# CTC soldier charged with trafficking drugs



## McG (10 Jan 2008)

> CFB Gagetown-based soldier charged with trafficking
> Updated Thu. Jan. 10 2008 1:49 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080110/soldier_charged_081001/20080110?hub=Canada


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jan 2008)

DND News Release

News Release
CFB GAGETOWN BASED SOLDIER CHARGED WITH TRAFFICKING
GPFC 2008-001 - January 10, 2008

CFB GAGETOWN, NB– The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged one soldier stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown today, in relation to allegations of drug trafficking.

Corporal Jeremy Springer, attached to the Canadian Forces Armour School (Gagetown), was charged with one count of trafficking, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  This charge was in relation to alleged trafficking in marijuana.

"The Military Police take any allegations involving the use or distribution of drugs seriously.  The CFNIS has always taken a proactive approach to drug investigations and will continue to combat drug use within the CF," said LCol William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  "In conjunction with the local Military Police, we will continue to work closely with the chain of command to ensure a drug free environment within the CF." 

The CFNIS received information that the accused was allegedly involved in drug trafficking.  The charges are a result of the subsequent investigation of which involved the use of an undercover operator. 

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Jan 2008)

Lets hope its discipline by example for this asshat.


Wes


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2008)

If the allegations are true:
Throw the bum out on his arse!
Good riddance to bad rubbish!


----------



## GUNS (11 Jan 2008)

1+ for a DD for the pusher man.

BUT: I can say with some confidence that a majority of people who abuse drugs for the first time, were under the influence of a legal liquid.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.  alcohol and drugs.


----------



## Franko (11 Jan 2008)

Always heard rumours about him......

Regards


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080110/soldier_charged_081001/20080110?hub=Canada





> Last September, a soldier stationed at Gagetown was convicted of trafficking marijuana. Bombardier Garry Kettle of the 4 Air Defence Regiment was *one of five soldiers charged with drug trafficking last year at the base*.



Anybody but me notice how they never fail to mention the 5 soldiers charged, yet they fail to point out that some of them had the charges withdrawn/were found "not guilty" last year as well??

Guess that doesn't play as well into their theme ...

For example, here's Cpl Robinson's Court Martial date (4 Dec 2007) on that public site the MSM has access to:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/calendarDec_e.asp

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/chargesheets/robinson.pdf

and here's his results from the public site link the MSM also has access to (just scroll down to Dec Court Martial results):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp

You know, the shit they leave OUT of stories is sometimes just as important as the stuff they put into them. Omission of details like the above, when not failing to mention the charges were laid against the 5 or mentioning the one found guilty, is utter trype, is misleading, and is on par with outright lying. Their constant misleading of the Canadian public disgusts me.


----------



## geo (12 Jan 2008)

Vern, you are soooo right.
It's like when the MsM was presenting huge exerpts of 
1. KAF ramp ceremony
2. Trenton ramp ceremony
3. Actual final service
There was so much media coverage that it appeared to John Q Public that there were 3 times the casualties we were actualy experiencing.... 

MsM... utter morons!


----------



## Shamrock (12 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know, the shit they leave OUT of stories is sometimes just as important as the stuff they put into them. Omission of details like the above, when not failing to mention the charges were laid against the 5 or mentioning the one found guilty, is utter trype, is misleading, and is on par with outright lying. Their constant misleading of the Canadian public disgusts me.



Most of the article is boilerplate.  I went over to DND News Room and none of their news releases were follow-ups to any charges.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Most of the article is boilerplate.  I went over to DND News Room and none of their news releases were follow-ups to any charges.



Why should they be?

They don't issue press releases every time a soldier is charged, why should the be expected to issue press releases on court martials when they are found not guilty of the charge? They don't need to --- it's ALL publicly available on the JAG site.

The MSM finds out who's getting court martialled via the linked site ... then use their Freedom of Info requests to access greater details for "their" stories ...

This is about the MSM failing to use that same site to put "their" stories into context. That's THEIR doing NOT the CFs.

DND has already provided them with the info on a silver platter via the JAG site. They choose to ignore (or rather yet just omit) the bits about the "not guiltys/withdrawns" because it doesn't fit the slant of their story. They are fully aware of those "not/guiltys & withdrawns" too. It's not ignorance. It's deliberate ignoring of posting those FACTS to enable their ability to keep the general Canadian populace ignorant as to the actual realities of "those 5 that were charged (mentioning 1 who was found guilty)" but NOT mentioning the ones who weren't found guilty. 

