Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,”
a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our
July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s
veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report
posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into
Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone
conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J.
Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army
had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off
outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation,
Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk
to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some
have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”
The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s
sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during
the September 6 conversation: “[A]ll we want out of this, and the only
way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it’s—if
it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we’ll end that way.
If it’s proven to be true, it will end that way. But it’s only going to
end with the truth.” The September 6 exchange was extremely
frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not
add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp’s refusal to
defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s
words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he
spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear
that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.
The
next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by
his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half
weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored
conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of
his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He
also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress,
with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and
privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he
discussed the story with us.
On
September 14, we also spoke at length with Major John Cross, who led
the Army’s investigation into the Beauchamp case. Contrary to reports
in The Weekly Standard and other outlets, Cross
explicitly said that Beauchamp “did not recant” his article in the
sworn statements he had given the Army. Moreover, although the Army’s
investigation—which declared that the claims in “Shock Troops” were
false—purported to be conclusive, Cross conceded that there were at
least a dozen soldiers in Beauchamp’s platoon whom he had not
interviewed. TNR pressed for clarification:
Scoblic: So you didn’t get statements from everyone in his platoon, then?
Cross: We got statements from everyone in his platoon that was available that day we were conducting the investigation.
Scoblic: At a later point did you follow up with any of the people that weren’t available that day?
Cross: No.
Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood
by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious
gaps—as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp’s accounts—The New Republic
decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the
Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp,
particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until
October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was
finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly
tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division,
to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be
released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the
statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a
copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that
he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public
affairs.
It was as we were awaiting
the documentary record of the Army’s investigation that the Army leaked
several documents, including the September 6 transcript, to The Drudge Report, which incorrectly reported that the documents show that Beauchamp had recanted. In fact, they show no such thing, and Drudge soon removed the supporting documents from its website, and later its entire report.
The New Republic is deeply frustrated by
the Army’s behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover
whether Beauchamp’s article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly
requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it
was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked
selective parts of the record—including a conversation that Beauchamp
had with his lawyer—continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army
has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers
while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.
We
have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so.
But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith
on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation
has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and
promise to deliver a full account of our findings.
--The Editors
Related Links:
"Shock Troops," by Scott Thomas (Beauchamp), Issue date: July 23, 2007; Post date: July 13, 2007.
A Statement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp, July 26, 2007.
A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp, August 2, 2007.
A Scott Beauchamp Update, August 10, 2007.