# BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs



## Sig_Des (29 May 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/29/kandahar-menard.html




> Kandahar commander relieved of duties
> Last Updated: Saturday, May 29, 2010 | 8:41 PM ET
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...





While this is pretty hard to believe, until everything is settled, General Vance is in my opinion an excellent and capable choice, having held the position before Ménard.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 May 2010)

What the Big H? I bet we won't hear a lot about this.


----------



## Occam (29 May 2010)

Uh-oh....


----------



## OldSolduer (29 May 2010)

Link:

http://www.am1150.ca/news/56/1142660

This is not good news, however, it shows the junior officers and all NCMs that no one is above the law.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 May 2010)

Wait for the inevitable Michael Yawn "See?  I Told You He Was A Fuckup" column.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 May 2010)

If the allegations are indeed proven, whatever happened to lead by example?

OWDU


----------



## OldSolduer (29 May 2010)

It would be interesting to see what the facts are.  And who it was with.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 May 2010)

Before we start thinking "negligent discharge" and all, let us remember that a personal relationship is not necessarily sexual in nature.

Anyway, let's let this play out before speculating.

As for BGen Vance going back in: good for him.  He is rather familiar with the area, and the various personalities in theatre.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2010)

I've cleaned this up - let's keep it professional ladies and gentlemen.

The Staff


----------



## Jammer (29 May 2010)

The scenarios for this could be endless.
One of my guys couldn't keep it in his pants a few years ago...she got caught out by her hubby, claimed sexual assault (ultimately not the case), and ruined a good man's reputation.

The list could go on.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for BGen Vance going back in: good for him.  He is rather familiar with the area, and the various personalities in theatre.



Absolutely - this is bound to cause to tumult; especially to a multinational Brigade like TFK with 4 American Battalions (one with with recently relieved CO).  This is the best choice to get a steady, experienced hand in charge for fighting season.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2010)

BGen Dean Milner is reported by CTV to take over from BGen Vance, probably after a couple weeks to do a left seat, right seat handover.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 May 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> BGen Dean Milner is reported by CTV to take over from BGen Vance, probably after a couple weeks to do a left seat, right seat handover.


That's the media reporting the bloody obvious, such as the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.  BGen Milner was already slated to be "next".  Putting BGen Vance in there now allows BGen to conduct the RIP on target with his crew.


----------



## triniman (30 May 2010)

There's a article online now from the Winnipeg Sun 

"Chris Lemay, a spokesman for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command, told QMI Agency the department of defence has a *"zero tolerance on personal relationships and fraternization"* with members within the forces, as well as with members of the joint task force Afghanistan."  http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/05/29/14187296.html

Excuse me?  Military members date, live with and marry other military members all the time.

Can someone clarify the zero tolerance statement, please.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2010)

triniman said:
			
		

> There's a article online now from the Winnipeg Sun
> 
> "Chris Lemay, a spokesman for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command, told QMI Agency the department of defence has a *"zero tolerance on personal relationships and fraternization"* with members within the forces, as well as with members of the joint task force Afghanistan."  http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/05/29/14187296.html
> 
> ...



On operations or exercise those relationships are verboten.
Not in Canada during hang around the garrison stuff.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wait for the inevitable Michael Yawn "See?  I Told You He Was A Fuckup" column.



Already on his facebook with to much glee


----------



## Infanteer (30 May 2010)

Yon is claiming he reported the incident and that it was worth his time to get BGen Menard fired.


----------



## Teeps74 (30 May 2010)

Yon, that incompetent jackass... Hmmm, will be funny as all hell if that blows up in Yon's face!


----------



## Occam (30 May 2010)

I had a good chortle at the comment Yawn made later on his FB page:


_*Now would be a good time to hit the Paypal*. These fights are very expensive. I will keep fighting them but support is always needed.

Thank you to those who stood by me in this serious fight. As many of you know, the costs were high. Especially when I reported: The failure at Tarnak River Bridge. Negligent Discharge. Sexual affair. I am the only writer who discovered and wrote about these things. It's cold to stand alone.

*Next stop: General Stanley McChrystal*._


Is it news if you fabricate your own story?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> On operations or exercise those relationships are verboten.
> Not in Canada during hang around the garrison stuff.



If I may add something...

Most people in the CF understand there is a policy and how it works.  Most people understand that means that you do NOT get involved with those who are in your direct chain of command, whether it is a subordinate, a superior or peer.  

When you are at, or close, to the top...well, very few people are not your subordinate.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 May 2010)

triniman said:
			
		

> There's a article online now from the Winnipeg Sun
> 
> "Chris Lemay, a spokesman for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command, told QMI Agency the department of defence has a *"zero tolerance on personal relationships and fraternization"* with members within the forces, as well as with members of the joint task force Afghanistan."  http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/05/29/14187296.html
> 
> ...



There was a famous case during Canada's deployment in the Balkans (around '98 or so) where a Canadian officer (Capt?) got canned for having a relationship female Brit officer, eventhough both were single. Heck, I remember hearing that even married couple's posted overseas were not allowed to "get together" because their co-workers might get jealous.


----------



## Neolithium (30 May 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Already on his facebook with to much glee



I never heard of him before this thread, so I took a peek at his facebook page.  Some of the support comments from random people are pretty nauseating.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 May 2010)

Unfortunately,all too often we see in the news that a politician resigns due to an inappropriate sexual incident.It happens with sports stars,military men and yes the guy next door. At the end of the day the one who has ruined his reputation has to wonder if the liason was worth losing everything for a fling. I used to think we in the military like knights of old held to a higher standard. Instead we seem to be no different than the civilian down the street and thats a damn shame. I knew a SGT Major of the Army who had to retire as an E8 because of his fling. Then there was the four star General who ended his career with a daliance. The one thing in common was the harm done to their own family,reputation and it besmirches all who serve. There should be zero tolerance from the top down and not after the horse has left the barn.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2010)

I love how the media publishes the parts of military regulations, in this case DAOD 5019-1 that they chose to, and not the whole regulation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-relieved-of-duty/article1585697/



> According to military policy, fraternization “means any relationship between a CF member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CF members are deployed.”
> 
> A personal relationship, according to the same directive, “means an emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two CF members, or a CF member and a DND employee or contractor, or a member of an allied force.”



This, of course, is a PART of DAOD 5019-1, Personal Relationships and Fraternization, link below:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5019-1-eng.asp

It appears to me the way this is being published is misleading.  CF members CAN be involved with other members of the CF.  This is covered in further parts of the DAOD:

A CF member in a personal relationship with another CF member, DND employee or member of an allied force, contractor or an employee of a contractor shall not be involved, regardless of rank or authority, in the other person's:

performance assessment or reporting, including training evaluations and audits;

posting, transfer or attached posting;

individual training or education;

duties or scheduling for duties;

documents or records;

grievance process; or

release proceedings.

CF members shall notify their chain of command of any personal relationship that could compromise the objectives of this DAOD.

Perhaps it helps to put ALL applicable parts of a directive in the article.   :

From the same article:



> An official in Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office said the allegations against Brig-Gen. Ménard involve a member of his staff, but no further details could be provided while they are under investigation by the Canadian Forces Investigation Service.



If this allegation is found to be true, that is where the issue would lie, IAW this particular DAOD.

* this post is not for those of us familiar with CF directives, but for those who are following this thread, whether it be citizens, reporters, etc with hopes to gleem some info, comments and whatnot from serving members.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 May 2010)

Shared with the usual provisions...


Canadian CO relieved of Kandahar duty
Last Updated: Saturday, May 29, 2010 | 10:51 PM ET Comments221Recommend146
CBC News
Canada's top soldier in Kandahar, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, has been relieved of command.Canada's top soldier in Kandahar, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, has been relieved of command. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard has been relieved of command of Canadian troops in Afghanistan following allegations he was involved in an inappropriate personal relationship while in theatre.

Military sources have told CBC News that Ménard, head of Joint Task Force Kandahar, is alleged to have had an affair with a female member of his staff.

The military has strict rules forbidding its personnel from engaging in personal relationships while in theatre. They include relationships of an emotional, romantic or sexual nature.

The Defence Department issued a statement saying only that the decision was made following "allegations concerning Ménard's inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces personal relationships and fraternization directives."

Ménard's spouse also serves in the Forces.

Col. Simon Hetherington said Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard made the decision to relieve Ménard of his duties after he lost confidence in Ménard's ability to command.

An investigation into the allegations has been launched, DND said.

Hetherington has been designated acting commander in the interim. In the near future, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance will assume command, pending the arrival of the next commander, Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner, DND said.

Earlier this week, Ménard was fined $3,500 — the stiffest fine ever levied on a soldier for mishandling a weapon.

He received the fine after pleading guilty to an offence under the National Defence Act in a court in Gatineau, Que.

The March 25 incident occurred as Ménard and his boss, chief of defence staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk, were about to board a Blackhawk helicopter at Kandahar Airfield.

Ménard said he was loading his C8 carbine, something he has done thousands of times, when it discharged. No one was injured and nothing was damaged, but the National Defence Act makes it an offence to accidentally discharge a weapon.

Ménard formally took over from Vance as top officer for Task Force Kandahar last November.
With files from The Canadian Press

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/29/kandahar-menard.html#ixzz0pP6hLZIl


----------



## Dog (30 May 2010)

Micheal Yon got his wish.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2010)

Eye in the Sky:
Thank you for posting that info.  I was going to do the same to emphasise my earlier point that "personal relationships" are not always sexual, and that's that.

Edit to add the following (for Dog, et al): 
Now, we here may think "Curse you, Michael Yon!"; however, irrespective of anyone's opinion of him, read that last part of the respective DAOD.  I'll post it for you again:


> CF members *shall* notify their chain of command of any personal relationship that could compromise the objectives of this DAOD.


I think I highlighted the relevant part well enough.  IT IS YOUR DUTY AS A CF MEMBER to report to your chain of command such "stuff".  If Mr. Michael Yon likes to think that he's doing the right thing because he's getting generals sacked, let him.  The fact is this: BGen Menard was no more sacked due to Michael Yon than my last promotion could be attributed to Mr. Yon.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2010)

Holy fack!

This from the CF (PDF attached if link doesn't work):


> Commander Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM), Lieutenant-General Marc Lessard announced today that he has relieved Brigadier-General Daniel Menard from his position as Commander Joint-Task Force Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) and has designated Colonel Simon Hetherington as Acting Commander in the interim.
> 
> LGen Lessard made this decision following allegations concerning BGen Menard’s inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives, which caused Commander CEFCOM to lose confidence in BGen Menard’s capacity to command.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for BGen Vance going back in: good for him.  He is rather familiar with the area, and the various personalities in theatre.



And he's a Royal Canadian, which obviously means he's the best  

Triniman,

It's not demoralizing for a soldier in Canada to see two service people in Canada having a relationship (not groping in uniform, obviously).

However, for someone deployed overseas who is happily married but going through a very hard time being apart from his family in Canada, it would be demoralizing for him to see two people in Afghanistan carrying on a happy relationship.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2010)

Mr Vance has a lot of fans Royal and non Royal alike. I know he will once again do a great job as Comd RC South.


And like Petmocto says he is a Royal Canadian so on principle alone he is awesome. actually I have served a couple of times under him and I both respect and like the man; very sharp and focused on the task and a brain to match the Infantry mind set.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

He certainly practices COIN like few others before him.  A lot of people could tell you what COIN was all about, but then get to Kandahar and it was all living in FOBs and doing 2-3 day ops on compounds of interest.

Gen Vance was out there doing the business and living among the people.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 May 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Mr Vance has a lot of fans Royal and non Royal alike. I know he will once again do a great job as Comd RC South.



BGen Vance was not, nor will he be Commander RC(S) on this temporary assignment.  RC(S) is commanded by British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.  BGen Vance will assume BGen Menard's role as Commander Task Force Kandahar.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> ....  BGen Vance will assume BGen Menard's role as Commander Task Force Kandahar.



And even at that, it's a very different Kandahar than it was even as late as 08-09.  As mentioned above, the amount of US and Afghan battalions is now off the charts and the Canadian BG AO has shrank to little more than a district.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2010)

My bad you are right, in my defense I was still drunk from last nights fight when I posted I should probably wait for sobriety before posting.

Regardless of the slip in his command position Mr Vance knows how to accomplish his mission when he was there last was the begining of the American "surge" and he is very much used to having them under his command. I think he will once again change the way we conduct operations in Kandahar for the better.


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2010)

"Rumours swirl after dismissal of Canadian commander in Afghanistan":
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Rumours+swirl+after+dismissal+Canadian+commander/3090065/story.html


----------



## Tetragrammaton (30 May 2010)

I've had the conversation with peers about personal relationships between members several times over the years. I know a number of happily, and some less than happily, married military couples. Let's face it, it is going to happen. It should never involve members within the same chain of command, and if a relationship develops, someone needs to be moved and moved quickly. There are also certain circumstances where it should never be tolerated, i.e. instructors and recruits. 

To see so senior an officer, make so basic an error in judgment is rather disappointing, but I guess we are all too human.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2010)

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> To see so senior an officer, *alleged to* make so basic an error in judgment is rather disappointing, but I guess we are all too human.


There, fixed that for you.  Let us remember that in absence of facts, media like to report rumours.  We don't.  We stick to facts.


(as Mentor)


----------



## Tetragrammaton (30 May 2010)

True. Let's hope.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2010)

Two Negligent Discharged in one tour...

 ;D

His wife is going to take him to the cleaners.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Two Negligent Discharged in one tour...



 Ba dum, bum...giggidy giggidy.  Two points for the _blague du jour_!


----------



## Jammer (30 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There, fixed that for you.  Let us remember that in absence of facts, media like to report rumours.  We don't.  We stick to facts.
> 
> 
> (as Mentor)


Agreed. 
Speculation abounds.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 May 2010)

TV the only fact released is that BG Menard was relieved. The cause is the subject of speculation. Frankly his ND should have been enough to have him relieved  if my reading of previous ND cases that were prosecuted. In fact he admitted guilt and yet he remained in command. Yet an allegation of violating fraternization gets Menard relieved. Double standard ?


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ...Yet an allegation of violating fraternization gets Menard relieved. Double standard ?



Not necessarily.  As per "Duty With Discernment", the CF does not have a Zero Fault mentality and understands that nobody is infallible.  People are allowed to make a mistake that results in something bad happening (ND), but they are not allowed to do wrong.

Having an ND, even if argued as careless, is still at the end of the day* not *a malicious act brought about by bad character/leadership.

Added - And as posted below, one has to assume that his bosses are fully informed and would not do something as significant as this on a whim.  CF rules of basic conflict resolution in fact state that the accused must remain in position until reasonable evidence exists that wrongdoing has taken place (the accuser being the one to get moved).


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Yet an allegation of violating fraternization gets Menard relieved. Double standard ?



Or, possibly, senior commanders have further information which has not been shared with the media.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2010)

Or it could be as simple as something involving a camel and a straw.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 May 2010)

An allegation of a violation of Military Law is enough to cause relief. The purpose of that is to prevent the accused from interfering with the investigation. So I dont have a problem with Menards relief. I also agree that an ND is normally non-judicial punishment - unless someone is wounded or killed by the ND. Maybe under CF rules ND's are treated as a court martial offense ?


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 May 2010)

Really.  ND's, and Shagging.

As much as I would love him for being "Human", He would lay the law to crucify anyone  else doing the same.  Totally unacceptable.

We have a Colonel, of the same age and disposition in life, paying the ultimate sacrifice doing their job, and this momo is using the tour as jaunt.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2010)

Folks. let's attempt to retain a modicum of professionalism until the true statement of facts are released.

Your cooperation is appreciated, lest we see ourselves quoted in print again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... Maybe under CF rules ND's are treated as a court martial offense ?



It's rank-dependent.  Over a certain rank it's automatically CM.

Most mere mortals get the choice of Summary Trial (quick and relatively painless) or CM (long, drawn out, more powers of punishment).


----------



## Rogo (30 May 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Really.  ND's, and Shagging.
> 
> As much as I would love him for being "Human", He would lay the law to crucify anyone  else doing the same.  Totally unacceptable.
> 
> ...




All Alleged.....however if it turns out to be exactly that I will share your feeling 110%


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

Alright, I've cleaned this one up again.  Once more and we'll simply lock it because nobody wants to play nice.

As the staff message above states, let's maintain a sense of professionalism and avoid kniving the guy to bits on the internet.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe under CF rules ND's are treated as a court martial offense ?





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> It's rank-dependent.  Over a certain rank it's automatically CM.
> 
> Most mere mortals get the choice of Summary Trial (quick and relatively painless) or CM (long, drawn out, more powers of punishment).



When I got charged for an ND I had no choice, it went straight to Summary Trial..... was quick and painless... all I had to do was pay a fine....


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 May 2010)

At any rate you can just hear the needle going across the record on this one.


----------



## Tank Troll (31 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> When I got charged for an ND I had no choice, it went straight to Summary Trial..... was quick and painless... all I had to do was pay a fine....



That is what he also got for his ND a fine. It happened in Kosov With the CO of the Dragoons. He leaned forward in the tank his helmet hit the manual fire plunger on the CO-AX and fired a burst in to the tank in front of him. He plead Guilty and was fined.

It also doesn't matter the caliber either. The boys in MSG had a ND with a 105mm and The amount was the same a 5.56.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> That is what he also got for his ND a fine.



Very different.

NFLD Sapper said he did not get to elect ST or CM, it just went to ST.

BGen Menard had a CM, and did not get to choose.

The fact that they both ended up with a fine does not make a ST and CM the same.


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2010)

The media went into a piranha-like feeding frenzy on this one; the joys of a sex related scandal on a Sunday.

Lets see how long this story will have legs.

The only thing concerning is that with the spotlight being on CF Sr leadership, and their "transgressions", it is giving peoples, who are in need of a ringhold to discredit the military (i.e. Afghan detainees), a foothold argument by which they will try to point out that we are not as honourable or as disciplined as we all make ourselves out to be.


