Beauchamp Recants "Shock Troops" claims
- Thread starter Casimer
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Actually, Danzig's point is that they were never positively identified as insurgents. They were people carrying weapons and avoiding a patrol. Guess what: farmers do that in Iraq. Iraq is not California...people carrying AK-47s peacefully are not out of place. And plenty of non-insurgents go out of their way to avoid US troops.
So the idea that a commander would break ROE is unfathomable to you? Doesn't that seem a little naive?
What sounds naive is that a Commander would break the rules of Engagement in front of all the personal present in a Command and Control center and no one says a thing. This story is as bogus as Beauchamps and the only reason it was put on here was a feeble attempt to try and throw credit where Beauchamp has been discredited.
Funny how he choose this magical moment to inform us of this horror he saw. You can't see the correlation?
Funny how he choose this magical moment to inform us of this horror he saw. You can't see the correlation?
JuanCarlos
New member
Of course, just as it's possible there was information he wasn't privy too it's also possible that something was said to that officer later, behind closed doors. As for any official action, I don't find it hard to believe that nobody pushed too hard over a houseful of armed "hadjis." They probably just figured what most of you have assumed...they were insurgents, good riddance.
I mean, I never saw any crap like that against people...most of the inappropriate behavior I saw was in relation to destruction of property for no good reason. But I do know that the battalion commander of the unit replacing us (or was it the XO?) was joking that their intent was to kill just as many "hadjis" as they could get away with in the first couple weeks without ending up on CNN. Just to make sure they knew who was boss. And this is a field grade officer.
Personally, I hope it was just banter. But that kind of attitude shows, to me at least, how the incident Danzig describes could very easily occur without any official repercussions.
I do see the correlation...this seems to be the first time that this incident has been on-topic for a thread. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying that given some of the crap I've seen during my time in the Army it seems perfectly plausible. Certainly not something I'd dismiss out of hand.
I think you are smarter than this. He saw that beaucamp was completely discredited and he saw an opportunity to throw something out there in an attempt to bring some credibility to beaucamps claims. It is a tried and true tactic and if he had such a problem with it he would have reported it.
I am not saying things don't happen, because they do. What I am saying is that those people looked like insurgents and the Commander took them out.
Again I ask the question. Should the Commander turned around and sent Danzig to go knock on the door and ask them what thier intentions were?
Good lord people there is a war going on and thier will be casualties. For Danzig to come in here and accuse his commander of murdering people with no just cause is just not right. Danzig still doesn't know what kind of briefing the Commander might have had prior to entering the Command and Contol Center, unless of course there was some pillow talk going on.
I am not saying things don't happen, because they do. What I am saying is that those people looked like insurgents and the Commander took them out.
Again I ask the question. Should the Commander turned around and sent Danzig to go knock on the door and ask them what thier intentions were?
Good lord people there is a war going on and thier will be casualties. For Danzig to come in here and accuse his commander of murdering people with no just cause is just not right. Danzig still doesn't know what kind of briefing the Commander might have had prior to entering the Command and Contol Center, unless of course there was some pillow talk going on.
JuanCarlos
New member
History suggests otherwise...I'm sure many soldiers in the past have failed and many in the future will fail to report such things.
Could you explain to me what an insurgent looks like? As I said before, everybody there carries AK-47's. Avoiding US troops isn't exactly abnormal. And multiple people congregating at a house? So doing these three things together should be a death sentence?
I wouldn't recommend sending anybody alone...you know, warzone and all. But there's no reason that a patrol couldn't have been sent that direction, or another one spun up. But yes, given the circumstances either further air recon or a ground element should have been used...not bombing the house.
Murder/execute might have been a poor choice of words...but it sounds like he almost definitely broke the ROE.
xnavy...you sure are making this personal... You have done nothing short of accusing me of lying. You are quite the piece of work.
The commander in question was not mine. He was with the unit that was leaving Iraq. I was with the unit that was coming in to replace them. We were in the "right seat ride" phase of the RIP. About a week later we took over the battlespace.
I didn't think too much about the incident at the time. To be honest, I was a bit caught up in the moment. I had never seen a bomb drop before and I was excited to be a part of what was going on. Not the conflict itself so much..but that particular engagement. Watching it on the feed from the predator was cool...kinda like a movie but it was real and I had at least some minor role in the whole thing.
It wasn't until a short time later that I really started to think about how the whole thing happened. It began to bother me then. But we only worked with that outgoing unit for a week or two. Within a week or two of December 25, 2005 they were gone. I don't recall the name of the officer who was in charge that night but I do remember the events as they unfolded.
EDIT: Technically the officer that was present that night was only a major (probably the Brigade XO). The Colonel had already left for the night and the major was in charge of the night shift. Before the bomb drop was approved there was in all likelihood communication between him and the Colonel but I don't know for certain.
The commander in question was not mine. He was with the unit that was leaving Iraq. I was with the unit that was coming in to replace them. We were in the "right seat ride" phase of the RIP. About a week later we took over the battlespace.
I didn't think too much about the incident at the time. To be honest, I was a bit caught up in the moment. I had never seen a bomb drop before and I was excited to be a part of what was going on. Not the conflict itself so much..but that particular engagement. Watching it on the feed from the predator was cool...kinda like a movie but it was real and I had at least some minor role in the whole thing.
It wasn't until a short time later that I really started to think about how the whole thing happened. It began to bother me then. But we only worked with that outgoing unit for a week or two. Within a week or two of December 25, 2005 they were gone. I don't recall the name of the officer who was in charge that night but I do remember the events as they unfolded.
EDIT: Technically the officer that was present that night was only a major (probably the Brigade XO). The Colonel had already left for the night and the major was in charge of the night shift. Before the bomb drop was approved there was in all likelihood communication between him and the Colonel but I don't know for certain.
