# JTF2 & AFG (merged)



## John Nayduk (19 Dec 2001)

Canada's JTF2 in Kandahar: Eggleton 
      WebPosted Wed Dec 19 12:21:18 2001 

      BRUSSELS-- The first Canadian soldiers to set foot in Afghanistan in the U.S.-led war
      on terrorism are members of the special JTF2 commando unit. 

      Defence Minister Art Eggleton said at a meeting of NATO defence ministers in
      Brussels that 40 members of the top-secret unit are in Kandahar, working with U.S.
      special operations soldiers. 

      Eggleton wouldn't say what they're doing, or if they
      have seen any action in the city that fell more than a
      week ago as the Taliban fled leaving chaos in their
      wake. 

      The Joint Task Force 2 unit was formed as a top-secret
      unit in the early 1990s to take over the
      counter-terrorism role previously filled by the RCMP. Its
      members are some of the army's most skilled troops,
      including sharpshooters and explosives experts. 

      The military won't reveal how many people are in the unit, how much it costs to
      operate, or exactly what the unit does. 

             RELATED: Britain to take lead in Afghan peacekeeping for three months
             RELATED: PM wants answers before troops go to Afghanistan 

      Eggleton's comments come a day after Prime Minister Jean Chré'©en said Canada
      would wait for a UN resolution before committing troops to a peacekeeping force in
      Afghanistan. 

      That force, of up to 5,000 soldiers, will be led by the British, and will help stabilize the
      country during the first few months of the new interim government that takes office
      Dec. 22. 

      The UN is expected to finalize the details on the size and makeup of the force in the
      next few days.


----------



## Spanky (19 Dec 2001)

Typical!  The battle is over and in come the Canadians!  Now our government will expect a seat at the table and play a role in the aftermath.  Then they wonder why the rest of NATO politely tells them to get lost.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2001)

What do you expect?  We came years earlier to the big dinners (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), thereby helping to ensure that there is a NATO and a UN, and I don‘t remember being invited to adjourn to the smoking room afterward for port and cigars with the big boys.  This "what have you done for us lately?" potato fodder is annoying.


----------



## John Nayduk (21 Dec 2001)

"This "what have you done for us lately?" potato fodder is annoying."
Sorry Brad.  That may be but if you still want to live in a good neighbourhood you still have to pay the rent.  Try skipping the rent payments for a few months or years and see how long you stay in the neighbourhood.  I personally find the governments‘ actions relating to defence embarrassing.  It has led me to a great deal of soul searching.  The government has shown (or given the impression) that there is no role for the regular force in war, only peacekeeping and the reserves are only used to augment the regs. overseas or for snow removal.  Other than waiting for better times ahead, I have to really wonder why I give up weekends and weeknights.  We are told to train to defend our nation but the government, by its actions, tells us that they don‘t care about defence.  The big difference between now and 1914 / 1939 /1950 is the political will that we stand up with our allies and commit forces to the fighting.  Today our government does not demonstrate that will.  They have demonstrated the will to stand back and only send our troops to "safe" tasks where there is little chance that any equipment may be damaged lest they have to spend money to replace it.  They have continuously shown that they do not give a damn about the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for this country unless it‘s a special interest group and they can court votes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Dec 2001)

I won‘t try to defend our shameful defence policy, which I also find disheartening, so there may not be much to discuss.  But I invite people to at least consider a different point of view regarding when we should stand up with our allies and commit forces.

The US is a great neighbour; I doubt we could find one better. But the US can be remarkably selfish until its own interests are at stake, and then seems offended or at least bemused when we don‘t all run to stand beside it.  Why shouldn‘t we be equally self-centered?  I don‘t see the US federal government slapping down its states and lobbies when they strong-arm Canada economically.

Terrorism is a global problem.  But try weighing global matters objectively and proportionately.  How do the total losses in lives and treasure to terrorists over all the years since 1945 stack up to the annual losses in, say, Africa to various other causes in a single year?  Is there a rule which says all our external efforts must satisfy US aims, and if there is anything left over we are then free to do something elsewhere?


----------



## John Nayduk (23 Dec 2001)

Well Brad, you make a good point.  In this case though an attack against one is an attack against us all.  I‘m sure that if an African country attacked one of us there would be a lot of focus there.  In this case, we are not living up to our obligations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2001)

Canada had it‘s chance in Afgahnistan, and we‘ve seen the PM‘s defence policy come home to roost. Last week the Brit proposal for Canada to head up the UN mission was turned down by the Canadian gov‘t. Could be because the UN is allowing for section 7 to be invoked, allowing force to be used as opposed to sec. 6 which has tied our hands for so long in the Balkans. Canadians may shoot someone, heaven forbid! Could be that after putting 1000 PPCLI on standby and having to scramble to replace a lot of them for roto to the Balkans, the realization has sunk in, WE DON‘T HAVE ENOUGH SOLDIERS! so we can‘t send them to Afgan land. Just a couple of conjectures. What‘s the use in fuming anymore, I‘m going to go puke in disgust at our dictatorship and fill the empty space with alcohol.


----------



## portcullisguy (23 Dec 2001)

I don‘t believe for a second that anything is "over" in Afghanistan, just because the Taliban gave up and al-Qaeda is hiding out.

There is a very real need for a security force there, otherwise the problem we just "dealt with" will rise again.  I believe there will be other places, too, where terrorists will take refuge and establish themselves in an organized fashion - Somolia again?  Iraq?  Sudan?

It isn‘t too late to put our best troops into the theatre, just because most of the dirty work is done.  By no means is Afghanistan considered "safe".


----------



## Spanky (24 Dec 2001)

I‘m confused here.  The problem "WE" just dealt with?  The only problem WE can deal with is our sorry arse government finding enough excuses not to do what is right.


----------



## John Nayduk (24 Dec 2001)

I have to agree with my Armour colleges.  This government is not going to send anybody anywhere where they may have to replace equipment.   They will keep sending out excuses instead of soldiers.


----------



## bossi (3 Jan 2002)

Canada misses boat
Armed Forces not invited to participate in Afghanistan peace force

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Sun Media

OTTAWA -- Canada is facing international embarrassment as Britain shows no sign of including Canadian troops in Afghanistan‘s stabilization force, say defence analysts. 

Retired colonel Sean Henry, spokesman for the Canadian Defence Association, said our allies‘ growing concerns about the state of the Canadian Forces might cause our exclusion from the Afghan force. 

Henry said a snub will highlight the Liberal government‘s failure to adequately fund the Armed Forces, causing their training and equipment to deteriorate. 

"The British know the poor state of the Canadian Forces and they may not want to get involved with us," he said. 

"Of course, it‘s an embarrassment and it‘s the blot on Canada‘s reputation. We talk big but we don‘t follow up with action." 

Both Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Defence Minister Art Eggleton have said not all 1,000 soldiers now on alert in Edmonton and Winnipeg could be deployed. They have also said that if fighting erupts, the Canadians would be pulled out. 

A 12-country advance team for Afghanis-tan‘s international peacekeeping force arrived in Kabul Tuesday to assess logistics for the full-scale arrival of foreign troops later this month. 

Canada was not among the countries on the team. 

British Col. Richard Barrens, chief of staff at the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, said the 27-person team included representatives from Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. 

In London, a British government spokes-man said Britain was still trying to get the military and technical agreement reached with the Afghans signed and sealed, even though the deal was initialled earlier. 

Britain would then go back to the countries that have offered troops and try to fit the mission‘s needs to what‘s being made available. 

Canadian Alliance MP Leon Benoit said Britain has probably received wind of Canada‘s personnel-stretched military so it‘s reluctant to make any requests. 

"The United Kingdom would not be asking Canada for something that they couldn‘t deliver," he said. 

"So to avoid embarrassment they probably won‘t ask." 

But retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said Canadians shouldn‘t be embarrassed if the British don‘t call - it‘ll simply mean that they‘ve opted for a European force. 

MacKenzie said Canada has built its reputation as a capable peacekeeping nation and dismissed critics making a big deal about not being invited. 

"We should not be embarrassed at all," he said. "The only thing we‘re missing is getting some of the best office space - dirt for our tents." 

Renee Filiatrault, Defence Department spokesman, said details of the stabilization force are still being worked out. 

"Everything is open for discussion," she said. "We‘re negotiating with our coalition partners." 

Maj. Mike Audette of Land Force Western Area said most of the troops at Edmonton Garrison are on a seven- or 10-day standby to deploy. 

"If called, they‘re ready to go," he said.


----------



## bossi (5 Jan 2002)

Frankly, I suspect the spin doctors are letting their egos get the better of them ... (I really don‘t get a warm and fuzzy feeling from comments such as "This will blow the socks off the retired amigos").

Personally, I always presumed Canada would have better reasons than pettiness or spite for deploying troops ... and besides - get real - it‘s only a very small battalion - not even a brigade!  Taken in the context of NATO, this wouldn‘t blow the socks off a Barbie doll (... which makes me wonder what certain "unnamed officials" were playing with ...)

January 5, 2002
Canadians to join Afghan force
Contingent of up to 900 combat troops ‘will blow socks off‘ defence critics: official

Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief
National Post

OTTAWA - Canada will contribute between 700 and 900 combat troops to an expanded U.S.-led stabilization force in Afghanistan, senior government officials said last night.

The Canadian soldiers, mostly from the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), will not join the first phase of the United Nations-authorized security force being assembled by Britain to guard the Afghan capital of Kabul, sources said.

The Canadian troops will form part of a separate U.S.-led force that will be deployed to other parts of Afghanistan. Details of the deployment are still being worked out by Canadian and U.S. military planners in Tampa, Fla., where General Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command, is based.

Art Eggleton, the Minister of National Defence, who has been deeply involved in the secret discussions with the Americans, will unveil the details of the agreement on Monday in Ottawa.

"The government will make an announcement on Monday of ground force participation within the next few weeks," a senior official told the National Post. "There will be a substantial contribution somewhere between 700 to 900 [soldiers]. It is going to be big."

Canada had been asked by Britain to send 200 to 300 troops as part of the 17-nation contingent that will act as peacekeepers in Kabul, but this request was rejected. The Canadian government insisted on deploying a self-contained combat-ready battalion trained to work as a cohesive group, particularly in the face of what is likely to be a dangerous situation in Afghanistan.

Officials say the contribution of as many as 900 infantry troops will undermine the criticism of opposition critics and former military officers who have claimed Canada‘s allies would reject Canadian troops because the country‘s military is ill-equipped and poorly trained.

"This will blow the socks off the retired amigos,"one official said, referring to some former officers who argued Canada‘s military had become so weakened by years of underfunding that British and U.S. forces had little use for the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

The PPCLI was put on 48 hours‘ notice on Nov. 14 when Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, announced Canada was ready to send 1,000 troops to Afghanistan.

The alert status was subsequently downgraded to seven days during negotiations to create an interim government in the war-ravaged country and while there was jockeying among Britain and other allies over the make-up of the 17-nation, 4,500-troop security force.

Officials say the PPCLI is ready to move on a week‘s notice and a small advance party could go on 48 hours‘ notice.

The stabilization force has a tougher set of rules of engagement than are normally given to UN peace forces. The mission was authorized under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which covers peace enforcement efforts as opposed to peacekeeping.

Afghanistan‘s interim government yesterday formally endorsed an agreement that will pave the way for the multinational peacekeeping force.

The agreement, signed by Major-General John McColl of Britain and Yunus Qanooni, Afghanistan‘s Interior Minister, is worded to give the British-led International Assistance Security Force the autonomy and authority to protect itself and its six-month mission.

A substantial part of the force is expected to be in place by mid-January.

The agreement represents yet another move forward on the accord reached in Bonn last month by various Afghan factions on how to move their country from war to peace.

But by UN mandate, the peacekeepers will be confined to Kabul and its vicinity, which increasingly seems an island of security in a relatively lawless country.

Maj.-Gen. McColl did not rule out extending the force to other parts of the country, but said it would require a new UN mandate.

Stephanie Bunker, a UN spokeswoman, said there were Taliban fighters and "Arab and other elements" in and around Kandahar and the city was rocked regularly by rocket and gunfire.

In western Afghanistan, the situation south of Herat has become increasingly hazardous. UN personnel are not travelling south of Shindand, about 80 kilometres south of Herat, and gunmen have been disrupting seed distribution in Farah province, she said.

One official in Ottawa said the Canadian soldiers may find themselves handling assignments "above and beyond" traditional peacekeeping roles. He would not elaborate.

Canada already has 40 to 50 members of the JTF-2 anti-terrorist unit working with other special forces in Kandahar. Five Canadian ships are also in the Arabian Sea, escorting U.S. aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships helping to interdict ships to ensure terrorist suspects don‘t escape the area by sea.

A Canadian Airbus transport has been flying cargo into the region and two CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol planes will help in surveillance operations.

Canada currently has about 1,700 military personnel assigned to Operation Apollo, the Canadian name for the international coalition against terrorism set up after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

++++
(and, another view)
++++

Childish behaviour
By ADAM SCOTT
Saturday, January 5, 2002 – Globe and Mail

Ottawa -- I didn‘t expect anything to be more embarrassing to Canada than the government‘s whining when George W. Bush failed to include us in the list of countries he thanked following Sept. 11. I was wrong. The whining and excuses made following the rejection of Canadian peacekeepers is the most shameful and childish behaviour I‘ve ever seen.

If Canada does end up sending peacekeepers to Afghanistan, it will be due to a patronizing gesture from the British, just as Mr. Bush, in a follow-up statement, patronizingly said that it was unnecessary to thank a brother. He might as well have patted us on the head.

During the planning of the peacekeeping mission, Canada has behaved like a little kid at the neighbourhood ballpark waving his arms and shouting "pick me," despite lacking the skills of the other players and not even having a ball glove. If we weren‘t the little brother of the biggest kid on the block, we wouldn‘t get in the game at all.

Becoming a respected player on the international team requires commitment to skills development, acquisition of appropriate equipment and a willingness to act decisively. Canada just doesn‘t have what it takes, regardless of how loudly we yell "pick me."


----------



## nbk (25 Aug 2003)

Seems as though JTF2 is in Afghanistan. 

I loved this quote.



> Although JTF-2 is almost obsessively secretive about its operations and the identity of its members, other members of the Canadian brigade group were quick to note the arrival late last month of a number of large, bearded and muscular soldiers in combat fatigues stripped of the usual name tags and unit markings.
> 
> However, spokesmen for the Canadian contingent would not comment on JTF-2‘s presence on the sprawling, heavily fortified base camp. "We never confirm or deny the presence of these people," said Maj. Roland Lavoie.


Large bearded and muscular soldiers? Okay now I really want to see these guys. They sound like they have their own little look to them, you know what I mean?


----------



## Danjanou (25 Aug 2003)

> Mr. McCallum promised to make public the places that JTF-2 was operating -- if nothing else -- after an embarrassing gaffe over the special forces‘ presence in Kandahar, during a 2002 mission to that southern Afghan city, cost his predecessor his job as defence minister.


And all this time I thought old Art lost his job because he gave his girlfriend a high paying patronage consulting job for DND.


----------



## Doug VT (25 Aug 2003)

What a load of crap.....that‘s all I have to say about that!


----------



## Rian (25 Aug 2003)

I saw an article on the stars website saying basicly the same thing.They also mentioned that the unit has expanded and split into to sections,"Black ops" and "Green ops".I do remember hearing about this a while ago.

any comments?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Aug 2003)

Is this look anything like the RCR Pioneer Platoon that was in the news about 4 years ago - with a big burly dude with sunglasses and an unkempt,unmilitary ZZ Top beard standing at a checkpoint in Bosnia?


----------



## greeves (27 Aug 2003)

I remember those pictures.  You have to admit, though, you‘d think twice about running a roadblock with those guys on duty!


----------



## Staff (27 Aug 2003)

Are there no media left in Afghanistan? All they have to do is look around to confirm JTF2‘s presence. I remember in ‘93, there were these dudes walking around camp with loaded weapons(C-8‘s with everything but kitchen sinks hanging off them), long hair, and basically wearing whatever they felt like. Everyone on camp had a good idea who they were. Are the civies in theater that clued out?


----------



## combat_medic (27 Aug 2003)

Staff: look above when Doug said it‘s a load of crap. Doug is IN Kabul right now, and I‘m sure would know if they were there. He would certainly know if a group of strange guys with high-speed weapons and scruffy haircuts showed up out of the blue.


----------



## PTE Gruending (27 Aug 2003)

BTW:
Whats with the pioneers (now gone from the CF?) and their beards? Is it a tradition, a la‘ the Navy? Or is there some practical use for it? 

One of those beards wouldnt be very good to have in an NBC environment!!


----------



## Staff (27 Aug 2003)

Cbt Med: I didn‘t know that‘s where Doug was, but my point is that the civies in theater should be able to spot these guys, and if they don‘t, tell someone they‘ve seen nothing (Then again they probably figure everything about JTF2 is cloak and dagger)

Pte G: The Pioneers‘ beard is tradition. It‘s a moot point though, since the pioneers were deactivated last year(As were the mortar platoons). The large scruffy beard is not indicative though. The RCRs had a big beard, but the Vandoos used to shave with a clipper, making them look like they had come off a three day bender. I never worked with Patricia pioneers but they too, probably had their own thing.

If you ask my opinion, I‘ll tell you that the RCR pioneers were the proudest bunch, if only because they maintained an image through until the end. They were predominantly big burly f***ers,who took an inordinate amount of pride in doing their jobs, minus the usual RCR Mickey Mouse bull****. If you ever worked for the RCR you would understand what mean.

As an aside, the US Marine pioneers I had the chance to work with wear a mohawk. This may be a unit thing though, rather than a trade thing(Yes, I know Pioneers are not a separate trade.


----------



## toms3 (28 Aug 2003)

Pioneersâ€™ being deactivated is another mistake.  I had the opportunity to see them in action during work up training for Kosivo.  They are a very intimidating bunch.  Forget the ZZ top look, it is more like a "Biker Gang" look.  That might be one of the reasons they were deactivated, the Gov wouldn‘t like the image.  If any of you saw the pictures of the Pioneers handling a problem at a bridge in Kosivo.  They were picking up people and throwing them over their shoulders as if they were sacks of potatoes and carrying them of the bridge.  I tell you one thing, I am glad they are (were) on our side.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Aug 2003)

Pioneer‘s,the Engineer‘s of the Infantry.

 I can say I have worked with them and they are the real pointy end if the Infantry,the Queen of Battle.
 I admire and respect them all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2003)

>Large bearded and muscular soldiers

The good news, then, is that we can easily conduct deception ops by moving around a platoon of swabbies in Cadpat from place to place.


----------



## Armymedic (31 Aug 2003)

You don‘t think that a small group of JTF guys couldn‘t just blend in with the 3 RCR battlegroup?

If the reporters don‘t know what to look for, and nobody tells them.......


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (2 Sep 2003)

I‘m with Doug.


----------



## klumanth (2 Sep 2003)

They probably could blend in if they wanted to, but they apparently choose not to do so.


----------



## gnplummer421 (17 Nov 2004)

The green ops boys in Afghanistan should be easy to spot, they are driving those sand-colored humvees. Word is they have to "tone down" the long/facial hair. I heard this from a friend of a friend of a friend of mine   :warstory:


----------



## NavyGrunt (17 Nov 2004)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> The green ops boys in Afghanistan should be easy to spot, they are driving those sand-colored humvees. Word is they have to "tone down" the long/facial hair. I heard this from a friend of a friend of a friend of mine   :warstory:



My cousins,uncles,brothers, neighbours dog sitter heard..... ;D


----------



## Slim (17 Nov 2004)

The JTF are in my living room...No, really! Right here, under the couch.

Personally I think that they're actually Genies...The Force Commander carries a magic lamp in theatre with him at all times. If the JTF are needed then the Force Commander just rubs the lamp.

The media...Any time there is anything the least bit odd they invoke the name of the JTF. Maybe the F#cking media should be the ones to tone down!

Slim


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2004)

Folks: whether or not the JTF2 teams are here or not is really nobody's business, is it?


As for the pioneers, the full beard was inherited by the British from the dress traditions of the Napoleonic French Army, more for looks than anything else, along with the big leather full apron and gauntlets that pioneers wore for clearing work and for ceremonial parades. The Pioneer's beard has been a feature of the French, British and Canadian armies since the early 19th century. All three of our Regular Infantry Regiments maintained the traditions up until the last CLS decided to take the Pioneer function away from the Infantry and give the task to the Engineers.The wearing of beards by Assault Pioneers in RegF Inf battalions was in the CF dress manual(and may still be). In the PPCLI our battalion Pioneers normally wore beards, and we had sets of the ceremonial gear for parades. I know that in 2PP at least, a few sets of the ceremonial gear were kept after the official disbandment of the Assault Pioneers because they were on parade for Farewell to Winnipeg this summer. A number of Reserve Infantry units such as RRegtC, QORofC and RWpgR have pioneers dressed in period gear, but these are for ceremonial only and were not connected to any actual Assault Pioneer role. Cheers.


----------



## Slim (17 Nov 2004)

Hey PBI

Did you know that DHist (the dept that deals with traditioon in the CF) was trying to get rid of the pioneer's beards for the longest time. They claimed that there wa no authentic justafication for them and so they shouldn't be worn!

I had a rip-roaring argument with the sgt in charge of DHist, (An int weenie such as I was at the time but without the background in the combat arms) The only thing that protected the beards in the pioneer platoons was that the RCR and the PPCLI friends of the regt's had way too much influence and so blocked this sgt from DHist regarding the issue.

Slim


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2004)

While I fully understand the vital importance of military history and of respect for useful traditions, I have often wondered if DHist could not perhaps keep their mitts out of Regtl matters and concentrate more on the institutional history of the Army. I prefer the British Army system in which, as far as I can tell, dress is largely a Regimental or Corps matter. Under the stalwart guidance of DHist, our Regt gave up its traditional "red and white" PPCLI cloth shoulder badges that dated from WWI, in favour of  the tin ones just like everybody else. Cheers.


----------



## Northern Touch (17 Nov 2004)

Well, at least I know what they look like now!
They all have large beards and huge muscles.


----------



## Marauder (17 Nov 2004)

Our CQ was one of those guys who was at the bridge in Kosovo. His old driver's license is the tits. LOL He looks like Charley Manson with a big ole' badger hugging his face. 

As for the media, when do they ever have a clue?


----------



## scm77 (17 Nov 2004)

From the Diemaco site.


----------



## JasonH (17 Nov 2004)

Is my reaction


----------



## rw4th (17 Nov 2004)

Given the insurmountable evidence that:

1- Assault pioneers guys are big burly guys with beards
2- JTF guys are big burly guys with beards

I think the only logical conclusion that can be reached, is that JTF soldiers are all assault pioneer qualified. It also stands to reason that ZZ Top were in fact the first assault pioneers to go public.

The only real question that remains is figure out the exact relationship between ZZ Top and JTF.

 :


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2004)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The only real question that remains is figure out the exact relationship between ZZ Top and JTF.
> 
> :



I would conclude that the never mentioned JTF-1 is ZZ Top.


----------



## Blindspot (17 Nov 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> From the Diemaco site.



"Now go out and get yourself some big black frames
With the glass so dark thay won't even know your name
And the choice is up to you cause they come in two classes:
Rhinestone shades or cheap sunglasses."
                                                           - ZZ Top


----------



## NavyGrunt (17 Nov 2004)

If all JTF are pioneers and all pioneers are bearded men- are all Bearded men JTF?

I remember that photo from the paper about  4 years ago....I was shocked at his beard and rounder shape........I was young an naive.....


----------



## rw4th (17 Nov 2004)

> If all JTF are pioneers and all pioneers are bearded men- are all Bearded men JTF?



OH! OH! OH! So if I grow a beard I should have no problem making it through selection right? Dammit, I knew their was a trick to it; they won't let you pass unless you have beard! Screw that PT shit, I'm just throwing away all my razors!

Gentlemen, I think we're on to something here.


----------



## Scratch_043 (18 Nov 2004)

That Cpl on the bridge in kosovo would scare the crap outta me, he looks like a bear holding a toy gun :


----------



## Slim (18 Nov 2004)

> Gentlemen, I think we're on to something here.



This has got to be one of the funniest threads I have ever read!

PBI-I'm with you completely regarding DHIST. Although their actions are probably well-intentioned they should stick to writing about all the wonderful stuff we do in the various conflicts we get involved in. Let the regiments do for themselves...I don't think that there is a concern for standards being kept up as the infantry regt's usually are the ones to set the standard anyway.

If ZZ TOP is really JTF1...Who do you suppose AEROSMITH is? ;D

Slim


----------



## NavyGrunt (18 Nov 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> > Gentlemen, I think we're on to something here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Back in the 60's scientist played around with making super soldiers through drug and gene therapy- Aerosmith is the failed results.


----------



## Northern Touch (18 Nov 2004)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Given the insurmountable evidence that:
> 
> 1- Assault pioneers guys are big burly guys with beards
> 2- JTF guys are big burly guys with beards



But then...where did all the skiny guys go?


----------



## G .Dundas (18 Nov 2004)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> But then...where did all the skiny guys go?
> failed particpants in the JTF selection process end up on menu .....no really :skull:


----------



## teltech (18 Nov 2004)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> But then...where did all the skiny guys go?


If I may... 8)
I worked with Cpl Massey in Kockavo... the reason for the un-"Slim-Jim" look is the fact he could bench press IIRC 450 lbs at the time. The Pioneer WO encouraged upper-body strength, and again, IIRC, most weightlifters look like they have a (in my best F@t Bastard voice) "bit of a bellay!" I remember when the order came down to either shave the beards or trim them to CF standard. Broke the morale of a very proud sub-unit. :rage:


----------



## jrhume (18 Nov 2004)

I saw a group of large bearded men go through town on Harleys the other day.

JTF2?


Jim


----------



## foerestedwarrior (18 Nov 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> I saw a group of large bearded men go through town on Harleys the other day.
> 
> JTF2?
> 
> ...



lmao, man JTF2 must have like half the Federal budget to support all these guys, there are just SOOO many......