----------



## mariomike (31 May 2010)

Jack Granatstein had this to say:
"Granatstein said the accusation against Menard does not reflect a wider problem within the higher ranks of the military.
The allegation delivers a black eye to Menard, rather than the military, Granatstein said.":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100530/national/afghan_cda_commander_relieved


----------



## GAP (31 May 2010)

Tough-as-nails fire-plug Vance is unlike Ménard in almost every way
 By MATTHEW FISHER, Canwest News Service May 31, 2010
Article Link

If any soldier is well suited to replace Canada's Afghan commander, Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard - suddenly sent home in disgrace this weekend after allegations of an affair - it would be his emergency replacement, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance, fellow soldiers say.

When a colonel in Kabul familiar with NATO operations across the south of Afghanistan was asked last fall what would be the best thing Canada could do to make its mission in Kandahar a success, his prophetic answer was: "Just leave Jon Vance there for two more years."

Told of this high praise at the time, Vance replied that he had been fortunate to serve when U.S. reinforcements were flowing in. This summer, with even more Americans surging into Canada's battle space, Vance will be running the war for NATO in four districts abutting Kandahar City as well as in the provincial capital itself.

Vance preceded Ménard as commander in Afghanistan. He's now being rushed to Kandahar to take over for Ménard and will command the Canadian task force again until September.

A general's son and, like Ménard, a career infantry officer, Vance's warrior spirit won over the senior British and U.S. commanders he worked with during the 10 months he served in Kandahar last year. In particular, he forged close relationships with NATO's top commander, U.S. army General Stanley McChrystal, and British Maj.-Gen. Nick Carter, ISAF Regional Command South.

Vance will have a chance to refine the second phase of the classic counter-insurgency strategy that he adopted early in his Kandahar tenure. Where his soldiers spent much of last year clearing the Taliban out of what were to become "model villages," the Canadians have mostly been in a hold phase lately as they start to do a little building.

Ménard and Vance may have grown up in the same army, but the two generals are very different types in every respect. Where Ménard is lanky, relaxed and always charming, Vance is a diminutive fire plug with a reputation as a driven, tough-as-nails commander.

During one of his last battlefield visits as commander of Task Force Kandahar last November, Vance lectured leaders in Panjwaii and Zhari districts that westerners had grown impatient with Afghanistan's political class and that if corruption and misrule continued they might strike their tents and go home: "We have lost too many soldiers and spent too much of our people's money to stay if there is not honest co-operation. Canadians, Americans, the British - everyone is wondering whether it is worth it to stay."
end


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

QR&O 108.6

_“163. (1) A commanding officer may try an accused person by summary trial if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the accused person is either an officer cadet or a non-commissioned member below the rank of warrant officer;_

For General Officers, there is no oppurtunity to elect.


----------



## Tank Troll (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Very different.
> 
> NFLD Sapper said he did not get to elect ST or CM, it just went to ST.
> 
> ...



I realize that a ST and a CM are different. I was saying that the out come was the same, a fine. Sorry if that was hard to understand from  my post. My Bad


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

TT,

No worries, I am still scratching my head over Nfld Sapper not having the option to elect.  Potentially in a trg-type environment where it was common and there was a unit SOP for how to deal with them?


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2010)

Right to elect depends on the nature of the charge.  

Per QR&O 108.17, a 129 does not give a right to elect provided



> the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence are sufficiently minor in nature that the officer exercising summary trial jurisdiction over the accused concludes that a punishment of detention, reduction in rank or a fine in excess of 25 per cent of monthly basic pay would not be warranted if the accused were found guilty of the offence.



As long as it's anticipated the fine will be under the equivalent of 7 1/2 days of pay, there is no right to elect.  And a smart RSM/Adjt combination will ensure all minor charges are dealt with in a way to prevent elections - keep the write-ups simple so the JAG sign off comes quickly, and get the wheels of justice proceeding quickly and smoothly, to resolve things in the unit with as little delay as is possible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 May 2010)

Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.



I think quite in line with the escalation of rank and significance, though.  Something like $200 would have been silly because untrained Ptes and OCdts get that while in training and make 1/10th the money he does.  Something like $10,000 would have been Thor's hammer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Menards fine of $3500 was pretty stiff.



Not particularly. 2 rounds @ $1750 per. NCMs and others have gotten $1500 per round.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not particularly. 2 rounds @ $1750 per. NCMs and others have gotten $1500 per round.



It averages out that way, but I am not certain if it is done on a "per round" basis.

I think it is more in line with the significance of the act (at least that's what I have seen in the training system).

If someone has an ND that's a 4-5 round burst with the C9, it is seen as slightly more significant than a C7 one-round ND but not five-times worse.  For example, that candidate might get a $300 fine instead of a $200 fine (if that's the going C7 rate), but certainly not a $1000 fine because he still only made one mistake.

However, if someone had multiple C7 NDs on different days, he might get a $200 fine, then $400, then $1,000 because he has now made three different errors and is not progressing.


----------



## Strike (31 May 2010)

One has to wonder why Yon has such a hate-on for Menard.  The only thing that seems to fit is that Menard probably told Yon to pound salt at some point in the past.  

 ;D


----------



## GAP (31 May 2010)

More Media commentary....


 No sex, please. We're soldiers
Article Link

Erin Anderssen

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, May. 30, 2010 10:49PM EDT Last updated on Sunday, May. 30, 2010 10:50PM EDT

It’s a no-nookie zone, officially. Having feelings for a fellow soldier at the Canadian base in Kandahar is against the military’s fraternization rules, let alone sneaking off with the coveted keys to a light-armoured vehicle and its air-conditioned rear cabin.

But let’s face it, these are young, buff men and women working closely together in life-and-death situations. On weekend nights, the Dutch often host a disco on the base – it’s alcohol free, but the flirty dancing, says a journalist who’s attended, is closer than sanctioned military standards. Scoring the keys to the LAV is an open joke, since the vehicles are one of the few private spots for a rendezvous away from the desert heat. The army store on the base sells western-style lingerie. And there’s a reason, suggest journalists stationed in Kandahar, why condoms (ostensibly for soldiers going on leave) are freely available in the waiting room at the doctor’s office.

But when a commanding officer allegedly partakes in a similar dalliance, breaking the very rules that he’s required to set on the base, there’s no looking the other way.

“The people who are at the top simply must follow the rules and must set an example,” says Canadian military historian Jack Granatstein. “If they don’t then there is no enforcing discipline on others, and maybe more important, things down the ranks. How can I enforce discipline, when Private Jones says to me, yeah but you’re screwing so and so.”
More on link


----------



## Tank Troll (31 May 2010)

From what I've seen over the years it usually works out to a half months pay regardless of how many rounds were fired. (a burst will be the same as a single shot) How ever this is normally with live rounds only. In training a ND with blanks usually cost 200 Bucks, which is just enough money to stay on your permanent record  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> It averages out that way, but I am not certain if it is done on a "per round" basis.
> 
> I think it is more in line with the significance of the act (at least that's what I have seen in the training system).
> 
> ...



Waaay back when I was in 1CMBG, the BG Commander did charge per round, $100. for each.  One poor C-9 gunner let off a burst of 23 rounds.  Costly mistake.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> One poor C-9 gunner let off a burst of 23 rounds.





Sweet Jebus, was he getting tazed at the time or something?  How in the heck can you hold your hand on the trigger that long and not realize something bad was happening? 

It can't have been a runaway gun either because then the gun would have been at fault (for the last 20 rounds, anyway) unless they didn't test the functioning of the weapon back then.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 May 2010)

Who can say, some of the kids had heavy trigger fingers.  I remember one of the Sgts screaming at a kid on the firing line WRT trigger control and bursts with the C-9.  " How many times do I have to tell you!  It's F@#K, F#$K  for a three round burst!!! Not a$$$$$$$Hole!!!"  Needless to say we were rolling on the ground laughing our collective asses off.  

There had been, over the previous few months, quite a number of NDs.  The General was cracking down in an effort to make folks more responsible.  Same thing went for traffic accidents after a couple of Ptes rolled and wrote off a brand new HLVW wrecker because they did not want to go through a mud puddle on the Sarcee Ranges.  They went around it on a hill and she rolled over like a dog it was a total loss.  Had been a rash of preventable accidents too.  I guess you could say there was a need for a wake up call.  Speaking for myself, I watched my  Ps and Qs after that.


----------



## armyvern (1 Jun 2010)

Disregarding the last few posts, I'm pretty sure I'm sticking this article in the proper thread ... highlights mine. 
From the TorStar tonight:

(Reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act ...)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/817125--general-toppled-by-a-corporal-s-revelation



> OTTAWA —The extraordinary confession of a corporal set in motion the bombshell revelation that ended the tenure and possibly the military career of Canada’s top soldier in Afghanistan, the Star has learned.
> 
> The unidentified solider told a trusted confidant at the Kandahar Airfield about her relationship with Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard, sparking a chain of events that reached the top echelons of the military and the government.
> Within 24 hours, both Ménard and the soldier, a member of his staff, were on the same military transport plane, headed back to Canada, one defence source told the Star.
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jun 2010)

> Within 24 hours, both Ménard and the soldier, a member of his staff, were on the same military transport plane, headed back to Canada, one defence source told the Star.



They were flown out on the same plane? That must have been awkward.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jun 2010)

If that article is true, I sure as shit hope it was more than just the Cpl's word that got him sent home.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jun 2010)

If the allegations are true, I'm sure his wife will want to meet him at home.

BTW, nice of the Star to make her experience even brighter by naming her and telling us where she works.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> “It obviously broke the rules. *The allegation was serious enough that the system had to react and remove him*,” Pellerin said.



As Technoviking wrote, that is still the problem I'm having a hard time with.

So all the rules about conflict resolution and harassment go out the window when the allegation is serious enough that we no longer consider someone innocent until proven guilty?

Well why not just accuse someone you don't like of starting the holocaust then?  That allegation should be serious enough to get them straight to release from the Forces via discharge with disgrace.

Added - Although as also pointed out, it is quite probable that his bosses know more than we do and it is unlikely they'd do this on a whim.  It's the write-up in the paper that makes it seem sketchy; the truth probably makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Rogo (1 Jun 2010)

This is very true, I have been wondering about this myself but there is always a chance that they did an investigation at KAF and know far more about if something actually went on before sending anyone home.


----------



## GAP (1 Jun 2010)

The military has acted hastily
Article Link
 By Michel W. Drapeau, Citizen Special June 1, 2010

Let me open by noting that from my perspective, Canada is in the happy situation of being blessed with a generation of outstanding senior military commanders whose leadership, discipline and operational readiness is impressive, inspiring and second to none in terms of professionalism.

I also want to note that, fundamentally, I agree with the necessity of a policy of non-fraternization (romantic and sexual liaisons) between Canadian Forces members, particularly in a theatre of war, to maintain morale, esprit de corps, teamwork, and discipline, and to protect and ensure fair and uniform treatment of subordinates.

I have some reservations, however, about the extent of this policy which includes prohibiting a CF member, while in uniform and in public, to kiss, hug or even hold hands with another CF member, even if united in a family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union with that person. This policy is implemented on a "no-tolerance" basis, which means that there are no shades of grey possible.

And I have some difficulties with the administrative decision-making process followed by the higher CF echelons which directed the precipitous and ignominious relief of one of its rising stars from the position of commander, Joint-Task Force Afghanistan.

First, to make public that the reason for Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard's sudden relief from command was related to allegations of inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization Directive has caused incalculable and irreversible damage to his professional, social and familial reputation, even before an investigation into the circumstances. In acting this way, CF decision-makers knew, or ought to have known, that this would spell the abrupt end of Brig.-Gen. Ménard's otherwise stellar career in the profession of arms. There can be no question about that.

Second, in issuing an immediate press release, in my opinion, the CF brass have not only shown a lack of finesse but, in the process, have violated the privacy of an officer who, up until that time, served his country and the armed forces in a most honourable and distinguished manner, as evidenced by his quick rise through the military ranks.

Surely, his previous accumulated good service ought to have been taken into account in sparing him, and his family, the embarrassment of broadcasting to the world, the news of his alleged violation of the non-fraternization policy.
More on link


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jun 2010)

Given how bureaucratic our military is, I highly doubt that at 1755 on day "x", so-and-so said (insert seedy comment here), and then by 1800 DComd knew, and then by 1805, Comd CEFCOM knew, and by 1810, CDS knew, and then, and then, and then.


For all we know, these allegations may have been investigated and fired up and down the chain of command with due diligence.  The point is, we don't know.  So, I cannot say such things as M. Drapeau says, to wit, "the military acted hastily".


----------



## GAP (1 Jun 2010)

Some other articles out there.....


 Sex and war don't mix
Matt Gurney, National Post  Published: Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Article Link
More on link


 General paid a just price for his indiscretion
 The Gazette June 1, 2010
Article Link
More on link


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

Yon's main effort is still the bridge.  Most of his blogs are stating that in his assessment the NDs and sexual allegations are trivial compared to the bridge, which he says BGen should have been fired for twice ("allowing it to happen" and then "covering it up").

From his Blog/Facebook page:

*Michael Yon*: "Now fire McChrystal!

For the record, before some writers inevitably start blaming me for Brigadier General Daniel Menard's firing, I accept full responsibilty. I accept as much blame as can be heaped upon me. And a huge thanks to those who stood beside me while untold numbers headed for the safety of the hills, or worse. 

Did any publication see this coming? Did any resist Menard? Anyone? I would submit that writers such as Matthew Fisher have been allowing people like Brigadier General Menard to carry on even while troops die every day. If writers like Matthew Fisher did not see Menard's incompetence underneath their very noses, they should surrender their pens. If they will not stand up, they should not cover war. 

Where were the milblogs such as Blackfive and Mudville Gazette? Why were they silent while U.S. troops were getting blown to pieces under command of Menard while Menard was heading up a decisive battle in the war? Mudville Gazette, Blackfive and the others who pride themselves on being in the know, either did not know or remained silent.

My weekend is over. We have troops in combat right now and General Stanley McChrystal should be following Menard out the door. 

Fire McChrystal!"


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Jun 2010)

Not to mention, Mr. Drapeau has seemingly changed his mind overnight.

Compare this:



> I also want to note that, *fundamentally, I agree with the necessity of a policy of non-fraternization (romantic and sexual liaisons) between Canadian Forces members, particularly in a theatre of war*, to maintain morale, esprit de corps, teamwork, and discipline, and to protect and ensure fair and uniform treatment of subordinates.



With this:



> The sudden firing of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard has placed a spotlight on the Canadian Forces' policy on sex and relationships, a set of rules that one military expert says lack common sense.
> 
> Colonel (Ret.'d) Michel Drapeau said the dismissal of Ménard from his command in Afghanistan, following accusations that he had an inappropriate sexual relationship, seems heavy-handed and rash.
> 
> ...



Link for second quote.

Okay, first the rules don't make sense and they're too harsh, but now you can "fundamentally" see a reason for it?

And the whole tangent about spouses in uniform is a red herring.  The other half of this alleged equation is certainly not BGen Menard's spouse.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (1 Jun 2010)

Who the heck is Micheal Yon and why does he have such a hate on?


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Who the heck is Micheal Yon and why does he have such a hate on?



A reporter that has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan.

If he's reporting the truth then great, but you are right that it does seem like he really goes that extra mile to bury people.  If it's factual though and people should know, it's hard to argue with him.

The only thing I don't like about him is that he has a zero-tolerance attitude toward military leaders in that he expects no decisions made that would ever result in a death.  Sometimes leaders make the best decisions they can with the best information available at the time, but to Yon that is unacceptable if someone ends up getting killed.

Somehow leaders must be perfect and get every task completed without ever putting a soldier in danger, which is a pretty ridiculous expectation.  Sometimes it is necessary to put people in danger, and sometimes it is necessary to focus on one thing and not the other because you don't have enough resources to do everything to a 100% standard.  Yon doesn't understand that, and even though Menard may have been responsible for making decisions that saved thousands of soldiers and Afghan lives, Yon won't let the bridge incident go because god forbid something bad happen in Kandahar.  Obviously we should blame Menard and not the Taliban  : just like we should blame the Police in Canada and not the criminals for anything bad that happens.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2010)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92407/post-914399.html#msg914399
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91076/post-897395.html#msg897395


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Jun 2010)

How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.


----------



## Scott (1 Jun 2010)

Michael Yon's Facebook page


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jun 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.



I am not sure you aren't mixing two generals. MGen Keller, the GOC of the 3rd Division, was a heavy drinker and had an affair with a married woman in the UK. However, while he probably would have been fired in due course, he was wounded and evacuated on 8 August 1944 during the Phase 2 bombing of Operation Totalize. MGen Kitching, the GOC of 4th Armoured Division, was relieved after the completion of the elimination of the Falaise Pocket as a result of the performance of his division. I have not come across any information that suggested he was a heavy drinker (no heavier at least than the average officer of that era) and, since he only had returned from Italy a few months before D Day, was unlikely to have been able to carry on a serious affair.

Back to Menard. The Star story leads me to opine that the chain of command must have had enough information to act. I also suspect that rumours may have been making the rounds at KAF (or at least the story was known of by too many people for it not to have the potential to spread) and the Comd CEFCOM and the CDS may have concluded that they had to act.


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> So all the rules about conflict resolution and harassment go out the window when the allegation is serious enough that we no longer consider someone innocent until proven guilty?


I am a firm believer in procedural fairness, and giving the benefit of the doubt until such time as facts have been gathered.  However, in this case there is more at stake than just the people in the centre of the allegations.  If there is doubt in the commander’s ability to command in a war, then there is an operational imperative to remove that commander even if it means acting ahead of the deeper investigation.

