See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am, The Raging Republican said:

   Beauchamp = Traitor

2. #2
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am, josetheguerilla said:

   Why isn’t it a crime to print lies? IMHO somebody should be in jail. I guess “journalists” are above the law. MM, thank you so much for keeping on top of this story. It means a lot.

   José

3. #3
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   Beauchamp=Liberal/progressive media tool.

   Ex: “Scott, you’re a tool!”

4. #4
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   TNR/The New Republic=Liberal House Organ

   Ex: “The editor at the TNR is a ________”
   (choose an organ)

5. #5
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   #2 if it were criminal we’d have no media, politicians or lawyers. Hmmmm? Wouldn’t that be nice!

6. #6
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Truth
   Not
   Relevant

   My summation.

7. #7
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am, Fco said:

   Why isn’t it a crime to print lies? IMHO somebody should be in jail.

   That’s a dangerous idea. The last thing we’d want is the government deciding what the truth is and what’s allowed to print.

   People vote with their wallets. Let’s leave it at that.

8. #8
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am, josetheguerilla said:

   That’s a dangerous idea. The last thing we’d want is the government deciding what the truth is and what’s allowed to print.

   People vote with their wallets. Let’s leave it at that.

   If a citizen can sue for libel, why can’t the government? A case like this could damage foreign relations with other governments. This is the sort of thing Al Qaida is in favor of.

9. #9
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am, BrianNY said:

   Foer has yet to issue an apology to his critics or the military he maligned during the course of this story.

   But, but, Scarlett Johansson just visited the troops in Kuwait, so Foer doesn’t count anymore, and it’s all just a lie that many libs who oppose the mission also oppose the troops, right? Right?!

10. #10
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am, DirkBelig said:

    And somewhere Stephen Glass wonders why he got pounded for his lies while Beauchamp and Foer skate free.

11. #11
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am, Barry F. said:

    IMHO somebody should be in jail.

    Incarceration is like putting a Band-Aid on a flesh wound.

    I still like some of the other options out there. It just calls for a tactile approach.

12. #12
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am, Larraby said:

    I still find it hilarious that the New Republic fell for Beauchamp’s story that he put part of a skull on his head before he went into a battle. If he put it on his head, how did he keep it from falling off? If he put it under his helmet, how did he have enough room under his helmet for a human skull? And how did he prevent it from falling out of his helmet the first time he ran or walked fast? The amateur hour approach of the TNR is really funny.

13. #13
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am, nbarry said:

    Given the gravity of these accusations, why isn’t Beauchamp in some stockade or not been given an undesirable discharge?

14. #14
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm, Fco said:

    If a citizen can sue for libel, why can’t the government? A case like this could damage foreign relations with other governments. This is the sort of thing Al Qaida is in favor of.

    Jailing journalists for what they write is what they do in Iran. THAT is something Al Qaeda would be very much in favor of.

15. #15
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    Given the gravity of these accusations, why isn’t Beauchamp in some stockade or not been given an undesirable discharge?

    Because, when his Commanding Officer asked him about the allegations, he didn’t lie to him. When he had the story printed by the magazine he wasn’t under oath. Under article 107, it would have to be a statement in an official government document: A statement in writing to an NCO, SNCO, Officer or government official. If he was found to be lying after his Commanding Officer ask him, he could have been charged with art 94, and 107, oh, and art 134.

    /s/
    jose

16. #16
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm, Blind_Mule said:

    The left would like to sweep the dust under the rug, the problem is the dust keep’s coming back.