----------



## rw4th (18 Nov 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> I saw a group of large bearded men go through town on Harleys the other day.



Harleys are only used by the super secret JTF-3!

Shhhhhhhh   :-X 

Darn, I've said too much already. Mods, please delete this post before the black Hyundai Accents (Canada can't afford black helicopters) show up to destroy the servers


----------



## Goober (18 Nov 2004)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Harleys are only used by the super secret JTF-3!
> 
> Shhhhhhhh   :-X
> 
> Darn, I've said too much already. Mods, please delete this post before the black Hyundai Accents (Canada can't afford black helicopters) show up to destroy the servers



I thought KIA got that contract?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

I saw an episode of American Chopper yesterday. OCC is now making the JTF super secret choppers. Paul Sr. is actually a JTF MWO........

Seriously though folks, why is it that in the CF each and every soldier, sailor, airman and officer thinks they have the need to know? 

There are some things that are just best left alone. While the average soldier thinks they have a need to know what is happening to be informed of the 'big picture' there are usually reasons a unit has specific need to know and opsec concerns.......If we all had a right to know what the opsec concerns were........There wouldn't really be a 'need to know' now would there? I am not SF. I have had work in the CF where too many people ask stupid questions which they do not have the right to ask, there can be problems more serious than you are aware of........Thereby outlining one of the many reasons for opsec. 

The JTF boys are recognizable, and they're not. Sometimes they're meant to blend, sometimes they're not. It's the little things.......Extended mags on the pistols, some other gucci kit........Or they look like your avg. crunchie.........Like whales being watched in the wild, if you bother them, or try to see more of what they're up to, they'll disappear and maybe not reproduce.........If you wanna know what the whales are doing, become a whale! (ok thats weak i know).

Thats the mystery!! Thats the game! The next time someone flashes a special piece of ID at you, or you haven't seen them around camp before and they look like they don't want to mingle......... and you think you need to know what they're business is, think twice.....Maybe just leave them alone, or try not to whisper as they walk by........They're not jerks, they just don't want to have to lie to you, or be asked a bunch of bone questions. If they're new and on the camp for awhile, you'll eventually get to know what they do.....Or not........

Smiling, but recalling with mild annoyance, :warstory:


----------



## jrhume (18 Nov 2004)

Mr. HHitman,
Hey, it's always been that way.  In Vietnam the SF guys invented stories to scare the crap out of us REMFs.  At least, I hope they were invented tales.  Curiosity, man.  Curiosity.  The bane of conspiracies.

The unmarked helos headed north and west.  Um . . . from Cu Chi that's pretty much into Cambodia.  

No Swift Boats headed that way though . . . . 

Jim


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2004)

I don't think that its the rank and file that want to know, so much...It strikes me more that the media take a huge exception to being left out of the "big picture." I mean after all, if Peter Worthington and that other silly tart (who actually drove out to Dwyer Hill and camped, looking for a photo op) that work for the Ottawa Sun can't know there had better be a good reason! :

Seriously though, Ive been around the unit some (I think I have anyway) and no one seemed to make a big deal out of it at all. Most just let them get on with it (whatever "it" may have been 

Its a bit like seeing a movie star sitting at a coffee shop in Yorkville (Toronto) Most just let them be.

I think that its great we have so many musicians in the CF...ZZTop, Aerosmith, ect,ect... ;D

Cheers and beers

Slim

PS-Oh, and JIm, I once met Richard Marcinko. Got his autograph and everything...Want mine??!! :blotto:


----------



## mrosseker (19 Nov 2004)

Old Guy said:
			
		

> I saw a group of large bearded men go through town on Harleys the other day.
> 
> JTF2?
> 
> ...



"We never confirm or deny the presence of these people."  ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

Saw this, on the front page of the globe and mail this morning.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050715/AFGHAN15/TPFront/TopStories



> JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda
> Canada's top soldier announces mission to root out 'murderers' in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> ...



I am sure this one line 





> "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."


 is going to piss a lot of people off (mainly the NDP lib-left type).  Frankly as mentioned in the other post of Hillier, this is exactly what we need in our CDS. Someone who is not afraid of shattering the notion of the CF as "lovable peacekeepers with the blue berets".  Now if only we could do something about are recruiting videos to reinforce this view.


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

WOW.... Just like they have been doing for 4 years!


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

Well now it is out in the open, so as to get people to take their heads out of sand and realize that are Canadians out there "fighting" these dipsticks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> WOW.... Just like they have been doing for 4 years!



I'm beginning to have a very grudging, ever so slight level of respect for the NDHQ public affairs 'team.'  _Globe and Mail_ reporter LeBlanc is acting pretty much as a stenographer - revising an NDHQ press release to make it fit the space available and conform to the _Good Grey Globe's_ style book.

That being said:

"¢	General Hillier is speaking over the heads of DND officials and the national _commentariat_ and directly to sailors, soldiers and aviators and their families and to ordinary (which equals woefully ill-informed) Canadians.  Maybe he is doing this *despite* the public affairs branch - he is a blunt, cheerful sort of fellow, a good 'stump' speaker, but some of his comments read like a well coordinated script; and

"¢	That 'script' and the chart which accompanies with print article (the text is in the version above) is, if it is _reasonably_accurate, very informative - especially for those ill-informed 'ordinary Canadians' but also for people like me - retired folks who are no longer plugged in' to the serving military establishment and to families, too, I think.

Yes, 'they' - the 'they' we all know - have been doing that for years but this is 'news' to many, many Canadians and it is beneficial, to the military, to have the points made on the front pages and TV screens.


----------



## Gramps (15 Jul 2005)

These "dipsticks" have been fighting for a very long time and many were trained by "dipsticks" from the west while the Afghans were fighting the Russians. Lets not forget that only a few years ago some of the "dipsticks" were though of as heros or warriors by western countries. Many "dipsticks" in South West Asia come from a very long line of "dipstick" warriors some going as far back as the Crusades. Besides it may not have been common knowledge that the JTF2 were doing these type of operations but common sense would dictate that they are, were and will always be there for the duration.


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> These "dipsticks" have been fighting for a very long time and many were trained by "dipsticks" from the west while the Afghans were fighting the Russians. Lets not forget that only a few years ago some of the "dipsticks" were though of as heros or warriors by western countries. Many "dipsticks" in South West Asia come from a very long line of "dipstick" warriors some going as far back as the Crusades. Besides it may not have been common knowledge that the JTF2 were doing these type of operations but common sense would dictate that they are, were and will always be there for the duration.



Your point is what exactly, other than not liking what I call them?


----------



## Gramps (15 Jul 2005)

If you read the last sentance of my post you will see what my point was.


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

So why give us the superfluous history lesson with the jab at my comment then?


----------



## Gramps (15 Jul 2005)

Simply because I found that the comment minimizes what people are up against in these countries thats all, I didnt take offense to the comment. I just wanted to address that they are up against fully trained combatants (for the most part anyway) .


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

Holy sensitivity bat man, don't take it so personally.   Gramps was just giving a little back ground to his rebuttal. 


Gramps is right though 
I don't think they are dipsticks. 

PURE GENEOUS is more like it.


----------



## Gunnar (15 Jul 2005)

Predictably, the Toronto (Red) Star left out the salient quote about the purpose of the Canadian Forces...

It is nice to hear someone who isn't dissembling for a change.


----------



## FSTO (15 Jul 2005)

The shocked faces of the CBC news anchours was priceless. There was a comment on the CF's new "aggressiveness", good christ do they have any idea what the military's ultimate job is.


----------



## Gramps (15 Jul 2005)

I think that the general public and the mass media are a little ignorant to what the CF's job, or function really is. You cant really blame anyone specifically either, the blame should be spread on the Public Affairs, the media, the CF, and to some extent the public as well. For the last decade or so, all people have heard about when it comes to the CF is "peacekeeping, peacekeeping, peacekeeping". Many people believe that we are here strictly for peacekeeping and nothing more so it is no surprise to me that when they hear or read about an actual aggressive military operation they are to some degree shocked by it.


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

Lets all hope though that this fosters more public support for us (which in turn leads to more funding hopefully), with the realization that the CF does dangerous stuff and need the equipment and manpower to be able to do that.  But the more our CDS is with the public, the more I envision Jack Layton and his kind demanding the replacement of Hillier and the return to our warm and fuzzy peacekeeping ways :-\


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

:-* :-* :-*    :warstory: :warstory: :warstory: :warstory:     :-* :-*     
                                                                              
                                                                          
                                                                           :tank:


The NDP ARMY


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

Hahaha that is hilarious, except I don't think they would have a tank (I don't think we have any either ) it would be to intimidating and militaristic.


----------



## scm77 (15 Jul 2005)

Found the perfect smiley to replace the tank for the NDP army,







;D

Now let's get this back on topic shall we?  8)


----------



## Hunter911 (15 Jul 2005)

I was watching the CBC a couple of days ago and Gen. Hillier came on and gave a brief 5 minute speach on how Canada can become more and more involved in the "War on Terror"... 

Personally, i think Hillier is just trying to introduce the Canadian peoples heads around the idea that this is going to involve them too, and that we cant afford to wait for our own 911 or London train bombing before we take action...  I kinda like his aproach!


----------



## x-grunt (15 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I am sure this one line  is going to piss a lot of people off (mainly the NDP lib-left type)



Actually, I mentioned this to a "NDP Left-lib type", a union organizer no less, and she said "well, it's about time. It needs to be done and that's what the 
Army is for, right?"

So don't be so sure that "left-leaners" don't support the military. Many civvies may not really understand the military or the issues involved, but support is out there, in all quarters!   



> Frankly as mentioned in the other post of Hillier, this is exactly what we need in our CDS



100% in agreement, it's refreshingly honest.


----------



## Devin (15 Jul 2005)

it's about time this country kicked it into high gear, i wish i was over there right now killing those terrorists. every canadian worth thier salt should want too as well, we should be supporting our military 100% and trying to protect the freedom our forefathers fought and died for.  :threat: :threat:


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (15 Jul 2005)

> ILTIS JEEP
> 
> Currently being phased out, the ILTIS is a 4 x 4 light utility vehicle. In service since 1948 the ILTIS were poorly armoured and difficult to maintain.


The iltis has been in service since 1948?


----------



## Acorn (15 Jul 2005)

Future Unknown said:
			
		

> The iltis has been in service since 1948?


It just looks and drives like it has. Der Kanadische kubelwagen.

Acorn


----------



## Pencil Tech (15 Jul 2005)

Absolutely X-Grunt. The CDS comes out with yet another great zinger of a quote and all some people seem to be interested in is how shocked the NDP, the CBC, etc. etc are going to be blah, blah, blah, and how Gen. Hillier MUST be talking over the heads of all the other bogeymen, and so on. You know most Canadians probably actually think we always were trained to kill scumbags and think that's fine, actually. We should stop talking like an aggrieved minority. The CDS was enunciating current government policy, as he has from the day he was appointed (without any interference or contradiction from the PM or MND). The government, yes the (gasp!) Liberal government appointed this man to do a job. This is Canada's defence policy and this is what we have all moved on to.   For God's sake, get over the NDP. This is a democracy and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Our fight is not with other Canadians. The CF is going to Kandahar so that maybe one day Afghans can have peace and a free democracy, complete with their own leftist weenies and right-wing grumblers.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jul 2005)

Excellent! 

I am sure Canada's elite will show these cowards what Canadians are truly made of!



May they all have a speedy, and successful tour, and return safely.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## MikeM (15 Jul 2005)

Good on him, read the article in the Canex, excellent read.


----------



## Slim (15 Jul 2005)

Go Rick go!!  

We aughta get Mike B to send the CDS an honourary membership to Army.ca! ;D

I wonder if he'd post...

Either way he's finally showing the rest of this country that the CF has got some teeth to it!


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jul 2005)

Kubelwagen! (for some reason it always makes me laugh). 

Believe it or not us Liberal-NDP types are actually quite pleased with the CF's new "aggressiveness", and by that I don't mean just me, but many of my non-military oriented colleagues as well. We are more than happy to see our Armed Forces doing what they are supposed to be doing, fighting and winning wars!

Liberal-NDP types usually only get upset about things when it seems that the war is being fought for less than a good reason. Afghanistan, IMO, and in the opinion of most of the country last I checked, is has many good reasons. We are denying terrorists use of this nation for their purposes, we are actively hunting down and destroying terrorists and their organizations, and at the same time we are helping some of the world's poorest people rebuilt their war torn country. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, Happy Hunting!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jul 2005)

> Believe it or not us Liberal-NDP types are actually quite pleased with the CF's new "aggressiveness", and by that I don't mean just me, but many of my non-military oriented colleagues as well. We are more than happy to see our Armed Forces doing what they are supposed to be doing, fighting and winning wars!



You might believe that couchcommander, yet its the Liberal-NDP types who are the first ones to cut the CF to the bone when and if given the opportunity. I think you are in the minority....


----------



## Acorn (16 Jul 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I am sure Canada's elite will show these cowards what Canadians are truly made of!



Won't happen Wes. They're cowards, so finding them will be hard. And if our guys do find them, they're cowards, so they'll just surrender right away.

Our guys' aggressive, soldierly appearance will scare them away. 'Cause they're cowards.

Right?

Acorn


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2005)

I doubt they will come willingly...

 But the first thing that popped into my mind was a scene from SPR -Q:what did he say A: Look I washed my hands for breakfast  ;D

 *KevinB does not espouse shooting surrendering soliders or vermin.  He just wants people to know after you kicked in their door when they where shooting at you prior to entry is about 3.8 seconds to late to have second thoughts...


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> General Hillier is speaking over the heads of DND officials and the national _commentariat_ and directly to sailors, soldiers and aviators and their families


It is rather impressive the way he uses the media as conduit for his leadership.  He does a better job of getting his message out and inspiering troops (even if we don't agree with the whole message) than any CDS that I recall.


----------



## P-Free (16 Jul 2005)

You are sorely mistaken if you think the "terrorists" are cowards. They are fighters with no regard to their personal safety and totally devoted to their mission. They aren't preoccupired with the 'I' or 'me'. 

Know thy enemy. And this one sure isn't a bunch of pussies. That's why they stand and fight and dozens of them die on a daily basis...


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> The enemy couldn't give a flying rats arse about media stories, all they want is to inflict mass casualties on innocent women and children. Canada is a prime target and it is only a matter of time.



 ???

Yet they are now heroic knights?


Dont get me wrong I don't see them lining up to surrender, and I know not all think Allah is willing their bullets.  But I have ZERO respect for how they conduct themselves.

BUT IF they where all so dedicated why do the top leaders get taken in and they give up and sing like canaries...


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jul 2005)

yeah.  I dunno, it seems to me it'd be much easier going into enemy territory to try and kill people when you've already decided that you're going to die and be rewarded with 70 virgins in the afterlife, and you know you'll have a quick and painless death.  Doesn't take much courage to do that.  It's deffinitely a heck of a lot easier than walking through a crowded market, clearly marked as a target by the uniform you're wearing, while having no clue as to where the next attack may come from, and worrying about your wife and kids back home and what will happen to them if you get yourself killed, or worse, captured by the "insurgents".


----------



## Richard (16 Jul 2005)

As one of those " ill-informed 'ordinary Canadians' ", I would just like to say that I was extremely pleased to read Hillier's statements. This is a wake up call to this nation and I hope that my country will increase defence spending and commit even more resources to the fight against terror than it has to date. Hillier is right, we're a target for these nutcases and hiding under the bed won't help one bit.

I wish all of you who are going to Afghanistan all the best and I hope you come home safely. Canada more than pulled her weight in two world wars and Korea (Vimy, Ortona, Kapyong) and we will do so again!

You might be surprised at just how many of "us" support "you". 

Thank you for what you do,
A Canadian Citizen,
Richard 
Toronto


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> You are sorely mistaken if you think the "terrorists" are cowards. They are fighters with no regard to their personal safety and totally devoted to their mission. They aren't preoccupired with the 'I' or 'me'.
> 
> Know thy enemy. And this one sure isn't a bunch of pussies. That's why they stand and fight and dozens of them die on a daily basis...



Hmm, says you are 17 and you are on your spaceship.  So that makes you qualified to support these yellowbellied scum?  :  I think it is time you get off that ship and come back to Earth.  Using explosives on innocent people is considered an act of cowardice by most rational people.  Why you ask? Seeing as how military personnel in various locales find it difficult to defend themselves from bombs, what would expect you to think it would be any easier for civillians with no prior warnings.  Also there are numerous accounts from people (line infantry, snipers, cops etc.) who have taken lives, and have described the experiences as something they would not want to repeat again if given the choice.  These people have to live with that every day, because 1) they saw the people  they shot, and saw their faces as they died and 2)they did not take the easy way out and kill themselves as well.

Also a very famous General once remarked "You don't win wars by dying for you country.  You win them by making the poor dumb b*stard die for his".  There are many many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on our side who are just as devoted to their mission.  And they know they might be killed, but they  do not intentionally try and get themselves killed.

And your last comment "That's why they stand and fight and dozens of them die on a daily basis..."  really so the reason they *hide* in the Afghan mountains, and seek shelter in mosques and other places of worship is what exactly?


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Jul 2005)

I think it would be prudent to draw a line of demarcation between the Terrorist and the Insurgent. To me these are two very different beasts.

The Terrorist is as Hatchet Man stated "Using explosives on innocent people" is a coward by my definition and quite different from an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting what to him is an occupying force and those that support the occupation.

To broaden the Terrorist definition to include armed attack against an invading force would have made terrorists out of the Belgians, French, Dutch and countless more during WW 2.

We must be able to accept the armed attacks, including bombings of government instillation's in the occupied country and even at home by the insurgent force, that is the price of war. Who was it who said "it is a good thing that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it".

Terrorism on the other hand does not target the means or support of the "enemy" but the innocent in their homes, it is designed not to win the war but to spread terror, nothing more.

I am not defending terrorism, by any stretch of the imagination but the waters surrounding this issue have become muddied IMO


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jul 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The Terrorist is as Hatchet Man stated "Using explosives on innocent people" is a coward by my definition and quite different from an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting what to him is an occupying force and those that support the occupation.



So the guy whoflies over to England and blows up a bunch of civilians is a terrorist, while a guy who detonates himself in Baghdad and kills a bunch of civilians is an "insurgent"?  Bull.  They're one and the same.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Jul 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So the guy whoflies over to England and blows up a bunch of civilians is a terrorist, while a guy who detonates himself in Baghdad and kills a bunch of civilians is an "insurgent"?   Bull.   They're one and the same.



No. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. It is the target and intent that differentiates the insurgent from the terrorist not the location. 

If a bomber blows up a police or army station in Iraq or even in the "enemies nation" that IMO is an act of rebellion against occupation, the object of the attack being to strike the enemy, his government and institutions. 

If a bomber blows up a bus load of ciciviliansno matter where that act occurs, that is terrorism.


----------



## Armymedic (16 Jul 2005)

JTF2 to hunt AQ, TB, and everyone else...

Good, the boys will be happy they haven't been practicing for nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2005)

Terrorists is becomming quite the boogyman catch phrase.

Isn't a rapist or child mollestor a terrorist? They are after all inflicting terror. Schoolyard bully? Terrorist.

I'm not big on calling these guys cowards.  They bomb an american checkpoint killing soldiers and civilians and their cowards. We bomb a house full of terrorists from 5000 feet in the air killing terrorists and civilians and whats the argument? "Well you dont know that they were innocent do you?  Their cowards, it's okay"

The only saving grace we have is that were not intentionally targeting civilians.

I know the whole coward thing comes from dehumanizing the enemy, making them easier to kill (as per Grossmans on killing etc..) but i still find the word gets thrown around way too easily.

While I totally disagree with their actions and what their doing, a bunch of guys in sandles and levi jeans with AK47s are willing to fight and die for what they believe in - fighting the most powerful army in the world.  
Murderers and assholes? For sure. Cowards? If they were cowards they would do what that jeremy whoever his name is did  and fuck off to another country (canada!) to save their own ass.  These guys are using some pretty shitty tactics. Well what do you expect them to do? Play by the rules?  How did the americans win their freedom against the british?  Breaking the rules of war.
I'm not trying to support these guys at all. They should fuck off and stop killing people. But it's silly when people act all shocked and horrified that someone isn't playing by the rules. It's going to happen. We take the higher road thats all.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Terrorists is becomming quite the boogyman catch phrase.
> 
> Isn't a rapist or child mollestor a terrorist? They are after all inflicting terror. Schoolyard bully? Terrorist.


While I agree that "coward" is the wrong word to describe the enemy (it only serves to de-claw the beast in the minds of the public), I think your suggestion the the title "terrorist" could be applied to rapists & child molesters is equally (if not more) foolish.  The criminals you've identified are vile and deserve our loathing, but wide spread terror is not an objective of their crimes.


----------



## P-Free (16 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man, check your PMs.


----------



## P-Free (16 Jul 2005)

coward - One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Now how are terrorists who blow themselves up cowards..?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2005)

I would argue a rapist who stalks women in the middle of the night raping them terrorizes not only the victim but whole communities.   The same can be said for child molesters released from prison into rual communities, murderers etc..    Creates terror. Is there different types of terror?
Whats the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear terrorist.? To me I think muslim is islamic.
Thats a very very stupid thing to think, I know, and i kick myself int he ass for it but it just seems like thats whats being forced on peoples minds. 


I know trying to put suicide bombers and rapists in the same boat is really grasping at straws but I ment to point out how over used the word is.


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> coward - One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
> 
> Now how are terrorists who blow themselves up cowards..?


 
"Word History: A coward is one who â Å“turns tail.â ? The word comes from Old French couart, coart, â Å“coward,â ? and is related to Italian codardo, â Å“coward.â ? Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, â Å“tailâ ? (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, â Å“cowardly lion,â ? was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing."


ignoble-characterized by baseness, lowness, or meanness

I can use a dictionary too.  

Yeah it takes a real man to walk into crowed subway station/bus and blowup people just going about their daily lives, then tuck tail and blow himself up, so he doesn't have to face the consequences of his actions.

Why don't you join the army, learn what professional soldier and warriors do.  Until then go back to your xbox.


----------



## Gramps (16 Jul 2005)

I highly doubt that there are too many people on this board that would have the audacity to strap themselves with explosives and know that they will die once the button is pushed. They are definitely not heroes but I also don't think that they are cowards. I would say that they are one of the most effective weapons around today but, then again that is strictly an opinion, nothing more.


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Jul 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that there are too many people on this board that would have the audacity to strap themselves with explosives and know that they will die once the button is pushed. They are definitely not heroes but I also don't think that they are cowards. I would say that they are one of the most effective weapons around today but, then again that is strictly an opinion, nothing more.



Perhaps, just perhaps, none of us are looking for an escape from our lives???


----------



## Gramps (16 Jul 2005)

I truly don't believe that all of the suicide bombers (or more appropriately put to me by one of my counterparts from the USAF, Homicide Bombers) are trying to escape their lives.


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Jul 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> I truly don't believe that all of the suicide bombers (or more appropriately put to me by one of my counterparts from the USAF, Homicide Bombers) are trying to escape their lives.



They may not be _trying_, but they're sure _succeeding_.


----------



## Gramps (16 Jul 2005)

"They may not be trying, but they're sure succeeding."

When you are right, you are right. I can't argue with you on that point. I bet nobody expected me to so easily agree with someone here. Cheers.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Jul 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> coward - One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
> 
> Now how are terrorists who blow themselves up cowards..?



So they're not neccesarily cowards, but their actions certainly don't make them brave.   Hiding amongst civilians, attacking the defenceless, ensuring that they're not around to be questioned after their job is done...all of those acts seem designed to ensure that at no point are they in any serious danger.   And as has been pointed out, the ones who are caught generaly sing like canaries.   It might be wrong to charactirise the entire lot of them as cowards, but I have yet to see one (or hear of one) doing anything brave.

And pleeeeease don't use the phrase "homicide bomber".  Most bombers commit homocide, only a certain type commits suicide at the same time though.  Homocide bomber is a meaningless f*ing term, one I could do with never hearing again.


----------



## Acorn (16 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Why don't you join the army, learn what professional soldier and warriors do.   Until then go back to your xbox.



Anyone else see the irony in this coming from a 22-year-old Reservist?

You're out of your lane Hatchet Man. Leave figuring out the enemy's motivation to those with the experience to make a judgement. Stick to pointing your weapon where your section comd tells you to.

Acorn


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I would argue a rapist who stalks women in the middle of the night raping them terrorizes not only the victim but whole communities.   The same can be said for child molesters released from prison into rual communities, murderers etc..    Creates terror. Is there different types of terror?


Yes, those crimes would cause fear in a community.   However, wide spread terror is not an objective of the criminals committing these crimes.   If you want to dream up some hypothetical rapist that is using the crime to cause fear in order to achieve some other political or economic objective, then sure we can call that individual a terrorist.



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I know trying to put suicide bombers and rapists in the same boat is really grasping at straws but I ment to point out how over used the word is.


It seems to me that you are the one over using the word by suggesting it might be applied to any violent criminal.


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Anyone else see the irony in this coming from a 22-year-old Reservist?
> 
> You're out of your lane Hatchet Man. Leave figuring out the enemy's motivation to those with the experience to make a judgement. Stick to pointing your weapon where your section comd tells you to.
> 
> Acorn



So only reg force are allowed to make comments about what professional soldiers do :


----------



## Roy Harding (16 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So only reg force are allowed to make comments about what professional soldiers do :



Acorn may have been pointing more at your age, and the implied lack of experience inherent; as well as the fact you are (and apparently always have been) a reservist - and the implied lack of experience inherent in that as well.

Your opinions are usually fairly well thought out and presented, don't lets get down to name calling and "he said, she said" - it doesn't prove anything.