It is easier to apologise for the embarrassment later than to suffer through an avoidable & catastrophic battlefield failure of leadership. Troops on the ground and commanders in Ottawa need to know that the operational commander has his mind on the fight and not last-night's/tonight's liaisons.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

MCG,

Technoviking's point though is that it better be more than just an allegation.  And then as Michael O'Leary pointed out, one must assume that those _in the know _know more than us and the reporters.

I agree with you that there is a lot at stake operationally, but there is also a lot at stake strategically.

The argument you are making is a parallel of the torture proponents who say operationally there may be a lot at stake so it's best to torture someone for the sake of the mission, even though we'd be giving up something greater in return.

I see this as exactly the same thing.  Yes the mission is important and so is the leadership, but not at the cost of forfeiting proper justice and a man's right of self defence.

(Again getting back to Michael O'Leary's point that obviously his bosses are very smart people and would not do this without reasonable grounds to do so.  It is very unlikely that it would be done just because a Cpl [or any rank] said that something happened).


----------



## armyvern (1 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer in procedural fairness, and giving the benefit of the doubt until such time as facts have been gathered.  However, in this case there is more at stake than just the people in the centre of the allegations.  If there is doubt in the commander’s ability to command in a war, then there is an operational imperative to remove that commander even if it means acting ahead of the deeper investigation.
> 
> It is easier to apologise for the embarrassment later than to suffer through an avoidable & catastrophic battlefield failure of leadership. Troops on the ground and commanders in Ottawa need to know that the operational commander has his mind on the fight and not last-night's/tonight's liaisons.



I agree.

And, while it would have better served himself, his family, and the other female involved in these allegations much better to allow them to return from theatre without releasing anything to the press until the matter was fully investigated etc --- that simply would have resulted in the media yelling "coverup" in a bid by them to make it look like the CF/Govnt was trying to "coverup" an alleged infraction of the "rules" by the General. Everybody out there, and the media, is aware of when General Menards tour was supposed to have finished and any move to repat him (& thus her) early simply HAD to be explained. Things like that don't "just" happen for no reason.

What pisses me off about this entire situation though, is the sheer volume of _gossip_ occuring in the media (& other places) about the entire situation with ZERO official confirmation of anything "factual" EXCEPT the standard caveat of "an unidentified source has revealed to us that it was a Corporals statement that brought down the General" etc etc etc.

IF any of this is true, then somone in the know, most probably another wearing a uniform, is speaking out of their ass AND out of turn without due process having occured WHILE an NIS investigation is occuring. THAT person should have their ass charged as their own personal and professional conduct is obviously lacking; actually, it's quite disgusting to me. This is people's lives (and possibly careers) - there are also at least 2 children involved. Disgusting.


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> MCG,
> 
> Technoviking's point though is that it better be more than just an allegation.  And then as Michael O'Leary pointed out, one must assume that those _in the know _know more than us and the reporters.


Well, of course there is more information.  Odds are, Comd CEFCOM even spoke with the BGen before deciding on his CoA.  There is always more information than what is in the media, and (as you should know) this is particularly true of anything that happens in Afghanistan.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> The argument you are making is a parallel of the torture proponents who say operationally there may be a lot at stake so it's best to torture someone for the sake of the mission, even though we'd be giving up something greater in return.


You are making a ridiculous slippery-slope argument.  There is no comparison to my statement on the general’s removal from command and support of torture; the are vastly different on many levels from all perspectives.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> There is no comparison to my statement on the general’s removal from command and support of torture; the are vastly different on many levels from all perspectives.



The similarity is that both of those situations give up something greater for something lesser, and in my opinion they are quite parallel.

In the case of torture, you are forfeiting a person's human rights (strategic) for information that will help you with a tactical/operational victory.

In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.

MCG, don't worry, I am in no way stating that you approve one or the other.  I apologize if you took it that way.


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2010)

Petamocto,
Your critical thinking skills are failing you.  Go investigate slippery-slope logical fallacies.  You have made one.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.


The removal is not punishment.  It is an operational decision to maintain force effectiveness and (like any other operational decision) it is taken in a timely manner with the best available information.

If there is warrant for punishment, then it will come later.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> In a case of punishing before proven guilt, you are forfeiting freedom and justice for operational leadership.



I can think of many jobs where one would be removed from a post if an investigation was ongoing, not a punishment, just prudence.

He's still getting paid.............


----------



## mariomike (1 Jun 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How times change. Old Sweat should post the story of a well known WWII Canadian General who had an open affair in England (with a civilian), drank excessively, and was relieved of command in Normandy.



Gen Eisenhower ( although American, was the supreme Allied commander in Europe ) may, or may not, have indulged in "horizontal refreshment" with his driver ( a member of the British Mechanised Transport Corps ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby#Relationship_with_Eisenhower

In fairness to the World War Two era, Canadian ( and American ) servicemen / servicewomen were away from home for years at a time. 
In his book, "Wartime: understanding and behavior in the Second World War", Paul Fussel devoted a chapter to "Drinking far too much, copulating too little":
http://books.google.ca/books?id=6sqzi1rH-ccC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=paul+fussell++drinking&source=bl&ots=ckSmag0MP2&sig=mMU0uDLul2cvwCWU1PsMNsc9E_c&hl=en&ei=6ScFTKHgNcX7lwetsOTXBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Wellington wouldn’t have fired Ménard":
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/wellington-wouldnt-have-fired-menard/


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> The removal is not punishment.



I think that's what we'll have to agree to disagree on, my friend.  

There are now hundreds of public articles that give the perception that he has been removed from command because of infidelity with a subordinate.  Even if he is 100% legally cleared of anything in the future, the perception is what counts and in my opinion not only is he being punished right now but his wife, too (who is also mentioned in most of the articles).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2010)

Part of the price of being a "somebody".........................ask Tiger.


----------



## Brutus (1 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I think that's what we'll have to agree to disagree on, my friend.
> 
> There are now hundreds of public articles that give the perception that he has been removed from command because of infidelity with a subordinate.  Even if he is 100% legally cleared of anything in the future, the perception is what counts and in my opinion not only is he being punished right now but his wife, too (who is also mentioned in most of the articles).



I agree with you but there really is no alternative. I have found that in many cases, both civvie and military, the process/investigation is worse than the 'sentence' if found guilty. It's human nature to assume guilt when someone has been charged or investigated, particularly with something as personal and believable as infidelity.

But like I said, there really is no alternative. Keeping him in command is not an option. IIRC, removal from the Op is standard procedure in these cases, and the last thing I would want is an appearance of favourtism based on his rank for the cbc.ca crowd to sink their teeth into. 

If he's innocent, I feel bad for him. If he's guilty, well, he should have been wise enough to see the outcome pre-fornication.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Jun 2010)

I was taught, as a young sprog Sapper, by a very wise rigging instructor, to always ask myself what the worst possible outcome would be before carrying out any lifting/dragging/moving operation.  A question that I ignored at my peril in all facets of my career period of military service.  are hossifers not taught something like this?


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jun 2010)

In my opinion for him to be removed of command and sent home there is more to the story than "just an allegation".

I'm sure we had a fair amount of cause to send him home.  I know we're all innocent until proven guilty but both of them getting sent home like that? It's more than just rumor mill.

I don't think frat is a big issue so long as they aren't in the same chain of command and they drink in the same mess.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jun 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Part of the price of being a "somebody".........................ask Tiger.



Or even a less "somebody" ask Jesse James.

Sex sells. Like it or not. And heaven forbid, something as simple as the facts get in the way of a good selling story.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Jun 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/01/menard-leave.html



> June 1, 2010
> Brig.-Gen. Ménard sent on leave
> By CBC News
> CBC News
> ...



Once again, media reports may have jumped the gun


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2010)

Nothing out of the ordinary - having served in Afghanistan since November, he has accrued various post-deployment leave days.


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jun 2010)

Not to mention, there would be the small issue of trying to reconnect with family (receptive or not) after this very public incident.


----------



## Gunner98 (2 Jun 2010)

Is this what they teach at public affairs (journalism) school, "But he said reports the soldier involved was a low-ranking corporal *"might not be accurate."* - why not "has not been confirmed" or "cannot be confirmed" or better yet "I am not in a position to comment on that as the investigation has not been completed."  And what is "a low-ranking corporal"?


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jun 2010)

Me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jun 2010)

One that is horizontal?

 :-X


----------



## McG (2 Jun 2010)

> *Career-ending Menard a trios*
> Peter Worthington
> The Calgary Sun
> 02 June 2010
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jun 2010)

So, we should have a 1940s lenience toward sexuality in the forces?  What other social customs should we roll the clock back on so that Mr Worthington can pretend we're still his father's Army?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Is this what they teach at public affairs (journalism) school, "But he said reports the soldier involved was a low-ranking corporal *"might not be accurate."* - why not "has not been confirmed" or "cannot be confirmed" or better yet "I am not in a position to comment on that as the investigation has not been completed."  And what is "a low-ranking corporal"?


*IF* the source said _exactly_ that - "it might not be accurate" - that's OK. "Low-ranking Corporal," though?  WTF?!?!?!  Or did the reporter mean, "a Corporal, considerably junior in rank to the General"?  IF that's what was meant, that's what should have been written (or edited by the editors).



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, we should have a 1940s lenience toward sexuality in the forces?  What other social customs should we roll the clock back on so that Mr Worthington can pretend we're still his father's Army?


It isn't just Worthington - this from George Jonas via the _National Post_:


> .... Wise, pragmatic, flexible societies accommodate mavericks. It’s pinched, neo-Victorian, mindlessly anti-masculine, obsessively egalitarian insect-hill societies that spout off about “discipline” and “morale” while trying to stretch-and-fit mavericks on Procrustean beds. Maybe Brig.-Gen. Ménard’s “inappropriate relationship” will turn out to be a genuine no-no, a security breach, consorting with an enemy necrophiliac or such. I hope so, because depriving the country of a good soldier for nothing more than an extramarital fling with a subordinate means picking Mrs. Grundy’s priorities over Wellington’s priorities. For Canada’s military, it’s a damn poor choice.



Really?  I wonder what behaviour similar to that Menard is alleged to have done would do to morale in Jonas' workplace if it was condoned as part of the price of "accommodating mavericks"?


----------



## TimBit (2 Jun 2010)

Maverick or not, there is also the question of bad blood b/w teammates. I for one can think of at least one "intimate relationship" that made many things very difficult on one of my courses. Not something good for ANY workplace.

Sacrificing workplace harmony to accomodate hormones is a dubious choice, I believe.


----------



## Strike (2 Jun 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Maverick or not, there is also the question of bad blood b/w teammates. I for one can think of at least one "intimate relationship" that made many things very difficult on one of my courses. Not something good for ANY workplace.



You can't compare this with a course fling.  On course, no matter how nice evryone is, there is always competition to see who will get that top spot.  Any type of fratenization could be seen as people trying to get an unfair advantage -- be it with staff or another course mate.

On my deployment we had a service couple AND an engaged couple all deployed together in the same unit.  It did NOT create tension.  In fact, it was great material for jokes and other such duff.  Did they have sex?  Who knows?  Who cares!  They all got the job done and NO ONE used their partners' position to their advantage (which would be kind of hard as they were all the same rank).


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Jun 2010)

To be blunt, both Worthington and Jonas are talking out of their butts. At least the former has some military experience, dated as it is. The latter starts his opinion piece by noting that Colonel Simon Hetherington, the Deputy Commander, said that, "Brig.-Gen. Menard's dismissal won't have an impact on Canada's mission." He goes on to write, "What worries me is that Col. Hetherington may be right. If so, our troops are commanded not by warriors but computer chips. It explains why we aren't doing better in Afghanistan."

Nice bit of work, George. You clearly don't understand that the army is designed and trained to function with losses, including losses of key personnel. To then claim that our senior commanders are not warriors is an outrageous bit of buffoonery, or maybe just journalism, where ill-informed speculation can take the place of analysis.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jun 2010)

It is coming to the point where I simply disagree with anything written by Worthington because it is written by Worthington.

His claim doesn't hold water when one looks at the sequence of events.  Menard holds command 2 months after the incident which Worthington asserts is the reason for his relief.  After his trial, he returns to theater and is turned around after hitting the ground for an issue that is closed and done.

As most have pointed out, there is more at play then the media is aware of and Worthington is missing all of this to tell war stories.

As for Jonas, whatever.

The real issue that both these (and most other journalists) are missing isn't masculinity or weapons safety.  It's an issue of accountability that the post-Somalia CF has maintained strict adherence to and upholds as a central tenet of command, regardless of who the leader is.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The real issue that both these (and most other journalists) are missing isn't masculinity or weapons safety.  It's an issue of accountability that the post-Somalia CF has maintained strict adherence to and upholds as a central tenet of command, regardless of who the leader is.


Good news?  About a current gov't or institution?  From MSM?  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Have to agree.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jun 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It isn't just Worthington - this from George Jonas via the _National Post_:
> 
> 
> > .... Wise, pragmatic, flexible societies accommodate mavericks. It’s pinched, neo-Victorian, mindlessly anti-masculine, obsessively egalitarian insect-hill societies that spout off about “discipline” and “morale” while trying to stretch-and-fit mavericks on Procrustean beds. Maybe Brig.-Gen. Ménard’s “inappropriate relationship” will turn out to be a genuine no-no, a security breach, consorting with an enemy necrophiliac or such. I hope so, because depriving the country of a good soldier for nothing more than an extramarital fling with a subordinate means picking Mrs. Grundy’s priorities over Wellington’s priorities. For Canada’s military, it’s a damn poor choice.
> ...



WTF? Did his thesaurus explode? Did he get a piece of the dust jacket embedded in his brain as the fancy words spilled all over his keyboard?  Or is he paid extra to use obscure words and references to simulate intelligent commentary?


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Jun 2010)

Latest news on the issue:

OTTAWA — Canada's top soldier on Wednesday defended the decision to remove Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard, accused of sexual misconduct, from leading Canadian forces in Afghanistan just before a major offensive was planned for the Kandahar region.


Gen. Walt Natynczyk said Menard's firing is a matter of enforcing strong discipline in the Armed Forces and applying the same standards to everyone.


"We've sent other people home for the same thing," Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, told reporters.


Menard, whose wife is also in the military, was fired last weekend and recalled to Canada by Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard, commander of all Canadian troops overseas, on grounds he had an inappropriate relationship with a female member of the force in theatre.


Natynczyk asserted "we were respectful" of Menard's wife and children in handling the situation.


"We have pretty clear policies to ensure a high level of discipline within the entire contingent," Natynczyk said after delivering a speech at a military trade show. "We're on duty 24 hours a day and you never know what could occur . . . When we put people in harm's way we have to insist on a high level of discipline no matter what we're doing."


He said Menard, who commanded 2,800 Canadian military personnel in Afghanistan, retains his rank while an investigation is underway. Menard, 42, who was promoted to brigadier-general on Jan. 1, 2010, could be stripped of his rank and potentially face a court martial.


"We will wait for the investigation," Natynczyk said.


Responding to a question of whether Menard's treatment is demoralizing or disruptive to troops in Afghanistan, Natynczyk said it encouraged confidence in the way the military conducts business. "You know for the soldiers on the ground they'll acknowledge it but also acknowledge the fact that we've sent other people home for the same thing, you know, and we're holding everyone to the same standard," he said.


"We hold our leaders to a high standard," Natynczyk said.


Natynczyk said he supports Lessard's decision and has "absolute confidence" in Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance, Menard's predecessor in Afghanistan who has resumed command in Afghanistan until the end of September. American and NATO commanders understand the situation, know Vance and also have absolute confidence in him, he added.


Menard had been named to lead a critical NATO campaign against the Taliban in Kandahar.


Menarad, who returned to Canada on Monday, is on leave but will report to the chief of the land staff in the coming days, a military spokesman said.


The other person involved is also back in Canada, but no details are available about her status.


Menard is under investigation by the military's police's National Investigation Service, which handles "serious and sensitive service and criminal matters" for the Armed Forces and has the right to lay charges.


"Sexual activity or any other form of intimate contact in any context," is strictly forbidden for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, according to standing orders on personal relationships that every soldier receives before deploying to South Asia.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/soldier+defends+M%C3%A9nard+firing/3102139/story.html#ixzz0piVGG6Yl


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jun 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, we should have a 1940s lenience toward sexuality in the forces?  What other social customs should we roll the clock back on so that Mr Worthington can pretend we're still his father's Army?


Screw social customs, can we reinstitute rolling barrages and carpet bombing?  Or regress even further, ban women from service (and the vote!) and employ chemical weapons!


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Menard is under investigation by the military's police's National Investigation Service, which handles "serious and sensitive service and criminal matters" for the Armed Forces and has the right to lay charges.
> 
> "Sexual activity or any other form of intimate contact in any context," is strictly forbidden for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, according to standing orders on personal relationships that every soldier receives before deploying to South Asia.



I'm going to assume here, that the MSM really meant to state that *both* of the CF members allegedly involved are under investigation. Same rules & processes are applicable no matter the rank or sex of the alleged offender ... and every rank knows those rules.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to assume here, that the MSM really meant to state that *both* of the CF members allegedly involved are under investigation. Same rules & processes are applicable no matter the rank or sex of the alleged offender ... and every rank knows those rules.


That's a good point - that isn't clear to me in _my_ reading of MSM accounts.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jun 2010)

Not quite the same - certain follies that would warrant the local MPs' attention if done by a Cpl will get the NIS engaged if done by a senior officer.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not quite the same - certain follies that would warrant the local MPs' attention if done by a Cpl will get the NIS engaged if done by a senior officer.



True that, but the MSMs blatant disregard to mention that BOTH are subject to investigation and/or possible disciplinary action for allegedly committing the alleged offense is quite interesting. The only difference being "who" does the investigation.

Regardless of rank, same alleged violation of the regulations are applicable (with the Snr Rank possibly seeing _more_ violations [ie "Abuse of Authority"] if the investigation recommends).   

