Beauchamp Recants "Shock Troops" claims

[Casimer]

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the private who has, under a pseudonym, written a series for The New Republic on his experiences in Iraq in which he claims to have witnessed all manner of lurid atrocities. Such as: soldiers exuming the skulls of children and wearing the fragments under their helmets, soldiers mocking and harrassing a severly disfigured women, deliberately crashing bradleys into peoples homes, running over dogs for sport et.al.

Of course these articles have prompted a military investigation, and in the intervening time TNR and Beauchamp have repeatedly defended his stories.

Well he'd apparently recanted to the military even while defending his claims publicly.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp

 

[Mike Irwin]

Dishonorable discharge for conduct unbecoming a soldier, or whatever it's called?

I'd hope so.

 

[Derius_T]

Maybe he needs a run-in with his own fictional "shock troops".

A dishonorable discharge at the least.....

 

[xnavy]

Ahhh the War Protestors have found out that one of their Hero's was lying all along. Bet you won't see this story on the front page of any liberal news rags in this country.

 

[Danzig]

I have been there twice. I know the things that are going on over there. It may not have been as bad as this guys says but I have seen and heard things that are extremely wrong.

Christmas day, 2005:

Caught on predator feed....an individual or two carrying weapons who appear to be trying to elude a US patrol. As they continued moving they were joined by others..Eventually they all arrived at a large (by Iraq standards anyway) house. These individuals never fired a shot at the patrol. They did not in any way do anything that would have prompted deadly force under the rules of engagement. But as soon as they were all in the house..the commander in the area where I was located ordered the Air Force to drop a 500 pound bomb on the house. I watched all of this as it happened. I had never before seen a bomb of that size dropped before..much less on a house.

Anyway...the house seemed to explode slightly, then implode, then it went up in a mini mushroom cloud shape.

To make the story short, 12-15 men who were not a current threat were pretty much executed by that commander. This was in clear violation of the standing rules of engagement which allowed the use of deadly force only when the insurgents presented an imminent threat to US Soldiers or equipment. In truth..there was never any real evidence that these individuals were insurgents...but they looked suspicious and so they were killed..dare I say, murdered.

 

[xnavy]

Do you know for a fact that your commander didn't have information that you weren't privy to? Do you know for a fact that those individuals were innocent civilians? Just because it looked that way to you, doesn't mean it wasn't justified or your Commander didn't have Intel saying terrorists were going to be meeting up there.

Its WAR deal with it. Stop looking to always lay the blame on your Country.

an individual or two carrying weapons who appear to be trying to elude a US patrol.

Sounds like bad guys to me.

As they continued moving they were joined by others..Eventually they all arrived at a large (by Iraq standards anyway) house.

Sounds like a meeting of insurgents to me.

These individuals never fired a shot at the patrol. They did not in any way do anything that would have prompted deadly force under the rules of engagement. But as soon as they were all in the house..the commander in the area where I was located ordered the Air Force to drop a 500 pound bomb on the house.

Sounds like the Commander was privy to intel that you didn't have and he saved some American GI lives to boot. What should he have done? Should he have sent a team in to knock on the door and ask the individuals if they were insurgents thereby risking American Lives?

It appears you are making assumptions without knowing all the facts.

 

[Casimer]

Beauchamp's stories didn't deal with official misconduct, or breeches of the rules of engagement, but attempted to portray all soldiers as routine sadists and idiots. He knew that he was writing for an outlet with an audience that tends to perceive soldiers in that way and played to their biases.

 

[Danzig]

xnavy, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that they were innocent civilians. I said that there was no definitive proof either way.

Unlike you, I know what our rules of engagement were. Essentially our rules of engagement stated that we could not use deadly force unless a) the enemy was clearly identified, and b) the enemy posed an imminent danger. These individuals, good or bad, met neither of these requirements.

The predator was routinely following an American patrol. It was not on a search mission for any particular individuals. In any event, a predator feed is not clear enough to ascertain the identities of individuals caught by it's camera. If, say, intel had it that Saddam Hussein himself was in a particular area and the predator had been sent to look upon that area, the feed from the predator still would not have been enough to identify him out of a crowd..or even if he was standing alone in the middle of an open field. So all of the intel in the world would not have been enough to identify these individuals as bad guys.

But all of that is beside the point. As I was there from the moment that the predator camera first picked up the first person I was privy to every word that was said by that commander and his staff. There was no positive identification. Individuals were spotted who looked suspicious and the decision was made to execute them.

And it does not matter what you say because you were not there. All you have is supposition. You don't know anything.

 

[xnavy]

Its so easy to say what you are saying to make a point, there is noone to refute your story. Did you report the alleged misconduct as you are obligated to do?