----------



## Conway (16 Jul 2005)

Just a thought about the insurgent vs. terrorist argument.  I'm not sure how motivated I would be to go up against a bradley or a battle tank with an Ak and 30 rounds.  I have to admit, I have much respect for someone who is willing (and actually plans), to lay down their life by blowing themselves up amongst a group of recruits/police/soldiers.  Not to say that I side with them, but one cannot simply look at it as a cowardly act.  Some might consider sitting around while calling in an airstrike on a single sniper in a building as a cowardly act, us Westerners call it technological advantage.   
And another thought on the targeting of civilians...it's called Total War.  It's been around for decades and it will be around forever.  The enemy is no longer simply the armed forces of a particular group, but the entire group itself.  So if targeting civilians is a terrorist action, I suppose every air raid on a city ever mounted was a terrorist act.  It's just the way the media spins it.  These guys are desperate, they don't have the money or the technology that we do, so they'll do what they have to do to make their point.


----------



## Slim (16 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So only reg force are allowed to make comments about what professional soldiers do :



maybe its because he's served for years in the intelligence branch and has seen things like this over and over again...While you are relatively young and have not served for very long, or seen much outside the infantry box that you operate in.

No one is trying to insult anyone else...Acorn is a pro at this stuff and has dealt with it often enough in real life.

Take the opportunity to learn from him and others like him while you can.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## paracowboy (17 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So only reg force are allowed to make comments about what professional soldiers do :


chill, mon...
Acorn has never been one to drag in that tired old "Regs vs Res" cliche that I've seen.


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2005)

I think the distinction that was trying to be made is as follows:

Insurgent: A person attempting to disrupt the established order and bring about political, social, or economic change through the use of violence. 

Terrorist: Same as above, except their methods usually involve the use of tactics designed to more so instill fear and chaos in society rather than large scale destruction (though I am sure they would not mind if this occured as well). Frequently targetted at noncombatant populations. (though the Bush administration seems to use this label for anyone they have a desire to be rid of.... )

Mind you these are definitions I just pulled out of my head so I wouldn't take them as the gospel. 

I'd like to add that IMO insurgents can indeed be terrorists.... there is no big black line diffentiating the two but from my experience usage of the word terrorist implies a spefic set of strategies and tactics, whereas insurgent is more general. 

Re: Coward? 

I'm on the fence. On one hand I think that you have to have pretty big balls to blow yourself up for something you believe in. 

On the other hand I think killing unarmed noncombatants with little to do with the war has to be one of the MOST cowardly acts in existance. 

In my opinion (and this is just my personal opinion, I am not in any way trying to impose this upon you fellows or debate the merits of it) I'd call terrorists "determined cowards"... but that's just me....


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

"Insurgent or Terrorist?"  The thread that never ends!


----------



## Acorn (17 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So only reg force are allowed to make comments about what professional soldiers do :



No son (I say "son" because by my count I was in uniform before you were in liquid form), I'm saying that from where I sit the difference between you, at 22 with some reserve years, and a 17 y/o with no mil experience is not great. I also look at it from the perspective that I was once a young reservist as well, so I know when piss and vinegar can drown rational thought. You're hammering down on a young fellow based on your vast experience. I'm doing the same based on mine - doesn't feel good on the receiving end, does it?

On the point of the discussion, I think P-free might just be a bit closer than you in his judgement of the enemy. But that's just based on my experience, so I could be wrong.

Acorn


----------



## edadian (17 Jul 2005)

I've seen complaints on this site about threads 'devolving' into JTF2 threads, now I'm on a JTF2 thread that has devolved into name calling and politics. The people JTF2 are facing are just the enemy, no need to call them anything else.

The people JTF2 are going up against again (why was there a break in their deployment?) defeated the Russians. Russian military philosophy is based on Sun Tzu where only fools let the enemy choose the ground. Afghanistan is a good choice for defending, it is a land that traditionally eats armies, so how do we choose a new battlefield?

The Liberals have pumped as much money into defence as Conservatives through Canada's history. Both parties use the CF as a political pawn to win elections. On the Liberal watch we received RMC Kingston, the RCN, the C1, nuclear weapons (then the got rid of them) etc. Under Conservatives we got the cuts under Cambell, cancellation of the Arrow and the old Tory belief professional soldiers were to useless for real work.

The quote about growing to fond of war is from Gen. Robert E. Lee.


----------



## P-Free (17 Jul 2005)

The insurgents and terrorists use the methods available to them. War is a case of you either win or you die. Therefore you adapt your strategy to best attain victory. It doesn't matter what makes a real man, because that doesn't matter to the dead. Doesn't matter what we think of their methods, we have to adapt. The right way to fight them is full on, with no rules of engagement, just like they fight us.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2005)

P-Free for every action,comment there is a reaction for each and I think it was wrong releasing that info as it puts us in to a automatic aggressive posture.

You see the Brit Government comment on the SAS?

I feel that who ever made the decision has made us look like an aggressor which this Task is not about.

Our Task is to try and reconstruct and the Battle Group is there to support that Task with all Arms as Intel. and actions dictate.

I and others know some who are on this coming tour and I feel this article has put our friends in possible unnecessary danger due to the aggresive nature of the article.


----------



## P-Free (17 Jul 2005)

My father is on the upcomming roto to Afghanistan and it was always my impression that everything happening in Iraq was also happening in Afghanistan.

The media does not create the danger, they only hype it.


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I and others know some who are on this coming tour and I feel this article has put our friends in possible unnecessary danger due to the aggresive nature of the article.


I tend to think that this sends the message that we are not going there to be pushed around.  The danger is there regardless.  Better to be seen as the wolf than as the sheep.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2005)

McG I think they already know we can't be pushed around from what is it now nearly 20yrs of Tours from all our Brigades from the Kuwait to the Balkans .Our abilities we have proven.

 Our Task is reconstruction,bring some stability at this time,not come in as belligerents which the press release has intimated.

Secret Squirrel stuff is not the domain of the public or of the average Pvt.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2005)

Wow, missed this entire bout of Internet Tough guy.

Anyways, being the classic moral relativist that I am, don't chain yourself to a Western, secular, liberal democratic framework of thought if you want to get an idea of what the enemy is up to.  The enemy doesn't take things like the Geneva Convention, Hugo Grotius, and the _Peace and Truce of God_ into their decision cycles....


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow, missed this entire bout of Internet Tough guy.
> 
> .   The enemy doesn't take things like the Geneva Convention, Hugo Grotius, and the _Peace and Truce of God_ into their decision cycles....



It's about time someone said that out loud!

Good points to remember for those both deploying and sitting home armchair quarterbacking! The enemy's moral compass does not point to North Ladies and Gents.

They do things their own way and we have to understand that to understand them!

Thanks Infanteer.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## P-Free (18 Jul 2005)

Thought I was saying that all along in this thread, but it might have been missed in the middle of Hatchet Man's rants about supposedly supporting them..


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Our Task is to try and reconstruct and the Battle Group is there to support that Task with all Arms as Intel. and actions dictate.



The PRT is there to rebuild; the BattleGroup is there to close with and destroy.

 It's refreshing to see our Army talk and act the part.

IIRC Lewis MacKenzie stated circa '93 that anyone not wanting to be shot at should get the F out...

Canada was already on the Enemies scoreboard - they got 3 on Roto 0 and due to sheer dumb luck in some sits Roto 1 and Roto 2 lucked out.  Canadians are not worth as much to them as US and UK troops - but they are still gunning for us - anyone thinking differently needs to give their head a shake.  

 Just cause we toned down our Operatiosn as part of Op Athena the Enemy still remembers Canadian soldiers killing them in '02 -- no amount of flowery kumbaya crap will change that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2005)

"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."
General Rick Hiller

Maybe you aren't public servants when it comes to facing risks but you may still be when it comes to facing an uncaring bureaucracy.   This is from today's _National Post_

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6794e775-a9d0-4fd0-87db-3fa74ed5e5e0&page=1 


> Security may stand in way of benefits
> *Secret military missions*
> 
> a journalist
> ...



JTF2 people are not the only ones who (used to, anyway) deploy on classified missions.   The others do not, I hope, face anything like the same dangers but accidents do happen and casualties do occur.   I really hope LCol Wrather is giving us the straight goods because my experience with the pension bureaucracy - several years ago and on behalf of someone else - was frustrating, to say the least.   We had to go, eventually, DM to DM with 'eyes only' type correspondence and anyone who has tried to get the DM to sign a letter without getting it blessed by a legion of minions will know that was not easy and it was excessively time consuming - meanwhile the injured military member was in limbo.   (He got his disability pension, by the way but it took months and months longer than necessary just to get the wheels in motion.)

Edited: added 'used to' because I don't know if anyone does any more


----------



## jimmy742 (20 Jul 2005)

As a well known French general once quoted "J'aime les soldats, je deteste les militaires."


----------



## Big Foot (27 Jul 2005)

Defence chief unfazed
By CP

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2005/07/27/1149165-sun.html

EDMONTON -- Canada's top military officials are brushing off criticism from Independent MP Carolyn Parrish over the blunt language of Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. 

The maverick MP, a former Liberal, has called Hillier "dangerous" and "testosterone-fuelled" for saying that the job of Canadian soldiers is to be able to kill people. 

Hillier said he hadn't seen Parrish's comments but wasn't particularly concerned about them. 

"I'm part of ensuring that Canadians understand and appreciate just what these fine men and women ... just what fine work they do on their behalf," Hillier said.


----------



## ImanIdiot (27 Jul 2005)

It is my opinion that we, as voters, have the responsibility to thoroughly research potential MP's histories before we vote for them. Hopefully, in the future that will ensure noone who has had a lobotomy performed on them will be representing the public in parliament.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2005)

Our politicians should be required to complete our CFAT testing, that would probably weed out 95% of them


----------



## Slim (27 Jul 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Defence chief unfazed
> By CP
> 
> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2005/07/27/1149165-sun.html
> ...



If Caroline Parish gets voted out in the next election she should easily be able to ge a job with the CBC ... :


----------



## PKR_Chequer (28 Jul 2005)

Personally I think Ms Parrish is the one "degrad[ing] the hard-earned reputation of this country"   :

From today's Globe...

Parrish continues attack on Hillier

By OLIVER MOORE

Thursday, July 28, 2005 Page A7

Amid rumoured talks about rejoining the government, Independent MP Carolyn Parrish has released a letter calling the most senior officer in the military "truly barbaric."

Ms. Parrish, who was booted from the Liberal caucus last year for refusing to toe the party line, said this week that "a lot" of her former colleagues want her to come back to the government benches.

But this week she also showed her trademark outspokenness by lambasting General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, for calling terrorists "murderers and scumbags." She said the comment was an unfortunate echo of the black-and-white mentality of the U.S. military. She followed up with an equally sharp letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham.

The letter was released yesterday, a page of blunt rhetoric that implores Mr. Graham to "muzzle the beast."

"We know [U.S. President George] Bush's 'War on Terrorism' has killed thousands. . . . For the top General in this country to emulate the simplistic phrasing of Mr. Bush, on behalf of you and our government, is to degrade the hard-earned reputation of this country and its people. I am shocked that you have tolerated it."

With an election expected early next year, senior Liberals are apparently concerned about another minority government and worry that Ms. Parrish could win her seat in the next election as an Independent.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wxparrish28/BNStory/National/


----------



## FITSUMO (28 Jul 2005)

I am liberal in alot of my thinking but this is insane
"But this week she also showed her trademark outspokenness by lambasting General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, for calling terrorists "murderers and scumbags." She said the comment was an unfortunate echo of the black-and-white mentality of the U.S. military. She followed up with an equally sharp letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham."

I think Ms. Parrish is sitting in her little safe world where bad things never happen to good people.  But the writing is on the wall, bad things are going to happen to some good people( in Canada and around the world)  and when it does, will she say "lets not think in "black and white" terms, lets all get along.  "  

here is a concept: blowing up a subway or bus while people are just going to work to provide for their families does make you a scumbag and a murderer and it is very black and white.

and her comment on Gen. Hillier being dangerous, Correct me if I am wrong, he is the boss of the CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, I hope that he is alittle dangerous, being his job is to command soldiers( whose job is what again?)( pls read sarcasm as I am laying it on)

rant endth.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Jul 2005)

I wish she would do us all a favour and step in front of a bus...



Matthew.   :threat:


----------



## canadianblue (28 Jul 2005)

> I wish she would do us all a favour and step in front of a bus...
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Agreed on that one ;D ;D ;D


----------



## scm77 (29 Jul 2005)

Another one from the Toronto Star today.  They sure do give the "Liberal Weiners" alot of space for their complaining about how evil the military, America and General Hillier are.

*Canada's new enforcer

MICHAEL NICKERSON*

If all Canadians embraced the world as one great "Rock'em, Sock'em Hockey" video and considered the major for fighting a badge of honour, the war on terror would be but a memory. The good guys would use low-skilled but belligerent thugs to win the game, with the rule makers standing aside and letting it all unfold.

Or at least so goes our chief of defence staff's dream for a new, bolder approach to crisis management and international diplomacy.

A week ago, Gen. Rick Hillier used the image of a career NHL enforcer to illustrate the role he feels the Canadian Armed Forces should play on the world stage. In so doing, he did a disservice to the rich and honourable history of our military and the intelligence of an entire country.

Hillier is appealing to the base emotions of the nation without providing sound reasoning for his cause. In essence, he wants us to lead with our fists and our hearts, not with our minds.

The metaphor of the NHL enforcer is instructive, however, if perhaps not in the way that the chief of the defence staff intended. For decades, fighting has been considered by many to be a vital ingredient in our national sport, one that can turn the tide and momentum of a game. I suspect this was the sort of image the general was after, one of the trench warrior doing the "hard stuff" for the rest of us.

But there are those who have been calling for an end to this brutish aspect of hockey for years, citing the need for better examples to set for the young, and the excitement of international play, where fighting is next to nonexistent.

In Europe, hockey culture does not condone or encourage fighting. In Canada, boys who have passed their 14th birthdays and who want to keep that NHL dream alive, learn to get their jerseys off as fast as they can and practise bare-knuckle skills otherwise found only in late-night bars and back alleys.

The culture of the NHL is to allow this belligerence, for coaches to encourage it, and for farm teams to teach it.

And while that sort of thinking has been part of Canadian hockey culture for some time, until now it has not been a key feature of our national culture. From his comments, it is fair to suggest this is a state of affairs Hillier is eager to address, and, like an overzealous hockey player, he wants us to embrace a requirement for brutality at just the moment when cooler heads are so sorely needed.

For it has suddenly become fashionable to scoff at the idea of "Canada the peacekeeper" in much the same way as those who question the need for hockey enforcers are written off as naÃƒÂ¯ve fools who don't understand the game. Canadians are being told we need to wake up and recognize the threat that faces us, as if the nightly news and all the carnage it documents wasn't enough of an alarm bell.

Hillier has resorted to lowbrow and disingenuous scare tactics, most recently labelling terrorists as amoral psychopaths on par with the Olsons and Bernardos of the world, despite much evidence and research to the contrary.

His suggestion that Afghan heroin is a "weapon of mass destruction," was reminiscent of Tony Blair standing up in parliament in the fall of 2001, fingers crossed behind him, and telling citizens that the Taliban was putting heroin on British streets after the regime had spent the previous year destroying most of its crop.

In both cases, these were stunning and misleading assertions to justify lethal force in a foreign land.

Yet, in a world moving toward the mentality found in North American ice rinks and penalty boxes, Canadians are going to have to ask themselves whether they want to simply accept this new culture as many have with hockey, or work toward something different.

Do we want a world where violence is an accepted, even encouraged part of the game, or where it is used only as an absolute last resort?

Right now we have our chief of defence staff leading with his fists, which is what you expect of an enforcer. The question is why his coach hasn't called for a time- out instead of just letting him play.

Where are you, Paul Martin?
*
Michael Nickerson is a Toronto columnist for Esprit de Corps military magazine* and the e-zine Caffimage.com.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122587411428&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
---------------------------------


----------



## DogOfWar (29 Jul 2005)

He writes for the fucking espirit de corps papeR?What the fuck is wrong with this country! I cant take this anymore- everyone is retarded. Leading with his fists? What else should a soldier do? The care bear stare?Anyone who has seen a neheading VIDEO by these people would not believe any evidence to the contrary.They will only believe these terrorists are raving psycotics. I dont care how Allah Ahkbars they say.They are scum. I hate these men and wouldlike nothing more than to cleave their heads from their necks- they don use them anyways.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jul 2005)

perhaps another one for the  Ruxted group.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jul 2005)

Michael Nickerson, the Toronto columnist for Esprit de Corps military magazine, seems to have the same journalistic skills as Rationman, another of EdC's "man on the street" Jimmy Olsens. If ST ever thought of reclaiming some of his standing with today's Servicemen and women, he'd unload these two pikers. It's pretty hard to pass yourself off as the "Champion of the Soldier" with gutter tripe like this. Although I'm sure MN could get a job as PR man for Parrish.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Jul 2005)

Anyone here actually read EdC? Anyone....


----------



## Armymedic (30 Jul 2005)

Yes I read it here in Afganistan, cause its free, and we don't get much in the way or reading material from Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jul 2005)

Edit:screw it


----------



## FITSUMO (2 Aug 2005)

ohhh this is rich:
"Hillier has resorted to lowbrow and disingenuous scare tactics, most recently labelling terrorists as amoral psychopaths on par with the Olsons and Bernardos of the world, *despite much evidence and research to the contrary."*


what evidence and research-  they are terrorists, they kill innocent people with out remorse or thought.  I am soooo sick of the barney "I love you you love me" crap about terrorists. The biggest problem with most people in Canada is they are afraid to offend and lose our "nice people" title.  And most people still think that terrorists attacks cannot happen here because the world loves us. 
 I think Hillier is great, he is trying to  get the message across that we as a country are involved with some serious world business and that maybe we need to brace for it.

Can someone please provide for me the research and evidence about terrorists not being on par with the olsons and bernardos, I would love to read it. .


----------



## KevinB (2 Aug 2005)

ST's a boob.  His rag - and I mean RAG - is not fit to wipe my tush...

 I lost of faith with him about CAR 1CDO tapes. - He's done nothing but continue to dig himself and his magazine in deeper since them IMHO.


----------



## Gunnar (2 Aug 2005)

Uncle Lew is still on the job...

==========================
Back Off, Rick's Right
Monday, August 1, 2005 Page A11

 Now that we have a chief of the defence staff who calls a spade a spade rather than a pitchfork, and a terrorist a "scumbag" rather than a disenfranchised youth who had a rough childhood, and confirms that our military's role is to kill as efficiently as possible once the political order has been given rather than participate in "peacekeeping" missions that rarely meet the criteria for success, the critics have come out of the woodwork.

The problem, if there is one for General Rick Hillier, has been the absence of unfettered military advice from the top soldier in the land since the integration of the Defence Department's military and civilian staff in the early 1970s. For years, I blamed defence minister Paul Hellyer, who had unified the Canadian Forces (same uniform, common services for the navy, army and air force etc.) for the tragedy of integration.

That is, until he asked me to stop identifying him as the culprit, reminding me that it was his successor, Donald Macdonald, who had carried out Pierre Trudeau's bidding to emasculate the military by putting our soldiers in bed with their civilian counterparts in the Defence Department as "co-equals." During the conversation, Mr. Hellyer assured me he would have "fallen on his sword" if Mr. Trudeau had ordered him to integrate the Forces' headquarters with the Defence Department's civilians. What followed was, by necessity in the interests of survival, a new military culture at the top that, more times than not, publicly repeated and reinforced the opinions of the political and bureaucratic masters.

Lest the reader erroneously conclude that I am proposing some sort of Canadian military dictatorship as the answer, let me stress that I am talking about the importance of unfettered military advice, not decision-making. The chief of the defence staff should not be in the business of making foreign policy decisions, but he certainly should be at liberty to comment on them. In the most recent case involving Gen. Hillier's thoughts regarding our redeployment in Afghanistan to Kandahar to rejoin the war against the Taliban/al-Qaeda coalition, critics found fault with comments that merely reinforced our government's appropriate policy decision. Go figure.

Advertisements

 In the vast majority of Western nations, it is required of senior military leaders that they provide, without restriction and cognizant of security, their best professional advice regarding their responsibilities. A good example was provided by the recent disagreement between President George W. Bush and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, after the release of the report on intelligence failures that contributed to 9/11. One of the recommendations (and one approved by Mr. Bush) was the creation of a centralized intelligence co-ordination agency that would reduce some of the Pentagon's influence in intelligence matters. Gen. Myers spoke out publicly against the proposal even while the President was saying that it sounded like a pretty good idea to him.

In Canada, a similar display before such a decision was made would be grounds for the figurative beheading of the senior officer. In the U.S., when the media got to the President with what they anticipated would be the story of the day, Mr. Bush replied (and I paraphrase him): That's what Gen. Myers is paid for, to give his honest opinion; he gave it, I disagree with it and we are implementing the recommendation.

The President and Gen. Myers then went back to work. End of story.

Some critics have suggested that Gen. Hillier is not only wrong in commenting on foreign policy but that he's off base. They repeat the latest popular theory that the prime motivating influence behind suicide bombers is the desire to rid their "homeland" of foreign armies and that perverse religious interpretations and the clash of civilizations have nothing to do with their cause. If that's the case, why did fighters from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Gaza, Canada and the U.S. try to rid Afghanistan of foreigners like ourselves. Afghanistan was not their homeland. No one has a monopoly on the causes of terrorism because they aren't common, consistent or discernible. Gen. Hillier's deductions are as valid as those who write books on the subject.

When you deal with the media, the most important thing to ask yourself before opening your mouth is: "Who is my target audience?" With Gen. Hillier, it's obvious that he's frequently talking through the media to his soldiers, sailors and pilots in language they appreciate. Listening in is the Canadian public, which is being told that an appropriate foreign policy decision to dispatch as many terrorists as possible for an early reunion with their maker is a dangerous but necessary business.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.


----------



## S McKee (2 Aug 2005)

> PUBLICATION:  The Chronicle-Herald
> DATE:  2005.08.02
> SECTION:  <Canada>
> PAGE:  A6
> ...




More nuggets of wisdom from everones' favorite ex-corporal. Why doesn't this man run for office, he knows everything, just ask him!


----------



## FITSUMO (2 Aug 2005)

aaaaaaaaaahhhhh  after reading jumpers post, I am physically angry, make the dumb reporters go away, please.  Why why why do people get offended when someone calls terrorists scumbags, has it really come to this.  I want off the PC train.

 :threat:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2005)

> Experts familiar with the complex Afghan social, political and military mosaic have suggested that combining the two missions in the same location is "complete madness."
> 
> They argue whatever "feel- good" reaction the reconstruction team can generate by handing out food parcels at gunpoint will be eradicated by the ongoing combat missions.



However, as usual, he fails to identify these "Experts". I have a couple of "acquaintances" who do this for a living, and they have not identified this "complete madness".



> These comments came in the immediate wake of the London subway bombings on July 7, and Hillier's implication was that our troops engaging illiterate guerrillas in the wilds of Afghanistan would somehow make the transit system in <Canada> safer.



Nor has anyone I spoken to, or corresponded with, professionally or otherwise, drawn this implication from the CDS's comments.

Seems to be more, unsubstantiated, empty rhetoric from someone with an axe to grind. "Champion of the Soldier" pfft :


----------



## S McKee (2 Aug 2005)

Is it just me? It seems like within the first paragraph or so all of his articles he manages to make some specious remark about "the senior brass". It's getting to the point that I don't even have to read who the author of the article is anymore as soon as I see "senior brass" I know its Taylor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2005)

And of course, when someone does get hurt or killed, it's always the fault of the "senior brass" or "government official". Never the fault of the psuedo journalist hack that has spent years undermining the CF and her soldiers, for some misguided agenda or childish retaliation.


----------



## x-grunt (16 Sep 2005)

From the Star web site. Interesting info about how JTF2 is actively engaged in combat and killing the enemy.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1126864521898&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home


> JTF2 in combat in Afghanistan
> Secretive commando unit in high gear conducting counter-insurgency operations, officials confirm
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## onecat (17 Sep 2005)

It's too bad that CF and Government will keep most what happened with our troop serect.  Its this type of mission that more Canadians needs to see and for that matter  the world needs to see on know about.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> It's too bad that CF and Government will keep most what happened with our troop serect.   Its this type of mission that more Canadians needs to see and for that matter   the world needs to see on know about.


Yup,out of sight,out of mind.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Sep 2005)

"JTF2 kills people, and that runs contrary to many Canadians' idea that their military are strictly peacekeepers and conciliators who rebuild schools and hand out aid to refugees and other victims of war."

maybe the sheep will start to see the need for an aggressive sheep dog with more reports like this

"based at the Kandahar airport, the special forces troops are working under U.S. command,"

something I think should remain under wraps.


----------



## KevinB (17 Sep 2005)

BAAA BAAAA  ;D


 I'm curious to the point of this article?  Does the unnamed writer think this is earth shattering news?


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> BAAA BAAAA   ;D
> 
> 
> I'm curious to the point of this article?   Does the unnamed writer think this is earth shattering news?


No,just trying to make a name for his self. :
What they do is no business of ours no matter what Arm of the Forces we belong to.
The more that is in the public domain the less security they have to perform their job.

Enough said!!


----------



## x-grunt (17 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> BAAA BAAAA   ;D
> 
> 
> I'm curious to the point of this article?   Does the unnamed writer think this is earth shattering news?



To some it may be. The average civy really doesn't know much about what's up with all this. Remember it's a big deal for CF'ers, so we have an insider's interest and knowledge. But it's really not the greatest concern for most people in the scheme of our daily national life, so not much attention has been given to it until lately. Perspective is everything.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

On the DND Spotlight website, the author is identified as Stephen Thorne. I wonder why this article has cut that out? I didn't understand the reference to Canadian recce troops being on par with US special forces. I wasn't aware the training was the same, or is that factually incorrect?


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> On the DND Spotlight website, the author is identified as Stephen Thorne. I wonder why this article has cut that out? I didn't understand the reference to Canadian recce troops being on par with US special forces. I wasn't aware the training was the same, or is that factually incorrect?