Pte, Cpl, _whoever_ ... she knew the rules too and is subject to disciplinary action as well should the allegations come to be founded; it's certainly not just one CF member's career and/or future on the line here. And, whether the MSM likes it or not, each and every single one of our "lowest-corporals" (!! WTF?? How much more degrading could they possibly be?  : ) and even our most junior Ptes are CRITICAL to CF mission success - they are the backbone of this institution. 

The MSM is, quite frankly and habitually, comparable to People Magazine these days.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jun 2010)

Now, "they" say that they are treating BGen Menard fairly, etc.  Then why is the name of the other person not in the press?


Fair is fair, no?


----------



## McG (2 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, "they" say that they are treating BGen Menard fairly, etc.  Then why is the name of the other person not in the press?


Because it is possible.  If it were also possible to keep the BGen annonymous, then "they" would have done that.  Unfortunately for him, he was too high profile to silently be replaced.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Because it is possible.  If it were also possible to keep the BGen annonymous, then "they" would have done that.  Unfortunately for him, he was too high profile to silently be replaced.


Fair enough: however, "they" could have simply said "Due to an investigation concerning the BGen, he is being relieved of his duties.  Due to the nature of the investigation, further details aren't being released at this time."


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Fair enough: however, "they" could have simply said "Due to an investigation concerning the BGen, he is being relieved of his duties.  Due to the nature of the investigation, further details aren't being released at this time."



Nah, as discussed earlier, the MSM (& the Oppostion) would have then just run along with a "Trying to Coverup!!" barrage of BS instead.

It doesn't matter what we do, the MSM would scream that the "opposite" should have occured. Don't you remember those days when detainess were handed over to the US and the MSM screamed "You can't give them to the US, you must give them to the HN?" And so, the Liberals (governing at the time) said to us "hand over your prisoners to the HN?" And, we complied ... and yet now, the Liberals and the MSM are content on shitting on us for doing EXACTLY as they (MSM) screamed and one (the Liberals) ordered? 

Funny how that works.


Edited for spelling, grammar and other stuff.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nah, as discussed earlier, the MSM (& the Oppostion) would have then just run along with a "Trying to Coverup!!" barrage of BS instead.
> 
> It doesn't matter what we do, the MSM would scream that the "opposite" should have occured. Don't you remember those days when detainess were handed over to the US and the MSM screamed "You can't give them to the US, you must give them to the HN?" And so, the Liberals (governing at the time) said to us "hand over your prisoners to the HN?" And, we complied ... and yet now, the Liberals and the MSM are content on shitting on us for doing EXACTLY as they (MSM) screamed and one (the Liberals) ordered?
> 
> ...



Now you're getting it


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now you're getting it



Nah, I have gotten that since the early 90s.


----------



## Rogo (3 Jun 2010)

I understand how it can be seen as important to put his name out there...but having the other party's name also out there will not hurt operational capabilities and will prevent any people from saying that the BGen was treated unfairly.  By naming only him it is pretty much branding him as the problem and the other as a victim without there being any story yet told.


----------



## captloadie (3 Jun 2010)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Publishing her name does nothing but satisfying everyone's curiosity as to who it was and if they know her, and if I want to be really sexist, was it worth it. And Vern, maybe they are not investigating her. There are circumstances where only one party may be investigated beyond the original inquiry. We don't have all the details of the "relationship".


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2010)

I care less about her name, I want a picture...

  ;D



My OC, a Coy PL Comd and several others in my CoC in Afghanistan all carried away with abandon with the PSP ladies and others, it got a blind eye, even when it was complained about, and despite officers I mention by position where married.
  Of course this was Kabul, not Kandahar, and the beer at the Belgian mess flowed a lot more than the 2 beer per man limit as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jun 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I care less about her name, I want a picture...



Here's an old guy's take on this and why the cpl will not be punished: Because she is a cpl. She was led astray, the BGen coerced her etc...plus naming her in MSM will look vindictive.
You know what the MSM is like....the poor cpl was not at fault....that ********  BGen its all his fault.....etc etc


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2010)

> I care less about her name, I want a picture...
> Here's an old guy's take on this and why the cpl will not be punished: Because she is a cpl. She was led astray, the BGen coerced her etc...plus naming her in MSM will look vindictive.
> You know what the MSM is like....the poor cpl was not at fault....that ********  BGen its all his fault.....etc etc



Nobody said she was a corporal.....she told a corporal, the rest is assumed.


----------



## Tank Troll (4 Jun 2010)

Then there is this piece of drivel.

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/lets-give-general-mnard-a-break/article1592342/


----------



## R. Jorgensen (4 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Then there is this piece of drivel.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/lets-give-general-mnard-a-break/article1592342/



    :threat:

I'm speechless... Honestly... Why are all these damn reporters all candy-assed "never-served-a-day-and-never-would" types!? Makes me sick...

She needs to realize that engaging in a relationship while in operational theatre is a security risk. ESPECIALLY between a Task Force Commander and an NCM (as it stands)... because depending on security clearance, and rank of course, entitles us and them only to so much information regarding operations. And all of us who've been through many a relationship know that sometimes you get a little soft and let things slip... I'm not saying that Menard WOULD jeopardize operations by letting slip OPSEC material to someone who isn't cleared for it because they're engaged in a relationship - but there's always the possibility. Not just that, but it also causes all kinds of other nasty issues that we all know of (favouritism, etc.) that can occur in this kind of siuation.

It's not about beer and sex, it's about making the world a better place, getting the job done, and making sure as many of us soldiers and our comrades as humanly possible (we would all like it to be everyone, but we all know that it's if not nearly, then completely impossible) come home alive, safe and well to our home and family at the end.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Jun 2010)

Big Beef said:
			
		

> :threat:
> 
> I'm speechless... Honestly... Why are all these damn reporters all candy-assed "never-served-a-day-and-never-would" types!? Makes me sick...



She is a columnist vice journalist who essentially writes about the incredible importance of being thirtyish and single - think Carrie Bradshaw and Sex in the City.

As such, her piece resonates, given her very particular viewpoint.

Perspective matters, so perhaps we should gain some ourselves....


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

I am inclined to agree with _some_ of what she writes, actually.

The biggest irony is that the rules are in place to stabilize everything and limit drama, but the last week obviously shows that finding accusing someone guilty of these rules de-stabilizes things quite a bit more.

She's right that perhaps we should be focusing on fighting insurgents so we can say "we won" in Afghanistan and not focusing on a sexual scandal, but it's not good to say that since all humans are imperfect that we should start giving out get-out-of-jail-free cards because we're at war.

As Mr O'Leary wrote earlier, I don't exactly think the right thing to do is go back to the good-old-days when morale girls were Army-issued to the platoons though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2010)

> Given how flawed all humans are



She is a defeatist!


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jun 2010)

What is the policy of other military forces in Afghanistan ? If intimacy/sex is allowed is there a corresponding decline in military strength.
Didn't I read somewhere that relationships are allowed in the US military in battle zones?
As the "columnist" says:
"These are soldiers we're talking about, not hormone-crazed adolescents. Most professional adults are able to balance intimacy and work relationships and members of the Canadian military are no exception. Those who disagree engage in the sort of hysterical, prudish thinking that kept women and gays out of the military for so long on the grounds they might cause a “distraction."


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Jun 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> As the "columnist" says:
> "These are soldiers we're talking about, not hormone-crazed adolescents. *Most* professional adults are able to balance intimacy and work relationships and members of the Canadian military are no exception. Those who disagree engage in the sort of hysterical, prudish thinking that kept women and gays out of the military for so long on the grounds they might cause a “distraction."



Define "most".

For the remainder, some of whom who may not be able to balance adding the stresses of sexual relationships to an already stressful environment (either because they are getting some, or because they are not), what's the acceptable failure rate?

Why would we want to add that, and its potential administrative and disciplinary fallout, to our operational responsibilities.

The reporter doesn't explain to her readers the male to female ratio among Canadians (or other nations) in Afghanistan? How will this change the reactions of those who might "get some" in a 50/50 balance in Canada, but may be feeling a little left out if the ratio is (for example) 90/10. 

We are not talking about "most professional adults" who, at the end of the day, get to go home - or at least get to go out to a bar and try to find someone to sleep with.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The reporter doesn't explain to her readers the male to female ratio among Canadians (or other nations) in Afghanistan? How will this change the reactions of those who might "get some" in a 50/50 balance in Canada, but may be feeling a little left out if the ratio is (for example) 90/10.


Not to mention the reactions of the 10% in AFG vs the 50% in Canada.


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2010)

The 800 pound Gorilla sitting on the whole issue is....

Fine it's allowed

....then, what do we do with all the drama that ensues because relationships don't work out, go south, or are uninvited? What about revenge issue in a weapons filled environment? 

It all happens in everyday life where there are other outlets.....so you want to encapsulate it in a stress fill environment? 

I think not...


----------



## observor 69 (6 Jun 2010)

More food for thought:

Pentagon's Plan B Won't Stop Battlefield Sex
Posted 02/12/10 Read all 274 comments +6 / -1 raves War is hell, but apparently it comes with a comforting benefit: sex. Commanders seem to acknowledge that it happens in the forward operating bases: Base exchanges sell trashy lingerie, medics hand out condoms and, in some places, have a supply of pregnancy test kits available - and now the morning-after pill.

All U.S. military health facilities around the world have been ordered to carry a pill known as Plan B One-Step. We’re not talking about a quick-kill pill for American soldiers captured in combat; no, we’re talking about a pill meant only for women who fail to follow Plan A: Keep your legs together. 

A new Department of Defense policy now requires all medical facilities, including those on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, to carry it. 

The decision, made last week, comes on the heels of a commander in Iraq who attempted to enforce a clause in his code of conduct that would have made getting pregnant in combat a punishable offense. Although the code was struck down, now he’s got Plan B.

I won’t object to the pill, as long as the commander takes it too, and every soldier who has sex with a female comrade. After all, the side-effects only cause headaches, nausea, painful breasts and irregular vaginal bleeding. I’m sure it won’t cause too much damage to the male appendage, other than make him follow Plan A for a few weeks if not a few months.

I’m digressing from my original point, however. And that is: What woman is going to follow Plan B if she can’t follow Plan A? The pill has to be taken preferably within 24 hours, or up to 72 hours, to prevent pregnancy. I doubt that sexually active soldiers plan to take it every time they have sex. And apparently, “Sex runs wild in the U.S. military,” according to a 2005 report by Newsmax.

“It is only natural for the teens and 20-somethings who make up the majority of U.S. forces in Iraq to do what civilians of their age back home are doing,” Newsmax quoted Iraq soldiers, who had interviewed with the Salt Lake Tribune on condition of anonymity. 

“They can try to keep us apart as much as they want, but they miss the point,” said one female soldier. Sex is "what people this age do," she said. Popping pills, which cause less than desirous effects, are not. 

If anything, pregnancy and venereal diseases could increase as a result of a woman relying on the emergency contraceptive pill. This gives soldiers - female and male - another reason to not use condoms. And then a woman has to take the pill in too short of a timeframe to prevent conception. 

This does not sound like the answer. So it's back to Plan A - No sex. But that's illogical as well.

Capt. Eryth Zecher, an officer with the 146th Transportation Company, said the Defense Department has not issued a blanket ban on sex in Iraq, although in most commands male and female soldiers are not allowed to be in the same room with the door closed or be "out of uniform" anyplace. 

"We don't really have any other choice than to go to each other," said a male soldier in the 872nd Maintenance Company headquartered in Mosul. "In past wars, they could go into town and there would be girls there or boys or whatever you want. Here, you can't really leave the base because you'll get killed." 

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/pentagons-plan-b-wont-stop-battlefield-sex/blog-259255/


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> What is the policy of other military forces in Afghanistan ?



The Dutch seem to have free reign. I wonder if it's like in Bosnia for them, they can do whatever they want with each just not the locals.





			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> More food for thought:
> 
> no, we're talking about a pill meant only for women who fail to follow Plan A: Keep your legs together.


Or like, get raped...
Cause I hear  reporting rape in the US army is a real great time.





> The decision, made last week, comes on the heels of a commander in Iraq who attempted to enforce a clause in his code of conduct that would have made getting pregnant in combat a punishable offense.


That's actually a really good idea. I thought we have something like this in Canadian laws in the Military?




> If anything, pregnancy and venereal diseases could increase as a result of a woman relying on the emergency contraceptive pill. This gives soldiers - female and male - another reason to not use condoms. And then a woman has to take the pill in too short of a timeframe to prevent conception.



That's right, it will increase the risks. Just like teaching kids about sex education (compared to letting them find out on their own) will make them rush out and have sex early.
Giving young girls that needle that helps prevent HPV or whatever also makes them want to rush out and have unprotected sex with everyone in sight.

 :


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> That's actually a really good idea. I thought we have something like this in Canadian laws in the Military?



I can see only one major glitch with that "charging a woman for becoming pregnant in combat" regulation ... and that would be that there obviously must be a male involved in the process of getting her there as well. Our current regulations cover it with that "No inappropriate relationships" in a much more even manner of enforcement.

Female soldier couldn't keep her legs closed, but the male half of the equation couldn't keep his pants up and thus she is now preganant and they are *both* going to be parents _perhaps_. 

And this rule wouldn't do much in the CF ... I can't imagine in today's enviornment - where charges etc for any infractions are declining (seems enforcement has become soft over the past few years - have you tried to get something past the AJAG lately??) that they'd actually get the go-ahead to CM some woman who, along with her partner (who obviously could not be charged under the same clause) gets herself knocked-up in a combat zone as CMing her would immediately be deemed "too stressful upon her and would place the unborn child at risk, increase risk for spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) etc" .... I just can't see us going there.

Female soldiers have been RTUd from other theatres previously for being knocked up. As far as I'm aware, none have been CMd for breaking those "relationship" rules; but, I can name you a few men who have been CMd under those rules.


----------



## MARS (6 Jun 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Then there is this piece of drivel.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/lets-give-general-mnard-a-break/article1592342/



And another one
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/819426--what-s-wrong-with-making-love-and-war?bn=1


----------



## Tank Troll (6 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I can see only one major glitch with that "charging a woman for becoming pregnant in combat" regulation ... and that would be that there obviously must be a male involved in the process of getting her there as well. Our current regulations cover it with that "No inappropriate relationships" in a much more even manner of enforcement.
> 
> Female soldier couldn't keep her legs closed, but the male half of the equation couldn't keep his pants up and thus she is now preganant and they are *both* going to be parents _perhaps_.



I concure it takes two to tango and two to make a child. Charge one, charge the other. I think our rules work well they just need to be enforced. :2c:


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

I think its already been proved that these rules don't really effect the situation on the ground.  We all know that people are shagging over there whenever the chance is given.  KAF is not the only place either.  Upon arriving on the west coast I was told our warships are often dubbed as "love boats".  Why would that be?  As was pointed out by one of the commentators, when you put in place such an unrealistic rule, the enforcement becomes arbitrary.

Are we really sending home EVERYONE who is guilty of intimacy overseas?  Not even close, and yet we all know its happening.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think its already been proved that these rules don't really effect the situation on the ground.  We all know that *people are shagging over there whenever the chance is given*.  KAF is not the only place either.  Upon arriving on the west coast I was told our warships are often dubbed as "love boats".  Why would that be?  As was pointed out by one of the commentators, when you put in place such an unrealistic rule, the enforcement becomes arbitrary.
> 
> *Are we really sending home EVERYONE who is guilty of intimacy overseas?*  Not even close, and yet we all know its happening.


Two points:
First: BS on the assertion that people are shagging "whenever the chance is given".  I've been there, and argue that point from one of experience.
Second: No, we aren't sending home everyone who is guilty of innappropriate relationships.  But we are sending home all those convicted of it.  

Third (and extra) point: STFU if you are making claims for which you have no grounds other than hearsay or innuendo.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Two points:
> First: BS on the assertion that people are shagging "whenever the chance is given".  I've been there, and argue that point from one of experience.
> Second: No, we aren't sending home everyone who is guilty of innappropriate relationships.  But we are sending home all those convicted of it.
> 
> Third (and extra) point: STFU if you are making claims for which you have no grounds other than hearsay or innuendo.



I am not making claims with no grounds, very far from it.  I've had the misfortune of walking in on said inapropriateness more then once while on duty and had to take the appropriate action.  And for other times when I didnt walk in on it, it was reported to me.  Too_often.

Its nice to know that not everyone takes up the opportunity but you and I both know damn well that it happens often.

And next time mind your tone and ask how someone comes to an argument instead of assuming its from hearsay and innuendo.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> And next time mind your tone and ask how someone comes to an argument instead of assuming its from hearsay and innuendo.


SIR YES SIR!  
(I still call bullshit on your assertions on what happens in Kandahar, however, in that you generalised that it happens all the time and at every opportunity.  I do agree that it happens, and when caught, they get charged.  And if convicted, they go back)


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> SIR YES SIR!



Is this and your STFU comment before really necessary?

As for the debate I call bullshit on the getting caught leads to getting charged and sent home argument.  That is where the whole arbitrary problem comes in.  Not everyone who is being caught is facing the diciplinary action that they should be.  It all depends on who catches them.  Why do I know this?  Because of more then one NCO with whom ive worked with in the past telling me that they would also catch that stuff too often.  Some refused to report it, others were nazis about it.  I dont think its hearsay when you have these NCOs fighting openly about who did the "right" thing and who didnt.

While I am positive that there is always tons of unsubstantiated hearsay going around about this sort of thing, I like to think that I have enough sence to know the difference between the two.


And for the record, I dont personally disagree with the legitimacy of such rules, but I do question wheather they are realistic and can be enforced effectively.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jun 2010)

I disagree at the everyone is coupling as soon as they find available space.   