All I am trying to point out is it is impossible for you to know what orders, information, or intel the Commander had. Your story continues to change and I suspect since you were so caught up in the moment that maybe things happened that you don't remember.
Making an accusation that a commander violated ROE is in itself very serious and with no proof and you being all caught up in the moment you may not remember things exactly like they happened.
You don't elaborate on how long it was before you starting thinking about what happened and in all reality you might not remember everything because as you stated you focus was on the bomb itself and not what was going on around you. The story has changed and I have not accused you of outright lying till later in the thread as the story changed. I said in the beginning that you may not have been privy to some information but you swore you knew everything that was going on, and yet now we find out that you were like a "deer in the headlights" completely caught up in the bomb because you had never seen one. Unless it was your job to pay attention to all the conversations going on I doubt you were focused on that.
You also don't know since you were the incoming relief what problems or intel they may have had regarding that particular house. All I am saying is please refrain from accusing your superiors of violating ROE's when you don't have the facts to back up your accusations. Its nothing personal between us, I just think our Commanders deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Making an accusation that a commander violated ROE is in itself very serious and with no proof and you being all caught up in the moment you may not remember things exactly like they happened.
You don't elaborate on how long it was before you starting thinking about what happened and in all reality you might not remember everything because as you stated you focus was on the bomb itself and not what was going on around you. The story has changed and I have not accused you of outright lying till later in the thread as the story changed. I said in the beginning that you may not have been privy to some information but you swore you knew everything that was going on, and yet now we find out that you were like a "deer in the headlights" completely caught up in the bomb because you had never seen one. Unless it was your job to pay attention to all the conversations going on I doubt you were focused on that.
You also don't know since you were the incoming relief what problems or intel they may have had regarding that particular house. All I am saying is please refrain from accusing your superiors of violating ROE's when you don't have the facts to back up your accusations. Its nothing personal between us, I just think our Commanders deserve the benefit of the doubt.
No...I know very well what was going on. The whole incident took over an hour. The predator followed the individual..and then the growing groups for a while prior to them entering the house. The predator was kept on station for quite a while after than watching the house...finally the officer on duty decided (and evidently got clearance) to request the bomb drop. The officers were no more than about 15 feet away from me and they did not hide their conversations. This was not a planned target. Neither the predator nor the patrol that the predator was initially following had any orders or purpose other than a routine recon of the area. While the whole operation was somewhat exciting it was also very interesting and I paid pretty close attention to what was going on. If nothing else...I had a good grasp on situational awareness.
Anyway, I know what I saw and I know what I heard. I know what happened. I have never told anyone about this other than my wife and the only reason I mentioned it in this post is because the initial topic reminded me of the event. My purpose in posting about it was to inform those who would be informed, not to convince those who will not be convinced.
Anyway, I know what I saw and I know what I heard. I know what happened. I have never told anyone about this other than my wife and the only reason I mentioned it in this post is because the initial topic reminded me of the event. My purpose in posting about it was to inform those who would be informed, not to convince those who will not be convinced.
And now all of a sudden you wish to share this with strangers what used to be between only you and your wife? You haven't even shared this story on Ron Pauls blog site to give them something to talk about?
I am done talking about this with you. You were so engrossed and excited to see that bomb drop that you weren't paying attention to anything else. If it bothers you so much you need to address it with the chain of command or never bring it up again, its that simple. IMHO you won't address it because it didn't happen the way you said it did.
I'm not lying. It offends me that you are accusing me of doing so. Of course, I realize that I do not have a right not to be offended..but frankly, your statements are libelous. You'd do better to have some proof..not mere conjecture...before you accuse someone of lying. I have eyes and ears. I was present when the incident in question took place. You, however, were not. So your supposition that I am lying is based on...nothing except an unwillingness to believe. Fine. It does not matter to me whether you believe me or not. But you have no proof that I am lying and frankly, your accusation does matter to me.
Please retract the accusation unless you were in the room when all of this happened and therefore can legitimately tell me that what I have said did not indeed happen.
Please retract the accusation unless you were in the room when all of this happened and therefore can legitimately tell me that what I have said did not indeed happen.
Nobody cares whether you are lying or not. Beuchamp is the one who has admitted that he lied.
The fact is that another anti-war "source" (Beuchamp) turns out to be a liar. Opponents of the war on terror are so eager to use any source they can to spread bad news, even if it amounts to a hill of lies and deception.
The fact is that another anti-war "source" (Beuchamp) turns out to be a liar. Opponents of the war on terror are so eager to use any source they can to spread bad news, even if it amounts to a hill of lies and deception.
I hadn't paid much attention to Private Beauchamp, until I read this part of his statement. I find it odd that he is so concerned about the reputation of his "comrades in arms" after what he initially published.
"That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp"
"That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.
--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp"
The only LIBELOUS STATEMENT in this whole thread is right here:
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.
No libel in my statements. The individuals in question did not have weapons pointed on the direction of American or other coalition forces, they were not firing weapons at Americans or coalition forces, they were not caught in the act of planting ieds. Based on the rules of engagement that have been in force in Iraq, they were NOT an imminent threat and therefore the use of deadly force was not authorized...(or if it was "authorized" by a more senior officer..it was still in contravention to the Rules of Engagement.
You were privy to all of the information available, and conversations at every level, related to the identity of the group, where they'd been, what they'd done, where they were headed and what their intentions were? All of the information? You're certain?
Okay, if you say they couldn't be killed because they weren't shooting at you, then I'll have to accept it.
John
Okay, if you say they couldn't be killed because they weren't shooting at you, then I'll have to accept it.
John