It's how they play the game and spin the story -- and it's how the myth perpetuates itself. It's a case of a "reporter" using the only bits that suit his slant, vice actually "reporting" the full details and known facts of the matter. Don't think for an instant that the MSM did NOT follow these cases to see the outcomes. They DID, obviously-- they reported the "guilty" verdict. But, they only chose to report the "guilty" ... and chose not report nor mention the "not guilties".


----------



## Shamrock (12 Jan 2008)

If the DND doesn't find withdrawn, not guilty, or even guilty charges as worthy as being released as news, why should the MSM publish those stories as news?


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> If the DND doesn't find withdrawn, not guilty, or even guilty charges as worthy as being released as news, why should the MSM publish those stories as news?



Uhhh hello.

Canada has an open court system that we must comply with. That site IS the CFs compliance with that requirement to be public and open. You want the CF to issue press releases for every charge that never sees the light of day and every finding? Cripes ... that is what the JAG site is for.

And the MSM is very well aware of it's existance. THAT's where they get the "so and so was charged" bits from or this guy "is being court martialled for this" from. 

I have no issues with them reporting the guiltys.

I DO have issues when they are fully aware that of the "5 charged" that they mention -- they bring up only the "guilty" and fail to mention the "not guiltys" that they are also aware of.

The article should more accurately have read:



> Last September, a soldier stationed at Gagetown was convicted of trafficking marijuana. Bombardier Garry Kettle of the 4 Air Defence Regiment was one of five soldiers charged with drug trafficking last year at the base. Of the remaining 4, some had the charges withdrawn or were found not guilty.



But then, that would be factual and actual reporting ... vice spinning or perpetuating the myth.

I think I could count on one finger the number of actual "reporters" there are these days. Lots of journalists -- distinct lack of "reporters" and there is indeed a HUGE difference.

One "reports" ALL the facts and nothing but the facts. Someone reading a reporters story would have difficulty in determining which side of the fence that reporter "personally" sat on.

The other "spins a story (usually slanted to their personal opinion -- quite often even included their personal beliefs in writing) using only _some_ facts or partial _truths_ and _omitting_ other known facts which do not play well with their own personal agenda." One can tell easily which side of the fence "non-reporters" sit on.


----------



## Shamrock (12 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uhhh hello.



Hi.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Canada has an open court system that we must comply with. That site IS the CFs compliance with that requirement to be public and open. You want the CF to issue press releases for every charge that never sees the light of day and every finding? Cripes ... that is what the JAG site is for.
> 
> And the MSM is very well aware of it's existance. THAT's where they get the "so and so was charged" bits from or this guy "is being court martialled for this" from.



Then the verbatim sections between the DND news release and the CTV's article are coincidence?

Again, I ask: why should the MSM publish a story the DND hasn't even bothered to prepare a release on?


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Hi.
> 
> Then the verbatim sections between the DND news release and the CTV's article are coincidence?
> 
> Again, I ask: why should the MSM publish a story the DND hasn't even bothered to prepare a release on?



Because the MSM is aware of the other results ... and isn't it THEIR job to fact-check, and report the facts and the WHOLE story?

Or is everyone expected to do that for them now?? It's not thier fault they got the facts wrong and only spin half the story.

I guess we should just start writing the damned stories for them too. I could find a use for that paycheck _they_ earn to do this ...  :


----------



## Shamrock (12 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because the MSM is aware of the other results ... and isn't it THEIR job to fact-check, and report the facts and the WHOLE story?



They're often made aware of these results through news releases.  You must also consider the topicality of the subject "Soldier charged 6 months ago had charges withdrawn" does not a cutting story make.  Hell, you'll notice retractions and apologies are often given microscopic consideration.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I guess we should just start writing the damned stories for them too. I could find a use for that paycheck _they_ earn to do this ...  :



The bulk of the original story was written by the DND.  News media routinely publish non-staff written articles.  Some they get for free in the form of news releases and letters to the editors, while for others they will pay freelance writers.  Indeed, quite a few papers prefer freelance writers as it eases their burthens of having to maintain a staff.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

Yes, they often are -- with that I agree.

But they are all very much aware of the JAG site too, I do not agree that it's the CFs job to do the MSMs homework for them. That's the reporters job, and his editor job to ensure that the reporter has done his job and fact-checked and presented ALL the facts to the story they are going with. 

Not a whole lot of homework getting done these days and even less "reporting"; ergo the reason I no longer susbscribe to the many newspapers and other publications that I used to. 