It does occassionally happen, however in my experience in the CF and working for US DOS and DOD, that it happens a lot less with Military personnel, than it does with civilian personnel (be it US DOS, Cdn DFAIT, or Defense civilians pers...)


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

If NCOs openly admit that they have found people, but refused to do anything about it, then they (the NCOs) are contravening directives, as well as the NDA.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If NCOs openly admit that they have found people, but refused to do anything about it, then they (the NCOs) are contravening directives, as well as the NDA.



What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.

When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.


----------



## Rogo (6 Jun 2010)

I don't think ltmaverick is saying that its the "NCOs" not reporting. I think in his particular case he is hearing about this from or about NCOs because he (assuming here) is a junior officer or at the time was. Being a junior officer or at the time a jr officer it'd be unnecessary to inform him of anyone being caught or failing to report above him but below him could fall under his responsibility.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.
> 
> When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.



Im not trying to infer that NCOs are more guilty then officers or any such thing like that.  I was just recalling one exchange that I whitnessed.  Nothing else should be taken from that.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What's up with all this talk about NCOs that's occuring here all of a sudden?? Not saying that it's you, but let's not begin to perpetuate any myths about this offense or failing to report being any different between Officers and us - it isn't.
> 
> When I think back to some of my tours - it ain't just the NCOs doing it or failing to report it (a service offense itself); just to be clear on that.


Totally agreed.  It's just the specific point made in the previous post that asserted that there were 'some' NCOs not reporting the goings-on.  It was those specific NCOs of whom I was referring.  

And you are 100% correct: be they NCM, NCO, WO or Offr, it's wrong.  and of course there are the regulations that stipulate that ANYONE who catches hanky panky (or any other offense) has a duty to report said "fooling around" to his or her chain of command.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ltmaverick: If your NCOs openly admit that they have found people, but refused to do anything about it, then they (the these NCOs) are contravening directives, as well as the NDA.



Fixed my post in order to avoid confusion.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Im not trying to infer that NCOs are more guilty then officers or any such thing like that.  *I was just recalling one exchange that I whitnessed*.  Nothing else should be taken from that.


Dude, this is what I meant by STFU.  Earlier, you asserted that it happens all the time, and at every opportunity over there.  Now you state that you whitnessed (sic) ONE exchange.  Please, there are enough rumours being spread on the news.  Let's stick to facts here and be specific.  For example, during my 7.5 months in KAF, and a previous 3 months in Kabul, I saw and/or heard of exactly 0 incidents.  This of course does NOT mean that it didn't happen, but I would be just as wrong to say that it never happened, as you are wrong to say that it happens all the bloody time.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Dude, this is what I meant by STFU.  Earlier, you asserted that it happens all the time, and at every opportunity over there.  Now you state that you whitnessed (sic) ONE exchange.  Please, there are enough rumours being spread on the news.  Let's stick to facts here and be specific.  For example, during my 7.5 months in KAF, and a previous 3 months in Kabul, I saw and/or heard of exactly 0 incidents.  This of course does NOT mean that it didn't happen, but I would be just as wrong to say that it never happened, as you are wrong to say that it happens all the bloody time.



I realize this one exchange isnt enough to make that generalization, but, that is just one of many things leading me to that argument.  Im not going to write a huge essay detailing every other bit..  Regardless my opinion still stands, based on my own experience, and the experience of too many others, this seems to be a battle that the chain of command cannot win.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2010)

While it's going to happen regardless, that's not an excuse not to punish it. 
It seems to get punished more (surprise) when the relationship becomes an issue in the work place and I'm comfortable with that.

We had a MCpl and Cpl dating. Same platoon, different section. Everyone knew about it but outside our platoon you'd never know. 

Another soldier in our platoon was seeing two different girls from another unit at the same time. The two women who were friends had no idea. Ironically both became pregnant.
Guess which case caused more drama.

I agree vern when it happens and it becomes an issue both parties (or all parties heh) should be charged. Especially so if the end result is an RTU.
Interesting point about the "You can't court martial me it'll cause me undue stress" defense. I wonder if anyone has tried that back in Canada.

If it wasn't an issue, wasn't affecting the work place and there were no concerns over favoritism I wouldn't report it.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jun 2010)

Define "win".

Eliminate completely? No.

Reduce to a minimum? Yes.

The chain of command cannot "win" against drug usage, either, if you opt for the former, but should we just ignore that too?

Then we just need the rock 'n' roll and we've got a real party.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> We had a MCpl and Cpl dating. Same platoon, different section. Everyone knew about it but outside our platoon you'd never know.


This is a perfect example of an acceptable relationship (so long as no "hanky panky" in theatre, but I'll leave that for now).  The MCpl is NOT in the Cpl's chain of command, does not have anything to do with the Cpl's shift work, reporting, PERs, etc and so forth.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jun 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> "You can't court martial me it'll cause me undue stress" defense. I wonder if anyone has tried that back in Canada.



Almost, but I don't think any chicks would have to use that as a defense ... because I just can't see the CoC going there in the first place. But, then why not CM her AFTER the child is born then?

I'd be interested in seeing the stats on the number of CMs of women that have occured after they have been RTUd from theatre knocked up --- let's say --- RTUd after 3 or 4 months in theatre because they were 2 months pregnant, having taken no leave from theatre ...

Immaculate conceptions??

Bueller?? Anyone??


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Immaculate conceptions??









 >


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Jun 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Define "win".
> 
> Eliminate completely? No.
> 
> ...



Thats a good point, I just think that the minimum we are acheiving is not good enough and it is extremely frustrating.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2010)

Folks, this tangent is getting way out of hand. It might be worth it if we hadn’t done this before, but we have. With the same results.

When something comes in regarding the actual person the thread is about, contact a Mod to get it included.

Temp lock

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## McG (8 Jun 2010)

> *General paid just price for indiscretion*
> The Montreal Gazette
> 07 Jun 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## 211RadOp (17 Jun 2010)

From the Kingston Whig Standard

Menard won't head land forces in Quebec, assigned to personnel management project

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2627548

Posted By QMI Agency
Posted 2 hours ago
  

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard, Canada's former top soldier in Afghanistan, has been posted to head a team developing a new computerized personnel system for the Canadian Forces. 

Menard was relieved of his duties in Afghanistan late last month after he allegedly engaged in a romantic relationship with another Canadian soldier in contravention of the military's fraternization policy. 

The department of national defence announced Thursday that Menard has been appointed head of the Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project. It had previously said Menard would be appointed commander of land forces for Quebec, but the decision to reassign him was made because of what happened in Afghanistan. 

"I made a decision not to appoint Brig.-Gen. Menard as the Commander of Land Force Quebec Area due to the fact that the CF leadership recently lost confidence in his capacity to command in Afghanistan," Chief of Land Staff Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said in a release. "After careful consideration, I deemed this change was in the best interests of the Army and Canadian Forces." 

Brig.-Gen. Alain Tremblay has been appointed commander of land force, Quebec area. He takes command on July 30.


----------



## McG (17 Jun 2010)

> *Armed Forces regulations aim to save lives*
> Charlottetown
> The Guardian
> 11 June 2010
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Jun 2010)

News Room
Announcement Of Changes To Army Senior Appointments
NR - 10.061 - June 17, 2010

OTTAWA - Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of Land Staff, announced today that Brigadier-General Alain Tremblay has been appointed as the Commander of Land Force Quebec Area and will take command on July 30, 2010. 

“Brigadier-General Tremblay is an experienced commander who will provide exemplary leadership to the officers and soldiers under his command,” said LGen Leslie. “I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him every success as he takes command.” 

LGen Leslie further announced that BGen Daniel Ménard has been appointed to head the Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project, reporting to the Chief of Military Personnel. In this capacity he will be responsible to lead a team in developing a new computerized personnel management system for the Canadian Forces. 

It was previously announced that BGen Daniel Ménard would take command of Land Force Quebec Area upon his return from Afghanistan. 

“I made a command decision not to appoint Brigadier-General Ménard as the Commander of Land Force Quebec Area due to the fact that the CF leadership recently lost confidence in his capacity to command in Afghanistan,” said LGen Leslie. “After careful consideration, I deemed this change was in the best interests of the Army and Canadian Forces.” 

-30- 

For more information: 

Major Mike Audette, Army Public Affairs Officer 
Tel: (613) 992-4738 
E-mail: michael.audette@forces.gc.ca


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jun 2010)

So I take it "Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project" is code for "corner for dead careers"?


----------



## cavalryman (17 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So I take it "Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project" is code for "corner for dead careers"?



Let me put it this way - the previous project leader was a retired RegF BGen brought back on Cl B until she CRA'd out.  BGen Ménard is in for quite a shock...  I don't know what kind of NDHQ time he has, but we shall see how he adapts to the fun and games at the puzzle palace trying to sell a $200M project to the Treasury Board.


----------



## McG (17 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So I take it "Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project" is code for "corner for dead careers"?


The CF wants to replace the Human Resource Management System, move to a common Reg/Res pers database, adopt a single pay system, and (I hope) maintain many of the supervisor tools enabled by MonitorMass & its current interactions with HRMS, CFTPO & MITE.  This is a major capital project.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Jun 2010)

So perhaps it is a second chance or the project needed a fall guy with good credentials!


----------



## Tank Troll (17 Jun 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> So perhaps it is a second chance or the project needed a fall guy with good credentials!



Probably the latter of the two.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jun 2010)

What was the term the Japanese used to use for businessmen who were moved into an out-of-the-way office and given no useful work to wait out the remaining years to their retirement?


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jun 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What was the term the Japanese used to use for businessmen who were moved into an out-of-the-way office and given no useful work to wait out the remaining years to their retirement?



Loosersan?


----------



## McG (17 Jun 2010)

Generally a reapeat of information already posted, but a found a few things interesting here:





> Disgraced general stripped of planned appointment
> CTV.ca
> The Canadian Press
> Thursday Jun. 17, 2010 11:24 AM ET
> ...


The bolded text seems pretty obvious.  I doubt there is a workplace in the world that could stiffle that gossip.

As for the last paragraph, that may be one of the most over-the-top exagerations I've ever seen.  Rattled by the General being replaced?  I don't think so.  Reeling because of Col Williams?  Definately not - though it would be fair to say we are disgusted and angry.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What was the term the Japanese used to use for businessmen who were moved into an out-of-the-way office and given no useful work to wait out the remaining years to their retirement?


As the lead for Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation Project, he may be out of common site, but that is not out-of-the-way.  The stuff he will be doing will impact on every CF member for years to come.  Imagine someone in a position to fix the reserve pay problems or (through a failure) to spread pay problems to the whole CF?  It is not just new software and databases - there will be review of much of the pers admin policies & procedures.  Last fall I heard the scope included things such as moving from the current 4 classes of reserve service (A, B, B/A, and C) to a simpler two class system.


----------



## RCDtpr (17 Jun 2010)

As much as I don't care about Menard or his career I do hope that if he is charged the female is charged as well.  Takes two to tango


----------



## Jungle (17 Jun 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> OTTAWA - Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of Land Staff, announced today that *Brigadier-General Alain Tremblay * has been appointed as the Commander of Land Force Quebec Area and will take command on July 30, 2010.



That is excellent news !! Congratulations to BGen Tremblay.


----------



## 57Chevy (17 Jun 2010)

Why has the female not been charged? 
Does it not apply to both members involved? :
An oversight? :rofl:
I have my doubts.
                          ............peachy.............j-u-s-t....f#@&%n.....p-e-a-c-h-y


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Jun 2010)

I'm sure she'll be charged.  It just won't make the news.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jun 2010)

Keep in mind Menard hasn't been charged yet either:



> Military police are still investigating Menard's case. Charges are possible because military regulations bar soldiers -- even married couples -- from having intimate relationships on deployment.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2010)

So, will we move to a web-enabled version of PeopleSoft, or will DND's HR system move to AshleyMadison.com?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jun 2010)

Nope, we're going to contract some unknown company which will promise to design and build a custom database to meet all of DND's personnel management needs.  It will cost millions and the project will last for years, long enough so that those who established the contract will be long gone by the time the new team is rewarded for canceling it.  Cost - millions. Useful product - Nil.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> That is excellent news !! Congratulations to BGen Tremblay.



Yes.  An intelligent, insightful, hard-working man whose recent contributions to the Army are not well known - but he spent the last 4 years or so keeping the requirements folks noses to the grindstone, pushing out kit to the soldiers on operations.


...to give you an idea of how good he is, I've even heard members of the PPCLI say good things about him  ...


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...to give you an idea of how good he is, I've even heard members of the PPCLI say good things about him  ...



You have to be joking here!!  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Nope, we're going to contract some unknown company which will promise to design and build a custom database to meet all of DND's personnel management needs.  It will cost millions and the project will last for years, long enough so that those who established the contract will be long gone by the time the new team is rewarded for canceling it.  Cost - millions. Useful product - Nil.



Gee our department did almost just that, mind you we are pretty small so it's $100,000 spent for a product which we can't update old files and can't add new applicants.


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Jun 2010)

I concur that BGen Trembley is incredible and very deserving of the job (not that a measly captain is qualified to say who is qualified/not). 

I have seen him present a couple times on the state of projects, procurement, and the budget and he is both a genius and personable.  He just seems to "get it".


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2010)

This from the CF:


> Charges Laid Following Brigadier-General Ménard Investigation
> 
> CFNIS NR – 2010-11 - July 12, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Tank Troll (12 Jul 2010)

Good glad to see both are being charged.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jul 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Good glad to see both are being charged.



Me too; it is as it should be.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jul 2010)

Obstructing justice...hmmm.  That part will be interesting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Obstructing justice...hmmm.  That part will be interesting.



Simply obsfucating, stalling or being diverting in your answers, during interview, will get you that one. Say "I don't recall" enough, and there it is. IF, and this only a hypothetical, he tried to conceal the identity of his partner in flagrant delectico, that would be reason enough for that charge. Especially if they read him the definition of obstruction and he continued to be stubborn.

There is nothing sinister or uncommon about it at all. It's a normal part of the 'interview' process.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jul 2010)

That opens up a giant can of grey zone, though.  What's to stop a person from saying "I don't remember" forever?

I understand that this is still a charge and not a conviction, but I would hope that a person would have to be pretty flippant before getting charged with that.  As in being downright uncooperative or deceptive.

You can prove that someone is being mean or has lied to you.  How can you prove that someone is obstructing your case if he's politely looking at you and saying "I can't remember that"?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> That opens up a giant can of grey zone, though.  What's to stop a person from saying "I don't remember" forever?
> 
> I understand that this is still a charge and not a conviction, but I would hope that a person would have to be pretty flippant before getting charged with that.  As in being downright uncooperative or deceptive.
> 
> You can prove that someone is being mean or has lied to you.  How can you prove that someone is obstructing your case if he's politely looking at you and saying "I can't remember that"?


I'm not getting into a big discussion on this. Suffice to say, when the interviewer feels he has 'reasonable and probable grounds' it becomes an option. That's as far as I'm going on this.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jul 2010)

What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?

May be he is "Leading Change".


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?


This won't hit either of thier PER until next writting season ... but you can be sure thier names will be recognized at meriting time.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> This won't hit either of thier PER until next writting season ... but you can be sure thier names will be recognized at meriting time.



Menard and anyone else that has violated the fraternization policy needs to be retired. If they dont have enough time in to retire they should get severence and sent packing.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Menard and anyone else that has violated the fraternization policy needs to be retired. If they dont have enough time in to retire they should get severence and sent packing.



The process for Administrative Release is quite lengthy and I doubt a frat charge is enough for DMCA (or whatever they are called) to action.

Two courts martial in 6 months for an O7 might do it though!


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jul 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What was his PER score on Ethics and Values? Conduct On/Off Duty?
> 
> May be he is "Leading Change".



Senior Officers get different assessment points, and oh wow do they ever make for 15 joke punchlines. You can see them all in the CFPAS Helpfile... best one I found was "Stamina/Stress Resistance". Allegedly there is only one person that can attest to his "stamina".  >


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Jul 2010)

Depends if you subscribe to the born with, developed, or circumstances led to the deviancy syndrome. Or the 23% syndrome. You pick.


----------



## Container (13 Jul 2010)

I have no experience with the National Defence Act-

but it looks like Section 130 (with regards to Obstruction of Justice 139(2) CC) is used to make an offence when the offence happened outside of Canada.

The key part of the 139(2) is the "willful" attempt to subvert the course of justice. And without knowing the details I fail to see how he could be charged with this offence. The first part of 139 is dealing with sureties and judicial proceedings- section 2 expands the scope so as to not limit the sections application, simply refusing to answer a police officers questions about who was involved would not result in this charge. Or at least it shouldnt. A person isnt compelled to give a statement about themseleves or anyone else. 

Now if he outright lied- sent emails to people to create a story, or attempted to create a story which he then relayed as the truth than maybe. At least my limited understanding would point to this- its a charge I have seen once on paper and was promptly tossed. It along with 129 of the CC are ermm...difficult to prove.

They require Mens Rea- it has been held that for Section 139(2) to result in a conviction it is required that the crown prove knowledge of the "falsity" of the statement,. I dont know how you would prove that his recollection hadn't failed him.

Again- Im not overly familiar with the section but I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would apply it unless an elaborate story had been concocted to cover someones tracks. If forced to speculate- and being that this is speculation worth nothing. It may just be a "dog pile" charge and in my experience courts hate those. Pointed, laser like, application of the code is always more appropriate and desirable. Some lawyers disagree believing it gives more to bargin with- but the ones I respect most are of a like mind. You only charge a person with whats appropriate- not everything that can be laid so that you can bargain. Just cause you can swear the information doesn't mean you should.

Curious thing this NDA! Thanks for the read gentlemen!


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Menard and anyone else that has violated the fraternization policy needs to be retired. If they dont have enough time in to retire they should get severence and sent packing.



So all that training, all that money spent on courses, paying the individual, benifits and such thrown out because of an inappropiate consensual fling?

