Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 08/07/2007 View Mon 08/06/2007 View Sun 08/05/2007 View Sat 08/04/2007 View Fri 08/03/2007 View Thu 08/02/2007 View Wed 08/01/2007
1
2007-08-07 -Lurid Crime Tales-
PVT Narcissus recants in sworn statement to military
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Sherry 2007-08-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ]  Top

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

#2 When does this scumbag get court martialed?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-07 01:26||   2007-08-07 01:26|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 01:29|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 03:25|| Front Page Top

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

#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||   2007-08-07 07:47|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 08:17|| Front Page Top

#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">AlmostAnonymous5839  2007-08-07 08:27||   2007-08-07 08:27|| Front Page Top

#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">AlanC  2007-08-07 09:01||   2007-08-07 09:01|| Front Page Top

#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">Rambler  2007-08-07 09:17||   2007-08-07 09:17|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 09:31|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 09:38|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 10:29|| Front Page Top

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

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

#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||   2007-08-07 10:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 10:50|| Front Page Top

#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 he’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 can’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 ain’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">Sherry  2007-08-07 11:19||   2007-08-07 11:19|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 11:25|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 13:39|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 14:07|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 14:10|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 14:19|| Front Page Top

#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">mojo  2007-08-07 14:56||   2007-08-07 14:56|| Front Page Top

#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">Free Radical  2007-08-07 19:26||   2007-08-07 19:26|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-08-07 21:15|| Front Page Top

23:35 twobyfour
23:27 gromgoru
23:26 Anonymoose
23:23 gromgoru
23:23 gromgoru
23:15 Anonymoose
23:10 gromgoru
23:05 gromgoru
22:59 gromgoru
22:32 trailing wife on vacation
22:10 3dc
22:09 Zenster
22:03 Pappy
21:48 Pappy
21:42 twobyfour
21:39 lotp
21:38 OldSpook
21:36 OldSpook
21:31 OldSpook
21:29 Pappy
21:15 Pappy
21:04 Pappy
20:50 Jonathan
20:42 mrp









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com