The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

The New Republic issued another statement yesterday on the Beauchamp matter. In this one they come rather close to accusing the Army of a nefarious conspiracy:

Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."

The leak to the Weekly Standard almost certainly came for a military source who is not authorized by his chain of command to be sharing the information that he did. It's really silly to suggest that "the military" is officially working to undermine TNR.

Further, I'm pretty sure the invocation of "privacy" isn't just a random deflection. I think it's a direct reference to one of the exemptions carved out of the Freedom of Information Act. But note:

The government cannot claim the privacy exemption to protect the privacy of people who agree to the disclosure of their records. You may want to submit statements from people who agree to waive their privacy interests along with your request. The government will honor notarized waivers. In two cases judges have ruled that waivers need not be notarized so long as they include the phrase, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]."

It sure sounds like Beauchamp himself can free the military to release more information, should he be so inclined.

topics:
Military