When do we see the General in charge of our messed up procurment process and crap we buy sent packing?


----------



## armyvern (13 Jul 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> I have no experience with the National Defence Act-
> 
> but it looks like Section 130 (with regards to Obstruction of Justice 139(2) CC) is used to make an offence when the offence happened outside of Canada.
> 
> ...



No one here is privvy to exactly why that charge was laid. It is pure speculation when one links it with "I can't remember" commentary by the General.

One could also speculate that certain General may have tried to exert his rank as an influence in the investigation or their "findings" thus warranting an 'obstruction' charge and it would be nothing but pure speculation as well. 

All I know is, those that did the investigation found reasonable grounds for the charges they recommended ... it'll all come out in the Court Martial: wash & rinse cycle ~ of that I'm quite I'm sure.

Until then - everything is only speculation.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> When do we see the General in charge of our messed up procurment process and crap we buy sent packing?



Would that be CLS, who signs off on Army requirements?


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Jul 2010)

Yes it is container....."a curious thing the NDA". I have always been under the impression that they
normally threw the book at you with everything they could find.
"No exceptions". 
"Tell it to the Judge" type of thing.
Basically speaking, when someone told me that I was going "on charge", there was no doubt in my
mind that I would be escorted out as being "charged".
They always seem to have a cover charge ;D


----------



## Container (14 Jul 2010)

Interesting- Thanks ArmyVern,

I hadn't even considered the use of rank to influence. I could definately see applications when using your rank.

Silly civi cops!

57Chevy- you may have enough legal experience to start offering advice yourself!  ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (14 Jul 2010)

My advice would always be the same....."Take the lesser charge" ;D

"charged" = :crybaby:


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Jul 2010)

According to CTV News Robert Fife video report on 12 July stated that the Obstruction charge resulted from the BGen telling the MCpl not to say anything about their relationship to the MPs when he left KAF for his Court Martial trial.


----------



## Container (14 Jul 2010)

If we accept that report as accurate than the charge can be made out. R.V.WHALEN is similar and kind've applies-as he is attempting to convince someone not to report their informmation on the NDA offence to the police. And since the act under investigation is covered by (IMO) Section 118 of the Criminal Code as being a "Judicial Proceeding" he'd be eligible for the charge......

as a cops interpretation anyways. This has given me good reading on a boring nightshift!


----------



## Recce41A (14 Jul 2010)

Maybe General Menard and Col Ouellette will get together and Co-author a book.....I bet they title it "PANTS ON THE GROUND" or they could make a You Tube video.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2010)

This from the _Toronto Star_:


> The former Canadian commander of troops in Afghanistan has already been penalized for an alleged relationship with a junior soldier and shouldn’t face any more punishment, his lawyer says.
> 
> Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet says a decision by the military to lay charges against Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard after removing him from command and cancelling a pending appointment is excessive.
> 
> ...


 :


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jul 2010)

Perhaps someone should remind LCol Sweet the difference between administrative actions and discipline.


Putz.

And he's trying to cloud issues here.  If BGen Ménard really wanted to show leadership, and if he really did the things of which he is accused, then perhaps he should advise his lawyer to STFU.


----------



## Recce41A (14 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from the _Toronto Star_: :



Hmm seams like his lawyer does not understand the difference between Administrative and Disciplinary Actions!!!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jul 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Would that be CLS, who signs off on Army requirements?



Looks like he's got some answering to do


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone should remind LCol Sweet the difference between administrative actions and discipline.





			
				Recce41A said:
			
		

> Hmm seams like his lawyer does not understand the difference between Administrative and Disciplinary Actions!!!!!



Ah, the Defence Counsel Message/Story Line Crafting begins:  where people with military experience have very precise ideas around "punishment" (the more legalistic "a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence" version), the general public reading this will more likely think of "punishment" more broadly (more like "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing").  The defence's message:  public exposure + rumour mongering + damage to reputation = "punishment" enough.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> If BGen Ménard really wanted to show leadership, and if he really did the things of which he is accused, then perhaps he should advise his lawyer to STFU.


Unless he _approves_ of his lawyer's paving the way for a "hasn't he been 'sanctioned' enough for this?" defence and/or sentencing mitigation.  If so, I guess that answers the "leadership" question, right?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If so, I guess that answers the "leadership" question, right?



Agreed.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, the Defence Counsel Message/Story Line Crafting begins:  where people with military experience have very precise ideas around "punishment" (the more legalistic "a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence" version), the general public reading this will more likely think of "punishment" more broadly (more like "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing").  The defence's message:  public exposure + rumour mongering + damage to reputation = "punishment" enough.



Agree completely. LCol Sweet & the BGen are both fully aware of all mil refs that clearly indicate that "Adminstrative action" is quite seperate from "Disciplinary action", but the average Canadian audience to whom they now speak are not.

If this is the way his defense is going to go ... I be pulling the stats on all those Court Martials and charges the BGen has caused to occur throughout his career and their "disciplinary" outcomes. Given his rank & TI - they can not be "few". Then I'd be holding those stats up against the numbers of "Admin actions" he also caused to occur to same-said charged & "already" disciplined individuals. And vice vesa - how many "already Admin actionned" individuals has he then caused to be disciplined?

Something tells me that they'd not be few either.  

How the tune changes when one's own butt is the hatless one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> How the tune changes when one's own butt is the hatless one.


A butt without a hat?  What an odd picture....  ;D
</goofy getting-close-to-lunchtime tangent>


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2010)

His defence attorney darn well knows the difference. He's trying to influence the potential panel that may be called to stand in judgement.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jul 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> His defence attorney darn well knows the difference. He's trying to influence the potential panel that may be called to stand in judgement.



Yes, he does know the difference ...

I'm also sure that the Officers sitting on the CM Panel will also be very familiar with "the difference" between the two. Many of them will also have caused both Administrative and Disciplinary actions against same individuals given their place in the heirarchy. 

It's a moot argument as far as I am concerned; it's covered in the NDA. "Administrative Sanctions do not negate Disiciplinary Actions being taken against an individual." 

But, it does make for good copy ... and heck - one's defense has to start somewhere. The starting point does not necessarily have to be grounded in fact or reality ... or even what one has caused, quite possibly, to occur to a soldier under their very own command at some point in time ... obviously.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, *it does make for good copy* ... and heck - one's defense has to start somewhere. The starting point does not necessarily have to be grounded in fact or reality ... or even what one has caused, quite possibly, to occur to a soldier under their very own command at some point in time ... obviously.


Especially if the reporter doesn't (appear to, in any case) ask the right questions in response to the quote.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Especially if the reporter doesn't (appear to, in any case) ask the right questions in response to the quote.



True enough. A good question to ask would be, "has your client ever undertaken POCT (Presding Officer Certification Training) and has he ever had to renew that qualification?"

I, when posted into a certain location as the Detachment Commander, had to under POCT because, as the WO, I was the Snr RegF rank in the province and had been delegated authority down by the BComd of the base who oversaw our activity from a neighbouring province. It is a mandatory course for those who will "lay charges" and has an expiry date. I have since had to renew my qualification.

There is no doubt in my mind that a BGen would have had to undergo both this course and the renewal of the qualification given his daily duties and responsibilities as a Commander. 

Given that, there is no doubt in my mind that he also "must have" passed this course if he has ever caused a charge to be laid against an individual; it therefore follows that he is *very* familiar with the difference bewtween "Administrative" sanctions and "Disciplinary" actions and is also quite aware of the fact that the application of one does *not* preclude the application of the other - it is *all* covered in that very qualification he obtained.

Wonder if he drafted up any "double jeopardy" concerns to the JAG then ... or any time previous when he has caused both to occur to a soldier under his Command. I'd wager not ~ as they are clearly two seperate and distinct items and are not, in fact, double jeopardy at all.

Finding that it is "double jeopardy" would be akin to a civilian judge ruling that a convicted sex offender serving prison (Disciplinary action) time can not have his name placed on the Sex Offender Registry (Administrative sanction) because it would be "double jeopardy".


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet says a decision by the military to lay charges against Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard after removing him from command and cancelling a pending appointment is excessive.


I wonder if anyone has tried that defence in a civilian court?  "I lost my job for my actions, so now it would be unfair if I am also subject to the Criminal Code of Canada."  If some one had tried, they would have found themselves unsuccessful .... same is true of the NDA.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The military is also making an unfair example of Ménard while staying quiet for weeks in the case of Col. Bernard Oullette, the Canadian commander in Haiti who lost his job for allegedly having an affair with a civilian working for the United Nations, in a similar breach of military rules.


Of course, the military has already done press releases explaining this.  BGen Ménard was filling a very public role and his removal could not be hidden - the CF could not maintain his privacy while awaiting the investigation completion after the removal.  Col Oullette and MCpl Langlois were both in positions where they could quietly be removed, and so they were


----------



## Wookilar (23 Nov 2010)

From the CBC 15 minutes ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/23/menard-court-martial.html

Would this be an election or would he be offered a choice?

I'm not overly surprised at the main charge given the circumstances, but the charges of obstruction are a bit of a surprise. You could argue that the obstruction charges are just as serious, if not more so given his postion and rank.

Wook


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Nov 2010)

I thought that he had already been fined for this situation.  If so, would this not count as a case of double jeopardy?  I suppose the MCpl he was involved with will also go to trial then.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2010)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Would this be an election or would he be offered a choice?


"Only service members below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel can be tried by way of summary trial."1




			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I thought that he had already been fined for this situation.  If so, would this not count as a case of double jeopardy?  I suppose the MCpl he was involved with will also go to trial then.


He hasn't been fined, so there's no double jeopardy. The legal procedings against the MCpl have already been completed.



1. DND, _B-GG-005-027/AF-011 Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level - V2.1_, 11-5, para 17.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Nov 2010)

Check out the big brain on JM!  And you thought that presiding officer course wouldn't come in handy!   >


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Check out the big brain on JM!  And you thought that presiding officer course wouldn't come in handy!   >









Although Menard's prosecutor was one of the instructors.


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Nov 2010)

Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)


To pick a hypothetical, then, you're OK with a section commander hitting on one of his/her section members?  A platoon commander hitting on a member of the platoon?  How about if you were being hit on by a boss of yours, and you didn't like it?  What business is it of the Army's/your employer's right?

Or how about if your boss treats the person s/he's F%$*-ing differently than you, giving them better assignments or fewer s**t duties?  That OK too?

I think it's just you.


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Nov 2010)

He was previously Court Marshalled for the Negligent Discharge that occurred. This is another Court Marshall for a separate incident(s) as listed in the media report. The CF Court Martial Calendar hasn't been updated as yet:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/index-eng.asp

All CF Personnel sign a 'No fraternization' policy prior to or soon after deploying into an operational theatre. Therefore, he dis-obeyed a lawful order from a Superior Officer.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)


If you think it's only an issue if STDs are involved, I suspect you don't have much understanding of military leadership.

What if the subordinate-ranked member seems to be getting fewer duties? Avoids the more hazardous tasks? Adds to admin burdens because of marital status of either participant and word gets to the home-front? Pisses off co-workers because they're away from loved ones and aren't getting any? 

Leadership is about perceptions as well as abilities.


Sorry, but I'm thinking it's just you....and the usual cohort of ill-informed opinion that posts at CBC


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Nov 2010)

Actually my old section commander married her. I did sleep with my boss once(20 years ago). In the end it was messy. When she tried to get me fired I got a great package once all the info came out. I don't like people telling me what I and another consenting adult do in their off time. Though honestly I did get the best work while I was  screwing my boss. I see your point. Maybe the publicity is a bit much though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2010)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> From the CBC 15 minutes ago.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/23/menard-court-martial.html
> 
> ...




Personal opinion, because I'm too long retired to know about Mil Law anymore: were I a member of a court I _might_ be inclined to view the (main or alternative) _"conduct to the prejudice"_ charges as being issues of _human failure_ or _human weakness_ that, while involving a breach of regulations by a senior officer who *must* have known better, are 'understandable' as _human failings_ that require only a modest punishment - presuming the charges are proven.

_Obstruction of justice_ appears, to me anyway, to be a more serious. Without having read the charge sheet I _might_ feel that we are talking about a general officer lying to investigators, trying to cover up and so on. As a member of a court, I _might_ consider that an issue that, assuming again that the charges are proven, warrants very serious punishment, indeed.


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't like people telling me what I and another consenting adult do in their off time. Though honestly I did get the best work while I was  screwing my boss. I see your point. Maybe the publicity is a bit much though.



So when do you think a TF Comd has any "off time" in a combat zone?  The concepts of publicity and transparency should not be confused.


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Actually my old section commander married her. I did sleep with my boss once. In the end it was messy. When she tried to get me fired



Did your boss have the ability to send you into harms way? Probably not.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't like people telling me what I and another consenting adult do in their off time.



Time off??  We only take time off when the Taliban do.. which is never.... Time off = Guard down = Bad things happen


----------



## xena (23 Nov 2010)

For what it's worth Mr Campbell, I heartily agree with your assesment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> When she tried to get me fired I got a great package once all the info came out.


Suggesting this wasn't such a right thing to do, no?


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Nov 2010)

Obstructing Justice would imply by actions or in-actions he potentially affected or could have affected the outcome of a Legal Investigation.


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Suggesting this wasn't such a right thing to do, no?



Hadn't really thought about it for twenty years. But yes she did go overboard when she got dumped. I don't think the problem was the relationship. But in hindsight I think I got preferential treatment. She bad mouthed me after I dumped her and tried to get me fired. I took the package. Which was generous because I hadn't really done anything wrong except get drunk and do my boss. If she had been more mature about it I think it would have been fine. But I don't  think that is possible for most people.

I shudder to think where she would have sent me in a combat theatre. OK, changed my mind. Bad idea!


----------



## dapaterson (23 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Personal opinion, because I'm too long retired to know about Mil Law anymore: were I a member of a court I _might_ be inclined to view the (main or alternative) _"conduct to the prejudice"_ charges as being issues of _human failure_ or _human weakness_ that, while involving a breach of regulations by a senior officer who *must* have known better, are 'understandable' as _human failings_ that require only a modest punishment - presuming the charges are proven.
> 
> _Obstruction of justice_ appears, to me anyway, to be a more serious. Without having read the charge sheet I _might_ feel that we are talking about a general officer lying to investigators, trying to cover up and so on. As a member of a court, I _might_ consider that an issue that, assuming again that the charges are proven, warrants very serious punishment, indeed.



Note that the panel (assuming a trial by a panel and not by judge alone - a decision that now rests with the defence) decides guilt or innocence only; sentencing is the exclusive purview of the military judge, based on case law and submissions from the prosecution and the defence.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Nov 2010)

News Room
Brigadier-General Ménard To Face Court Martial
NR-10.137 - November 23, 2010

OTTAWA – Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard will face a Court Martial in relation to charges of inappropriate conduct.  Charges were laid in July 2010 following allegations made in May 2010 while Brig.-Gen. Ménard was the Task Force Commander in Afghanistan.

Following referral to the Canadian Forces Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), the charges facing Brig.-Gen. Ménard were reviewed and subsequently brought forward or “preferred” to Court Martial. 

The charges facing Brig.-Gen. Ménard are: 

■two counts of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, laid in the alternative, contrary to section 129 of the National Defence Act (NDA), related to alleged inappropriate conduct as outlined in the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives; and

■four counts of obstructing justice contrary to section 130 of the NDA, pursuant to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Court Martial Administrator will convene the Court Martial at the first available date and at a location to be determined.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Nov 2010)

Lets say he is found guilty.

Through out his career he's undoubtedly charged (presided over, found guilty?) other members of the CF with these same kind of infractions.  Does that mean any trial he's been involved in gets reviewed?


----------



## riggermade (23 Nov 2010)

When I was a Mcpl I had a WO screwing a Cpl and it caused nothing but problems in the unit.  She was a very sub par Cpl and I was selected to write her PER...believe me the final draft of her PER did not go her way but it caused alot of problems when he tried to screw me and I wouldn't back down


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2010)

Although Rosie DiManno's been good at getting the word out about the troops' hard work downrange, I have to say I disagree with her on this one:


> Forty years for fornication?
> 
> Golly. Why not just give the poor guy 40 lashes, Taliban-style? I mean, if we’re going to get all punitively hysterical about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2010)

Ms Dimanno should note that the charges that feature the possibility of jail time having nothing to do with fornication, but rather trying to use rank to convince others to cover up an investigation - far more serious (IMO).


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Does that mean any trial he's been involved in gets reviewed?



I wouldnt think not. Those events and his current situtation would be unrelated. The evidence in those cases would not cease to be evidence because Menard was found guilty of something 20 years later.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Although Rosie DiManno's been good at getting the word out about the troops' hard work downrange......


DiManno decided only recently that she's OK with soldiers.....but only _after_ opinion polls showed Canadians support the troops. 

But she cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be mistaken for a credible journalist. 
For example:


> Thing is, no military historian I contacted Wednesday could recall an instance of a soldier actually brought to trial for having sex with a subordinate....


A competent military historian would have pointed out that the chain of command has administrative tools (eg - C&P, Recorded Warnings, etc) in addition to legal proceedings under the National Defence Act. The overwhelming majority of punishments/corrective actions meted out by the military are administrative rather than Summary Trials or Courts Martial. Records of Courts Martial are readily available online; administrative punishments are not. 

She's aghast that Ménard was removed from command, yet quotes Drapeau as saying, 





> "*In my experience with the military*, this kind of situation was always handled privately. Sometimes they’re *recalled from a diplomatic posting or removed from a command position*."


I guess she can't even be bothered reading her own garbage.



> The former relates to a five-month fling Menard had with a *subordinate* (*a word I really don’t like in the context of intimate relations*);


That she somehow believes that this is some feminist liberation issue, rather than a superior/subordinate command issue within an operational theatre, speaks volumes to the competency she brings to her reporting. If she was a member of this site, the Mods would have told her to "stay in her lane" some time ago.