No thanks. Half the facts does not a factual report make.


----------



## Shamrock (12 Jan 2008)

It's news, not truth.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> It's news, not truth.



Yeah it's news ... a news story that's only giving partial value (or no value) to all the facts like I said earlier.

It sure doesn't qualify as reporting.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Jan 2008)

You're right regarding the non-reporting of Not Guilty/Dismissed verdicts, Vern.

But I don't think it's confined to the Military system.  A very similar complaint exists regarding civilian charges and court appearances (of civilians).  Shamrock pretty much has it right - a spicy accusation is NEWS! - a dull Not Guilty/Dismissed is NOT NEWS!  Equally public records of civilian court cases are available.

I think Edward Campbell has it right when it comes to the MSM - their job is to fill the blank spaces between ads with NEWS!  (A major oversimplification of what Edward has said on the subject).


----------



## tweetypie (16 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have no issues with them reporting the guiltys.
> 
> I DO have issues when they are fully aware that of the "5 charged" that they mention -- they bring up only the "guilty" and fail to mention the "not guiltys" that they are also aware of.



HUH?
The simple fact that the story says one person, of 5 arrested was found guilty is telling you that the other 4 were not convicted.
You call that leaving out facts?
I think the Canadian public is more interested in soldiers being convicted of drug trafficking than soldiers who are not.
It is, in all likelihood , tax payer that is trading hands here


----------



## geo (16 Jan 2008)

tweetypie,
When I hear a story that "of 5 charges, 1 was convicted" I am led to believe that:
1 has been tried & the other 4 are still awaiting trial, or
there wasn't enough evidence to go to trial for the other 4, or
4 were found not guilty.....

I'm not ever trying to split hairs & the way this "news" has been reported says loads without saying much...

MsM strikes again.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> HUH?
> The simple fact that the story says one person, of 5 arrested was found guilty is telling you that the other 4 were not convicted.
> You call that leaving out facts?
> I think the Canadian public is more interested in soldiers being convicted of drug trafficking than soldiers who are not.
> It is, in all likelihood , tax payer that is trading hands here



Like I said, I call that DELIBERATELY MISLEADING -- akin to LYING.

They had no problem running the 5 charges across the nation on Prime Time news and turning it into a story ... why evade the storey's ending? What's the big deal about that? If any other Canadian goes to trial and we read about it in the National MSM, or see it on TV -- their "not guilty" verdicts are also strung across the front page -- why the difference here?

Not like treating a soldier's story in the same manner as they do for anyone else whom they splash across the headlines is going to make the earth shift or anything is it? 

Funny that. Apparently you are arguing that a soldier name deemed _'worthy'_ enough by the MSM to have his name & charge run across the nation is not worthy enough to have that name cleared in same manner. I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.



...and she appear's to be banned from at least one other site.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (16 Jan 2008)

Wow.

Good soldier too.
Hope he get's straightened out and soldiers on.


----------



## tweetypie (17 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Like I said, I call that DELIBERATELY MISLEADING -- akin to LYING.
> 
> They had no problem running the 5 charges across the nation on Prime Time news and turning it into a story ... why evade the storey's ending? What's the big deal about that? If any other Canadian goes to trial and we read about it in the National MSM, or see it on TV -- their "not guilty" verdicts are also strung across the front page -- why the difference here?
> 
> ...



You are kidding, right? Not treating a soldier the same as someone else?
Any idea how many people across Canada are found not guilty of crimes every day.My god if the papers ran a story about all those people there would be no room for anything else.
And really, the names of the 4 who were not convicted were not splashed across the nation.I mean we are only talking about a drug charge here.In fact the only other name I can find of the five, does not in the slightest try and deny that indeed he is heavily into drugs
You say they are evading the ending.
Well why dont you tell us what the ending was for the other 4
  I said earlier the other 4 have not been convicted.For people on here to say they have been found not guilty is completly mis-leading.Something you seem to be accusing the media as being

 I can be certain the vast majority of Canadians never even heard of this story.Or care

Instead of being so defensive of fellow soldiers and somehow trying to blame the press for their problems, maybe you should be a bit critical of your fellow soldiers doing drugs on the battlefield and back in Canada


----------



## Loachman (17 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Instead of being so defensive of fellow soldiers and somehow trying to blame the press for their problems



And who here is doing that?

I will grant that the media are no more at fault in this instance than they are with any other similar civilian instance.



			
				tweetypie said:
			
		

> maybe you should be a bit critical of your fellow soldiers doing drugs on the battlefield and back in Canada



We are. There are plenty of other threads around here which will amply display that.


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Jan 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Funny that. Apparently you are arguing that a soldier name deemed _'worthy'_ enough by the MSM to have his name & charge run across the nation is not worthy enough to have that name cleared in same manner. I can almost paint a picture of the thought process here, given that it was your first post upon the site. Oh my.



I hate that this is my first post here... But, here it is. If one were to check the cnews forums, it would appear that tweetypie has an axe to grind.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Comment/2007/04/08/3953423.php

My own thoughts? The MSM fails on a regular basis, in that they regularly publish the names of the arrested, and follow up with big news on those that are convicted... But those that are found not guilty, or aquited, are lucky to see their names again in the news. Damage is done, not guilty, however a big price is still paid. 

For us, the price is steep. If I thought one of my subordinates was getting stoned or what have you, would I trust him/her with my life on the C6? Not likely.

If the press gives that much weight to arrests and convictions, aquitals and not guilty verdicts should and must be given equal weight to clear the name of the individual.


----------



## tweetypie (17 Jan 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And who here is doing that?
> 
> I will grant that the media are no more at fault in this instance than they are with any other similar civilian instance.
> 
> We are. There are plenty of other threads around here which will amply display that.




Well good.To be clear, I am not anti pot or whatever, but fair is fair, and if drug taking in Aghanistan is hindering other soldiers or causing death, then that is where it is time to draw the line.
Dont blame the MSM is someone found him/her self in a situation that they were charged with a drug offence.
I mean even OJ was found not guilty


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jan 2008)

Did I miss where this morphed into drug use in a theatre of ops thread?  This was about a POS dealer in Gagetown, wasn't it?


----------



## Shamrock (17 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well why dont you tell us what the ending was for the other 4 I said earlier the other 4 have not been convicted.



In amplification of this, I'll redirect back to the DND News Room.  Here, the DND releases particulars of those charged, but not the outcomes of those charges.  The results are publicly viewable at the CMJ, but are not necessarily desirable to a casual viewer.  

There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication.  If there is an obligation to publish follow-on information, the CF is just as guilty as the news media in not publishing follow-on information and is equally worthy of scorn.


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Jan 2008)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> In amplification of this, I'll redirect back to the DND News Room.  Here, the DND releases particulars of those charged, but not the outcomes of those charges.  The results are publicly viewable at the CMJ, but are not necessarily desirable to a casual viewer.
> 
> There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication.  If there is an obligation to publish follow-on information, the CF is just as guilty as the news media in not publishing follow-on information and is equally worthy of scorn.



WRT to the CF, I full heartedly agree. Good grief... Last time I tried to read a transcript at CMJ, my head hurt for days. An executive summery would be nice I guess.

Now, who covers for the little guy not in the CF, who say, get's arrested for "drug dealing", gets tried, and later aquited for say, mistaken identity? It would be all over the news that Mr. Joe Bloggins was arrested and tried for drug dealing, and would most likely make it as the first hit on a google search. If the person is found not guilty, the story usually just disappears... All a person rembers then in such a case, and easily finds, is the person was arrested for... The court records are publically available, and the average human being could not be bothered to go looking for them.

I suppose what I am getting at, is it would be nice for the media to show consistancy... If there was enough interest in publishing the arrest, then there should be enough and equal interest in publishing the results regardless of guilty/not guilty. 

Of course, it is us the consumer who are more to blame for this. If it bleeds, it leads... I accept my guilt on that part myself.

EDITED for spelling and grammer


----------



## Cansky (17 Jan 2008)

If anyone one is interested. Of the 5 originally name trafficking charges, 1 had charges withdrawn 1 was convicted and 3 are still awaiting trials.  This info can be found on the JAG website. http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/military_justice/cmartials_and_appeals/default_e.asp.


----------



## armyvern (17 Jan 2008)

tweetypie said:
			
		

> Well good.To be clear, I am not anti pot or whatever, but fair is fair, and if drug taking in Aghanistan is hindering other soldiers or causing death, then that is where it is time to draw the line.
> Dont blame the MSM is someone found him/her self in a situation that they were charged with a drug offence.
> I mean even OJ was found not guilty



Yep, even OJ was found NOT GUILTY ... and because they had his charge plastered all over TV and the front pages --- we also saw his NOT guilty verdict published there as well.

Like I said down below -- They were deemed worthy enough to have their charges plastered all over the front pages of NATIONAL media and TV by the MSM, but not the "not guilty" verdict?? Why the difference? I'm not talking every day crap. If their charge is worthy enough for the NATIONAL media attention that IT garnered --- why isn't their "not guilty" or "dismissal" of that charge? They sure as heck felt that the average Canadian WANTED to HEAR about the charge didn't they? So your writing off of their non-attention to detail regarding outcomes of trials that were avail to them at the time of publication due to the "average Canadian not being interested" was already decided by the MSM as BEING in the average Canadians interest. Or is that only applicable when it suits their spinny story and can be 'overlooked' to enable the CF to be cast in a bad light with those average Canadians?

Oh, and don't confuse me for someone who doesn't pat enough attention to this -- I'd be one of the first to address a charge for drugs etc. I have ZERO problems with charging a member of the CF if that charge is warranted. I'm just tired of the slanted view that the MSM and artists on the left etc manage to pull off and paint for the average Canadian when these things happen. The slanting perpetuates the myths. I deal in facts -- not myths.

I completely agree that not every "not guilty" verdict is strung across national headlines ---- but then again neither is every person CHARGED with trafficing seeing that splashed acrross the front page. When they feel it worthy to splash the charge nationally (ie deeming IT to be in the public interest) ... why not the "Not guilty" or the "dismissal"?

But, the MSM DOES that for CF members ... then fails to follow up with the whole story, like they do for others such as OJ etc, or someone else found not guilty of an offense that was splashed across the headlines.

You're also right in that 





> There is no onus for news media to publish follow-ons -- *its obligation to the truth is to the truth at time of publication*.



It IS their job to check their facts, and the ONUS is on them to make that story as accurate as possible. And, the plain and simple FACTS of this matter are that, as per your own statement (and the subject of this thread in the first place!!), shown with MY emphasis added, is that they FAILED to comply with "the truth at the time of publication" -- which was that they only felt it necessary to mention the one found guilty last year (not mentioning the dismissal from last year even though they had that info) -- and as I said -- leaving THAT "truth" out is just as bad as outright lying. It is deliberatly misleading. 

But, hey -- that doesn't play well to the spin on the left hand side that some people like to see. Articles meant to cater to the left and which perpetuate the myths. "Rampant drug abuse in the CF and in operational theatres etc etc etc" are perpetuated through exactly this kind of misleading article.

The left loves it -- it justifies their position even though it is factually incorrect.

You know when the MSM WILL print a story about a "not guilty" verdict for a CF member though? When PTSD is brought up as a defence ... and I'll tell you why ... because it then gives the MSM another reason to left-slant their article to query whether or not the CF/VAC is looking after it's pers in the hopes that it gives them some more ammo to use against the ruling party. Funny how that works. They'll damn well print anything discipline related as long as it shows us in a bad light, but be damned following up those stories with the "not guilty" verdicts of this "alleged" bad discipline when the facts come out in the trial or the Court Martial and are proven not to be the case.

Clearly, some people have agendas.


----------



## Col.Steiner (23 Jan 2008)

GUNS said:
			
		

> 1+ for a DD for the pusher man.
> 
> BUT: I can say with some confidence that a majority of people who abuse drugs for the first time, were under the influence of a legal liquid.
> 
> ...


----------



## GUNS (24 Jan 2008)

Talk about putting words in someones mouth. "gateway" , "hard drugs".

My point is the fact that alcohol lessens ones ability to make sound decisions about anything, drug abuse included.
I am a volunteer at a Rehab. Center and I have the opportunity to meet all sorts of individuals.
A vast majority of them who " tried soft drugs" for the first time were "having a few drinks" with their friends when someone produces a "joint" . Peer pressure and alcohol did the rest.
Would peer pressure alone be one of the  contributing factors to one trying drugs for the first time, yes. But, in almost all cases, alcohol quickened the individuals decision to bow to peer pressure.

Alcohol is not the "main" reason for drug abuse. Alcohol is one of many contributing factors.





			
				OberstSteiner said:
			
		

> GUNS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2008)

Let's not confuse the issue.  There is a BIG difference between having a few drinks with friends and USING/TRYING Drugs through PEER PRESURE and being a TRAFFICER/PUSHER.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2008)

Years and years ago, while I was still in HS & a young reservist, I was standing with with a group of friends when an US exchange student walked up and asked if anyone wanted to go outside for a "toke"....

My buddy, naive little SOB piped in.... Sure, what do you want to "talk" about.  

Priceless!


----------