With specialized qualifications such as Pathfinder and Ranger badges, many regular reconnaissance soldiers in Canada are considered on par with almost any U.S. special forces unit.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

The Path Finder and Ranger course's are open to all in the C.F. as long as you are qualified and it's no secret.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Sep 2005)

I suppose those with the qualification of Pathfinder or Ranger would be on par with some SOF but the average Recce patrolmen from my experience would not be.    The basic recce patrolman crse comes no where near SOF.  They do seem to get more opertunities then the rest of us though.   This may be only in my BN mind you.


----------



## KevinB (17 Sep 2005)

You find nearly all the same skills (or did) in a CF Light Bn that you do in a SF Group or Ranger Bn - minus the Groups language skills.
These days were short of the Medicine, Engineer and Comms types in the Bn level.

A GOOD Recce Pltmn course (i.e. not run my a mech BN) will be similar if not sometimes not as intense as the RANGER course.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

Right, but are Rangers SOF?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Sep 2005)

well that's debatable.  There is some theories about a tier system with SAS/SEALS being Teir 1 and Rangers more specialized Infantry are tier 3.  Like I said its a debated question with no clear answer.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

Thanks CFL.





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> A GOOD Recce Pltmn course (i.e. not run my a mech BN) will be similar if not sometimes not as intense  as the RANGER course.



Are you being disingenious, or have you made a typo in that somewhere?


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Sep 2005)

> A GOOD Recce Pltmn course (i.e. not run *my* a mech BN) will be similar if not sometimes not as intense  as the RANGER course.



Freudian Slip, too.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

... or was it?


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

All are light Troops, it's just some have that extra ticket punch and passed those extra physical and mental test's given the S.F..

But what ever they do should not be made public period!


----------



## KevinB (17 Sep 2005)

My Bad  ;D

 Rangers are considered SOF - they do a lot of SFOD Support --> part of CAG Task Forces.


My typing sucks - I meant that recently mech BN's have lost a lot of capabilities, and their recce course have not been to the standard that the LI units have been.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Sep 2005)

> OTTAWA â â€ Canadian special forces soldiers in southern Afghanistan have killed Taliban and Al Qaeda rebels over several operations in recent months as they work secretly in small units, military sources say.
> 
> The modest contingent of troops from Joint Task Force 2 is an integral part of coalition efforts to stem the tide of insurgency that has risen since campaigning began for Sunday's parliamentary elections.
> 
> JTF2 commandos have joined counterparts from the United States and some British Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, in fighting that has claimed more than 1,200 lives in six months, say the Canadian defence sources.



Good, nice to see that the troops who worked hard and got the good training are using it thier best advantage to maintain our peace and security here in Canada. Thats why they endured the bag drive thru training and work hard to be the best.

Looks good on them. 

As for the other side of the dicussion, the LIBs (3rd Bns) also train to support the JTF in operations. In a cordon and Serch op like the "Blackhawk Down" example, where Rangers secured the outside and the specialists (Delta) went in to do the snatch. In Afghanistan, Coalition and ANA forces do the same thing for the SOF forces.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2005)

Interestingly, the very same article is carried on the front page of the London Free Press this morning: the title is changed:
"Canadians Killing Rebels".


----------



## Marauder (17 Sep 2005)

> Many of their *victims* â â€ whom the chief of defence staff recently called "murderers and scumbags" â â€ never knew what hit them, one source told The Canadian Press.



Some kid being hit with a stray bullet in a driveby, is a victim. Some old couple being terrorized by some crankhead skells in a home invasion, are victims.

Taliban and AQ members/sympathizers, are targets deserving of being sent to face Allah and their 72 virgins as expediently as possible. If there are members of the CF canceling the ability of these scumbags to further steal my oxygen, so much the better.

Sorry, I just hate it when the press pulls out the sob story shite for violent, remorseless thugs and murders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2005)

I wish these assholes would just give it up and start selling blackmarket CDs (Thats work!) or something.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Sep 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I wish these assholes would just give it up and start selling blackmarket CDs (Thats work!) or something.



or tailoring suits, or making rugs or crafting stonewear tea sets etc, etc


----------



## edadian (18 Sep 2005)

Secrecy is a double edged sword for these forces. To much and no one knows what your capable of and you get misused. To little and you end up losing capabilities.

Perhaps a controlled PR campaign and an authorized, sanitized official history could help fill the publics need and desire for information. It could also raise the unit some extra revenue.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Sep 2005)

I don't think funding is a problem for that particular unit.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Sep 2005)

Those that need to know their capabilities to deploy them know what their capabilities are.


----------



## KevinB (18 Sep 2005)

There are advisors that know what the capabilities are...

 As well, they do Dog and Ponies for MND etc.


----------



## Hockeycaper (20 Sep 2005)

JTF2 has killed, captured enemy fighters in Afghanistan, says general
  

Canadian Press 


Tuesday, September 20, 2005


ADVERTISEMENT 

 Iam sure more will follow on this subject


OTTAWA (CP) - The head of defence operations says Canadian special forces soldiers have killed and captured Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. 

Brig.-Gen. Mike Ward won't confirm any numbers, but says Joint Task Force 2 has been involved in operations with U.S. and other coalition forces throughout Afghanistan. 

Ward says prisoners have been taken, questioned and turned over to U.S. or Afghan authorities with assurances that they will be treated humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. 

Ward says intelligence officials are trying to piece together the chain of command that is directing the enemy insurgency in Afghanistan and hope to determine who's in the country and who is out. 

But Ward adds it's safe to assume that Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and some other key al-Qaida leaders are not anywhere near the coalition operations. 

© The Canadian Press 2005


----------



## McG (20 Sep 2005)

Same story from the Globe & Mail on today's news conference.    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050920.wafghn0920/BNStory/International/


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Sep 2005)

Wow, pretty amazing news. Troops have been in Afghanistan for almost *FOUR* years now and they might have actually killed some dirt bag or captured some loser! How does this even qualify as news, oh wait, the average Canadian thinks all we do is hand out candy and rebuild homes! :


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?

 I understand there is some housecleaning going on in Guantanamo but there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.


----------



## Marauder (20 Sep 2005)

> I understand there is some housecleaning going on in Guantanamo but there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.



And? So? But? However? Yet? Therefore? The only housecleaning that should be done in Gitmo is cleaning the blood and grey matter out of the ditch they make the "prisoners" face before sending them to Allah. I think the myth of poor little Yousef the misunderstood goatherd being held unjustly in Gitmo by the big bad Imperialist Yankees is long dispelled.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?



You can't.   You have to have faith that they are treating them humanly.   Prisoners of War and Non-Combatants are covered by the Geneva Conventions.   Murdering Thugs and Criminals are not.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> there are still men who have been there for years without the full representation of the Red Cross.


bollocks! Poppycock and balderdash! Stuff and nonsense!
One of the instructors on my Law of Armed Conflict Course was a woman from the Red Cross. She explained quite clearly that the IRC had made several visits to Gitmo, and had no issues with the treatment of the scumbag murderers detained there (well she didn't call them scumbags. She's far too nice a lady for that. Sweet frame on her, too. But, I digress.) She, personally, had spoken with the dude who'd gone in.


p.s. I'm with Marauder on this. Kneel 'em down, facing a ditch, expend all ammo.


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2005)

Giddy Uppp!!


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

On a personal level if you maybe gave these guys an alternative to working for a warlord in order to fill their belly, then we might see less of them.

 The ICRC has very strict rules of confidentiality so I cannot place any merit on the second hand remarks of an individual to categorically define their status.

 see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3400461.stm for an example of what I was driving at.

 By housing prisoners extra-territorially,  refusing full legal representation and by constraining the judicial process the US administration has demonstrated that they are not fully conforming to a reasonable definition of the geneva convention.

 It didn't take the Nuremberg trials this long to  wrap up, and that was a trial for men who killed millions. Why is it taking so long to render a decision on their fate?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> By housing prisoners extra-territorially,   refusing full legal representation and by constraining the judicial process the US administration has demonstrated that they are not fully conforming to a reasonable definition of the geneva convention.



The US has declared them not to be PWs.  You stated that: 





> This is the first place I have come across that report and unfortunately it serves little to clarify our role. I do have a question though, how can we receive assurances of the application of the Geneva convention when the U.S. government refuses to classify their detainees as true prisoners of war?


 As they are not PWs, *they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions.*  If they do not fall under the Geneva Conventions, those Conventions do not apply.  

Why do you believe a BBC Reporter who has not been there and not a Red Cross Official?


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The ICRC has very strict rules of confidentiality so I cannot place any merit on the second hand remarks of an individual to categorically define their status.


she's *IN* the Red Cross. Very high up in their food chain. That's why she was teaching Colonels, down to MWO's (with some WO's and a single, solitary jack).

They ain't PWs, they's detainees. They aren't subject, 

never mind, George beat me to it.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

To paracowboy: The ICRC has an understood code of conduct with respect to the information they publicly disclose. This lady, especially since she is so high up the food chain should have known this all along. They are only classed as detainees in order to fill a political motivation. "A rose by any other name" seems to fit these circumstances quite well.

Frankly George, I don't believe either one completely but I do believe that a half-dozen lawyers for 400-600 prisoners is certainly non-representative.

 These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation. 

 The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.

 This is truly a battle of semantics, but when it involves my country potentially contravening the expectation of human rights then I feel it is important. For chrissakes, the merde hit the fan for Maher Arar how much worse could the situation become if the public found out that Canadian prisoners were being mis-treated as a result of third party hands.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Sep 2005)

The only "merde" in the Maher Arar case is in the media, and its driving them nuts that most Canadians could care less, hell send him again....


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> To paracowboy: The ICRC has an understood code of conduct with respect to the information they publicly disclose. This lady, especially since she is so high up the food chain should have known this all along.


she did, or she wouldn't have told us. She didn't get where she is by being stupid. She got there by being intelligent, generous, and braver than any human has a right to be. Everything she told us was open-source, and readily available. The ICRC has gone on record as stating they have no issues with the treatment of Gitmo detainees. (Shoulda copied that stuff down, but it wasn't grade material, so I flushed it.) I relayed my info as it's first-hand.

Amnesty Int'l is the one with the problem with Gitmo. And I couldn't care less what they think about much of anything.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

Given the ICRC's position as an observer not intervenor, there is little they can do in terms of advocacy. They are essentially required to work within the parameters given.

 Let me straighten one thing out, I don't object to the detention of threats to National security but I am averse to our complicity in certain practices. If we take Canadian prisoners they should never go to the Yanks but rather to our own detention facilities or into the hands of the Afghan government as they see fit. Just a guess, but Club Ed probably has some space.

 Basically if we don't want the blood on our hands we shouldn't become involved.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Sep 2005)

To rid the world of those who would prey upon the weakest, hey, send some blood my way.....


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation.


The military has on numerous occasions apprehended persons as a result of criminal investigations conducted by military personnel (MPs....so I suppose they can be considered military operations.) and information has been gained from them.   They were not treated as PWs, but as criminals.    



			
				sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.



The Geneva Conventions are not the baseline for the application of military justice.   Canadian Military Justice follows the Rules of Military Conduct, The Code of Service Discipline, Military Laws, The Criminal Code of Canada, etc.   The Geneva Convention is an add on to the Law of War.   

Now, not all countries of the World have signed on to the Geneva Conventions.   Canada and the US are signatories.   I don't believe Russia is.   Are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and a dozen more Mid East countries?    If you look into the Geneva Conventions, of which there are four, you will see that they started way back in 1864.





> The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.
> 
> ...


 http://www.genevaconventions.org/  





> The Conventions
> 
> There are four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949, and the two additional Protocols of June 8, 1977.
> 
> ...



http://www.genevaconventions.org/

They do get ammended.  They do get updated.  They do change.


----------



## enfield (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> These "detainees" were apprehended as a direct result of military operations by military personnel who have subsequently been used to extract intelligence to better aid their efforts (military) on the ground. This sounds to me like a classic military operation.
> 
> The Geneva convention is a baseline for the application of military justice, if you like it is a broad code of conduct, not some document subject to re-definition whenever a new threat arrives.




The Geneva Convention is not the baseline for military justice - the QR&Os, UCMJ, and other codes are for their respective nations. The Geneva Convention, and other associated agreements, lay out definitions and codes of behaviour that are to be followed in a war by combatants. 

They lay out strict definitions of a Prisoner of War: 
First, they have to be uniformed or clearly marked as members of a national military force.
Second, PWs are not subject to trial. They are simply held until the end of hostilities. So, no need for lawyers, judges, tribunals, or anything else. A cage and the ICRC are all that is required. 

Most of the controversy around Gitmo has been raised by Amnesty Int'l, and various political opponents of George Bush. I believe that Amnesty has expended whatever real credibility it had through several of its condemnations - such as referring to Gitmo as "the Gulag of our times". 

While interesting, I have to say the debate - from the Canadian perspective - is academic. Since Canada has no facilities/ability to deal with prisoners, there is no alternative but to hand them over to the US. The only other viable alternative is to not take part in the conflict at all. 

And frankly, worrying about a few hundred prisoners in a relatively nice prison camp seems out of place in the international stage. I'd prefer to be concerned with - and hope the int'l community will shift its focus too - the tens of thousands of people being held in hundreds of far larger facilities across the world, such as China, Syria, and North Korea. 

Trading with China, in this perspective, is a larger crime than cooperating with the US.


----------



## KevinB (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti,

 Dude your WAY out of your lane.

 You are interpolating data from VERY shakey source and processing it into fact.   Garbage in = Garbage Out

1) We could have shot them all as they have ZERO LEGAL STANDING.   We chose to treat them as PW's while in our possession however we are NOT bound to do so.

2) Blood on our Hands   :   Once again your showing your ***.   Canadian has ZERO capability to hold these people - plus can you just imagine whathappens to the young soccer mom when Achmed Mohameds brother decided to wipe out her young little Timmy's school to presusre us into releasing his brother...    No Canadians want them here.

3) Get back into reality - Para was QUITE clear in his above references.


----------



## Slim (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti,

We're at war.

We're at war with people who have decided not to play by the rules of the Geneva convention.

They cut the heads off of their prisoners. They blow up non-combatants. They have broken every major rule against this sort of thing that there is.

You can't have it both ways.

Also...please realize that you are speaking to people here who have BTDT and know what they're talking about from first hand experience...Not a book! Please try and remember that.

Thanks


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

In any case, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the majority of our enemies. This does: 





> 9. Fight chivalrously against an honourable foe; fifth columnists and civilian snipers deserve no quarter.


They have not met the pre-reqs. They're getting better treatment than the Geneva Conventions call for. But, we're good that way. Trust me, there are whole bus-loads of people who specialize in the Laws of Armed Conflict, really high-priced help, who are taking care that the whole show is above-board. Despite what those who don't have their understanding of War and Law might think.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

Ah the creed  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Ah the creed


I try hard to live it. Or at least, live up to it.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

BTW - I am sure some of the lesser noble but flamboyant Lawyers in the US of A would have taken the cases pro bono if they thought there was a case -- even to the Int Criminal Court (yes I know th US feeling on it but...)


Remember we held German PW's for years with ZILCH... c'est la vie


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

"If the ski-mask doesn't fit, you must aquit!"


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> "If the ski-mask doesn't fit, you must aquit!"



BWAHAHAHAHA

Too true


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

I think my position is being somewhat mis-construed. My original question was what guarantees do we have that our will is being exercised judiciously if we are handing over detainees to a power outside of our control. All it seems we have is trust in our allies, which is a   very powerful thing but this acts as no permanent guarantee.

My reference to blood on our hands was meant to imply that if we are involved to the degree which we are currently committed, then we should act accordingly and provide all resources necessary to our troops to carry the fight to the enemy. If this means building a "Cantanamo" then so be it.

In the face of a changing climate of warfare, there should be some rules that are held sacrosanct. What I am asserting is that we are in the moral majority and as such we need to conduct ourselves to the highest possible standards in order to remove ourselves from faulted associations that can be exploited by our opponents.

I am steadfast in my support for the troops overseas and am very much in favour of expanding our capabilities. I am not some hippy who wants to see you guys walking around with flowers in the barrels of your guns. In fact I resent such assertions very much. My lack of participation does not preclude my concerns for all parties involved although my preferences lie with supporting the mandate of the CF wherever they may be sent and however they see fit to excercise their orders.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I think my position is being somewhat mis-construed


possibly. 



> My original question was what guarantees do we have that our will is being exercised judiciously if we are handing over detainees to a power outside of our control.


 this:





> trust in our allies,





> which is a  very powerful thing but this acts as no permanent guarantee


no such animal in politics, war, or horse-trading. We've decided to rely on our allies, while proving ourselves unreliable allies. We prefer to let others do the dirty work and then snipe at them for doing so.



> My reference to blood on our hands was meant to imply that if we are involved to the degree which we are currently committed, then we should act accordingly and provide all resources necessary to our troops to carry the fight to the enemy. If this means building a "Cantanamo" then so be it.


very true, but that would entail expenditures that our Leadership has deemed unnecessary. Our public evidently agrees since they will not vote that Leadership out of power.



> In the face of a changing climate of warfare, there should be some rules that are held sacrosanct.


 and there are. They are taught to every recruit, they are re-inforced at every briefing prior to departure on a tour. They are continually expanded upon as you go up the rank structure. There are many people whose entire job revolves around ensuring this happens.



> What I am asserting is that we are in the moral majority and as such we need to conduct ourselves to the highest possible standards in order to remove ourselves from faulted associations that can be exploited by our opponents.


and we do. Which is why the detainees we take are treated better than they have to be according to the strict letter of the Law. 



> I am steadfast in my support for the troops overseas and am very much in favour of expanding our capabilities.


 glad to hear it. Are you a girl? If so, are you hot? If not, can I borrow some money?  ;D


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

LOL,


Other than Para's funnier quips it is 110% bang on.

The Brits and others seem content to allow the US to administer the detainees as well...


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (21 Sep 2005)

couple questions here bfore I leave my  humble comments.

1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country  or as a group? 
no treaty  signed not covered by it.

2) do they  give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)  who they capture?
i have not seen anyone behanded in the US detention center on line or reported in the news. guess they  do not report that  news out of Cuba . Western News Services would ahvea  great day  if they had proof any one was killed and beheaded while under guard of US soldiers

3) where else do you store them? 
I am sure good thought was given to this question by  pay grades way  beyond any one who reads this message board, do not mean in to insult the owners and  people who post here. Do not see anyone from the NSA, CIA, JOINT CHIEFS, FBI andother various  groups here. they  decided where to house these people not the soldiers who captured and risked everything to bring them in.

as for housing them at Club ED, CLUB FED in Canada, no thanks,  no way  no how.  we do not have the man power, money or the resources to safe guard the locals from these people and the people who might try  to break them out of  any of our jails or compounds.
Cuba was picked for many  reasons, some of them I am sure you can all think about, but i will list some of them in no special order

a) it is on an island nation, that has strict entery rules, one nice thing about being a communist country, you do not allow just anyone in or anyone out.  

b) who wants to upset Castro, he has more terrorism connections and old friends ,you  do not mess in his country

c) americans have a controlled base, with their own secuirty  watching for people coming in and going, the Cubans have the same sort of thing, so having two forces watching each other  who do not trust one another already, very  unlikely  of getthing thru  both layers of secruity to remove the detainees.

d) as long as they not on US soil they are not covered by  most US civil laws, they are not protected by international treaties because they are not a government control group and they are not waging war but waging terror. Genva Conventions covers uniformed soldiers. see posts above for more details on coverage of soldiers

e) detain the detainees away from home lesser the chances of escape. long swim back to the middle east, lesser the chances of armed force being used to remove them. 

they have no real complaints, they  get 3 meals a day, medical care more then likely  better then average person living in the US or Canada, and it is free medical.
  they have freedom of religion, not something people had where they were  captured 

they have air conditioned cells and building, show me a cave with that?

they choose to be what  they are, not forced to join, not forced to be anything but detainees now.

they get to play  sports, not allowed under their leaders

they started the war, NATO countries and other nations have decided to end it.  


And my  favorite reason 

There are 2 sets of rules during and after war or war like operations.

there is one set for the losers and that  set is created by the winners

because you win the war you get to make the rules for the next one.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Sep 2005)

The Americants wanna spend the cake to detain the people our guys capture, then let 'er rip! Better they pay for it than us right? I'm all for it.....Continuity of care......We pass them along to the Yanks and they're intact, then our responsibility is met. They break the agreements  between countries, then it's up to the JAG types to sort out.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> 1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country   or as a group?


 no. WE signed, so we agreed to follow it. We are bound to follow the guidelines. Non-signatories are not. But, the International Community still considers it to be binding on non-signatories (when it's politically expedient), and will take steps to pressure non-signatories into following the "Rules".



> 2) do they   give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)   who they capture?


no, but irrelevent. It doesn't matter what THEY do. WE signed, so we follow the guidelines. At least, those we've ratified. We haven't all of them, by the way.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Sep 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> couple questions here bfore I leave my   humble comments.
> 
> 1) before your covered by the convention, do you not have to sign and agree to it as a country   or as a group?
> no treaty   signed not covered by it.


   Canada did sign them and abides by their rules.


			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> 2) do they   give the same level of care to our guys ( good guys)   who they capture?
> i have not seen anyone behanded in the US detention center on line or reported in the news. guess they   do not report that   news out of Cuba . Western News Services would ahvea   great day   if they had proof any one was killed and beheaded while under guard of US soldiers


 We will not lower ourselves to their levels.   We will treat our prisoners within the limits of our laws.   No revenge.   No beheadings.


			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> 3) where else do you store them?


   We have the cold Canadian Winters which I am sure may be construed as Cruel and Unusual Punishment.    ;D



			
				FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> d) as long as they not on US soil they are not covered by   most US civil laws, they are not protected by international treaties because they are not a government control group and they are not waging war but waging terror. Genva Conventions covers uniformed soldiers. see posts above for more details on coverage of soldiers


  Gitmo is considered US soil.


I see Para and I have been posting the same thing.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Gitmo is considered US soil.


technically, that one's "iffy". Papa Fidel doesn't consider it U.S. soil. Neither do some other nations and speak out about it, but nobody listens to them (*coughNorthKoreacough*). Others agree with El Jefe, but don't speak up, 'cause it ain't worth it, unless you're trying to get something from El Grande Beardo. Most don't give a crap.
I believe that it was addressed some time ago, and the UN said (and I quote) "*What*-eveeer!


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2005)

Perhaps all branchs of the CF should at least once (this means Reg F, Primary Res F and that Res F entity known as the CIC) have to undergo pre-deployment trg for an actual hostile operational theatre so that they could learn that indeed...the true experts in the subject are brought in to tell us how it really is...that is why we have the security clearance we do....so they can tell us (Insert Expert Red Cross Official's name of your choice here). 
They would also then receive real education as to what is actually contained within the Geneva Conventions and the Gentlemen's Rules of War that we Canadian soldier's do follow. 
This of course, would be without the little University Acadaemia twist that so often accompanied anything (god forbid) warlike covered during the period of my own University education.
...then I went out into the real world... experienced the locals and was overwhelminigly blessed to learn from them that 99% of them back us up and totally support what we are doing for their country....despite what the CBC and other media outlets choose to air. 
I choose -as any sane person would- to go with sentiments of the overwhelming percentage of the local   population (of every tour I've been on now) over Mr. Galloway and his ill-informed, mis-educated,   expert ilk any day of the week.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Perhaps all branchs of the CF should at least once (this means Reg F, Primary Res F and that Res F entity known as the CIC) have to undergo pre-deployment trg for an actual hostile operational theatre so that they could learn that indeed...the true experts in the subject are brought in to tell us how it really is...that is why we have the security clearance we do....so they can tell us (Insert Expert Red Cross Official's name of your choice here).
> They would also then receive real education as to what is actually contained within the Geneva Conventions and the Gentlemen's Rules of War that we Canadian soldier's do follow.


done. It's being taken care of at the lowest levels, and it's always done prior to, and on, tour. The Law Of Armed Conflict Course is intended to function as a 'trickle-down' thang. The OC's and CSM's get taught by the JAG and civvie specialists, and then teach it to the troops, in troopie lingo. On my last li'l trip, we did weekly ROE lessons in-theatre.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2005)

Welcome to Cantanamo 

Perfect solution!! My thoughts? Let's put it in Alert!! 
Cruel and unusual?? Extremely cold? What no sunlight? What do you mean the lawyer's can only pop in once a week if the weather happens to be good?? Limited medical care?? ZERO access to the Red Cross?? Cruel and unusual?? I think not...after all we lock up our own soldier's there who may I point out have committed no crime for 6 months with no access to Timmie's, MacDonald's, KFC, good shopping (or none really), or family. Ooooops I forgot though, those are all things only we western evil infidels are interested in!!

Yep...You're propbably right, it is cruel and unusal....they wouldn't have access to their bomb making supplies or be able to try to blow the *#%$@ out of us. Poor poor poor fellas....


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

Recently they are giving the troops good access to an AJAG for Q&A after the lectures...

 However many still don't know the dif between the Hague Conventions/Rules of Landwarfare and the Geneva...

Irregardless in some respects since the standard we are holding ourselves to, is much higher, and THAT is being explained.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Irregardless in some respects since the standard we are holding ourselves to, is much higher, and THAT is being explained.


exactly. Our ROEs are based on Canadian Law. As long as the troops understand the ROEs, they will not violate any of the various Conventions or Rules.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

Hey Para: Sorry to inform you but there's meat and two veg under this scotsman's tartan, and there's no change in my sporran.

 I would suggest as a likely politically expedient solution for "Cantanamo" somewhere in Newfoundland-Labrador like Oh let's say Goose Bay. You could kill 2 birds with one stone by surveilling said detainees with that new Conservative UAV Sqn .

It is good to know that we have the utmost standards applied to our conduct at all times, although it must make a night out on the town pretty boring (2 beers and all) but I still have a personal issue with extra-judicial detention and subsequent extradition.

 As far as I understand Guantanamo is considered more like a piece of property than sovereign American soil. There is a very preferential permanent lease but it is viewed as illegitimate by Castro.  Check out http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay  for a better explanation

I do have a question though with respect to the Law of Armed Conflict course and the trickle down training. Does this approach degrade the quality of information if it is not presented by original course providers?