 :


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But she cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be mistaken for a credible journalist.
> For example:A competent military historian would have pointed out that the chain of command has administrative tools (eg - C&P, Recorded Warnings, etc) in addition to legal proceedings under the National Defence Act. The overwhelming majority of punishments/corrective actions meted out by the military are administrative rather than Summary Trials or Courts Martial. Records of Courts Martial are readily available online; administrative punishments are not.



Man!  How did you ever become such a wellspring of knowledge on this topic?  And is there training others could take to gain this depth and breadth of knowledge?


----------



## Journeyman (25 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Man!  How did you ever become such a wellspring of knowledge on this topic?  And is there training others could take to gain this depth and breadth of knowledge?


I know you'd be shocked to learn this, but much of my knowledge of administrative and summary trial punishments was gained by standing in front of a desk -- sometimes as "escort to the guilty bastard"....and sometimes without the comforting warmth provided by headdress.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2010)

Ah!  Yes.  Back in the day where one would never expect to make the rank and appointment of RSM unless they had done time in DB.    ;D


----------



## Haggis (25 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  Yes.  Back in the day where one would never expect to make the rank and appointment of RSM unless they had done time in DB.    ;D



So, I should've pled "Not Guilty"?  (Not like it would've mattered....)


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, I should've pled "Not Guilty"?  (Not like it would've mattered....)


Now, if it were Court Martial, then yes, you should have.  If it were Summary Trial, then you should not have admitted to the particulars of each charge.   ;D


----------



## Haggis (25 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, if it were Court Martial, then yes, you should have.  If it were Summary Trial, then you should not have admitted to the particulars of each charge.   ;D



Well that didn't work either.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2011)

Reviving necrothread with the latest:


> Standing Court Martial proceedings will begin July 21, 2011,for retired Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard in relation to charges of inappropriate conduct. The charges were initially laid in July 2010 following allegations made in May 2010 while he was the Canadian Forces Task Force Commander in Afghanistan.
> 
> Retired Brig.-Gen. Ménard will be tried by Standing Court Martial at the Régiment de Maisonneuve, 691 Cathcart Street, Montréal at 9:30 a.m. on July 21. The Presiding Military Judge will be Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil.
> 
> ...


Source:  CF news release, 14 Jul 11


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2011)

It appears that several charges have been dropped (see below). 



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> News Room
> Brigadier-General Ménard To Face Court Martial
> NR-10.137 - November 23, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Jimmy_D (14 Jul 2011)

I removed my posts for the events that they were misinterpreted, and as i after realized hard to interperate, which is no ones fault but my own. (I am told i do not elaborate enough on some of my opinions/thought)

So I am publically apologizing to everyone who seen the post and took in in the wrong discression, there was no intention on causing any issues.


And no women were not allowed into combat for Frat. 

again my apologies

JD


----------



## Sythen (14 Jul 2011)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> And no women were not allowed into combat for Frat.



My Pl Comd was female, as were one of my medics. We saw plenty of combat.


----------



## Jimmy_D (14 Jul 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> My Pl Comd was female, as were one of my medics. We saw plenty of combat.



You misinterpreted my comment,

women are not in combat for the purpose of fraternization


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> My Pl Comd was female, as were one of my medics. We saw plenty of combat.



I believe Jimmy_D's point you quoted was a correction of a previous assertion of his about the reasoning behind acceptance of women into the combat arms.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2011)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> I removed my posts for the events that they were misinterpreted, and as i after realized hard to interperate, which is no ones fault but my own. (I am told i do not elaborate enough on some of my opinions/thought)
> 
> So I am publically apologizing to everyone who seen the post and took in in the wrong discression, there was no intention on causing any issues.
> 
> ...



Too little, too late I'm afraid. I don't think anyone misinterpreted what you said.

You've lost your Mentor badge over the deal, because you don't fit what we expect Mentors to be.

At least you apologized.

We'll move on now, put this behind and continue on with the original thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Sythen (14 Jul 2011)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> You misinterpreted my comment,
> 
> women are not in combat for the purpose of fraternization



Sorry then.


----------



## Jungle (14 Jul 2011)

Hey, did anybody hear about what happened to the TFK CWO earlier this year ??

He was a... an... in The RCR, wasn't he ??

I guess he did pass a few faults !! Strangely, I can't find any comments about this on the forums here. Is he royally retired now ??


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jul 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Hey, did anybody hear about what happened to the TFK CWO earlier this year ??
> 
> He was a... an... in The RCR, wasn't he ??
> 
> I guess he did pass a few faults !! Strangely, I can't find any comments about this on the forums here. Is he royally retired now ??



Who was it? I might have known, but forgot. Interesting.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jul 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Hey, did anybody hear about what happened to the TFK CWO earlier this year ??
> 
> He was a... an... in The RCR, wasn't he ??
> 
> I guess he did pass a few faults !! Strangely, I can't find any comments about this on the forums here. Is he royally retired now ??



... ... ... ... 

... ... ... ...

Debateable.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2011)

> A former military commander who was dismissed from his post in Afghanistan after being accused of having an illicit sexual affair with a subordinate has pleaded guilty to two charges.
> 
> Retired Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard entered the pleas while facing court martial this morning in Montreal.
> 
> ...


Source:  The Canadian Press, 21 Jul 11


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2011)

Reports are suggesting defence lawyers are recommending a $7000 fine and a reduction in rank to Colonel.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1028156--ex-afghan-commander-accused-of-illicit-sex-pleads-guilty?bn=1


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Reports are suggesting defence lawyers are recommending a $7000 fine and *a reduction in rank to Colonel.*
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1028156--ex-afghan-commander-accused-of-illicit-sex-pleads-guilty?bn=1


Since he's out, would the bit in yellow affect his pension?


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jul 2011)

It should not, as the pension is based on his best five/six years of service.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Since he's out, would the bit in yellow affect his pension?



No.  Pension amounts are based on average pay for five years (usually the last 5 years of your career).  I believe a demotion would be largely symbolic, though it would reduce the amount of his severance pay, which is based on the pay on the date of release.  Looking at the Colonel and BGen pay scales, the difference would probably be about $1100/month (depending on his IPC ); news reports say he released after 25 years, or almost half a year; therefore the difference in his severance pay would be roughly $6300.


----------



## Ralph (21 Jul 2011)

I have a piece of paper signed by him at his outgoing rank. I assume it will now be a sought-after collector's item and will be placed on EBay forthwith... :


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jul 2011)

In US military service a reduction from BG to Colonel would be around $1100 a month.Over a person's retirement thats a loss of $13,000 a year.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jul 2011)

I just love the link on the CANOE home page under "News":  "General spanked after sex romp".  How tabloid!


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jul 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Since he's out, would the bit in yellow affect his pension?



Likely more of an impact to his ego as he will only be able to market himself as "Col (Ret'd)"...back down with the likes of Col (Ret'd) Drapeau, now.  :'( (not)


----------



## Brutus (25 Jul 2011)

According to 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1028156--ex-afghan-commander-accused-of-illicit-sex-pleads-guilty?bn=1

he will actually retain his previous rank, despite the court sentence. How does that work?


----------



## john10 (25 Jul 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Likely more of an impact to his ego as he will only be able to market himself as "Col (Ret'd)"...back down with the likes of Col (Ret'd) Drapeau, now.  :'( (not)


 Apparently he hasn't been able to find a job...


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jul 2011)

Did the MCpl in this case get charged with anything ?


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Jul 2011)

If you opened the news item you would read:

"Langlois was convicted in a summary trial last Sept. 28 of one count of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

She was reprimanded and fined $700."


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Jul 2011)

Brutus said:
			
		

> According to
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1028156--ex-afghan-commander-accused-of-illicit-sex-pleads-guilty?bn=1
> 
> he will actually retain his previous rank, despite the court sentence. How does that work?



Actually, he doesn't retain any previous rank since he is now a civilian and his only connection to the CF is as a former member.  However, since Mr.* Menard was honourably released prior to the court-martial and imposition of sentence, QR&O 15.09 applies and thus is permitted to use the rank title (_with "Retired" modifier_) he used immediately prior to his retirement.



> 15.09 – USE OF RANK TITLE AND WEARING OF
> UNIFORM AFTER RELEASE
> 
> (1) The Retired Lists maintained by the Canadian Forces
> ...



* Use of "Mr." is only as a device to show that BGen (Ret'd) Menard is not legally entitled to be recognized (and referred to) by his former rank by anyone.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Jul 2011)

Of course, for further confusion, it is possible that BGen(ret'd) Menard released from the Canadian Forces to spur an immediate annuity under the CFSA, and immediately thereafter re-enrolled into the Supplementary Reserve.

In which case, legally, he would now be Col Menard, though as a member of the Sup Res it would be unusual to use the rank in any formal context.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2011)

So, is he now properly referred to a Col (Ret'd) Daniel Menard?


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Jul 2011)

No. Referred to as "Loser".


----------



## Brutus (27 Jul 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, is he now properly referred to a Col (Ret'd) Daniel Menard?



Privately, he calls himself Col. Boneyard.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Aug 2011)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Privately, he calls himself Col. Boneyard.



Or maybe "Bonehead"


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, is he now properly referred to a Col (Ret'd) Daniel Menard?



I think he's going to try and avoid situations where that issue will come up. Regardless of what his title is now, the stigma of hit actions are going to follow him for the rest of his life. 

I think Mr. Daniel Menard suits him just fine. Just another douche that broke the rules and got what he had coming. What do they say about building a thousand bridges again? :

Just my  :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Aug 2011)

I am going to make a bold prediction here:

He will land on his feet and acquire employment in the private sector, making more money than what he did as a CF general.

Look at pro atheletes who constantly break the law, yet are re hired year after year.


----------



## Ralph (3 Sep 2011)

I like to browse the Court Martial website every so often for my own entertainment. When are his trial's decision documents going to be posted? There's already been cases tried after his that have been published. Was it held in French and is awaiting translation?


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2011)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Was it held in French and is awaiting translation?



Yes, you obviously haven't browsed recently. The JAG site is one of my bookmarks when I'm bored at work too.  >


----------



## dapaterson (21 Feb 2012)

Update:  He's back in Kabul with GardaWorld:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Disgraced+Canadian+army+officer+resurfaces+Kabul/6186078/story.html


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am going to make a bold prediction here:
> 
> He will land on his feet and acquire employment in the private sector, making more money than what he did as a CF general.
> 
> Look at pro atheletes who constantly break the law, yet are re hired year after year.



At the risk of sounding arrogant.....

WAS I RIGHT OR WHAT!


----------



## aesop081 (21 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> WAS I RIGHT OR WHAT!



Wining......


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wining......  Winning.....



Fixed it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2012)

So far, though, it appears GardaWorld hasn't been licensed yet (as of today, anyway) unlike some others....


> The Afghan Public Protection Force issued three more Risk Management Company licenses today as it continues to make progress toward assuming security responsibility for development projects, commercial businesses and convoys from private security companies.
> 
> The three licenses, issued to Pilgrims Group, Scimitar and Silk Route, bring the total number of licensed risk management companies to five. Previously licensed were Edinburgh International RMC Ltd and Separ ....


NTM-A Info-machine, 21 Feb 12


----------



## aesop081 (21 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Fixed it.



Your not aloud to be rite twise in won tred.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Feb 2012)

> The company, which employs 45,000 workers in several related companies in Canada and around the globe, says on its website that it puts "integrity first."
> 
> Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Disgraced+Canadian+army+officer+resurfaces+Kabul/6186078/story.html#ixzz1n3W7ChrM


Makes one go hmmmm seeing as their new employee was hammered for a lack of integrity.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Makes one go hmmmm seeing as their new employee was hammered for a lack of integrity.



Not the first one. Remember this guy :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Boyle

He went to work for Boeing a few months after his resignation.


----------



## Scott (21 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Your not aloud to be rite twise in won tred.



Did I wander into the recruiting threads?


----------



## aesop081 (21 Feb 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Did I wander into the recruiting threads?



LOLZ, fo sho homie. Ninjas unite !!


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not the first one. Remember this guy :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Boyle
> 
> He went to work for Boeing a few months after his resignation.


I remember that boil.  Did not know that he landed on his feet smelling like dough.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Feb 2012)

Figures that would turn up as a Merc sucking re-building money away from the mission


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Feb 2012)

HEY!!! I was right! How about that!!!


----------



## aesop081 (21 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> HEY!!! I was right! How about that!!!









 >


----------



## GAP (22 Feb 2012)

> Menard was convicted of violating military rules regarding misconduct because of his affair with a young woman and of the arguably more serious charge of trying to impede a military investigation into that misconduct by lying twice to investigators and encouraging the woman to do the same. He was fined $7,000 and busted in rank to colonel. He could have been dismissed from the army but he had already resigned his commission before his trial began.



That being the case, why does it make him a scumbag for finding other work in what he knows? He's gone from the CF, did you think he wouldn't find work?


----------



## Loachman (22 Feb 2012)

One wonders:

1.  What Garda's frat rules are;
2.  Whether he will be armed, and with what; and
3.  What he will do this time.


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2012)

I just want to know what the hell we would officially call the ex-General ex-Colonel guy who resigned his commission now?

I have no doubt that his job consists of riding a desk there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I just want to know what the hell we would officially call the ex-General ex-Colonel guy who resigned his commission now?


Mister?


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Mister?



Isn't a single guy a "Master"??  8)


----------



## GAP (22 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Isn't a single guy a "Master"??  8)



Until they reach puberty, then only by design........... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> ArmyVern said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe it still fits then....


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62: Reply #287 on: July 27, 2011, 08:50:09 

Quote: Referred to as "Loser".

Who do lots of people watch on TV every week night, has scads of money, is loved by the Lefties, is married with young children, and has had sex with several female employees (subordinates) of his company?

Not much was said, written, reported after it was revealed. A bit, but not much. Of course he apologized. Don't know if he found God or not.

To modernize the old phrase "There is a Law for the Rich and a Law for the Poor", to "There is no Law for the Left, and Laws for the Right".


----------



## frank1515 (22 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> That being the case, why does it make him a scumbag for finding other work in what he knows? He's gone from the CF, did you think he wouldn't find work?



Agreed.  He wasn't found guilty of being a person who couldn't make timely decisions under the presence of an armed enemy, or that he couldn't stomach the tedious war-like environment.  If garda thinks he can be an asset, why bash him or them?  He got a little too close to a subordinate and got caught, doesn't make him a bad assest, it makes him a person who was caught in a position he wasn't supposed to be in. No more, no less.

Good on him for finding work where he was, obviously, very good at. Less the improper conduct with the people who worked for him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2012)

frank1515 said:
			
		

> He got a little too close to a subordinate and got caught, doesn't make him a bad assest, it makes him a person who was caught in a position he wasn't supposed to be in. No more, no less .... Less the improper conduct with the people who worked for him.


Not to rub salt in the wound, but he _also_ mishandled a weapon around his boss, putting other soldiers at risk:
http://www.thetelegram.com/Arts---Life/World/2010-05-25/article-1439058/Top-general-in-Afghanistan-found-guilty-in-court-martial-for-inadvertent-shot/1
True, he manned up to the offense.  Nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear more about what he does for Garda.


----------



## frank1515 (22 Feb 2012)

True enough, but he's not the only soldier to have been charged with an ND. He just so happened to be a field commander at the time.


----------



## Loachman (22 Feb 2012)

frank1515 said:
			
		

> He got a little too close to a subordinate and got caught,



*And tried to obstruct an investigation into the matter.*
That is far more serious.

Had he not done that, he would have merely looked like a twit who couldn't control either weapon, rather than a lying, dishonourable twit who couldn't control either weapon.


----------



## armyvern (22 Feb 2012)

frank1515 said:
			
		

> Agreed.  He wasn't found guilty of being a person who couldn't make timely decisions under the presence of an armed enemy, or that he couldn't stomach the tedious war-like environment.  If garda thinks he can be an asset, why bash him or them?  He got a little too close to a subordinate and got caught, doesn't make him a bad assest, it makes him a person who was caught in a position he wasn't supposed to be in. No more, no less.
> 
> Good on him for finding work where he was, obviously, very good at. Less the improper conduct with the people who worked for him.



A person who willfully placed himself into that position knowing it was against the regulations. Who probably had soldiers under his command charged with that offense even as he laid back doing same himself. He also encouraged  his partner to lie to impede the course of justice; both of which speak to his lack of "integrity" ... the basis of Garda's 'mantra'.

I have no issues with anyone questioning Garda's employment of him in their midst given their very own stated mantra. 

I find that Naval Officers who remove themselves from proceedings against subordinates who have 'searched inappriorpriate content while at work' because they stated they had done same thing, have about 500% more integrity, honour and respect than someone who believes that rules are made for the much-lesser many than himself and, that when found to be breaching those regulations, that lying to cover it up is either honourable or acceptable.

 :

As a potential employer, his actions would tell me that his priority is strictly himself. Classic narcissism.

His later actions also indicate to me that had he experienced his ND while NOT with the CDS ... no action would have occured. He had no choice but to report himself precisely because of the company he was keeping when it occured. I give him NO credit on that front.


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A person who willfully placed himself into that position knowing it was against the regulations. Who probably had soldiers under his command charged with that offense even as he laid back doing same himself. He also encouraged  his partner to lie to impede the course of justice; both of which speak to his lack of "integrity" ... the basis of Garda's 'mantra'.
> 
> I have no issues with anyone questioning Garda's employment of him in their midst given their very own stated mantra.
> 
> ...


 I  work for Garda I have to really wonder what was going thru some body's head when they hired this guy .....Colour me absolutely disgusted .


----------



## Jungle (23 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to rub salt in the wound, but he _also_ mishandled a weapon around his boss, putting other soldiers at risk:
> http://www.thetelegram.com/Arts---Life/World/2010-05-25/article-1439058/Top-general-in-Afghanistan-found-guilty-in-court-martial-for-inadvertent-shot/1
> True, he manned up to the offense.  Nonetheless, it would be interesting to hear more about what he does for Garda.



