More on the dismal Scott Thomas Beauchamp charade. Turns out that after careful investigation of his claims, TNR was only able to disprove one element of his “vigorously fact checked” fantasies before the Army’s investigations into his misconduct “stymied” their own.
Stupid Army, investigating published claims of misconduct.
On one of the most shocking claims – that he and his friends, emotionally scarred by their wartime experiences mocked a disfigured female “soldier or contractor” – TNR was forced to admit that the “substantiated” event in fact occurred in Kuwait, prior to Beauchamp’s entry into Iraq.
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.
“Mistake.” After he’d gone on record insisting that the story was true. Because warfare is so damned dehumanizing that it can get you at the end of a long flight from Germany before you ever see any actual combat.
It’s still probably not true that Bradley Fighting Vehicle drivers keep score on overrun mongrels. And it’s patently false that the Iraqi IP use “square backed” 9MM rounds. Or that Glocks are only to be found among the IP. It might be true that a heartless prick rumaged around in a children’s graveyard to wear a skull fragment as a kipo. But, speaking only for myself? I’m thinking he was a heartless prick even before the Army indoctrinated him on the law of armed conflict.
For some people none of this matters. The important thing is to realize that our troops are all doing awful things overseas, and it’s time to bring the sociopaths home. Ever last woman taunting, dog mauling, baby skull wearing one of ‘em. (Please see update below.)
This is the point where I usually heave up a sigh and regret that things have come to this. That a news magazine could take such unlikely, marginal trash and report on it as though it were representative. That people so invested in defeat and disgrace could continue to defend the tale even after having been made to understand its inconsistencies. Or that they could, even acknowledging that significant elements were fabricated out of whole cloth, continue to insist that, sure, these particular claims were false, but that the story was nevertheless “objectively true.” Fake but accurate in other words.
Not going to this time. My faith has been momentarily restored. Over at left/liberal Shakespeare’s Sister, Melissa McEwan confesses that this particular tissue of lies is not worth standing behind:
The New Republic has completed their investigation, and, aside from one error
Dear Capt. J.
Very true and important words sir. And it is precisely because I agree with you that what gives the constitution its power is the determination of a free people to remain free, I don’t get my knickers in a twist when a law designed to defend the country goes against what some jurists regard as the letter of the document. Laws, and even if I may dare, the constitution itself, would be little more than a parchment barrier to tyranny if and when we lost the habits of a free people and did not understand our history aright as a struggle for freedom.
I do wonder if the desire for certainty is as much the enemy of freedom as you seem to imply. I know with dogmatic, metaphysical certainty that slavery is an affront to human dignity (even as I understand the sad confusions that made it seem acceptable for so long), the regime (and perhaps the people) that made an Auschwitz possible and was reaching for nuclear technology needed to be destroyed even if that required the firebombing of their cities, and that a movement that regards baking and serving children to their parents an important part of civic education in the new Islamic order must be destroyed. Similarly, I know that human freedom, even freedom (pardon the archaic structure) “to sin” in ways deeply spiritually injurious to the “sinner” are largely beyond the reach of the state to regulate. Do such certainties make me an enemy, perhaps the greatest enemy?
Your sense of continuity with those who have given everything in this life for our freedom, and your belief that this is as entwined with the meaning of the constitution at least as much (and likely moreso) than any legal formula represents a desire certainty that it is hard to distinguish from rock solid dogmatics of faith. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all, far from it. And I don’t honor the significance of the constitution less because of it. I think however, there might be some tension and disconnect between filterman’s concern over the constitution as a body of law that on the one hand can be offended against by the Sedition and Espionage Acts and on the other is sacred, and wanted to point that out. If all that matters is the law, then legalistic answers are all we’ve got. If, on the other hand, we recognize that while “we cannot hallow, cannot consecrate” this or any other ground (or document), but that those who’ve given their last full measure have and are(and sadly, will need in the future) to pay with their blood for the possibility that “this nation under God will have a new birth of freedom” then we do have hope to be sure. But that hope is not entirely grounded in this world (wasn’t for Lincoln I would venture to say), and does not find its chief opponent in the desire for certainty (including the idea that the constitution itself does have a meaning and is not what 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it means, even if we are rightly bound to defer to their judgment for a time).