Of course if this really happened with all those witnesses I would think someone would have spoken out or at least informed the Commmander that he was violating the Rules of Engagement and as such could be Court Martialed. No I think you are spinning this to support your position and nothing more. I believe the Commander did what was required of him and nothing more.

 

[Danzig]

No xnavy, I'm not lying. I didn't make this up. Should I have spoken up? Yes. It would have been the right thing to do. However, I have seen all too often how "whistleblowers" are treated. Self preservation seemed like the more prudent course.

I have no need to lie when the truth speaks for itself.

 

[ferg]

I agree with xnavy.


Danzig said;
a) the enemy was clearly identified

Caught on predator feed....an individual or two carrying weapons who appear to be trying to elude a US patrol. As they continued moving they were joined by others..Eventually they all arrived at a large (by Iraq standards anyway) house.

Seem like ROE-A to me...

 

[xnavy]

I just find it remotely strange that a Thread is started that shows claims made by Beauchamp are false and he admits to making them up and then you come on here with your story as if trying to validate that these things go on.

I never said you were lying, I must believe that you are either you do not have the knowledge of all the facts or some facts have been convenetly left out.

If I saw people KILLED who I thought shouldn't have been killed, I would have reported it. After all there is nothing worse than a Commander who thinks he is above the law. My conscious would have over-ruled any need for self preservation. I still think the story smells like a rat. I don't mean to offend you, but that is just MHO.

 

[Danzig]

Ferg, the rules of engagement clearly state that deadly force can only be used in direct response to deadly force. The individuals appeared to be avoiding the patrol. That is neither a hostile act nor a demonstration of hostile intent.

They may very well have been bad guys. But that incident did not meet the criteria laid out in the ROE for the use of deadly force.

As long as we are there, I believe in killing them before they kill us. But there was no overwhelming evidence that they were even hostile. Sure..they were avoiding the patrol, but even in this country many people try to avoid the "authorities" even if they are doing nothing wrong. It's got to be worse over there because the assumption by us is that any and all Iraqis MAY be the enemy...I can empathize to some extent if they wish to avoid us.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Danzig, unfortunately, you fall into the "arm chair" role while watching a firefight from the UAV feed. You were not on the ground, and hence, there will always be ire by guys who were there against people who watched the events unfold from an a/c COC.
The commander on the ground made the decision. If this had been a bad shoot, I'm sure you were not the only person observing the feed, and actions would have been taken.
Bad example. Hostile intent could clearly be discerned by their armament, evading of forces, link up, and the AO they are moving through. I'm sure you know this already. I do not know what your MOS is and what you did in the box, but the example you gave as "murder" is pure BS. Best you stay in the COC and watch feeds.

 

[Danzig]

BreacherUp!, the commander in question was located about ten feet from me. If I was only a spectator to the incident...then so was he...he was no more or less "on the ground" than I was. There was nobody outside the wire involved in the incident..it was a group of individuals inside a command center watching a predator feed.

It was not in any sense a "firefight". An Army commander coordinated the release of a 500 pound bomb with members of the Air Force. All based on the fact that individuals who APPEARED to have weapons also APPEARED to be trying avoid a U.S. patrol. The patrol on the ground never saw the individuals. Only those of us in the TOC saw these persons.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Not to mix words, but you said APPEARED to be carrying weapons on your last post, and "...individuals carrying weapons..." on your first. So to you, as a soldier on that patrol, seeing armed persons, meet up with others, and continue to "evade", that would not constitute "hostile intent." You do not have to be fired at for "intent" and "imminent danger" to be satisfied.
But, like airing a video on TV without the events leading up to, what was the enemy activity like prior to the video? Has harrassing fire been encounterd? Ambushes? Sniper activity? All the "2" stuff that drive operations and allow commanders to make split second calls.
Either way, it would be damned hard to call this murder or an execution, as you have.

 

[Danzig]

Thanks for noting that Breacherup!. It looked very much like they were carrying weapons but as noted in my above posts it's not one hundred percent sure when only viewing the situation via the feed from a UAV.

However, once again..there was no patrol on the ground that had eyes on the target. The whole thing, including the targeting, was done completely via the predator.

 

[possum]

Oh yes....the rules of engagement in a combat zone.

Insurgents carrying weapons, but not posing an "imminent threat" should not be engaged?

Sounds like to me the words "insurgents" combined with "carrying weapons" equals imminent threat right there.

Sounds exactly like the rules in Vietnam which said that the USAF could only destroy those MiGs which came up to shoot at them, but could not destroy those MiGs which remained parked on the runway.

possum

 

[Fremmer]

Wait a minute...you mean that liberal democrats were wrong to rely on this guy's propaganda? I thought that this guy was just like John Kerry, instructing everyone about how terrible our troops are in Iraq. So this guy was lying?

 

[Mr. James]

Think you meant "this guy was lying, too."