He once told a few of us that he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time... apparently he can't follow one (with his boss) and clear his weapon !!


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Feb 2012)

> He once told a few of us that he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time..


 in French.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2012)

frank1515 said:
			
		

> True enough, but he's not the only soldier to have been charged with an ND. He just so happened to be a field commander at the time.


Some would say leaders should be held to a higher standard than the employees because they should know better.  Sorta like how this guy looks even _worse_ doing what he did than one of his subordinates would have if they did the same thing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> in French.



Excellent. I'll expect to see him installed as a Senator then. ;D


----------



## Jungle (23 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> in French.



 : He spent some time as an exchange officer with the British Army, so I suspect his english is better then your french...


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Feb 2012)

I bet it is. 

Why would a senior officer even say " ... he could follow up to 3 conversations at the same time.." to subordinates, or anyone?


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Feb 2012)

I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?


Not to mention making it harder (morally, anyway) for you to whale on counsel a soldier about doing the same.


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to mention making it harder (morally, anyway) for you to whale on counsel a soldier about doing the same.



Especially so when one is a deployed Commander in an international Theatre of Operations. That means that the  Operation Athena Theatre Standing Orders (TSOs) that cover this offense and make it 'chargeable' in that very theatre were issued and put into effect as a direct order on the authority of the signature of the very guy breaking his own damn issued orders. How swell is that?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree that leaders (MCpl and up) need to be held to a higher standard. If I, as a DSM of an infantry unit has an ND what does that say as about me, and more importantly, the unit?



I feel an ND and an inappropriate relationship is quite different.

Primarily NDs are unintentional.
For example you as a DSM shouldn't have an ND because you're a veteran Infantry NCO probably with a lot of hands on time with a weapon.  But how often do you have a rifle in your hands as of late? you're probably not doing many recce patrols.  That's not an excuse for NDs but it does make it likelier to happen.

A general? Man sometimes those guys don't even seem to know how to dress themselves. We've all seen generals addressing troops and their uniforms screwed up in one way or another and their throng of officers are too scared to say anything until a private in the crowd tells the guy his boots aren't bloused and he's got a button undone.   Putting a rifle in the hands of a general?  I find that's pretty much the same as shoving a loaded weapon into the hands of a civi.
Scary.

On the other hand, he willfully made a choice to break a pretty significant rule.  All the charges he's presided over through out his career, I don't know. If he had charged me with something relating to ethics and behavior I'd try some sort of redress for it.


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

Agreed there is no reason why a General Officer commanding needs a carbine but he is one of the few who actually chose to carry on.  So I assume he felt he was qualified.


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Agreed there is no reason why a General Officer commanding needs a carbine but he is one of the few who actually chose to carry on.  So I assume he felt he was qualified.



Yep, probably wrote his qualification off or waived it himself too.  :

IIRC, a great many of us here questioned the fact that he was in possession of one when word of his ND first hit the fan. I don't know why he had it, but that was mistake number 3 (which actually was his first 'known' mistake) - his choice too. A comedy of errors and offenses all of his own making.


Like the niggling little insistence he had on wearing his beret (always) with his cap badge over his left ear as if he was a citizen of the country of France instead of a Canadian soldier in contravention of our dress regs. Something he did routinely as a habit, publically and officially ... without nary a word being said to him.  Yes, excellent leadership by example there. No one sorted that out either.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2012)

The only reason he should be carrying a rifle or carbine is if he was in the field, so not to draw extra attention to himself (which I believe was the case; wasn't he either coming or going on an visit to the field?). He failed to pay attention, had an ND and was dealt with appropriately. The ND should be treated as a separate issue.

His other history should be a matter of concern for his new employer, but since they don't seem to have an issue there isn't really not much we can do (except perhaps avoid dealing with the company in the future).


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *The only reason he should be carrying a rifle or carbine is if he was in the field, so not to draw extra attention to himself* (which I believe was the case; wasn't he either coming or going on an visit to the field?). He failed to pay attention, had an ND and was dealt with appropriately. The ND should be treated as a separate issue.


If that's the case, was the CDS, who I understand was with him, carrying a long arm?


----------



## GAP (27 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> His other history should be a matter of concern for his new employer, but since they don't seem to have an issue there isn't really not much we can do (except perhaps avoid dealing with the company in the future).



I don't necessarily see why that would be a concern to his new employer.....he played around....yes

Does the new employer have the same fraternization rules as the CF....I don't think so.

They lieing about it..........well..........yeah.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's the case, was the CDS, who I understand was with him, carrying a long arm?



I understood the question to be why should he carry a long arm, rather than should he have been carrying one? 

In any event his employer should be aware of his history, and apparently don't see any issues, so it really doesn't matter what we say or do.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In any event his employer should be aware of his history, and apparently don't see any issues,_* so it really doesn't matter what we say or do.*_


But... but... _*We're Teh Internet!*_


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But... but... _*We're Teh Internet!*_




Would this be a suitable time to mention spelling?


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Feb 2012)

> The company, which employs 45,000 workers in several related companies in Canada and around the globe, says on its website that it puts "integrity first."
> 
> Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Disgraced+Canadian+army+officer+resurfaces+Kabul/6186078/story.html#ixzz1n3W7ChrM



In answer to below, as previously posted by myself and others, see above.  The company trumpets putting "integrity first".  He showed a distinct lack of integrity with his personal affairs (no pun intended).  I would imagine he has not been hired to perform the duties of some schlemp at a gate, but of a higher profile as due his training and experience.  So therefore his integrity should be something that could not be of question as a higher profile employee.   :2c:



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily see why that would be a concern to his new employer.....he played around....yes
> 
> Does the new employer have the same fraternization rules as the CF....I don't think so.
> 
> They lieing about it..........well..........yeah.  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Feb 2012)

This sounds like a reasonable hiring to me, as they just needed somebody who had the same moral fibre as the local politicians, and therefore, could better understand them. ^-^


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would this be a suitable time to mention spelling?



That one was deliberate.  Others, however...  :


----------



## paffomaybe (29 Jan 2014)

???

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/former_canadian_brigadiergeneral_daniel_menard_in_afghan_jail.html

Former Canadian brigadier-general Daniel Ménard, who was fined and demoted for having a sexual relationship with a female subordinate, has been sitting in an Afghan jail for nearly three weeks, the Toronto Star has learned.

The former head of Canadian forces in the country, who now works for private security firm GardaWorld, was detained on or about Jan. 12. He was picked up by local authorities after leaving a meeting with Afghan government officials to discuss issues related to the development of Afghan security forces, Joe Gavaghan, a spokesman for the company, said in an interview Wednesday.

“He was leaving a meeting at the ministry office and a couple of officials approached him. They said, ‘We’ve got a problem with something and we’d like you to come with us to clear it up.’ Off he went and the next thing he knew he was going to be detained until they cleared it up.”

Ménard has not been charged with breaking any laws, Gavaghan said, adding the incident is based on an “administrative misunderstanding” related to its licence to operate in Afghanistan as a private security firm.

Gavaghan said the former commander of the 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, based out of CFB Valcartier, appeared in a Kabul court Wednesday.

“This involves some kind of administrative issue with our operating licence. It was kind of a technicality. It’s been cleared up and we believe that the individual is going to be released very shortly,” Gavaghan said.
“Right now we’re just trying to do everything we can to make sure there’s no further complications or anything that would delay that.”

Calls and emails seeking information on Wednesday from the Afghan Embassy in Ottawa were not returned.

Ménard has been employed as managing director for Afghanistan by the global security firm GardaWorld since November 2011. Splitting his time between Kabul and the company’s Dubai headquarters, he oversees the GardaWorld’s operations across Afghanistan and manages its contracts with the U.S. government, non-governmental organizations and other companies, according to an online profile.

Canadian embassy officials in Afghanistan are being kept abreast of the situation, said Derek Burney, chairman of GardaWorld’s International Advisory Board.
Company officials in Dubai “have been in contact with the embassy, in fact as recently as (Tuesday) as far as I know, but I have no more detailed information on where matters stand other than that,” he said.

The Foreign Affairs ministry in Ottawa confirmed that “consular services are being provided to a Canadian citizen who has been detained in Afghanistan.”

The incident highlights the difficult and often antagonistic relationship that exists between security firms and the Afghan government, which is to take full responsibility for security in the country after the vast majority of international military forces pull out this year.

“Some companies, particularly from the U.S., have a cowboy reputation and unfortunately when that happens that kind of paints everybody with the same brush,” Gavaghan said.
“You need to be constantly sensitive to cultural differences, the way the company operates, how the government works and just try and do everything you can to be in compliance and have good relationship with all the people that you need to work with.”

In 2010, Ménard was relieved of his duties as commander of Canadian troops in Kandahar after revelations he was having an affair with a lower-ranked soldier.

He had already resigned from the army when he was convicted by a military court of fraternizing while deployed and trying to mislead investigators by asking a military chaplain to convince his lover, Master Cpl. Bianka Langlois, to lie on his behalf.

He was demoted to the rank of colonel and fined $7,000. Langlois, who pled guilty for her part in the affair, was fined $700.

“This happened in the worst place, at the worst time — in a theatre of operation,” said military judge Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d’Auteuil as he handed down the sentence.

Ménard and Langlois began their affair in 2008. While deployed to Afghanistan, the military charge sheet said that they had sexual relations between Nov. 15, 2009 and April 27, 2010.

Prior to this, Ménard was also courtmartialed for mishandling his assault rifle in March 2010, accidentally firing two rounds into the ground while boarding a military helicopter at Kandahar Airfield during a visit from his then-boss, retired general Walter Natynczyk, the former chief of defence staff.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2014)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/former_canadian_brigadiergeneral_daniel_menard_in_afghan_jail.html



MONTREAL—Former Canadian brigadier-general Daniel Ménard, who was fined and demoted for having a sexual relationship with a female subordinate, has been sitting in an Afghan jail for nearly three weeks, the Toronto Star has learned. 

The former head of Canadian forces in the country, who now works for private security firm GardaWorld, was detained on or about Jan. 12. He was picked up by local authorities after leaving a meeting with Afghan government officials to discuss issues related to the development of Afghan security forces, Joe Gavaghan, a spokesman for the company, said in an interview Wednesday.

“He was leaving a meeting at the ministry office and a couple of officials approached him. They said, ‘We’ve got a problem with something and we’d like you to come with us to clear it up.’ Off he went and the next thing he knew he was going to be detained until they cleared it up.”

MORE AT LINK


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Jan 2014)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/daniel-menard-former-canadian-general-in-an-afghan-jail-1.2516788

Sure hope the charges are unfounded for the ex-general's sake.  

I cant imagine a Kabul jail being "cushy" like a Canadian jail.


----------



## 211RadOp (30 Jan 2014)

Already mentioned here

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/94339.325.html

Parental leave got you confused?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jan 2014)

On the bright side he won't be fined if he choose to fraternize again while over.


----------



## Lightguns (30 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> On the bright side he won't be fined if he choose to fraternize again while over.



Baaaaaa Baaaaaaa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2014)

Assuming he gets a choice in the matter.....


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2014)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Parental leave got you confused?



He's back from that; I'll take credit for his confusion as I see he posted it right after leaving my office.   ;D


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2014)

Looks like his time in an Afghan jail is nearing an end:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/daniel-m%C3%A9nard-ex-canadian-general-jailed-in-afghanistan-to-be-released-1.2516788


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2014)

A few more details via the _Globe & Mail_:


> A former NATO commander in Afghanistan is behind bars in a Kabul prison accused of gun smuggling in a case that has again highlighted the dangers of doing business in the country.
> 
> Daniel Menard, who left the Canadian army in disgrace after admitting a sexual relationship with a subordinate while on duty in Kandahar, was detained by Kabul police on January 10.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2014)

> The Ministry of Interior has accused the former brigadier-general of being in possession of 129 rifles and 148 radios, all of which they say he was not licensed to hold. He had been working as the Afghanistan country manager for Garda World, a global private security company that provides services across parts of Afghanistan.



So basically Garda World just didn't pay off the usual bribes/government officials.  They'll just need to make a check out to the Ministry of Interior for a "licence" and everything will be fine.


----------



## KevinB (31 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So basically Garda World just didn't pay off the usual bribes/government officials.  They'll just need to make a check out to the Ministry of Interior for a "licence" and everything will be fine.



Progress is a bitch...


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So basically Garda World just didn't pay off the usual bribes/government officials administrative fees, licensing tariffs, registration allowances, extra-contractual payments, administrative overheads.


FTFY using "Yes Minister" quotes.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jan 2014)

After Menard's experience maybe a job in Canada will look pretty good.


----------



## Robert0288 (1 Feb 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY using "Yes Minister" quotes.



Great show.  They have come out with a new season just this past year.


----------



## pbi (3 Feb 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> After Menard's experience maybe a job in Canada will look pretty good.



Maybe he'll become the Liberal Party's defence advisor....

Oh, wait, that job's already taken.

Well, we know one thing he *won't* be: a Liberal Senator. *Ha!*

Ba-dump-bump. Try the meatloaf, folks. I'm here all week.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Maybe he'll become the Liberal Party's defence advisor....
> 
> Oh, wait, that job's already taken.
> 
> ...



What will ol' Gen. Romeo do now that he's no longer a Lib-Sen?


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What will ol' Gen. Romeo do now that he's no longer a Lib-Sen?



I'm sure he will survive.


----------



## Old EO Tech (3 Feb 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What will ol' Gen. Romeo do now that he's no longer a Lib-Sen?



I'm sure independent senators get the same pay check....


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2014)

In addition to his other eye-drawing activities, he's still a "guest" of the Afghans:


> A retired former Canadian general who was removed from command in Afghanistan after he was caught having sex with a subordinate remains in jail in that country facing charges of gun smuggling.  Daniel Menard's employer, the Canadian security company GardaWorld in a statement to CBC News confirmed their employee was still in prison – even though the company had been told two weeks ago that he would soon be released.  “We had understood Mr. Menard’s release to be imminent. We are continuing to work with the Afghan authorities to resolve the matter and secure Dan’s release as soon as possible," GardaWorld spokesman Joe Gavaghan told CBC News ....


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2014)

My father sent this to me (as he know what a fan of the idiot I am...)

National Defence paid nearly $40,000 to move a disgraced general to the United Arab Emirates after he was court-martialled for having sex with a subordinate and trying to cover it up, expense records for the military's top brass show.
_________________________
This story, forwarded to you, appears on http://www.cbc.ca at the following URL:

http://syndication.cbc.ca/mobile/html/story/2014/02/17/1.2541044.html


Link is bad for me -- but maybe because I don't have a CBC subscription.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Feb 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> My father sent this to me (as he know what a fan of the idiot I am...)
> 
> National Defence paid nearly $40,000 to move a disgraced general to the United Arab Emirates after he was court-martialled for having sex with a subordinate and trying to cover it up, expense records for the military's top brass show.
> _________________________
> ...



No subscription needed.....

try: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-general-daniel-m%C3%A9nard-s-move-to-uae-cost-national-defence-40k-1.2541044


----------



## KevinB (18 Feb 2014)

Thx


----------



## observor 69 (19 Feb 2014)

Former Canadian general released from Afghan jail

Former Canadian brigadier-general Daniel Ménard, who had been sitting in an Afghan jail for weeks, has been released, a spokesperson for his security firm confirmed Wednesday.
“I can confirm that Daniel Ménard has been released,” said Joe Gavaghan, a spokesperson for GardaWorld.
It wasn’t immediately clear what led to the release.
Ménard had been held in Afghanistan on allegations of gun smuggling.
A spokesperson with Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada would say only that consular assistance was provided to a “Canadian citizen’’ detained in Afghanistan, and that no further details could be provided.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/19/former_canadian_general_released_from_afghan_jail.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2014)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/17/dan_menard_defence_department_picked_up_tab_for_disgraced_generals_move_to_uae.html

The right way to wear a beret wrong?


----------



## Lightguns (21 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/17/dan_menard_defence_department_picked_up_tab_for_disgraced_generals_move_to_uae.html
> 
> The right way to wear a beret wrong?



But it's Dan Mernard, Canada's front line lover, his guy makes James Bond look like Stephen Harper!


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/17/dan_menard_defence_department_picked_up_tab_for_disgraced_generals_move_to_uae.html
> 
> The right way to wear a beret wrong?


Either someone told him different, and he declined the advice with thanks, or nobody told him different.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Either someone told him different, and he declined the advice with thanks, or nobody told him different.



You would think that his Sergeants Major would have had one or two quiet words with him about it.

But then, as someone who thinks rules are for others, fraternizes sexually with lower ranks, can't control his rifle and won't follow established dress regs, why would he listen to a mere SM? :


----------



## KevinB (21 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/17/dan_menard_defence_department_picked_up_tab_for_disgraced_generals_move_to_uae.html
> 
> The right way to wear a beret wrong?



He's a stylish tool, I will give him that...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/17/dan_menard_defence_department_picked_up_tab_for_disgraced_generals_move_to_uae.html
> 
> The right way to wear a beret wrong?




You know, _waaaaay_ back when, we always had some _Anglophile_ officers who always wanted to out-Brit the Brits; later we had many who wanted to me "let's pretend" Americans, but some _Francophone_ officers always wanted, still want, to be French or, at least, to look French..






It's just an affectation.





A former CDS, Gen (ret'd) Maurice Barl did it, too, albeit not quite as 'much' as BGen (ret'd) Menard did.





Another 'disgraced' (and retired) Canadian BGen, Serge Labbé, also wore his beret badge over the left ear (You can just see the edge of it in this picture.). He, Gen (ret'd) Baril and BGen (ret'd) Menard are all from the same regiment.


Edit to add refs & pics of Baril and Labbé.


----------