I don’t want to read anyone out of the Republic on the basis of lacking faith or certainty (or for that matter, having it), and I agree we have bonds with one another as Americans that matter hugely in this life, if not transcendentaly and eternally. The point of my post to filterman was to set things up so I could later suggest that if we can regulate free speech to encompass child pornography and hate speech, why is some recognition of seditious propaganda as such (that may be followed by efforts to regulate the worst kinds of sedition) such a violation of our sacred constitution? Jane Fonda did betray our country and helped make propaganda that she knew would inspire enemies of our country (fighting their own illegal war – pray what were North Vietnamese troops doing in the south?) trying to kill Americans. Similarly, Michael Moore is consciously contributing to the moral and poltical work of our enemies in Iraq not by mocking the President but by proclaiming the lost cause of Sadaamite Bathism and Al Qaeda Jihad to be the 21st century equivilent of the minutemen, whose cause must triumph. That is not just an effort to question whetehr Iraq is the right battle at this time, was an unjust war, etc. but is an effort to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
I fear what happens when our soldiers, who see that the kinds of things our media regularly cover up about the atrocities of our enemies (like they admittedly covered up just how awful Sadaam’s regime was before the war ). The knowledge of many of our soldiers of such things, combined with domestic opponents of the war seizing upon every act of misconduct of our forces without the necessary context of the extreme brutality of our enemies to deligitimize their mission in a “shocking” matter, has the potential to make outbursts like Ensign Tim’s seem childplay in the future.
(Particularly given how the a certain party during the last Presdintial election have now made it legitimate form for a candidate to make his military service the centerpeice of a campaign, salute a national convention and begin a politcal speech with “Reporting for duty” – that such a party has opened the door not only to military men holding high office, but to some of the trappings of militarism as such in poltics without comment or criticism is a cause of wonder for me and far more disconcerting than an ensign in a moment of frustration).
If we are going to evoke sacred values, fair enough, but part of that sanctity includes realizing that the meaning of the constitution matters more legal disputes in a law profession dominated by positivism. And that meaning includes recognizing our responsibilities toward our men and women in uniform when they are in harms way. The shots I was aiming were not directed at the Constitution, but what I perceived was the desire of filterman (no disrespect intended filterman) to have it both ways in terms of legalism while wanting to enjoy all the ire and sense of outraged honor that the more humanistic and patriotic sense of the constitution allows.
Dr. Curp,
I think I do understand you better, and thank you for the finer distinctions.
If each member of the military willingly goes into harm’s way, to lose friends and possibly themselves, in the process of defending the Nation, than putting up with seditious behavior by fellow citizens who should know better, is going to be a bitter but necessary part of the fight. The people whose minds are already made up cannot be convinced otherwise. Only the passage of time or another terrible blow to this country would make any difference to them –and still then maybe not. The first cannot be hurried and the second is to be prevented by every effort.
It is the rest of the nation that is undecided who must be convinced, and that is done by keeping faith with the better sense of the majority, who see for themselves the fidelity and courage of those sworn to protect them, and by that example make up their own minds about what really matters.
Praetorianism is an evil to be guarded against, and that’s probably best done by sticking to and reinforcing core values of service before self. To do otherwise would be fall into a different trap of certainty. About the only thing certain of the future that we are in for a wild ride and we are going to need everybody pulling together. Patience, tact and forebearance in the face of provocation are the best course. Self discipline is the habit of acting for the best, with the best outcome in mind. We do not need to know in advance exactly what Providence has in mind for us.
If that uncertainty was good enough for Washington and Lincoln, I think we can bear it now.
Agreed.
Amen.
You guys sure I can’t talk you into writing your own blog?
I could sell tickets.
Agreed, but with one caveat upon reflection (I wanted to write at least one 1-word post, hence why I might have been over-hasty above). If it is in bounds to praise terrorists in Iraq waging war in an illegal fashion, it should be permissible for civilians to suggest that laws against sedition can be a legitimate means of disciplining public discourse and punishing those who really are trying to help our enemies. It seems to me that laws against sedition to protect a shared sense of national purpose and unity abroad are at least as legitimate as laws aginst hate speech can be to protect national unity at home. Don’t have to agree about either sedition or hate speech to realize that neither necessarily must violate legitimate democratic freedoms. While you are certainly correct in saying that it is the duty of the military to accept the kinds of rhetoric coming from anti-war types, it doesn’t mean that I as a citizen can’t regard the most overt forms of pro-Jihadist propagandizing (which are NOT represented in either the TNR story about Beauchamp or Prof. Cole’s comments by the by) as not only blameworthy, but also as worthy of criminalzing. If free speech really does matter, then speech designed to promote tyranny (that by real, bona fide domestic enemies) should be open to scrutiny and regulation.
And I suggest this not as a covert means of attacking hate speech laws (the Federal Republic of Germany has them and few sane people talk about these as the foundations of the 4th Reich), but to point out that we are open to accepting limitations on even a sacred right like free speech given the historical legacies of race and ongoing harms for which racism is responsible. If we can accept these strictures, are laws against sedition really going to destroy any hope of civic discourse or democratic governance?
Ah, well said, sir, well said.
No Freedom can be without bounds.
d
Dr. Curp,
Lex’s blog marches on…. Nevertheless, it would be rude of me to avoid any comment on the wonderfully rich banquet of learned thought and opinion you have presented here. You offer much to consider. Therefore, I will mostly ponder rather than quibble.
But just a couple of quick comments:
My usage of the word “sacred” was not to imply any religious or spiritual connection to the document. For the lack of a better word, I only wanted to denote the magnitude and significance of what the US. Constitution is and what it represents.
You easily and correctly caught my rather oblique references to the Patriot Act. And while we both do agree that there must naturally be some necessary restrictions and certain limits to our Constitutionally protected freedoms, we will have to differ on exactly where and how to place those restrictions. Fortunately, neither our elected representatives nor we determine the constitutionality of any law. And of course that is why the politicization of the Judicial Branch must always be avoided at all cost.
We are fortunately well beyond the earlier sedition acts of our history. But we can still learn from them in their propensity to invite abuse, and their unintended consequences, as an elected Jefferson would attest.
And with subsided ire, please accept my warm regards?
Dr. Curp,
Lex’s blog marches on…. Nevertheless, it would be rude of me to avoid any comment on the wonderfully rich banquet of learned thought and opinion you have presented here. You offer much to consider. Therefore, I will mostly ponder rather than quibble.
But just a couple of quick comments:
My usage of the word “sacred” was not to imply any religious or spiritual connection to the document. For the lack of a better word, I only wanted to denote the magnitude and significance of what the US. Constitution is and what it represents.
You easily and correctly caught my rather oblique references to the Patriot Act. And while we both do agree that there must naturally be some necessary restrictions and certain limits to our Constitutionally protected freedoms, we will have to differ on exactly where and how to place those restrictions. Fortunately, neither our elected representatives nor we determine the constitutionality of any law. And of course that is why the politicization of the Judicial Branch must always be avoided at all cost.
We are fortunately well beyond the earlier sedition acts of our history. But we can still learn from them in their propensity to invite abuse, and their unintended consequences, as an elected Jefferson would attest.
And with subsided ire, please accept my warm regards…
Dear Filterman,
Thank you. As the
indicated, I was playing just a bit with your formulation of a sacred constitution in the context of your broader argument rather than attacking. But watching blogs in particular, and public discourse in general, my own default mode is to push for more precision, something which you do rather well.
As for the limits, one of my anxieties is the potential political/legal impact of a string of successful terrorist attacks carried out in this country. I think it would get very ugly, very fast and I would rather stretch our laws a little now than pay the price of a likely as not more extremist reaction later. On the whole I think the public and most lawmakers get that. And I guess that on the whole I do trust the guvinment and our public servants to get the balance right when it comes to internal security (and we still do have more ways of restricting internal policing than France and England and yet I think it is fair to call them well functioning democracies).
My prudence tells me that it is worth the risk that the laws enacted now that might enable Dick Cheney’s or Hilary Clinton’s minions to glance through my e-mails (presuming they really want to – that would be a dreary enough task to break the spirit of any would-be totalitarians). This seems a price worth paying so that the guvinment can monitor cell-phone contacts between anyone in the US and the Northwest Frontier/tribal areas of Pakistan (or Beijing for that matter).
So thank you for your warm regards and your willingness to play the gadfly when necessary. Being in academia has sensitized me to the perils of groupthink and I appreciate your willingness to mix things up here from time to time. Along with Lex’s own example of learning and civility it makes this a fun blog on which to spend time.
“You guys sure I can’t talk you into writing your own blog?
I could sell tickets.
”
Boss has found the bandit freq, so youse learned guys debate away. This lesser mortal has taken the gentle hint and will resume radio silence
Capt. J,
I’m presuming that Lex is still open to me playing the intellectual equivilent of a court jester in his domain, showing you how eventually, albeit more slowly and painfully even an academic can puzzle out the right conclusion with only 5X the words.
No, by all means, do play on
Dr. Curp,
Since the wishes of our senior officer and host are to be construed as an affirmative command, I’d say Yes–please continue. We all benefit.
As odd and strange as this may seem (actually the surprise is it hasn’t happened earlier) I don’t have a lot more to add right now but would be quite happy to respond to comments and critiques.
I’ve been tempted to wander over to Lex’s thread on Islam, but I would basically just council caution and patience when it comes to how we deal with religions and cultures different than our own with their own mix of faults and virtues, and I’ve said that before. I get Lex’s sympathy for VDH’s impatience with a conservatism so dysfunctional that denouncing honor killing looks brave and unusual. I’m impatient myself, and the underlying fanaticism that such dysfunction reveals is likely as not adding fuel to the flames to our problems in Iraq.
Yet, if what we are doing abroad has an “imperial” element to it (and I don’t think that is so bad – providing adult supervision for the Germans and Japanese after WWII was imperial to the extent that it was done without the consent of the locals and necessary), I think we would be much better served by the British model of as light and patient a touch as possible, rather than a kind of French “mission civilitrice” that seeks to turn Iraqis into good Americans, and makes sure that every Afghan girl, from Kabul to the meanest village near the Kyber pass has an opportunity for an education. But, as I said, I am not going to comment on that conversation at length…
Wow,
I’m taking this thread with my pc on my own trip to UFL. This idiot, John Cole, should blend right in with Ultimate Futility.