17. #17
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    Jailing journalists for what they write is what they do in Iran. THAT is something Al Qaeda would be very much in favor of.Fco

    I’m not making my self-clear, as I’m not an English writing major. My apologies. Journalists should not be thrown in jail for anything they write. However, I believe they should be held to the same standard everybody else is. Example: If I’m a government Official who steals, destroys or make known top-secret information, I could be charged with treason. Unless, My name is Sandy Burger, or I have press credentials with the New York Times. This is different from the situation you cite in Iran, and Venezuela because they jail journalist for political writings, and political beliefs. In the TNR story it’s not a political story that is written, it’s a statement from an active duty Army private. Since the story was written, the Army private has recanted his story in official government documents, made to Commissioned Officers. This story is not about political beliefs; it’s about libelous charges hurled toward active duty military that are not true. At minimum the magazine should have a responsibility to retract the story. I go further, to say that maybe they should also have a legal responsibility, because a story like this doesn’t fit under political spin, it fits under the definition of seditious libel. I believe this because; if it were true, the story would undermine the security of the United States.

    jose

18. #18
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm, Fco said:

    jose

    I’m not making my self-clear, as I’m not an English writing major. My apologies. Journalists should not be thrown in jail for anything they write.

    You did not make the implication. Our little sub-thread conversation just began with someone who wondered if/should libel against the army be considered a crime, and I was still in the “jail as punishment” context.

    The example you provide is a case of one citizen committing a crime. The Beauchaump pieces were not about investigating crimes committed by particular soldiers, there were no names named (to my limited knowledge, if not correct me). Their point was to highlight a “psychological impact” brought to the soldiers due to bad policy making by the administration. The aggrieved party here is the armed forces itself. An organization that is not protected from the scrutiny, or even slander, like a private citizen would be (unless you’re singling out someone in the organization).

    I agree that the pieces were slanderous, mean spirited and aimed at embarassing the military. But the press (and we) needs the freedom to report/write things as they see them. Even if sometimes their power gets misused.

19. #19
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    No names, however units in the military are sometimes recognized as a collective for duties performed. Example: Meritorious Unit Citation, Presidential Unit Citations, newspapers, and history books. If a WWII vet tells me he was in the 82nd airborne, I know where his unit landed. I also know all the major battles he participated in. If a Vietnam vet tells me he served in Charlie Company first battalion, 20th infantry division, which could lead me to believe he could have taken part in the My Lai Massacre. You see, I don’t need to know their names, just the unit, and time period. In the Shock troops piece, the author doesn’t use names, however he uses rank. Later the FOB was identified as FOB Falcon, which can be connected to Army units. This is why the Army conducted an investigation; to discount or validate Army privates were participating in this behavior. The Army did not investigate a “psychological impact”; they investigated whether crimes had been committed. If the “journalists” had actually conducted some fact checking of their own, they would have found this story to be false. Their point might have been to highlight psychological impact, however the outcome was an investigation by the Army to see if crimes had occurred. Don’t you think journalist have a duty to print the truth, regardless of their political belief?

    There was a story printed by the MSM last week, which stated Iraqi vets were prone to more violent acts than most people. This story has been discounted, however the newspaper has not printed a retraction. No names required, I’m sure the next time I apply for a job the employer may take that story into account. That’s not a crime?

20. #20
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm, Fco said:

    Don’t you think journalist have a duty to print the truth, regardless of their political belief?

    Duty? yes. Legal obligation? No.

    You mentioned My Lai. We may not have known about My Lai today if the reporter who broke the story didn’t publish the soldier’s account out of fear of reprisal. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve stated about the intent and consequence of the publisher’s pieces. But the suggestion that it’d be necessary for the government to step in a regulate what’s truth and what isn’t, specially regarding government institutions, is a case of the medicine being worse than the disease in my opinion.

    I’m aware of the headline you refer to, and I know it can hurt you personally. Unfortunately they have the right to publish it, and we have to respect it. We can condemn the way they exercise that right in this instance, but we shouldn’t seek to limit it further IMO.

21. #21
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm, BrianNY said:

    Josetheguerilla and fco,

    Great exchange. Very informative on both points of view.

22. #22
    On April 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, chapoutier said:

    Not that this will ever be read by anyone, but I don’t expect there to be an actual thread about the fact that the source that supposedly discredited Beauchamp, his seargent, has just been convicted of killing 4 iraqis, execution style.

    But of course, Beauchamp was just full of lies.