Please do not take any insult from this question, for none is intended.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I do have a question though with respect to the Law of Armed Conflict course and the trickle down training. Does this approach degrade the quality of information if it is not presented by original course providers?


no more so than the Section Attack training degrades if not presented by the Infantry School. Etc. Material is taught to those who will instruct others, using the same material. Just like everything else we do. Train the Trainer. Fastest method of dissemination.
Using our Section Attack again, I've done them with The RCR, Van Doos, and PPCLI now, and several Reservists from many different units. Never had a misunderstanding. 
That's why we have SOPs and Standards set in one location, and everyone meets them. Foah just such an emuhgency.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Sep 2005)

No, as one at the lower end of the trickle, they will teach/tell/order me the parts that will be applicable to the task that I will be asigned.
At my end I don't need to know that they will get fried chicken every third Wednesday.......

Posted it anyway......wish I were young and swift like Para.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> However many still don't know the dif between the Hague Conventions/Rules of Landwarfare and the Geneva...
> 
> Irregardless in some respects since the standard we are holding ourselves to, is much higher, and THAT is being explained.



Are you referring to the AJAG?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2005)

> It didn't take the Nuremberg trials this long to  wrap up, and that was a trial for men who killed millions. Why is it taking so long to render a decision on their fate?



Sheikyerbouti:  In 1945 men that had been detained since 1939 were released from confinement.  They received no trial.  They were held without due process.  They were prisoners of war and held for the duration of the conflict.  The conflict ends. Their command structure says they have put down their weapons.  Mutual threat ends.  Soldiers go home.

Assuming that these people see themselves as soldiers and see Osama or one of his associates as their leader why wouldn't we keep them detained, (fed and watered as necessary) until Osama cries "Uncle"?


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

Thats a given Kirkhill that the prisoners were released upon the conclusion of conflict. In fact my departed Step-Grandpa was interned in the prairies for a while and never resented his treatment. I disagree that they were held without due process as I am sure that most prisoners were apprised of their situation and their entitlements to things such as care packages or 200 smokes a month or what have you.

 The problem is that this "war" we are in is not about to go away. Reports are surfacing that Al-Qaeda is preparing a 3rd generation of fighters and with our new re-definition of terrorists groups like Hamas or the PKK it appears we will never see an end, at least not in our lifetimes. So do these guys deserve to be interned for the rest of their lives? I say no. We cannot exercise abitrary judgment over the fate of these men especially given the likelihood of their long term internment being exploited for recruitment purposes by the groups we are trying to fight.

Besides, an equally important factor is the costs associated over the long term with supporting our actions. There will come a time when priorities change our outlook on the matter. This seems to me to be the primary factor in our newfound 3-d approach, if we are to spend so much time and effort on a certain course of action then why not have clear goals that define and shape our presence. Eventually we will want to see those swords turned into ploughshares.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Thats a given Kirkhill that the prisoners were released upon the conclusion of conflict. In fact my departed Step-Grandpa was interned in the prairies for a while and never resented his treatment. I disagree that they were held without due process as I am sure that most prisoners were apprised of their situation and their entitlements to things such as care packages or 200 smokes a month or what have you.


irrelevent. WW II Axis soldiers met the requirements for PW status, under the various Conventions nd Laws of Warfare prevalent. Again, these murdering thugs do not.



> We cannot exercise abitrary judgment over the fate of these men especially given the likelihood of their long term internment being exploited for recruitment purposes by the groups we are trying to fight.


yes, actually we can. And have. And will continue to do so as long as they raise arms our citizens. We can, because they are captured in the process of planning, supporting, or carrying out terrorist actions. 



> Besides, an equally important factor is the costs associated over the long term with supporting our actions. There will come a time when priorities change our outlook on the matter.


 and the cost of not supporting our actions? Hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, the remainder living under a theocratic tyranny, and no Jews alive on the planet. (Extreme yes, but that is the goal of our enemies.)



> This seems to me to be the primary factor in our newfound 3-d approach, if we are to spend so much time and effort on a certain course of action then why not have clear goals that define and shape our presence.


we do. Democratic governments in every nation on Earth, with Free-Enterprise economies, all based on a system that the citizens of those nations are comfortable with. Clear-cut, long-term goals. Very long-term.



> Eventually we will want to see those swords turned into ploughshares.


not eventually. Now. But, our choice is simple: fight for what is Right, or capitulate and surrender everything our ancestors fought to establish and preserve.
We are more than willing to stop fighting. But, our enemies are not. They have proven this time and again.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> ...those swords turned into ploughshares.




Shall till the fields for those who did not...  ;D


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

I will eventually have to figure out the quote function but I understand quite clearly the goal of the Caliphate.

We wil never back down but neither will the bad guys as long as they perceive inequities. It is reasonable to assume that Hakmed Durka-durk might resent the presence of millions of dollars worth of military vehicles and people driving down his rutted street, past his mal-nourished, poorly educated nieces and nephews.

 If people only know war and are led to believe they must fight to regain control over their own lives, then how can we expect things to change? We must fight fire with salvation and hope.

With respect to the costs involved, why wasn't Rwanda or Biafra an issue? Or Chechnya or Armenia? the list goes on...
For too long we only sought to intervene on our own terms not those of the marginalized crying for help.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> With respect to the costs involved, why wasn't Rwanda or Biafra an issue? Or Chechnya or Armenia? the list goes on...
> For too long we only sought to intervene on our own terms not those of the marginalized crying for help.



Blame the politicians the troops where (and are) willing to go...

WRT your other comments - that why paracowboy, myself and several other posters have been arguing the use of light vehicle and primairly a LIGHT Infantry presence - you walk around get the know the locals.  None of us are saying that we do not care about the health and welfare of the local populace.  Showing you care and interacting with them you will win the hearts and minds and they will work with you to eliminate those who would attempt to keep them subjegated.

 How ever we are the tip of the sword, we are not CARE CANADA, all the NGO's and CE assets (where the US are way ahead of us with the Army Corps of Engineers and USN SeeBee's) are part of that, we can help them with other matters (local defence and removal of scourges like the drug lords and insurgenets).  It has to be a full meal deal for reconstruction.

 Boxing up in armour will do exactly what the insurgents want - make us an alien entity to the populace.  They will then be able to conduct operations against us much easier - and perhaps with help...


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

this is starting to turn into the same discussion we've had umpteen times on how to win the War on Terror. (HEY! I didn't make up the name, guys, so don't start on me. everybody knows what I'm, referring to when I use it.) 
We've all agreed on Hearts and Minds where possible, Guns and Guts where necessary. Bandages for those who need them, and bodybags, likewise.


----------



## Gunner (22 Sep 2005)

> Hearts and Minds where possible, Guns and Guts where necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The problem is that this "war" we are in is not about to go away. Reports are surfacing that Al-Qaeda is preparing a 3rd generation of fighters and with our new re-definition of terrorists groups like Hamas or the PKK it appears we will never see an end, at least not in our lifetimes. So do these guys deserve to be interned for the rest of their lives? I say no. We cannot exercise abitrary judgment over the fate of these men especially given the likelihood of their long term internment being exploited for recruitment purposes by the groups we are trying to fight.
> 
> Besides, an equally important factor is the costs associated over the long term with supporting our actions. There will come a time when priorities change our outlook on the matter. This seems to me to be the primary factor in our newfound 3-d approach, if we are to spend so much time and effort on a certain course of action then why not have clear goals that define and shape our presence. Eventually we will want to see those swords turned into ploughshares.



We are not playing "Fishing" here.  We do not subscribe to the "Catch and Release Program".  As you said we are at War.  This war will not go away very soon.  Have you read any of the Michael Yon Blogs?  http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/   He gives examples of what happens when you use the "Catch and Release" methods.  People get killed.  More money is spent chasing down and apprehending the same murderers over and over again as they continue to make terrorist attacks.  More deaths to Coallition Troops and the General Public.  As we do not use Vigilante Justice, and see Terrorists released by the Iraqi Justice system, the problem continues.  They go back to their 'old' ways and people die.  

Is it cheaper to imprison these murdering thugs, or allow them free reign to terrorize and kill, calling upon more time and effort to track them down over and over again?  Will that bring any resolution to the problem?  How do you expect the Region to 'stabilize' if we don't imprison these murderers?


----------



## paracowboy (22 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> We wil never back down but neither will the bad guys as long as they perceive inequities. It is reasonable to assume that Hakmed Durka-durk might resent the presence of millions of dollars worth of military vehicles and people driving down his rutted street, past his mal-nourished, poorly educated nieces and nephews.


 as KevB said. But, Abdul Q. Public also sees the presence of millions of dollars worth of military vehicles and people arresting/killing those who make his family's life unsafe. He sees the presence of millions of dollars worth of military vehicles and people digging wells, building hospitals & schools, and playing soccer with children. (Note to anyone relevent: make sure your security team is watching their arcs. It's less embarrassing when the kids make you look slow and stupid, and they won't see you take your own rifle muzzle in the eye.  :)



> If people only know war and are led to believe they must fight to regain control over their own lives, then how can we expect things to change? We must fight fire with salvation and hope.


uuuhh, yeah, we know that. That's why we do that. But, we can only do so much, as KevB said. Our role is to kill people, blow stuff up, and make a Safe and Secure Environment, so the tree-huggers and granola-munchers can do their thing without losing their heads.



> With respect to the costs involved, why wasn't Rwanda or Biafra an issue? Or Chechnya or Armenia? the list goes on


ask our government and the apathetic Canadian populace. Every troop I know is willing to go anywhere, and kill anyone who needs it.


> For too long we only sought to intervene on our own terms not those of the marginalized crying for help


 and the money do run around the world to every shitehole in Africa, South-East Asia, Central America, South America, the Middle East, and make life better will come from? And where do we start? Who deserves it more? 
The CF's job isn't to be World Police or Doctors Without Borders. The government's role isn't to take care of other nation's populations. Their job is to promote/protect Canadian interests. We're killin' Jihadis because they brought the fight to us. It's in the interests of Canada to make them dead before they make our citizens suffer more than they have already.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (23 Sep 2005)

Short and sweet...

 What if it is in our Canadian interests to be MSF or world police? Lead by example and the rest shall follow.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Short and sweet...
> 
> What if it is in our Canadian interests to be MSF or world police?


it isn't. Or we would have.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (23 Sep 2005)

umm... 
http:/www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/current_discussions/afghan-ips-en.asp

or

http:/www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/main/intro_e.asp#1

Both of these sites make multiple references to Canada's military role being reshaped to better reflect the current security climate. It just seems the CF is innately better capable to meet these comprehensive demands.


----------



## plattypuss (7 Dec 2005)

Saw this headline in my military news summary however I cannot gain access to Globe and Mail website to read the story.  Anyone have any information?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (7 Dec 2005)

an article has been posted on the CBC regarding this incident.  Hopefully the hospitalized soldier will make a full recovery http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/07/afghanistan_cdn051207.html


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (7 Dec 2005)

From http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/07/afghanistan_cdn051207.html

EDIT: See the link has already been posted. Ah well, here's the full article anyway.

3 Canadian soldiers wounded in Afghanistan
Last Updated Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:24:11 EST 
CBC News
Three members of Canada's elite commando unit have been injured in Afghanistan. 

One Joint Task Force 2 soldier is being treated in hospital, while two others have been treated and released, the Defence Department said on Wednesday. 


None of the injured has been identified. 

"For reasons of operational security and for the safety of those Canadian special operations forces members and their families, no other information on this incident or on the special operations being conducted in Afghanistan will be released," said a Defence Department statement. 

It's believed the Canadians were taking part in operations with Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces. American military reports said 22 militants were killed in the attacks. 

In late November, a Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan when the armoured vehicle he was riding in rolled over near the Afghan city of Kandahar. 

Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, 24, was the eighth Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan since 2002.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (7 Dec 2005)

Also, here's the DND news release...pretty much the same info.

News Release
Afghanistan Operations Update
NRâ â€œ05.100 - December 7, 2005

OTTAWA -- Three Canadian Forces (CF) soldiers, members of Canadian Special Operations Forces, were recently wounded while conducting operations in Afghanistan. One soldier is being treated in hospital. The others were treated for their injuries and have returned to their unit. 

Elements of Canadian Special Operations Forces are deployed in Afghanistan. They comprise carefully selected and highly skilled members of the Canadian Forces who are trained and ready to carry out a wide spectrum of special operations throughout the Afghan theatre in support of the Government of Afghanistan. 

The CF mission is part of Canada's contribution to the multi-national efforts in Afghanistan. The overarching goal is to help the Afghan people achieve peace by preventing their nation from relapsing into a failed state that gives terrorist and terrorist organizations a safe haven. There are significant risks involved in these missions, but CF members are fully prepared because they are well equipped, well led, and among the best trained and most experienced soldiers in the world. Canadians should be extremely proud of the work they do. 

For reasons of operational security and for the safety of those Canadian Special Operations Forces members and their families , no other information on this incident or on the special operations being conducted in Afghanistan will be released.


----------



## Navalsnpr (7 Dec 2005)

Three Canadian soldiers wounded in Afghanistan

CTV.ca News Staff

Three Canadian special forces soldiers have been wounded on operations in Afghanistan, the Defence Department reported on Wednesday.

The department says one Joint Task Force 2 soldier is being treated in hospital while the other two have been treated for their injuries and have returned to their unit. The department has not identified the soldiers.

"Normally the word 'wounded' is used when (the injuries are) as a result of hostile action," Former soldier Scott Taylor, the editor-in-chief of Esprit de Corps magazine, told CTV Newsnet.

"In this case it could have been one of those improvised explosive devices, it could have been a roadside bomb, or it could, in fact, have been that they were involved in a fire-fight," he said.

It's unclear when the soldiers were wounded.

"The fact that we are getting told that two of the wounded personnel have been returned to duty would imply that it didn't just happen hours ago," Taylor said.

Meanwhile, the Defence Department remained tightlipped on any details involving the wounded soldiers.

"For reasons of operational security and for the safety of those Canadian Special Operations Forces members and their families, no other information on this incident or on the special operations being conducted in Afghanistan will be released," the department says in its release.

Meanwhile, there is speculation the soldiers were taking part in operations in which 22 suspected militants were killed in two clashes with Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces this week.

The U.S. military also they include the 13 who died in an attack on a cell believed responsible for several bombings in southern Afghanistan. 

Last Sunday, a Canadian soldier suffered relatively minor injuries in Afghanistan after a coalition convoy was attacked as it passed through the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

Ottawa is in the process of shifting its military presence from the capital Kabul to the more volatile southern region of Kandahar, which is considered the heartland of the Taliban.

By February 2006, about 2,000 Canadian soldiers will be based in Kandahar and a Canadian general will take command of a multi-national force to fight insurgents.

In total, some 20,000 coalition troops are fighting Taliban and al Qaeda-linked insurgents in southern and eastern Afghanistan. 

The highly secretive JTF2 has been in Afghanistan almost continuously since early 2002.

"The overarching goal is to help the Afghan people achieve peace by preventing their nation from relapsing into a failed state that gives terrorist and terrorist organizations a safe haven," the Defence Department said.

"There are significant risks involved in these missions, but CF members are fully prepared because they are well equipped, well led, and among the best trained and most experienced soldiers in the world."

Increased violence has killed nearly 1,500 people this year alone -- the bloodiest death toll since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban from power in 2001.


----------



## Blakey (7 Dec 2005)

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1399094.php
Special attention to para's 1 and 2.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Dec 2005)




----------



## Kev T (7 Dec 2005)

Hopefully all the soldiers involved will make full complete recoveries and will be good to go. Good luck to all the troops deployed overseas.


----------



## big bad john (8 Dec 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20051208.CDAAFGHAN08/BNPrint/theglobeandmail/Canada


Three JTF2 soldiers wounded; secrecy shrouds Afghan attack
Defence Department won't say anything about elite commando unit's operations
By MICHAEL DEN TANDT 

Thursday, December 8, 2005 
Posted at 9:43 AM EST

OTTAWA -- Three soldiers from the Canadian military's elite JTF2 commando unit were wounded in action against Afghan rebels earlier this week, but "operational security" prevents any details of the engagement from being made public, the Department of Defence said yesterday.

Two of the men were lightly injured and have returned to their unit, while the third is being treated in hospital. 

The three are thought to have been part of a U.S.-led assault on a rebel cell in a small village north of Kandahar, in which 13 rebel fighters were killed.

No names were released and Defence officials refused to elaborate on the circumstances in which the soldiers were hurt. 

Advertisements







"For reasons of operational security and for the safety of those Canadian Special Operations Forces members and their families, no other information on this incident or on the special operations being conducted in Afghanistan will be released," the department said in a statement.

According to a news release issued by Combined Forces Command in Kabul, the Dec. 4 action was targeting "an enemy cell responsible for a number of improvised explosive device attacks in southern Afghanistan."

The U.S. news release said three allied Afghan, three U.S. and two "other coalition soldiers" were wounded in the fighting. It did not identify the nationality of the non-U.S. personnel but said one had been wounded seriously and airlifted to Germany. He is listed in stable condition.

"Obviously our thoughts at this point are with the well-being of the troops and their families," said Renée Filiatrault, a spokeswoman for Defence Minister Bill Graham. 

"The minister has said there are significant risks involved in these missions, but these troops are tremendously skilled and they do their work with great courage and professionalism."

Virtually every aspect of JTF2 is shrouded in secrecy, including its numbers. 

However, the Ottawa-based unit received $120-million in new multiyear funding after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. It is believed to have grown to about 500 members.

The unit is also known to be the vanguard of Canada's new, more aggressive military posture in Afghanistan -- an effort that Mr. Graham and Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier have said will result in combat casualties.

As part of that effort, Canadian troops in the country are moving to a new base in Kandahar, and are expected to number 2,000 by early February.

Steven Staples, an analyst with the Polaris Institute, an Ottawa-based think tank, questioned whether the extreme secrecy surrounding the commando unit is justified.

"Minister Graham has to explain to Canadians what JTF2 is doing there, what are the circumstances around these injuries? Were enemy combatants killed, were prisoners taken, and under whose control are those prisoners now?"

The U.S. government has been embroiled in controversy for several years over its alleged mistreatment of enemy prisoners, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. 

In 2002, former defence minister Art Eggleton took some heat too after it emerged that members of JTF2 had taken prisoners and turned them over to the U.S. military.

That same year, Mr. Eggleton's replacement, John McCallum, said he wanted to partly lift secrecy surrounding JTF2 so that its exploits could be made known to Canadians.

As of yesterday, that hadn't happened. 

Asked why the U.S. military apparently sees no security risk in releasing basic details of an engagement with enemy combatants, but the Canadian military does, Ms. Filiatrault of Mr. Graham's office had no ready answer.

"We have nothing further to say on that," she said.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=964ccd6e-020b-4397-9fd8-667e4f8faa09

JTF2 soldier seriously hurt in firefight
Two other members of secretive Ottawa-based commando unit injured in Afghanistan
  
David ******** 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Thursday, December 08, 2005


A member of the Canadian military's secretive special forces unit is believed to have been seriously injured and two others wounded in Afghanistan in a firefight that erupted earlier this week.

The soldier from Joint Task Force 2, which is based in Ottawa, is in hospital, while the two other injured troops have returned to duty. It is thought to be the first time a JTF2 soldier has been injured in combat operations.

The Canadian Forces issued a news release yesterday, acknowledging that three JTF2 commandos had been wounded and that one was in hospital. Officials refused to release any other details about the incident.

The news release followed a similar statement from U.S. officers in Afghanistan that three coalition troops had been wounded during a Dec. 4 attack on enemy forces in a small village north of Kandahar. Thirteen insurgents, believed to be responsible for a number of bombings in southern Afghanistan, were killed in that battle.

According to the U.S. officers, the coalition soldier was seriously wounded and was transported to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. He is listed in stable condition.

Two other coalition soldiers, three Afghan and three U.S. military personnel, were also injured in the fighting. All of them have been treated and released. U.S. officers did not specifically identify the coalition soldiers as Canadian, but it is known that JTF2 is working with American forces in Afghanistan in the Kandahar area.

U.S. Brig.-Gen. Jack Sterling Jr., deputy commanding general of Combined Joint Task Force 76 in Afghanistan, praised the troops for their efforts. "Afghan and coalition forces are going to continue to bring the fight to the enemies of Afghanistan no matter where they are, no matter where they are trying to hide," he said in a statement. "This is a resounding victory for Afghan forces and for the Afghan people. We located and closed with the enemies of this nation and, as we have said we would in the past, brought them to justice. The nation and the people of Afghanistan are moving toward a better, brighter future."

Canadian brass have remained silent about the mission, citing the need for security. Canadian Forces spokeswoman Capt. Stephanie Godin declined yesterday to say whether the JTF2 members were wounded by hostile fire or in an accident, adding that such details would jeopardize the security of the unit. She declined to give the ages of the individuals involved.

Military officials also refused to release information on when the incident happened, the extent of the injuries or whether the JTF2 member is in hospital in Canada or elsewhere.

Defence Minister Bill Graham has promised on several occasions to release more information about the secretive commando unit, but that has been successfully resisted by the military.

In September, Brig.-Gen. Mike Ward told journalists that JTF2 members had captured and killed individuals in Afghanistan. But he declined to give any other details. "Our aim in all of these operations is to capture where possible in order to use the intelligence value that any of these detainees may have for us," he said at a press conference. "We have not suffered any casualties at this point, but casualties occurred on the other side," he added.

But documents obtained by the Citizen show that military officials had earlier this year prepared a statement to be read to the news media in case a member of JTF2 was killed or wounded. It noted that the Canadian Forces must be cautious about releasing any information and that a board of inquiry would be held in the event of JTF2 casualties.

It's not the first time that an announcement by U.S. officials has forced the Canadian military to play catch-up on releasing information. In March 2002, U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks announced at a televised press conference that Canadian special forces were involved in Operation Anaconda, a major assault against enemy troops in Afghanistan. Canadian military officials, however, refused to confirm what Gen. Franks announced, only later having to reverse that stance and acknowledge JTF2 was indeed involved in the mission.

Other countries, ranging from the U.S. to Poland to Australia, are more open with information about their special forces. Canadian officers, however, argue that since JTF2 is on a par with the secretive British Special Air Service and the U.S. Delta Force, little if any information should be released.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Mr. Graham have suggested Canadians should prepare for casualties in Afghanistan since the Liberal government has committed approximately 2,000 troops to the Kandahar area in support of the U.S-led war on terror. That mission will get under way in February although there are a number of regular Canadian soldiers in the area now. An unknown number of JTF2 commandos are also working in the Kandahar region.

Gen. Hillier has advocated expanding Canada's special operations force so it can play more of a role in U.S. and coalition missions as well as domestic operations.

Defence analyst Steve Staples said it is time for Mr. Graham to provide the Canadian public with more information about the injuries of the JTF2 personnel. He also questioned whether the troops were under U.S. or Canadian command at the time and whether they took prisoners on this latest operation.

"With Canadian soldiers' lives being put at risk, the government must limit 'operational security' concerns and provide a public response to these and other questions," said Mr. Staples, an analyst with the left-leaning Polaris Institute in Ottawa.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Dec 2005)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/20051207_3568.html

Article about the action. Glad that the wounded will recover.


----------



## CSA (8 Dec 2005)

Raise a glass to the operator who is hospitalized in the hopes he makes a speedy recovery, and thoughts and prayers to him and his family


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

"With Canadian soldiers' lives being put at risk, the government must limit 'operational security' concerns and provide a public response to these and other questions," said Mr. Staples, an analyst with the left-leaning Polaris Institute in Ottawa."

Because soldier's in harms way are at risk, we should set aside risk mitigation so we can gossip about them. F*cking brilliant.


----------



## Blue Max (8 Dec 2005)

Brad, did you notice that the Pentagon report had roughly twice as much information then the CF release did, and IMHO without risking OPSEC.  

The difference is that the Americans are proud of their military and want to remind the people at home (possible the bad guys as well) of what a great job their men/women in country are doing.  Canadian DND seems to be embarrassed when our boys get a win against Hajji! ???

MHO.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

I trust DND and the US DOD to be mostly circumspect about what they release.

I'm not sure tugging the skirts of government to lift the veil of secrecy so we can troll for "gotchas" will do much to save soldiers' lives.  I guess its a hobby or it pays the bills for some people.  I admit I don't really understand commando porn.


----------



## HDE (8 Dec 2005)

I'd imagine Staples would be hoping to further his "lackeys of the U.S. spin".  Goodness knows having JTF 2 troops co-operating with our allies has got to be bad, right?   :  I'm always intrigued how certain "experts" become the flavour of the day in the media.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

The US does not release Delta/CAG or DEVGRU stuff - and the Brits do not give out info on 22SAS if they can help it.

   The US NAVSOF and ODA's operating amongst the Coalition SOF do not have the same issues of OPSEC and PERSEC as do JTF.

Since JTF is both small and involved in missions of national importance - they require the same PERSEC/OPSEC issues that CAG and the DEVGRU do.

*CAG is the Combined Action Group #rd TF's of Delta and Ranger Regt per
*DEVGRU - Developement Group the USN NAVSOF replacement to ST6.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2005)

To become an "expert" in the media a person needs only one thing...a recognizable name, nothing else really matters.


----------



## mdh (8 Dec 2005)

> I trust DND and the US DOD to be mostly circumspect about what they release.



Brad and KevinB

I'm not sure that denying even a scintilla of detail about this action makes much sense - it only invites ever greater scrutiny and suspicion from organizations like the Polaris Institute - not to mention media curiosity.   My guess is that  it's only a matter of time before the lid comes off JTF2 operations in the Ghan (some reporter will get the inside scoop with lurid details taken out of context or a retired operator will publish his memoirs - or something of that nature - and they in turn will be able to define the Canadian mission - not the CF) - Wouldn't DND would be better off allowing some information to flow to the public?     ???

cheers, mdh


----------



## TCBF (8 Dec 2005)

"Canadian mission - not the CF) - Wouldn't DND would be better off allowing some information to flow to the public?"

