’m the Marine, (laughter). Read literally; however, Article 31 requires “persons subject to this chapter”, the UCMJ, or Uniform Code of Military Justice to read the rights. Article 31 applies to situations where, because of military rank, duty, or other relationship, there might be a subtle pressure on a suspect to respond to interrogation. That would include the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket or a military policeman. Air Force Office of Special Investigations or Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents are also agents of the military and they too are required to read suspects Article 31 rights.

Solari: Sure. What about state law enforcement officers?

Miller: Now, state law enforcement officers are not affiliated with the military and are not required to read Article 31 rights to the suspect. Federal agents with no affiliation to the military are not required to read Article 31 rights to suspects. But, I guess we should caveat that.

Solari: We should. If a NCIS agent were to ask an agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, for instance, to interrogate a military suspect or if NCIS actively participated in an interrogation with a GBI agent, Article 31 warnings would be required if the suspect were a military member.

Miller: Now let’s get back to that military doctor examining the enlisted patient.

Solari: Okay, well that will bring us to our second question, “when must the warnings be provided?” Article 31 requires warnings prior to any interrogation about an official law enforcement or disciplinary matter as long as the service member who’s being question would perceive the inquiry as official. Now the military doctor you keep referring to doesn’t appear to be asking questions for a law enforcement or disciplinary purpose. Rather his questions appear to be for the purpose for treating that service member.

Miller: You said Article 31 warnings must be provided prior to interrogation about an official law enforcement or disciplinary inquiry. Interrogation means words or action by the interrogator that is either intended or reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response. You got any examples you can give to us?

Solari: Sure. Well certainly express questioning like “did you do it?” is interrogation – that’s easy. A sentence doesn’t have to end with a question mark though to be considered interrogation. Really, anything designed to get the suspect to make an incriminating response, even if it’s not a question is considered the functional equivalent of questioning. Telling the suspect an emotional story, for instance, about the victim and the victim’s family, even if it doesn’t end with a question, could be interrogation if it’s designed to get the suspect to make a response. Even showing the suspect a room full of evidence, complete with pictures of the crime scene or the victim could be considered interrogation if the obvious point of doing that was to get the suspect to respond to what you’re showing him.

Miller: And, you also said that the person being interrogated has to perceive the inquiry as being official.

Solari: That’s right...."


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
timeactual - use the hyperlink tool... please.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"timeactual - use the hyperlink tool... please."

Never heard of it. I shall google "hyperlink tool" ASAP. Anyway, scrolling is good exercise.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider