?

Log in

No account? Create an account

John Palcewski's Journal

Works In Progress

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Conduct Unbecoming An Officer? Or Forgery?
forioscribe




from John Palcewski <palcewski@gmail.com>
to crimetips@conus.army.mil
date Oct 30, 2007 8:16 AM
subject Conduct Unbecoming An Officer? Or Forgery?
mailed-by gmail.com


Dear sir:

You may be aware of the recent email interchange between Col. Steven Boylan (an aide to Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US Forces in Iraq), and Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald.

Reviewing this correspondence you may conclude there are but two possibilities: a) Col. Boylan violated the UCMJ article outlining conduct unbecoming an officer by writing an unsolicited, ungrammatical, incoherent and highly politicized email to Mr. Greenwald, or b) someone in Col. Boylan's office or elsewhere forged it.

Either way, there's a crime here, and you ought to begin an investigation forthwith. You might review the matter via this link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/30/boylan_response/index.html

I've been an American taxpayer for a very long time and, as you doubtless know, the military is subordinate to civilians. In other words you, sir, have a moral and legal obligation to let me know what you intend to do about this issue.

Sincerely,

John Palcewski

* * *

Below is one of Glenn Greenwald's columns in Salon regarding Col. Boylan. Note Glenn's reference to my email in item (6).

Col. Boylan's denial

A response to the first clear denial of email authorship from Gen. Petraeus' spokesman.

Glenn Greenwald


Oct. 30, 2007 | As indicated last night, Editor & Publisher has published a lengthy article on the Col. Boylan email matter, which includes a discussion of an unsolicited, critical email sent to them from Col. Boylan as well. That, as I documented last night, is part of a rather regular pattern from Col. Boylan.

A later edition of the E&P article now contains this passage:

E&P contacted Boylan for a clarification about the email. Late Monday night he (or someone claiming to be him) replied: "I am denying writing and sending it. I know from past experience with Mr. Greenwald that any email exchange with him would be posted to his site as well as there is no need to discuss anything with him. I would only contact him in response to anything he would directly send to me as he did in this case. I have not contacted Mr. Greenwald since this summer" -- until Greenwald asked him to confirm the Sunday email, when "I told him it was not mine and I did not send it."
Several points to note about that (these are being moved here from last night's last update):

(1) Col. Boylan is denying authorship of the original email to me but is acknowledging having sent the subsequent emails, even though the tracing information on all of those emails -- including the "fake" one -- strongly suggest they came from the same computer;

(2) Neither Col. Boylan nor anyone else from the U.S. military has contacted me to request that I send them the "fake" email or provide any other information about it -- something that one would expect if anyone was actually trying to determine what really happened here and find out who is sending extremely authentic-seeming emails in the name of a top military official in Iraq. That suggests there is no effort being made at all by Col. Boylan or the military to find out who the "real emailer" is. Why is that?

(3) In his E&P comments, Col. Boylan repeats one of the principal points of the "fake" emailer (that I published our email exchange without permission, something which only Col. Boylan and his confidants would know) and also echoes the same hostility evident in the "fake" email ("there is no need to discuss anything with him").

(4) It is, as indicated, quite common for bloggers and other writers to receive unsolicited, critical emails ostensibly from Col. Boylan. Additionally, such emails have played a significant role in various scandals. In the midst of the TNR/Beauchamp "scandal," for instance, The Weekly Standard published a polite, informative email it claimed was from Col. Boylan which falsely stated that the Army was "not preventing [Beauchamp] from speaking to TNR or anyone." In fact, the military was blocking him from speaking to the media at that time. Isn't it important to find out if someone is sending fabricated, false emails in Col. Boylan's name?

(5) The ultimate significance of this matter, which goes far beyond the specific question of what Col. Boylan did or did not do in this case (though that is important in its own right), is articulated perfectly by Zack in this comment. The type of hostility, pseudo-intimidation, and stonewalling expressed by Col. Boylan here (in the emails of undisputed authenticity) is the type to which reporters are frequently subjected when they step out of line, particularly with war reporting. That is one reason why so few of them ever do.

(6) In comments, John Palcewski offers what seems to be a constructive suggestion for encouraging the military to investigate the matter of how someone is able to send out emails in the name of one of our most important military officials in Iraq.


  • 1
I'm surprised they didn't give you the old "there's more important work to be done" wheeze. But this is very good. They really have to either determine who sent the "fake" email and bring that person up on charges or Boylan has to come clean. No other option is available.

Well, I guess they could have some major military strike take place and hope that everyone forgets about it. I guess we'll see how far they're willing to go to try to sweep this under the sand.

Oh, yes, indeed. A week-long bombing campaign to take out the terraists--er, nukes--in Iran. that's IRAN, not Iraq. A new major front on the war on terra.

  • 1