To the press, all info is a lever to gain, adapt, or disrupt other info.  Any info we give is a foot in the door and will be used to troll for opposite and countering info, so it can be thrown in our faces with "But you said..."

Give them nothing.

"Look concerned, act surprised, deny everything."

You might be the best soldier in the country, buy any decent reporter or editor is a much better liar than you.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

In the interests of not getting sued I will not give you my opinion about journalists that dig into DHTC and the JTF.


----------



## Sf2 (8 Dec 2005)

Thoughts go out to the wounded - as far as media and OPSEC goes, enough already.  You life isn't going to end if you can't get the juicy gossip - their's might.


----------



## HDE (8 Dec 2005)

Bruce 

    A friend of mine attending "Journalism School" (!) says they're told the aim is to provide two "sides" to whatever topic is being reported on, so as to appear unbiased.   Actually determining the quality of the analysis is apparently beyond the job of journalists.   Not reassuring!   I think there's a need for a few army.ca DS in the media world   ;D


----------



## Armymedic (8 Dec 2005)

This is a case of wounded soldiers..imagine if it was the case of a KIA? Let the shite storm begin. 

IMHO, DND is giving all it should. X number of JTF soldiers were wounded while conducting X operation in Y country. 

In the real world, if I was injured and I don't want my name and condition released, the CF can not. It breaches confidentiality. And that has nothing to do with special forces.


----------



## mdh (8 Dec 2005)

Well I guess I'll be the devil's advocate here.  :-X

If there's anything the Pentagon has learned recently it's that public opinion is as instrumental in winning wars as developing strong counter-insurgency tactics. We can all be critical of the media but I'm not sure that's going to help shape public opinion and channel support for military operations. 

It seems to me that one of the new phenomenon of GWOT is that the old notions of a home front and war front with regard to public opinion have been erased - Iraqi public opinion and by extension Arab popular opinion (or what used to be called the Arab Street), it turns out, is as important as American public opinion. (Hence the controversy about buying stories in Iraqi newspapers to create good news - not a bad tactic in my view - but unsustainable because that line between Iraqi and US opinion has been eroded.) 

The same is true in our context - public opinion among Afghanistan's population is as critical to coalition success as domestic opinion is here. Although we can all agree on the importance of OPSEC/PERSEC, it seems to me that some explanation of what it is we're attempting to achieve through JTF2 might be useful. 

Rumsfeld touched on this when he complained last week that getting the military's message out was almost impossible because of the internet, handheld cameras, instant media communications, etc. Has DND started to get its head around this? 

Do we really have to go to a US military source for information about Canadian military ops? (Read the posting again: the main message left by the US spokesman in the DoD statement underscored an important public message - these SF operations are aimed at maintaining freedom in Afghanistan. Shouldn't we highlight JTF2's operations with similar messaging without compromising ops?)

After all, if we lose public support - we lose the war, period.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Armymedic (8 Dec 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Well I guess I'll be the devil's advocate here.   :-X
> 
> The same is true in our context - public opinion among Afghanistan's population is as critical to coalition success as domestic opinion is here. Although we can all agree on the importance of OPSEC/PERSEC, it seems to me that some explanation of what it is we're attempting to achieve through JTF2 might be useful.



No need to talk about what the JTF are doing to maintain public support for our ops in Afghanistan:

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

There is more then enough info on that site to talk about everything Canada is hoping to achieve. Putting out info about what our guys doing fighting in that dirty little war behind the scenes isn't going to help us any.


----------



## Blakey (8 Dec 2005)

Ok, here is a news release that I made up, do you think this would appease the Canadian public?
*I MADE THIS NEWS RELEASE UP*



> *News Release*
> 
> Afghan and coalition forces along with members of Canada's Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2) attacked an enemy cell in a small village north of Kandahar on Dec. 4, killing 13 enemy fighters who were reportedly responsible for a number of improvised explosive device attacks in southern Afghanistan, officials said
> 
> ...



Edited the word "satisfy" to "appease", thought it sounded better. ;D


----------



## mdh (8 Dec 2005)

Blakey - brilliant! - it's exactly what I had in mind  


cheers, mdh


----------



## Blakey (8 Dec 2005)

I gotta' go drink, ponder it...does it really matter what DND puts out? Or are we saying the Canadian public is too stupid to read between the lines? If "these" people are looking for names and address'..there barking up the wrong tree... I'm all for ATI but, when it comes to the soldiers security on the ground, I say, Fuk em. 

And thats one mans opinion.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (9 Dec 2005)

[rant]
It seems to me that the Canadian media continues to report in a way that encourages the Canadian Joe Public to continue to see the CF as "peacekeepers". I definately feel a skewed sence of reporting. I may just be more sensitive to it now that my husband is in the CF, but it infuriates me to no end. The Canadian Forces are not just there to build schools and water treatment plants...God forbid the public realize that you actually are capable of fighting wars...let alone train for doing just that! 
[/rant]


Here's hoping that the injured recover fully, sending best wishes to the families of the injured.

Edited to add:
Well done Blakey...I like it...that is exactly what we should be seeing in the media...too bad the media can't catch on!


----------



## Haggis (9 Dec 2005)

If I get whacked on a tour, I don't want my wife finding out about it on CBC Newsworld.

That being said, there's nothing wrong, IMO, with the CF publicizing successful SF ops AFTER THE FACT, within reasonable OPSEC/PERSEC boundaries. The public, after all, pays the bills.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2005)

Blakey hit it 99% on the head...I would have just left out the name of the Med facility in Germany...don't think it adds anything more than "a coalition medical facility in Germany" IMO.

I'd really like to know what more Staples would like to know, the operators name, details of his injuries and the guy's home address.  Some people have no sense.... 

Duey


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2005)

I haven't been keeping up with this story. Everyone is all hey did you hear about the jtf! how do you feel about that.
It drives me up the wall that these guys can't take a crap without some kind of media frenzie. A picture of some dude will come out in some country and people start picking apart what the guy has on for shoes, the fact that he has a pistol with a hammer back or that he's wearing a ring on his finger. It's insane. 
It even happens with our conventional soldiers.  A LAV rolls over and theirs nationwide debates about the performance of the vehicle and skills of the driver bla bla.

When it comes to fighting abroad we sound like a bunch of children.
I'm in agreement with Haggis, I fail to see how CF publicizing successful SF ops after the fact is such an act of national security.
Is the government worried the voters might find out that our soldiers are shooting terrorists and not just building houses and having coffee?


----------



## CdnArtyWife (9 Dec 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Is the government worried the voters might find out that our soldiers are shooting terrorists and not just building houses and having coffee?


 ;D


----------



## stevenstaples (9 Dec 2005)

I thought you might be interested in this quite reasonable Editorial from the Ottawa Citizen. -Steve

PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE:  2005.12.09 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  News 
PNAME:  Editorial 
PAGE:  A18 
SOURCE:  Ottawa Citizen 
WORD COUNT:  271 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secrets of the force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one doubts that Canada's elite fighting forces often have to operate in the shadows, but the military must never confuse real operational secrecy with the needless cosmetic kind. 

The Canadian Forces will probably never reveal the circumstances surrounding the wounding of three members of the Joint Task Force 2 special-forces unit. The incident happened in southern Afghanistan. The military won't release the three soldiers' names or hometowns, or say how they were hurt. 

The military says that revealing any information could jeopardize JTF2's mission, its members, or their families. We accept that secrecy helps the unit do important work, while also enhancing the unit's reputation and status -- which in turn allows it to recruit the very best. 

The problem is that if things go wrong, we who fund the military will never know. If JTF2 is given missions it can't handle, if it's underequipped, if its troops commit atrocities in the field, virtually no means exist for the Canadian public to find out. 

JTF2's equipment purchases circumvent government procurement rules; its very budget is secret. Absurdly, a list of possible new names for the unit was kept secret in 2003. More, the unit's troops were photographed turning prisoners captured in Afghanistan over to U.S. troops, even though there had been no debate in Canada on whether our military should do so. 

The Canadian Forces has a duty to protect troops on the ground, but when the military reflexively invokes "operational secrecy" to refuse to give Canadians information about how and on whom it uses the weapons we purchased, the secrecy has gone too far.


----------



## Guest (9 Dec 2005)

Mr. Staples,

I've followed you and your organisation for a   short while, reading over various views, "reports" and opinions.

I'm curious.. Have you or any other member of your "Think Tank" had any OPERATIONAL experience in the military? How about the Foreign Services? 

How about any ex-MO-LITIA who happend to muster at least 3 weekends in a row...

Has anybody ever been a Street cop???

Does anybody linked to the "Polaris Inst." have any connection, whatsoever, present..or past.. with ANY International or Domestic Security or Stability Issue? 

Outside of the movies, do you have any idea how a real world military works, or even how real world baddies work?

Knowing exactly who did what.. serves no   greater purpose in the grand scheme of things. At least for now.

As has been said before, by those who KNOW a few things.. our "High-Speed" community is MORE   vulnerable to privacy and security issues, than other "similar" units.

You don't really need to know.. accept it, move along.. nothing to see here.

What kind of info do you want anyway? Do you want a body count? Why would you need such information?

Our guys put thier lives on the line, they put thier families aside.. to do a dangerous and demanding job.. 

They don't do this for $$$.. <trust me> They don't do it to be "cool".. They don't do it because they're sadistic killers..

They do it, because unlike a perfect   NDP, socialist, fuzzy wuzzy dream world.. there are bad people with guns.. who want to make other people suffer.

These "bad men".. they don't listen to well when we put on our Canadian charm. "Eh.. like.. why don't you guys talk it over..Eh?" They don't want to "talk about it"

They want <insert whatever>, and they don't care how they get it.

See.. they know, that you CAN win an argument with a bullet.. <Shocking I know, but it's true.. and no focus group or social study program will convince them there's a "better way">

What they do listen to sometimes.. is someone with a BIGGER Gun. Even then, sometimes our guys, as much as they detest it.. have to actually SHOOT at the bad men. (In order to protect the other, good men, women and children.. ect"

Why are they doing this, because they follow the will of the People (Gov).. and the People (Gov), want world peace and stability.

This is a good thing.. The problem is.. that sometimes peace DOES come from the barrel of a gun.

Now, thanks to people like you.. Canadians don't seem to understand that anymore, because Canadians are safe, and cozy.. and protected. They have no idea on what goes on in the world, how others can use violence to meet their goals. They are unable, or unwilling to see that more often or not, VIOLENCE is the only effective tool to stop such people.

In Canada.. you call the police to stop crime..

They use thier tools.. violence.. or the threat of violence.
Without those tools.. you, Mr.Staples.. would not be safe.

It is the THREAT of violence, followed, when neccesary by the EXAMPLE of APPLIED violence.. that helps deter those who might seek to harm you, while stoping those who have already or are in the act of doing harm.



Be thankfull for .. and support those who make it possible, and try to bring such stability to others in this world.


----------



## CSA (9 Dec 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Mr. Staples,
> 
> I've followed you and your organisation for a   short while, reading over various views, "reports" and opinions.
> 
> ...





SO THERE!!!!!!
AMEN - I think you've hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Dec 2005)

>The problem is that if things go wrong, we who fund the military will never know.

This is unique to JTF2?  Hint: Balkans, History of Canadian Operations and Casualties in.

>If JTF2 is given missions it can't handle...virtually no means exist for the Canadian public to find out.

Like the underpublicized/secret missions to Rwanda that couldn't be handled?

>If JTF2 is...underequipped...virtually no means exist for the Canadian public to find out.

Yes, there's been complete silence on equipment shortfalls for decades.

>If JTF2['s]...troops commit atrocities in the field, virtually no means exist for the Canadian public to find out.

Ah.  Here we have, I believe, the heart of the recent public regard for the welfare and activities of JTF2.

>JTF2's equipment purchases circumvent government procurement rules; its very budget is secret.

Pots of money not subject to scrutiny and moving quickly through the system - a first for Canadian governments, no doubt.

I notice a trend here.  These concerns aren't necessarily specific to JTF2 at all.  So, we can drop the JTF2 fiction and situate the debate squarely where it belongs: the entire CF and our defence policy.  I expect the same result: support a thousand editorials wide and a single sheet of budget paper deep.  It'd be novel to know that the information would actually be used productively, but I suspect it'd be a trolling exercise punctuated by triumphant rounds of masochistic self-loathing over how evil we are.

>More, the unit's troops were photographed turning prisoners captured in Afghanistan over to U.S. troops, even though there had been no debate in Canada on whether our military should do so.

Confirmation of my suspicion.  I look forward with bated amusement to the day we have a public debate on all routine aspects of military operations - who is in the supply chain, where the logistical installations go, who runs the PoW holding facilities, rules of engagement, etc, etc.  It should be enough work that there will be no time for any other form of government busymindedness, ever.

Prove me wrong.  Equip the CF, give it a mission it can handle, stand behind it when things go poorly and not just when things are peachy, and don't hide casualties behind euphemisms and outright silence.  Prove there is more substance here than just a ghoulish interest in JTF2 and a fishing expedition to find another reason to complain about our neighbours.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Dec 2005)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> I thought you might be interested in this quite reasonable Editorial from the Ottawa Citizen. -Steve
> 
> PUBLICATION:   The Ottawa Citizen
> DATE:   2005.12.09
> ...



The lies in the article don't bother me. The odious insinuation above does. Tell me you had nothing to do with this Stephen ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2005)

> The problem is that if things go wrong, we who fund the military will never know.



We the average citizen?  I have a hell of a lot of confidence in the average canadian who vote the liberals in and bleet while they steal money from our pockets   :



> JTF2's equipment purchases circumvent government procurement rules



Buy from quebec first?



> More, the unit's troops were photographed turning prisoners captured in Afghanistan over to U.S. troops, even though there had been no debate in Canada on whether our military should do so.



How is this the decision of joe blow canadian?
Why should Mr and Mrs Khadir decide what happens to prisoners?


----------



## Guest (10 Dec 2005)

Ya.. lets have the guy down the street draw up the ROE

"Ummm.. lesse... don't shoot.. unless you are shot first, and you shout out 3 warnings.. make sure you use the phrase " Stop it..no.. this time I mean it.. No, really..I'm not kidding.. I'll do it..." (To be read in 3 languages.. + French) ..and   make sure you are at least 5 kms from any urban area.. and there are no cameras... and he has a bomb.. no, scratch that.. UNLESS he has a nuclear bomb. and finaly.. make sure you CALL the PMO's office as well"

"When you capture prisoners.. make sure you give them a stern lecture.. and then hand them over to their parents."

Oh yea.. hand out Canadian flags too..

Mr.Staples.. pls think about what you are suggesting

There was a conflict, when politicians and their advisors thought they could RUN a war.. it was called Vietnam.

There was also a place were ROEs were   written by those not interested in actually doing anything.. The Balkans.

(And make no mistake Mr. Staples.. we ARE in a war, we are helping a battered bruised country to prosper.. it's a noble goal.. our "enemies" killed or supported the deaths of thousands of their fellow Muslims, as well as thousands of citizens in the US and more than 100 fellow Canadians.

WE are fighting a JUST and important battle.. if Afghanistan falls back to Taliban or warlord brutality.. we will have failed in our so-called lofty ideals of freedom, prosperity and democracy.

We've been chastising the world for FAR too long, hiding behind the UN's ineffectual skirt.
It's time to put up.. or shut up.


I don't know what goes in to Urban Planing.. so I don't expect to be consulted on how to build a city.

So why should the lady (or my MP for that matter)   down the street decide HOW the CF conducts it's business. Leave that to the higher pay grades.


The only thing that should possibly be up for debate. " Do we contribute to world peace and security, using force when needed or not"

How it is done should be left to those who know how it works.

As far as what we do with prisoners... WTF?!?

If I had my way.. there would'nt be any.   

Does that shock you Mr.Staples?.. Offended your sensibilities???

Well, because of my "offensive attitude".. somebodys son, mother or daughter just may not get a knock on the door, someone might NOT get blown up on the way to school.

See.. THATS the reality.. if you TRUELY want real peace and harmony in the world. you have to go out.. find the bad apples.. and squish em.

BTW, you are officially welcome to come over to the 'stan and hang out for awhile.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2005)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> I thought you might be interested in this quite reasonable Editorial from the Ottawa Citizen. -Steve
> 
> PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
> DATE:  2005.12.09
> ...



Reasonable to WHO?

 Sorry Steve who ever thinks that is reasonable is a whack job, or is living life thru either an opium stupor or some pretty hefty rose coloured glasses.  

Secondly to suggest or slimily insinuate that atrocities could be conducted -- I sure hope that whomever has the power or momey to take offence to this officially sues the writer,editor and paper that printed it.


  You've lost all credibility with me, I'd trust the afghani that tried to steal my luggage this morning more...
I


----------



## Sf2 (11 Dec 2005)

It seems to me that the only ones complaining that they aren't getting the full story is the MEDIA.  Do any of you honestly think that Joe Blow taxpayer can't sleep at night because he doesn't know the names or addresses of those wounded, or what kind of weapons his tax dollars are buying for JTF2?

MEDIA - you don't, and will never understand what it takes to do this job.


----------



## Love793 (11 Dec 2005)

Am I the only one to notice the discrepancies in the DND press release and the US "DoD" release?  The numbers don't match, and we can't be certain that the actions in question are the same incidents. As well,  not that I'm trying to defend our spin doctors, however the Pentagon is pretty good at winning the (dis)information war as well.  I'm sure there is a little bit disinformation spread regarding these actions as they have pretty stake in the theatre.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jan 2006)

http://www.canada.com:80/components/print.aspx?id=42f8826a-fba4-483e-bda6-fa351644ff2f

"The British officers say Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in southern Afghanistan are preparing for a large offensive soon after the Canadian and British troops arrive, backed by sophisticated weapons and training from Iran and Iraq."

The above paragraph I find to be very irresponsible and reflects the hysteria among the Brits that somehow they will see a level of fighting that they havent experienced in Iraq. The Taliban is not in a position to mount any kind of offensive in Afghanistan. That is not to say that there may be the odd suicide bomber, IED or car bomb but Afghanistan is not Iraq. The Afghans dont seem to have a culture of suicide that we see in the arab world.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Jan 2006)

True the Afghans do not have the suicide culture, but chances are, its not the Afghans who are blowing themselves up. And its not only the Taliban that has people worried. The Taliban has been learning it can't win thru force alone, nor on its own. 

As for the precieved offensive for the spring, the Anti Coalition Armed Groups (ACAGs) have been learning over the last year or two how to fight against small coalition forces and be successful in afflicting causaulties on them.

To say the ACAGs are preparing to fight isn't irresponsible, its preplanning.  To figure your going to walk in unopposed as saviors and heroes would be irresponsible.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> the Anti Coalition Armed Groups (ACAGs)



Whatever happened to just plain "insurgents" or "guerrillas"?  I mean, ACAGs is an intimidating term and all....   ^-^


----------



## Devlin (4 Jan 2006)

Not to go too far off topic but ACAG's reminds me of an acronym used in a training scenario at my unit. The acronym was CBAGS Cape Breton Airborne Gurellia Service...much laughter during the O group.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jan 2006)

Well I guess they sued over terminology since last year they where termed OMF's (Outlaw Militia Forces)


----------



## regulator12 (5 Jan 2006)

Its going to be hot over there thats for sure....


----------



## Dissident (5 Jan 2006)

I object to the title of this thread. It is an obvious ploy to generate traffic!

(and I wanted to be able to post on the first page of a JTF2 thread.  By the time I usually get to them, its on page 18 or whatnot.)

Focus: Propaganda anyone? The public at large might only be dimly aware of our presence in 'stan. I can not fault them for trying to raise the profile a bit. Maybe I am in denial, since both internally and externally I have been warned of ther escalation of the conflict with the Taliban, but I can't seem to wrap my head around the "higher level of threat" for the comming roto.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2007)

Shared in accordance with legal mumbo-jumbo-speak of Copyright Act...

*JTF2 scopes trained on Taliban elite
Elite commandos 'in demand,' says Gen. Hillier after speech*
-- Article Link --


> Mike Blanchfield
> The Ottawa Citizen
> Wednesday, March 28, 2007
> 
> ...



The line about JTF-2 operating "under a shroud of secrecy, outside the command structure of the regular army," while _technically_ correct, implies that they are out-of-control renegades under no command structure. 

The org-chart reality of Chief of the Land Staff versus Commander CANSOFCOM responsibilities will be lost on most of the public...leading to more hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth. Wonderful.


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

Shroud of secrecy = as to not advertising what they do or when they do and who they do.

Outside the command structure = not part of the regular standard structure ie, not part of the Regular Brigades or TFs for that matter.

There is structure, there is a chain of command.

And to the boys & girls at JTF2 and CSOR, keep up the good work!

Chimo!


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Mar 2007)

Good work, guys!


----------



## Armymedic (28 Mar 2007)

Similar story from the Star.

 http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/196777



> Elite forces 'tool of choice' in Afghanistan
> 
> Canadian Special Forces regiment and the Joint Task Force 2 successful in disrupting Taliban, 'neutralizing' enemy leaders
> 
> ...




It is nice to see in this article that Mr. Campion-Smith recognizes the other special forces unit in Canada. I believe Mr Blanchfield did not do much homework for his article.

reutside the chain of command,
I do believe that even Can SF forces still answer to the Commander of CEFCOM, and upward to the MND.


----------



## Mike Baker (28 Mar 2007)

Good work lads


----------



## Sapplicant (13 Sep 2010)

Here we go again.  :









_title tweak_


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Sep 2010)

Sounds like a mountain out of a molehill. Nothing criminal was found in the original Sand Trap, however they found irregularities which will always come up when you take a microscope to something. I'm willing to bet the media is going to feed off this for a while, forcing the CF to release the results to Sand Trap II without an AIA request. The BN supplied by CBC is redacted enough that they have no idea what is being investigated, only that it was in a BN specifically about detainees.


----------



## brihard (13 Sep 2010)

Given that we operate overseas in pursuit of the national interest, and on behalf of - and representing - all Canadians, I think it's wholly appropriate that we be subject to such oversight as is necessary to make sure the average reasonable citizen of our country is assured that we're faithfully doing what is expected of us, and adhering the values to which we as a nation subscribe.

Yeah, it can make things awkward as hell and difficult, and it puts some constraints on us when we're forced to 'play nice', but we're an army serving a free state. I'd rather we be constrained by an open public discourse on our actions and behaviour if it means that we keep ourselves honest and in line.

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion around here, but hell, nothing new there. If nothing else, erring on the side of caution allows us at the end of the day to say, "See? We did nothing wrong." with no substantive doubt remaining for silly notions to be built upon.


----------



## Container (14 Sep 2010)

Brihard,

Do you really think that when an investigation is completed and clears criminal wrongdoing- and then several ATIP requests later the media gets to play havoc with the details for the sake of sensational press it creates well informed Canadians with their minds at ease? (of course that is personal opinion!)

Retractions go in the backpages. By the time the media says "my bad" the damage has been done.

I respect your opinion, and when it comes to honesty and transparency I agree- but where I disagree is that the motivations of this story is good old fashioned informative reporting. The story I read in CBC didnt even really seem sure what it was supposed to be reporting. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I suppose we shall see! 

The bottom of the CBC article goes out of its way to make sure that its understood that JTF-2 was taking tactical direction from "the Americans". Its just tripe as far as I read.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet *the media* is going to feed off this for a while ....


Among others:


> Liberal House Leader David McGuinty says he is extremely troubled by news that the Canadian military is investigating the actions of its elite special forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> "This is a really serious matter, and I think it really underscores what we’ve been saying for some time — that there’s more here than meets the eye," McGuinty told reporters Tuesday in Ottawa.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2010)

Oh great, now the Liberals have a martyr in this unknown SF soldier as the great whistleblower in CANSOFCOM. Obviously the fact that this person's allegations have gone after almost 2 years of investigation without charges being laid has completely skipped over their heads.


----------



## greentoblue (14 Sep 2010)

Ah Scott Taylor showing how modern journalism really works.  Without any evidence he decides that the best course is to follow Jean Chretien's dictum that the best course of action is to blame the Americans:

"He was reluctant to speculate what the substance of the JTF2 complaint was but said it could stem from a soldier’s disquiet with how joint operations with the U.S. were conducted.

“It could be someone queasy about American procedures as opposed to our own,” Mr. Taylor said."

How he reached this marvelously convenient conclusion when the story starts out alleging one JTF2 operator made allegations against another, who presumably is a Canadian soldier, without any proof or even allegation he does not bother explain.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/commandos-complaint-sparked-newly-revealed-probes-into-handling-of-afghan-prisoners/article1707797/


----------



## PegcityNavy (14 Sep 2010)

I thought our media was prohibited from reporting on the actions of JTF2?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2010)

Pegcity said:
			
		

> I thought our media was prohibited from reporting on the actions of JTF2?



Anything they can get from Access to Information is fair game. 99% of it is classified though, so they can't get that stuff with AtI.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Sep 2010)

Pegcity said:
			
		

> I thought our media was prohibited from reporting on the actions of JTF2?


Not at all. The "freeedom of the press" outcry would be horrific.

The unit has Public Affairs staff who produce/vet media reports that are promulgated, but by and large, CSOR, 427 SOAS, and CJIRU are the more _public_ faces of CANSOFCOM.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2010)

1)  Statement By The Director Of Staff For The Strategic Joint Staff:


> Rear-Admiral Robert Davidson, Director of Staff for the Strategic Joint Staff, Canadian Forces, issued the following statement today:
> 
> “The members of the Canadian Forces have been operating in the very complex Afghan theatre for almost a decade. Whenever CF members have been alleged not to have met our high standards of conduct, we have moved quickly to investigate and, where appropriate, lay charges.
> 
> ...



2)  A speculative moment, from Peter Worthington via QMI Media:


> .... Speculation runs rampant from unacceptable treatment of prisoners to smuggling drugs — all without much in the way of details.
> 
> The original 2008 investigation was titled “Sand Trap I,” with no charges laid, but a report written by Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Walter Natynczyk that led to a wider investigation called “Sand Trap II,” with more allegations and broader implications. One assumes it is still on-going.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (15 Sep 2010)

Remember a couple years ago when all the media coverage about the CF and CF in Afghanistan was generating good will towards us (the CF us), and there were a few warnings that the "backlash" will come;

The backlash is on full court press.


----------



## cudmore (1 Dec 2010)

We've just filed this story below on cbc.ca, radio and TV. More on the National tonight.
It's about JTF2 and two CFNIS investigations called Sand Trap, investigating allegations of wrongdoing in Afghanistan.
Some allegations were investigated, with no charges.   Other investigations are still ongoing.
shared here, from my perspective, for conversation purposes:


There are calls for public oversight of an elite military unit amid allegations that Canadian soldiers were involved in improper killings of Afghans.

Federal politicians and a former member of the military are making the calls in light of a series of closed-door investigations in Ottawa that have been looking into the explosive claims involving the covert unit, Joint Task Force 2.

T*he allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man, and, in a separate incident, that a member of JTF2 killed a man who was surrendering.*

Earlier this year, CBC News reported that the first probe - named Sandtrap - looked into the allegations that* a Canadian was involved in the 2006 shooting death of an Afghan who had his hands up in the act of surrender. That probe ended without any charges.*

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/01/canada-jtf2-investigation.html#ixzz16tsF4VN5


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2010)

It never ceases to amaze me how some segments of our polite society think a war should be waged....... :


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Dec 2010)

:

That's about all that needs to be said about this.... Ahh the Communist Broadcasting Corporation what a waste of money


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Dec 2010)

Did he have his hands up or was he preparing for a double handed judo chop?


----------



## cudmore (1 Dec 2010)

"communist broadcasting corporation"  that's awesome!

this is the allegation that is still being investigated:

"The allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man."   (full stop.  copy and past error earlier. that included erroneous info.)
There's also a BOI underway into the conduct command and control of Canadian special forces troops in Afghanistan, and here at home.
General Gosselin's in charge.  Military docs show the BOI has interviewed more than 100 witnesses so far.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Did he have his hands up or was he preparing for a double handed judo chop?



How many bombers have walked up to their target with their hands up?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2010)

There is a problem with the _oversight_ of secret operations and agencies. While I have no objection to oversight, _per se_, the acts and proceedings and outcomes of all such oversight ought to be as secret as the operations and agencies involved. There is, already, far too much public 'knowledge' of some agencies and operations - 'knowledge' which is very incomplete and, therefore, useless to the public.

Did some JTF2 members do some things wrong? Almost certainly. Is there a system in place to discover and rectify problems? I sincerely hope so. Is it anyone's business, except for a very few, properly cleared _insiders_? No.


Edit: typos


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Dec 2010)

The funny thing is there are HUNDREDS of BOIs conducted overseas for a thousand different reasons only reason this one is "Important" is the it has CANSOF on it so it must be cool. As for Command and Control did it ever occur to the media that CANSOFCOM initiated the inquiry themselves to make sure everything was being done above board?.... Hmmm you know just a new perspective many commands do that from time to time making sure that everything is smooth and legal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2010)

Time for CBC  to hand out their Christmas bonuses, which means they need to score points and suck another chunk of cash from the taxpayer for their welfare corporation.

"If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it."


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Dec 2010)

So the first probe ended without any charges, therefore there was either nothing done wrong or no evidence, yet it's still mentioned? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now you're running a story about JTF2 individuals reporting that ANOTHER country did something wrong.... Shouldn't the person that reported it be patted on the back for reporting a possible violation of LoAC?

I remember when Sandtrap first came out in the media, I heard that the Assaulters will report everything that might be a little bit fishy as a way to C-Y-A. If they didn't, and something hit the media, the unit would be stood down so fast your head would spin.

Cudmore, you are also incorrect in your posting here by linking Sandtrap 1 and Sandtrap 2 as both ongoing investigations. As I stated above, ST1 which involved JTF2 operators was concluded with no charges, AKA innocent.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Dec 2010)

So what an investigation. Glad to see it. More should be done. Maybe some BOI's should look into some leaderships incompetence...everyone talks about it....yet they are still around.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Dec 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So the first probe ended without any charges, therefore there was either nothing done wrong or no evidence, yet it's still mentioned? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Now you're running a story about JTF2 individuals reporting that ANOTHER country did something wrong.... Shouldn't the person that reported it be patted on the back for reporting a possible violation of LoAC?
> 
> I remember when Sandtrap first came out in the media, I heard that the Assaulters will report everything that might be a little bit fishy as a way to C-Y-A. If they didn't, and something hit the media, the unit would be stood down so fast your head would spin.
> 
> Cudmore, you are also incorrect in your posting here by linking Sandtrap 1 and Sandtrap 2 as both ongoing investigations. As I stated above, ST1 which involved JTF2 *Assaulters* was concluded with no charges, AKA innocent.




There fixed something for you, They have Assaulters another group has Operators with the media looking at this we can at least strive for accuracy so when they write stuff they can get it right to.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2010)

So?  CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange.  Does CBC now have to outdo WikiLeaks?  Who is vying for the Donald Brittain Award for Best Social/Political Documentary Program at the next Gemini Awards?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Dec 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> There fixed something for you, They have Assaulters another group has Operators with the media looking at this we can at least strive for accuracy so when they write stuff they can get it right to.



Thanks! Got them confused in my head.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Dec 2010)

No worries mate just making sure that at least we here get things right to influence those elsewhere to it right  ;D


----------



## garb811 (1 Dec 2010)

Cudmore:

Nice fishing expedition.  Anyone who has first hand knowledge about these investigations and/or allegations is not going to say anything on a public forum. 

Edit to add from the article:



> Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, who is now a lawyer, said the military should not be asked to judge itself. He said an inspector general is needed "desperately."
> 
> That person should be named under the National Defence Act, be responsible to Parliament, have sufficient powers, and "basically, the authority also to go and investigate," he said.
> 
> ...


Great, the usual suspect trotting out the usual "solution".  There are already adequate mechanisms in place to investigate allegations of this nature without adding in another office that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars and then feel the need to "investigate" anything and everything in an attempt to justify its bloated staff and budget.


----------



## cudmore (1 Dec 2010)

Bulletmagnet:  re JTF2 requested the BOI:   if true, interesting.  I'll follow up with the puzzle palace tomorrow.

recceguy: re christmas bonuses:  wish we got "em!

recceguy: re "If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it." -- that's awesome!

puckchaser:   re Cudmore, you are also incorrect in your posting here by linking Sandtrap 1 and Sandtrap 2 as both ongoing investigations
i made a mistake in my ctrl c, ctrl p.  mea culpa.  To be clear, Sandtrap 1 is done.  no charges laid. Sandrap 2 (the american piece) is ongong.  that's this one ""The allegations included claims that members of JTF2 witnessed American soldiers killing an unarmed man."

george wallace:   re: "CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange"  --- that's awesome!

garb 811:   re: fishing expedition.    im actually not here for that purpose.

I mentioned this in an earlier post -- and i'll say it again for clarity:

(Me: earlier) 
"After lurking here for years and seeing some of my stuff, and other people's stuff, pop up in these forums, I thought I'd just start being more proactive about it.
"I'm here as a participant, not a quote grabber.
"It's good to hear/see reaction to the work we do.  And you folks here are often the key stakeholders in a lot of the stories I've written. Seeing people's reaction is helpful."
(...)
"Long story short:  this seems to be the place to discuss military news, and that's what I often cover. And, really, what's reporting about if its not about starting a conversation? "

best,
j


----------



## desert_rat (1 Dec 2010)

I'll wait for the McKenna Bros. "documentary "  :

...cut to...Canadian soldiers, carrying LOADED weapons!!..in BROAD DAYLIGHT"!!! Lol


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2010)

The blood and guts stories aside, how come media outlets, while talking about the military, do not explain the reasoning behind a lot of the actions the public do not understand? 

The media mention something they think they understand, refer to  it in stories without explanation, so the public, who are generally not in the know, misinterpret the direction the author was trying to explain.....it's never corrected either. 

Is there a word count you have to adhere to where explanations are superfluous to the main theme of the story?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> Bulletmagnet:  re JTF2 requested the BOI:   if true, interesting.  I'll follow up with the puzzle palace tomorrow.
> 
> recceguy: re christmas bonuses:  wish we got "em!
> 
> ...




As far as I am concerned you are welcome here. You are not the first journalist to have participated in Army.ca and I expect you will not be the last. Some (many?) military members here mistrust the media; it's hard to blame them, really - you folks are not famous for accuracy or insight. But, perhaps you are trying to change that.

I wouldn't expect too much about JTF2. We are a bit like Taoists here: those who know don't say and those who say don't know.


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2010)

I agree with ER...you ARE welcome here. There are fantastic resources to tap into for understanding, and these guys ARE the experts....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2010)

I agree with the previous. I am not against cudmore. I'm not here to shoot the messanger. I just detest the bloodsucking Mother Corp 8)



> "communist broadcasting corporation"  that's awesome!





> "If the story doesn't exist, we'll invent it." -- that's awesome!





> "CBC was upstaged by Julian Assange"  --- that's awesome!



Nope. This is awesome! 
http://www.suntvnews.ca/feature/sun-news-receives-crtc%e2%80%99s-approval-for-a-broadcasting-licence/


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2010)

James C.  If this is really what you want to do ....


> what's reporting about if its not about starting a conversation?


.... if you're looking for voices that are NOT "the usual suspects", there's a load o' expertise to tap here.  What has some people here who aren't happy with media unhappy is that such conversations rarely lead to more than just "the usual suspects" being heard, sometimes out of date and/or out of context.

Enjoy!


----------



## garb811 (1 Dec 2010)

I am not against any journalist coming to this site and participating, in fact, like most here, I wish more journalists would join and participate, even if it is simply to gain background understanding of the organization and events it is they are reporting on.  

Having said that, by specifically bolding the allegations shifted the emphasis of your post directly to the specific allegations, indicating the allegations are what you are most interested in seeing discussed in this instance, rather than the calls for oversight, the ability of the Military Police to function as an "independent" investigative agency, the requirement for an Inspector Generals office etc.  Hence my statement of your post being a fishing expedition. 



			
				cudmore said:
			
		

> ...
> shared here, from my perspective, for conversation purposes:
> 
> 
> ...



Since you are on here, I've always been curious as to what, if any, remuneration the "experts" that are quoted receive.


----------



## cudmore (1 Dec 2010)

re experts:  In news coverage, nothing -- not anywhere.  or, not anywhere in Canada that i know of.
but, there are some talking head types, who make regular appearances (i 'm thinking political panelists on political shows) who are compensated.  maybe we ougthtta think about disclosing that...
anyway, about the emphasis:  that is a good question. there have been several good questions here  (GAP's among them, and i've promised him a response).
I bolded what i did in my post, because i thought the web version of our story highlighted a response or reaction to the new details, as opposed to the details themselves.
I thought that in this crowd, the more important bits would not be the reaction that other people have to X, but rather X.
what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).   Each one of us had a different take.
But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2010)

> what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).   Each one of us had a different take.
> But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.



Actually, that bit is news to me.  I had previously thought that there was a reporter (or at least, a lead reporter) on a particular story at the CBC and he/she wrote it for all of the various CBC mediums.

I wasn't aware the new readers (like Ms Swain- btw, I've liked her work since she was in Winnipeg) actually wrote their own stuff.  I had just assumed they just read what was handed to them by editors/producers.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).   Each one of us had a different take.
> But it was too difficult for me to post the radio version here, so i scooped up the web copy and highlighted the new information.



Maybe you could explain to us service types why this is news worthy? More specifically, why JTF2 is being branded with alleged wrongdoings? Reading the story, JTF2 is actually in the right, and came forward after having witnessed an alleged incident involving American Forces. Why is it that there seems to be a slant that JTF2 has done something wrong here? Sandtrap 2 isn't investigating them, they're questioning people who were there as witnesses. That's like saying someone who witnessed a murder has allegedly done something wrong because they're being questioned by police after reporting the crime.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Dec 2010)

I am curious as to why, in stories like this, are the MPs who are being interviewed not from the "official opposition", and are from the other 2 parties whose members have never had to deal with the issues of operational secrecy as the government?


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Dec 2010)

Just saw the teaser for CBC's The National; "Allegations of war crimes and wrong doing levelled against Canada's super secretive JTF2".  yup, well balanced and fair, in the finest traditions of CBC "news".


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Dec 2010)

Canada probing possible U.S. misconduct

MONTREAL - The Canadian military is investigating allegations that an elite U.S. military unit unlawfully killed an unarmed man in Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday.

"These allegations are being investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service," Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay's spokesman Jay Paxton told AFP, declining to comment further until charges are officially announced.

Public television CBC reported that a former Canadian soldier has said he witnessed U.S. Special Operations Forces kill a man who was wounded and unarmed in January 2008.

The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.

An earlier probe called Sand Trap examined claims that a Canadian member of Canada's covert Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) unit was involved in the 2006 lethal shooting of an Afghan who had his hands up in the air as he was surrendering. The investigation ended without charges.

As part of the new probe — Sand Trap Two — the Canadian military is also examining how commanders responded to the allegations that members of JTF2 witnessed the killing by their U.S. peers.

Operations by Canada's special forces are largely kept secret by Ottawa, which has, however, revealed that they are involved in operations targeting al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.

The two investigations cover a period from 2005 to 2008, when JTF2 forces were working alongside U.S. Special Forces based out of Kandahar, where 2,800 Canadian soldiers are engaged against the Taliban.
LINK
                                        (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## GAP (2 Dec 2010)

> The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.



The last thing Canadians or anybody needs is a bunch of media hungry politicians playing with people's lives so they can get a 10 second clip on the evening news.........


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> what's interesting is that we did this story on radio (me), News Net (me), the National (Diana Swain) and online (not sure who wrote it up).   Each one of us had a different take.


Heard your version on the radio, and (I stand to be corrected - it may have been before my coffee) thought I heard Diana Swain's version on radio, too.

Curious about process:  So, do you all (radio reporter, TV reporter, web reporter/writer) sit at a table/cubicle/workstation and confer at all on something like this, or is it "hey, folks, here's the ATIP documents - come 'n get 'em!" sort of thing?

Watch out - one day, a consultant's going to come in and say, "hey, why not have one person do all three?"  It sounds like that's already done on some stories, but I wouldn't be surprised if you get more pressure to "converge".  And I speak as someone who, in a past life, was myself "converged".


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/01/canada-jtf2-investigation.html

I just listened to the CBC Radio report which I, personally, found to be little more than a disconnected _mish-mash_ of rumours, gossip and speculation, laced with _commentary_ from that well known 'expert' Scott Taylor and a proposal for _oversight_* by a BQ politico. The last is a bit rich.

The most humours part was a rather breathless report that a soldier dived naked into a swimming pool (in Cyprus?) in front of Muslim women; oh the shame! oh the horror! When can I expect to hear a report about overstressed journalists acting like young people (with a bit too much to drink) whilst on vacation? Oh yeah, never ...  :

I repeat: if (probably when) JTF2 members are suspected to be in breach of good order and discipline, I am *confident* that such reports will be investigated and that, as and when appropriate, disciplinary and/or administrative action will be taken. I suspect that, given the nature of selection and training, breaches of discipline are less common in JTF2 than in other units filled with CF members working under great stress. Further, given the nature of JTF2, I do not expect to hear too much about its problems and the CF's solutions to them. I do not believe the 'public' has a *right* to know and I am 100% certain that journalists have neither a duty nor a right to pry into official secrets.

I also repeat that James Cudmore is welcome here, by me anyway, and I hope he will stay and give us some insights into the business of news reporting and, perhaps, gain some insights into how we think.


----------
* See my recent comments on oversight.


Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> > The investigations have been taking place behind closed doors, prompting calls from lawmakers for public oversight.
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing Canadians or anybody needs is a bunch of media hungry politicians playing with people's lives so they can get a 10 second clip on the evening news.........


As has been pointed out before, there are some workings of government, Defence and Security that the public have no need, nor right to know.  How security forces conduct their operations are not "required public knowledge" and have no place in the public domain.  

I was going to post that it should be required reading for journalists, working professionally, teaching or studying to become a journalist, to read the Policy on Government Security.  Perhaps it would also be a good requirement for them to read the National Defence Security Policy and the National Defence Security Instructions as well.  There is no need for the public to know the minutest details of what security forces are doing to protect their safety.  This is where these media reports are looking like something out of WikiLeaks.

Like MJP, ERC and others here, I think it is good that Mr. Cudmore has dropped in to join the discussion, but we all must be cognisant that he is by profession a Reporter, and as such everything is "on the record".  There is no such thing as "off the record".


----------



## cudmore (2 Dec 2010)

GAP
about this:



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> The blood and guts stories aside, how come media outlets, while talking about the military, do not explain the reasoning behind a lot of the actions the public do not understand?
> 
> The media mention something they think they understand, refer to  it in stories without explanation, so the public, who are generally not in the know, misinterpret the direction the author was trying to explain.....it's never corrected either.
> 
> Is there a word count you have to adhere to where explanations are superfluous to the main theme of the story?




short answer is yes, there is a word count.
In TV a news piece is generally less than 2 minutes. same is true for Radio. That includes room for no more than 360 words.   If there is sound, or raw video in the piece, than the number of words gets fewer.  if people pause, or use ums or ahs , in their clips, than the word count goes down again.
This is not really an excuse for lack of context, but it is often the reason why context is missing.
When i worked in the newspaper biz, a good strong lead story would typically run to about 1000 words.  The main story on an inside page was often about 800.  the smaller stories inside were around 4-500.  So, you can see that newspapers have more room for things like context and explanation.
But this too is changing.  the globe's redesign recently has shrunk the size of the newspaper's news hole.  that means, shorter stories,  which means less context.
The web, however, seems to be a different place:  stories for the web can theoretically be LONG.  But they're not.  the web people tell you that readership on stories declines if you have to click through to a second page.  also, people don't really like to scroll down a whole lot in order to read more of the story.  as a result, web stories seem to hit the 4-500 word mark as well.
This post – not including your quoted text – is 269 words.
now, none of this explains why we don't try harder to add context, so you make a good point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The last thing Canadians or anybody needs is a bunch of media hungry politicians playing with people's lives so they can get a 10 second clip on the evening news.........
> As has been pointed out before, there are some workings of government, Defence and Security that the public have no need, nor right to know.  How security forces conduct their operations are not "required public knowledge" and have no place in the public domain.
> 
> I was going to post that it should be required reading for journalists, working professionally, teaching or studying to become a journalist, to read the Policy on Government Security.  Perhaps it would also be a good requirement for them to read the National Defence Security Policy and the National Defence Security Instructions as well.  There is no need for the public to know the minutest details of what security forces are doing to protect their safety.  This is where these media reports are looking like something out of WikiLeaks.
> ...




Security is an issue – for both the government and the public.

Before we can take any high-minded actions against those who break the rules we must ensure that:

1. The _rules_ are sensible; and

2. They are being properly applied by the government.

When I served neither was true and I am about 99.99% sure not much, certainly not enough, has changed.

First problem: government security rules and military security are, broadly, incompatible. DND should be required to apply the general government security rulers to _civil service_ business but *military* matters must be subject to *military* security rules – properly applied. That means more work for DND and CF members.

Second problem: too much information is 'classified' because it might be embarrassing or just difficult for the bureaucracy (uniformed and grey suited) to explain. It is hard impossible to blame e.g. the media for mistrusting us the CF and the bureaucracy when we they *know* we they are, improperly, hiding behind security rules because we they are either cowardly or lazy.

Third problem: we either lack or are afraid to apply a proper _Official Secrets_ act: one with teeth that puts people in jail – no options - for possessing *official secrets* when they are not authorized to have them, and that puts military personnel and bureaucrats in jail for even longer and harsher sentences for improperly releasing or carelessly handling *official secrets*.


----------



## cudmore (2 Dec 2010)

Special thanks to all those who offered a welcome (and also to those who offered a qualified welcome).
I'm more than happy to explain how things work inside the news biz where i can.
Tony:  the process is a bit of both.  sometimes it's  "here's the docs, have at em!"  other times it's more structured, negotiated even.  In the end, each reporter is responsible -- with the programs -- for their own report.  That's how we see different versions with different takes.
about your warning, yah, that's already on its way.  in a news manager's perfect world, you'd have a reporter with a video camera on his shoulder, a mic in his hand and a notebook in his pocket, gathering and filing his story for radio, tv, newsnet and the web.  And, he'd do it all before 5 pm.
in the end, we've learned that's just not possible.   there are too many clients, and not enough hours.  in addition, people have different skills.  some are better at radio, or better at print or better at live tv.  so that's a factor, too.
I've been a national print reporter, a national tv reporter and a national radio reporter.  so theoretically i can do all three.  I just can't do them all at the same time.


----------



## Container (2 Dec 2010)

Edit** Looking into it.

I believe Denis Morisset is the guy who supplied your photos and he's the guy who wrote the book on JTF2 with all the unverifiable stories in it?

I'll look for the photos tonight. Ignore my rambling until I find the photos im talking about- sorry to sidetrack the thread.


----------



## cudmore (2 Dec 2010)

i'd love to see a link if you can dig one up.


----------



## Container (2 Dec 2010)

Well for example- the 5 photos on the website have this photo attached saying its a JTF2 soldier. You blurred his face out. 

The interwebs say that its of an American at the Mangara cave complex in Afghanistan....they could be wrong I suppose.

That particular uniform type is popular with the SEAL's in Afghanistan. Its not impossible that a JTF2 guy would be wearing it I guess....other sites say that its ODA 342 which a American special operations detachment.

I hope you didnt buy these photos.

Such as these guys:

http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/special-forces/green-berets-gmv.php

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operational_Detachment_Alpha_3336,_3rd_Special_Forces_Group_(Airborne)_recon_Shok_Valley,_Afghanistan,_Dec._15,_2008.jpg


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> GAP
> about this:
> 
> 
> ...



Mr Cudmore

We crap all over younger members of the site for their poor use of the English language, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, etc.  You as a "professional" should be setting a better example.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Security is an issue – for both the government and the public.
> 
> Before we can take any high-minded actions against those who break the rules we must ensure that:
> 
> ...



First:  The major problem is "EDUCATION".  People have to be educated at all levels as to what the big deal really is.  

Second:  Another problem is people have to use the "Injury Test" when applying Security Classifications and Designations.  If they don't then things can 'go south' rather quickly.  

Those two would solve most of the problems you have outlined.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> in a news manager's perfect world, you'd have a reporter with a video camera on his shoulder, a mic in his hand and a notebook in his pocket, gathering and filing his story for radio, tv, newsnet and the web.  And, he'd do it all before 5 pm.  in the end, we've learned *that's just not possible*.


It _is_ being done in some media outlets.  How good is the result?  THAT's something that can fill a whole other thread.


----------



## cudmore (2 Dec 2010)

Tony:  You've nailed the question precisely.

George: I have already been privately reprimanded about the quality of my capitalization and spelling.  I was, I admit, far too informal in simply jotting off my sloppy posts earlier.
But, thank you for taking the time to offer such a gentle rebuke in public.


----------



## Container (2 Dec 2010)

On an older build of the story you featured this photo attached saying it was JTF2. Which is actually:

 http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/2010/01/photo-mountain-maneuver/

Again American Special Forces.


----------



## cudmore (2 Dec 2010)

Thanks for the links on the photos, folks.
Yes, they were provided by Denis Morisett. 
I think they are captioned that way on the CBC website.   

J


----------



## Journeyman (2 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> Tony:  the process is a bit of both.  sometimes it's  "here's the docs, have at em!"  other times it's more structured, negotiated even.  In the end, each reporter is responsible -- with the programs -- for their own report.


So effectively, CBC is producing 3-4 reports based on the same meagre sources, with the same style of "catchy" shocking headlines seeking to grab an audience's attention. 

Acknowledging your comment that most readers will not click onto a second page to get (potentially) more informed insights, have you not created a situation where your intellectually-dismal readership will proclaim, "I've just seen FOUR reports of 'JTF-2 wrong-doing'; they must be completely out of control!!" ?

Such duplicitous behaviour to spark "discussion" is a fine technique for Oprah, not for a self-proclaimed news service. 

--------------------
Since we're expressing our thoughts on CBC......my homepage _is_ CBC -- for local weather and a scan of the headlines but little else. 

My top internet bookmarks are Army.ca  :-[  and Google. 

The next two links are to sites where I get my daily world news: BBC and al-Jazeera (more balanced than one may think). 

I used to believe that CBC provided a credible news service; now, sadly, they seem to be pandering to the lowest common denominator -- those folks who post the most inane comments following each news story. As such, I go elsewhere.


----------



## FSTO (2 Dec 2010)

Mr Cudmore is Col (Ret) Drapeau on retainer? Scott Taylor? Amir Attaran? Steve Staples? I would like to know because they seem to be the only folks you interview lately. What has happened to Lew Mackenzie, Rear Admiral Summers and others?
Also on the topic of experts, I went to Col Drapeau law office website and saw his bio.  Here is the part regarding his career in the CF:
Prior to joining the legal profession, Col. Drapeau served 34 years in the Canadian military, retiring in 1993 as Director, National Defence Headquarters Secretariat as well as Secretary, Armed Forces Council. 

He is a graduate of the CF Command and Staff College (Toronto); the U.S. Armed Forces Staff College, U.S. National Defence University (Norfolk, Virginia); the U.S. Army Military Comptrollership School (Indianapolis); and, the National Defence College (Kingston Ontario).

As far as I know the good Col was an Air Force Logistics officer. Now they do a very important job in regards to ensuring that Air Force Bases are properly supplied, but to have him commenting on Army combat operations is a little rich. I can assure you that there are quite a few retired Army Officers and senior NCM's who could give you a more pointed and realistic view of life outside of the wire.
As for Mr Staples, I wish your media compatriots would cease calling him a defence expert and call him what he his; a peace activist.
I really hope that you were not surprised by the cool reception you got when you first posted here. We have all seen the perceived hatched jobs your profession has done on ours. But we are not looking for ass kissers, we are expecting balance and facts in your reporting. Remember you are the conduit between two cultures that have a hard time understanding each other at the best of times and if your reporting is not correct and balanced you will make us pull the curtins even tighter.

Finally, if you came here hoping to get some info from current JTF operators, it will be a pretty fruitless search. As some one said previously none of them will be here blabbing about their time on ops.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2010)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Mr Cudmore is Col (Ret) Drapeau on retainer? Scott Taylor? Amir Attaran? Steve Staples?...
> ...
> As far as I know the good Col [Drapeau] was an Air Force Logistics officer. Now they do a very important job in regards to ensuring that Air Force Bases are properly supplied, but to have him commenting on Army combat operations is a little rich. I can assure you that there are quite a few retired Army Officers and senior NCM's who could give you a more pointed and realistic view of life outside of the wire.
> *As for Mr Staples, I wish your media compatriots would cease calling him a defence expert and call him what he his; a peace activist.*




Actually, Col (ret'd) Drapeau was an Army LogO and was, I think it is fair to say, well regarded by his colleagues in that role.

I am with you, 100%, re: Mr. Staples. His knowledge of military and defence policy matters is rudimentary, at best. He is, as you say, a "peace activist" and is, therefore, a reliable, albeit ill-informed, anti-military voice. If Staples is on the screen I immediately switch channels because I *know* I am about to fed a load of ignorant codswallop. I can guarantee that others - some of whom I would call _informed_ critics of defence policy - do the same; Staples = BS. I understand he is cheap and always available but he lowers the credibility of the CBC so long as the CBC continues to lie about who and what he is.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> George: I have already been privately reprimanded about the quality of my capitalization and spelling.  I was, I admit, far too informal in simply jotting off my sloppy posts earlier.
> But, thank you for taking the time to offer such a gentle rebuke in public.



If it wasn't done, someone would whine and use you as an example of someone receiving favouritism when they are being corrected.  It would be counter productive not to correct you and abide by the Army.ca Conduct Guidelines that we so often point out to new members who insist on using poor written communications skills and MSN Speak.


----------



## FSTO (2 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, Col (ret'd) Drapeau was an Army LogO and was, I think it is fair to say, well regarded by his colleagues in that role.
> 
> I am with you, 100%, re: Mr. Staples. His knowledge of military and defence policy matters is rudimentary, at best. He is, as you say, a "peace activist" and is, therefore, a reliable, albeit ill-informed, anti-military voice. If Staples is on the screen I immediately switch channels because I *know* I am about to fed a load of ignorant codswallop. I can guarantee that others - some of whom I would call _informed_ critics of defence policy - do the same; Staples = BS. I understand he is cheap and always available but he lowers the credibility of the CBC so long as the CBC continues to lie about who and what he is.



Message received regarding Col Drapeau, find info was rather difficult. As an Army Log O he should have more knowledge of the requirements of the combat arms. That being said I would think that his battlefield experience is nowhere near the experience possessed by a Logistics Major today.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Dec 2010)

I think that every democratic country should unquestioningly have oversight over all elements of their governments, including the military. Special forces elements of the military are no exception.  Due to the nature of the special forces' operations (and those of other government organizations such as CSIS, RCMP, NRC Comms, CSE, etc...), however, the legislative oversight function itself, while necessarily separate from DND, should be conducted in strict accordance with the Government's established security policies, particularly the Canadian Security of Information Act.

One need only review Sections 8 through 15 of the SIA  to see that any disclosure (including for the purposes of partisan politicking and/or to curry favour with caucuses or selected groups within the electorate) of protected information or sensitive aspects of operations is not only inappropriate, but illegal and can result in prosecution under Federal Law.  Much of the information relating to CF special operations forces (JTF 2 and other elements) is designated as "_special operational information_" under Section 8 of the act, and for that reason must be accorded the proper protection by all members of the Government (executive, legislative, judicial and operational/functional).

Excerpt from the Canadian Security of Information Act (Sect. 8 - def'n "special operational information" - sub-para b) particular to military action, plans, etc..., military conflict being defined no further within the Act.)


> “special operational information” means information that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard that reveals, or from which may be inferred,
> 
> (a) the identity of a person, agency, group, body or entity that was or is intended to be, has been approached to be, or has offered or agreed to be, a confidential source of information, intelligence or assistance to the Government of Canada;
> *(b) the nature or content of plans of the Government of Canada for military operations in respect of a potential, imminent or present armed conflict;*
> ...



Something that I saw in the recent CBC interview (I believe if was MPs Bachand and Harris, but I can't recall exactly) concerned me though; their comment that they heard more about JTF 2 from American Congressional members than from their own Government.  As members of the Standing Committee on Defence, they should be informed of activities from the MND, HOWEVER, they must do so briefed and indoctrinated according to the SIA at the appropriate security level, and such indoctrination would preclude them from commenting openly to the media of the public on the material presented to them.  I think this may cause reasonable concern from those affected organizations that understand the need for transparency, but for whom their safety and security depends on appropriate discretion and protection of the information.  My second concern is that the MPs appeared to imply that the model of U.S. Congressional members informing their allied counterparts of the classified information of their own forces was appropriate.  I'd be very interested to know the official manner in which such disclosure of classified information, dealt with in accordance with the U.S. Official Secrets Act, was presented to members of a foreign government.  An example in the reverse would be if members of the Canadian defence and security oversight committee (potential future construct) learned of activities by say, 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force) or NSW DEVGRU ('Seal Team 6'), during a backbrief of JTF 2 activities, and then divulged this information to an American Congressperson...would this be appropriate? Perhaps there is a bilateral classified information sharing agreement between Canada and the U.S. -- I don't know, but it sounds kind of "less-than-fully-controlled", and if it were, would not such an agreement itself remain classified and thus would be something that a member of the Canadian committee should be divulging publically (referral back to concern by some of the overall understanding of appropriate actions regarding public disclosure of classified information)?

Overall, oversight is a critical function within a democratic system.  Canada is no exception to this.  The oversight agency, however, has the responsibility to treat such information in accordance with Canada's Security of Information Act, which would indicate that details of such matters would not be discussed publically without appropriate declassification of information having been affected.


On the issue of material regarding JTF 2 and any ongoing investigation, two policy bases keep serving members from commenting directly on the details of this issue: 

1) CF members (less designated spokespersons) cannot comment on an ongoing investigation, and 
2) CF members are prohibited from commenting on issues of capability, organization or activities, planned or current, of JTF 2, any other special operations forces elements of the CF or any other classified CF information.


Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Dec 2010)

That Mr Staples, and his colleague Michael Byers (see them together at the Rideau Institute, certainly no think tank, rather a pool of  usually suspect "progressive" advocates
http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/about.htm )
are regularly trotted out by our major media as "defence experts" is indeed a travesty as they both are agenda-driven individuals.   It is worth noting that those media never mention that Mr Staples runs the _Ceasefire.ca_ website (they only mention the Rideau Institute) nor that Prof. Byers was a federal NDP candidate who lost at the last election.  Relying on them to provide journalistic "balance", esp. without fully identifying them, is simply disgraceful--and also shows on the part of the media a serious disregard for real fairness.

More on the two at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_, with overlap:
http://unambig.com/tag/steve-staples/
http://unambig.com/tag/michael-byers/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (2 Dec 2010)

Good2Golf, you raise some interesting points about oversight in a democratic country. I'm wondering about oversight procedures in other countries. I realize that the US has oversight committees in both the Senate and Congress, but is anyone aware about practices in other countries whose system of government is more akin to ours, such as Britain & the Commonwealth?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Dec 2010)

We have a Senate Committe on National Security and Defence, isn't that our civilian oversight? Or just a debating society for people with no idea what Defence is?


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2010)

> Forces deserve same scrutiny as police: MP
> Last Updated: Thursday, December 2, 2010 | 4:33 PM ET
> CBC News
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/02/jtf2-political-reaction.html?ref=rss

I am confused.  Does Mr Leblanc want the same oversight on the military as for the RCMP (ie an independent bureaucratic "watchdog" agency) or does he want a special parliamentary committee?  Shouldn't there already be a parliamentary defence committee?  Why create a second?

If the RCMP civilian "watchdog" model is desired, I would like to know if the RCMP also has several civilian Assistant Deputy Ministers internal to the department?  Is such an agency required when the civilian oversight is built directly into the department?

As G2G has pointed out, oversight is necessary and appropriate in a democracy, but it must be done with due protection for national security.  For myself, I am left wondering if the proper oversight is not already there.  We have had one soldier already convicted in a military court for acts that contravened the law of armed conflict, and it clearly appears the military is taking the appropriate steps to investigate and deal with potential violations that may have occurred within JTF 2.  It looks like the systems is working.  I suppose some people may never be happy short of attaching a political officer (commissar) to every platoon and troop.



> RCMP to get new watchdog agency
> Last Updated: Monday, June 14, 2010 | 8:53 PM ET
> By Alison Crawford, CBC News
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/14/rcmp-oversight.html#ixzz16zsUu8gb


----------



## Armymedic (2 Dec 2010)

What everyone seems to fail to realize is that JTF2, and the entirety of the CF have civilian oversight. Every member of the CF are all ultimately responsible  and/or answerable to the MND and Cabinet, which prior to their appointment to Cabinet tend to be democratically elected by the people of Canada.

What more oversight is needed? 

This "oversight" noise is nothing more than the Opposition playing strategic politics with the notion of the Conservative Government running a "secret agenda" and hiding things from the people.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2010)

Some people will not be satisfied until the police and military are totally gutted. What I mean is that civilians will want operational control.


----------



## Nauticus (2 Dec 2010)

One irony I would like to point out is the humored reference to the CBC as the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation", when at the same time, those same people are calling for the media to become more restricted, like it would be in an _actual_ Communist society. Hypocrisy at it's most divine. 

I point out that I don't *disagree* with the sentiments on here that call for more balanced coverage of the Canadian Forces (CBC is notorious for presenting unbalanced opinion pieces regarding our military), but with that said, this is what it boils down to:
If there is an ongoing investigation regarding a slaying or a murder, it is news and should be reported *without* breaching security concerns regarding those involved.

With that said, and I go back to the balance point, Sandtrap I is a closed case and no criminal charges were laid. CBC's stance appears biased, when it SHOULD point out that *nobody was criminally responsible for that particular incident* and it is therefore a non-issue. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing, but CBC uses the existence of that investigation to subjectively tailor the reader to the "new" information.

CBC is a joke of a news supplier due to their bias and subjective reporting, but based on how this thread turned out, it appears the members of the CF are just as close minded and subjective as the reporters.

EDIT: Jim, I don't think that is what people want at all. People are concerned that, when "secret" or otherwise hidden incidents get investigated by the same organization that committed said incident, there *is* a real possibility of subjectivity in the result of the investigation. Nobody wants to control the RCMP or the CF (nobody has even come close to suggest that), though people want that possibility removed entirely.

*Note*: I'm not saying that there IS subjectivity in either the RCMP or the Canadian Forces, or that any investigations in the past have resulted erroneously. I am, however, pointing out that the suspicion of it is a legitimate opinion for those interested.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2010)

What the majority of people, politicians and reporters included, fail to realize is that such investigations cannot be carried out by just any one. Some people do not understand security, operations etc. Just my two cents, minus the requisite PST/GST.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Dec 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> One irony I would like to point out is the humored reference to the CBC as the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation", when at the same time, those same people are calling for the media to become more restricted, like it would be in an _actual_ Communist society. Hypocrisy at it's most divine.


I've gone through the thread again, and I'm afraid I don't see anyone calling for more restrictive media, just more balance.

Perhaps your understanding of irony is similar to Alanis Morissette's   ???


----------



## Nauticus (2 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've gone through the thread again, and I'm afraid I don't see anyone calling for more restrictive media, just more balance.
> 
> Perhaps your understanding of irony is similar to Alanis Morissette's   ???


Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be _wrong_, but it is restrictive.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Dec 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be _wrong_, but it is restrictive.


OK, I grant you that that is, technically, restrictive. 

But, logically, Operational Security should be a mitigating factor along with laws regarding libel and slander. I'd also include the simple courtesy of some personal "news" being nobodies' business, but then I only read the tabloid headlines while waiting in the grocery-store checkout line.

As much as the people with multiple-piercings in their eyebrows may extole the splendors of anarchy, I'd suggest that abolishing all restrictions would lead to _Lord of the Flies_ in pretty short order.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Dec 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be _wrong_, but it is restrictive.



You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so.  

I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You know, there once was a time when the press was self censoring and would not report on such things as it was not in the public interest to bring them to light.  A case in point although not military related, IIRC the Whitehouse Press Corps was well aware of what was believed to havehappened behind closed doors during the Kennedy years WRT Marylin Monroe etc.  They chose not to bring it to light as it was not in the public interest to do so.
> 
> I'm afraid I am in the camp of "there are some things the public does not need to know, period."  We are professional enough, self regulating enough that when and if incidents do happen they are investigated and appropriate action taken.  If that is being restrictive, so be it.  I am unapologetic in my feelings in this regard.




The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and _bloggers_, have no lawful right to know.

I repeat that we you, those of you in _official_ capacities, have a *duty* to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a _twenty-something_ political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, *UNCLAS* and, therefore available to the press and public.

In addition to our _communications_ people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a *Public Information* staff that, actively, _pushes_ unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Dec 2010)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Well, there have been several suggestions that there are things the media should and should not report on (referring to special operations, etc). That is restrictive, no matter how you look at it. It may not be _wrong_, but it is restrictive.



I suggest that you have never had your operational security blown by the media and your safety put a serious risk. There are things that are not public and should stay that way. Making them public endangers success and risks people's lives. Restricting the media in such cases is not a communist state.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In addition to our _communications_ people (Public Affairs) I have always believed that we need a *Public Information* staff that, actively, _pushes_ unclassified (and unvarnished) facts out to Canadians.


Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/stories-reportages-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?cat=114
Or do you see, say, civvies doing it more?  Love to hear more about the concept of getting more information (rather than "messages") out to the public.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Generally, in government (and I stand to be corrected by any CF PA folks), the comms people (the bureaucratic comms folks, anyway) generally are working on public education/information/outreach you're talking about, not just media relations.  You'd like to see more of that from the CF?  There already seems to be a lot getting out there (at least via internet):
> http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/media.aspx
> http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/fs-ev/index-eng.asp
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3_eng.asp
> ...




I guess I'm _reacting_ to what I perceive to be attempts to _manipulate_ rather than inform by the defence industry, the defence department, including the CF, and the government - and their counterparts in allied countries and, indeed, In China, too.

I have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough _stenographers_ out there, working in the mainstream media and the _blogosphere_, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).


----------



## cudmore (3 Dec 2010)

E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name. 
The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
Increasingly, there's a trend in government to presumptively treat information as secret.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Access to Information Act will know what I'm talking about.   
You ask for information X, and (after the passage of months) you get it.   When it eventually arrives, the information is presented in the clear, with no redactions (this is unusual, but it happens).  But what's interesting is how many of those documents arrive with "secret" emblazoned across the top.
What likely happened is this:  Someone inside government decided the info was secret and classified it. I asked for it.  The documents were pulled and were tested under Access to Information Act exemptions and determined NOT to be secret at all.   So, they're sent out free and clear.
The problem, it seems to me, is the frequent over-classification of information, that when tested fails to meet legitimate classification standards.
This leads to questions:  Why was the information over-classified to begin with?   Was it over-zealousness?  A misunderstanding of the rules? Were there legitimate reasons at first that evaporated over time?  Or, was it to protect embarrassing info?




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The problem, for me, is not that the public does not "need to know" - in fact, in my opinion a well informed public makes better political choices - the problem is that there are legitimate secrets that the public, which includes the media and _bloggers_, have no lawful right to know.
> 
> 
> I repeat that we you, those of you in _official_ capacities, have a *duty* to properly classify information - something is not a secret just because a _twenty-something_ political staffer in a minister's office doesn't want the public to know about it. There is was a handy-dandy little guide to security rules that young staff officers could use to properly (paragraph by paragraph) assign security classification to the information that was, eventually, going to make its way through the HQ and the CF. I hope such a thing still exists and I hope that at least a few people use it to assign a SECRET classification to all information that is, indeed, secret, but, simultaneously, to avoid classifying information that is, inherently, *UNCLAS* and, therefore available to the press and public.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
> I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
> The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
> Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
> ...




Properly classifying information requires considerable thought and effort. Despite my personal concerns about the size of our HQs I acknowledge that the volume of information that needs to be managed has grown by an order of magnitude or more since I retired and I am amazed that anyone ever gets the classifications right. The default position, to be safe and secure, is to over-classify.

How would you think we might manage a classification review process? Most important: who pays?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> II have always thought that sensible people, which includes the media, can understand 'raw' information. I do not dispute the 'need' to massage the data to put an industry or defence/CF or government 'spin' on it - that's part of the political process and it works because there are enough _stenographers_ out there, working in the mainstream media and the _blogosphere_, who will regurgitate industry/DND/government press releases. But, there are also journalists, I believe who, given some facts, will analyze and report real 'news' for Canadians (and Americans and Brits and, and, and ...).



Maybe ten years ago I would have agreed with this view of journalism, but I am affraid I can't anymore.

Today, IMO, even the newspapers (last bastion of real reporting) have been pushed by the 24/7 electronic medias into the "first out with the facts - any facts -checked or not - then spin it to look like you exclusively broke out the biggest "disaster/fraud/shennanigan" of the century - and finish instead of an analysis with how peopole "feel" about the news, preferably in a sensational uninformed way". The few serious newpapers and magazines left that actually take the time and make the efforts required to  digest things, put them into proper focus and produce substantiated reports are unfortunately read only by a minority of already well informed and educated Canadians (like you E.R.C.).


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
> I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
> The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
> Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
> ...




OK.  Reading the above, I can see that you have no concept about how things are classified.   A document will be classified or designated according to its contents.  If one sentence  in the whole document is classifed or designated higher than the all the rest, that is the classification or designation that will be assigned to the whole document.  Of course, that document can be declassified or downgraded if that sentence is removed.  The whole document will have the classification of the highest classification assigned to any of its parts. 

A document is to be graded according to its own content, and not because of its relationship or reference to another document. In those cases where the originator must compile information, and extract portions of information, from numerous documents, caution must be exercised with the aggregation of this information. The one exception to this policy is with respect to Cabinet Confidences. 

Information shall be classified CONFIDENTIAL when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause  injury to the national interest.  As we move up the scale to SECRET we find the statement "when unauthorized  disclosure, destruction, removal, modification or interruption could reasonably  be expected to cause SERIOUS injury to the national interest".  TOP SECRET we would find seriousness has increased and the injury test would be: "would be expected to cause EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE injury to the national interest".  

As for this:



			
				cudmore said:
			
		

> think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.



That is a truly naive presumption on the part of anyone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2010)

cudmore said:
			
		

> E.R.   This is interesting.  I can't entirely agree with  your first point,  but i do agree entirely with your point about the 20 year-old staffer.
> I think something to keep in mind is that in a democratic society, all government information is presumptively open. Citizens have a right to know what is being done on their behalf and in their name.
> The laws that we have that restrict the release of some information require there be a specific reason or need for that information to be kept from public view.
> Undoubtedly there are secrets that need to be kept.   The question is, which ones?  And how do we know?
> ...



 I'm sorry James, but that's pretty rich coming from someone that works at the CBC. The same organization that refuses to open it's operating documents to the Canadian public, when requested. That same public that pays to keep the CBC in business. The CBC is known to be amongst the stingiest organizations in Canada when it comes to releasing files requested under FOI, almost to the point that many would call unlawful and criminal. Yet they have the balls to demand the same of everyone else and raise all unholy hell when their demands aren't met. They are a government company and are beholden to the taxpayer for keeping them alive. You guys have to have a good hard look in the mirror before you dare accuse anyone of censorship and being secretive.


----------



## cudmore (3 Dec 2010)

hi recceguy.
I am an employee of the CBC -- not its president -- and cannot respond to any of this.
However, here's what the manager-types have said publicly about this recently.

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/media/facts/20101201.shtml

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/newsreleases/20101126.shtml

Here's a quote I pulled from the first link.

"Since CBC/Radio-Canada became subject to the Act in 2007, we have released over 70,000 pages of information. We also have responded to 1,206 out of the 1,262 requests received (to November 26, 2010). Indeed, if Quebecor’s article last week is to be believed (as cited above), we have received a couple of hundred ATIP requests from interested Canadians and more than 1,000 from our principal competitor in the province of Quebec."

"We have not always had a perfect record on Access to Information, nor do we now. In the first weeks of being subject to the Act, we received approximately 400 requests from David Statham, Michel Drapeau and their partners, who have publicly acknowledged working for Quebecor Media. The extraordinary circumstances caused by this unprecedented volume has been recognized by both the Office of the Information Commissioner and the courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment rendered last week against Mr. Statham," (discussed in the second link).


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

;D

Guess that is confirmation of:


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Dec 2010)

I have been watching this thread for a while and have been loathe to jump in; however, I do feel I need to make a few points.


First, any reference to "media" on my part is not restricted to the CBC, even if I use the CBC as the example.  My problem is that the media seem less interested in reporting on events and then providing analysis, and more interested in having high ratings.  The main exception to this could be CBC radio, which has no adverts on any of its programming.  Having said that, however, given realities, I can only imagine that there is no real division between CBC Radio News and CBC Television.

If one were to critically analyse what is in any news story, one will invariably find a slant or an angle.  To illustrate my points, I will use this story from ctv.ca:



> An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a *bizarre* and fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.
> Zhou Fang, 24, was remanded into police custody until Dec. 8.
> Fang stared straight ahead and spoke *softly* when asked by the judge whether he understood the proceedings.
> 
> ...


Those words that are highlighted are, in my opinion, "poetic licence" put in the story by the author.  They may sound benign, but they are subjective adjectives that the author is putting in.  
Consider this:


> An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a *bizarre* and fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.


versus this:


> An Ottawa man charged with first-degree murder in connection to a fatal crossbow attack appeared in a Toronto court on Friday morning.


The author in the first sentence is telling us that this was bizarre.  In the second sentence, I have removed the subjective adjective and instead just have the facts, leaving it to the public to make up its mind if this was gruesome, brutal, bizarre or whatever.  It is this style of editorialising that I find objectionable.

Anyway, now look at the cbc reporting of the same story:


> A 24-year-old man from Ottawa has been charged with first-degree murder after another man was killed with a crossbow inside a Toronto library.
> 
> Zhou Fang was arrested by police a short time after Si Cheng, 52, of Toronto, was shot inside the Toronto Public Library's Main Street branch in the middle of the afternoon on Thursday.
> 
> ...


The CBC story tells the same story, and any use of subjectivity is attributed to the police or witnesses, not the author.

So, maybe the CBC website is different from the radio (in which every story opening is set up, and then a "twist" is delivered with the word "but...")  Reading the site, and reading the story is actually more balanced than my initial thought; however, the CBC Radio News does seem to follow this pattern:
"Today the PM announced that Penquins are now free to own horses, but as so-and-so reports, not all pigs are happy about the news...."

I would much rather see information presented, and I'll form my own opinion, without all the theatrics.  

Of course, editorials are just that, and I think back to the mid 1990s, when I watched a news program on CITY-TV.  They presented an editorial news item, but wasn't labelled as such.  I was incensed, and I went to the "internet" (as such as it was back then) and lodged a complaint with the CRTC.  To CITY-TV's credit, they responded rather well, and I noted that the words "Editorial" started to appear when they were presenting opinion vice news.


I know that this has little to do with the allegations of JTF 2 wrongdoing in Afghanistan, but neither does the story.  The story is about JTF-2 members alledgedly witnessing an illegal killing by members of another nations' forces.  So, that title is itself misleading.


In conclusion, I would offer that all media would gain more credibility if it stopped working on the "flash" and focus instead on the substance.  I could care less if Peter Mansbridge's studio has a new look.  Or if Sandy Rinaldo gets a new teleprompter.  I would rather just get information.  And please start getting credible experts.  If I see Mr. Stephen Staples falsely represented as a "Defence Expert", I'm going to lose my mind, and I think I could end up on the "News at 11" ;D  If you bring him on, please label him correctly: a self-proclaimed Peace Activist.  (In my opinion, he's a social engineer who claims to be a socialist but fails to acknowledge the reality of the world and that some times, bad people have to be stopped by killing them).


----------



## FoverF (6 Dec 2010)

I think the thread title is just a typo.

Having read the story, and read around it a little, I can only conclude that the title was meant to be:

"JTF 2 cleared of accusations of wrongdoing, now face allegations of rightdoing for reporting potential wrongdoing by others."


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Jan 2011)

*JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges*

Article link.



> A member of Canada's elite special forces unit says he felt his peers were being "encouraged" by the Canadian Forces chain of command to commit war crimes in Afghanistan, according to new documents obtained by CBC News.
> 
> The documents from the military ombudsman's office show the member of the covert unit Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2, approached the watchdog in June 2008 to report the allegations of wrongdoing he had first made to his superior officers in 2006.
> 
> ...



More at link.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2011)

<hair splitting on media word choice rant>


			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> *JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges*


Note the level of "certainty" of the CBC headline, compared to this other story that ran at about the same time:  *"No proof of Afghan adviser's shooting claims: probe"*.  This, especially when a) the CFNIS news release says pretty clearly:


> *.... The CFNIS investigation determined that no service or criminal offences were committed ….*


, and b)  the Canadian Press headline says, *"Military police dismiss Afghan adviser's claim that soldiers killed unarmed teen"*.  How did others headline the story?  Check here, here or here.

Also check out how far into the story you have to read to get to this tidbit:


> *.... That CFNIS probe ended without any charges ....*


</hair splitting on media word choice rant>


----------



## Nauticus (18 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I have been watching this thread for a while and have been loathe to jump in; however, I do feel I need to make a few points.
> 
> 
> First, any reference to "media" on my part is not restricted to the CBC, even if I use the CBC as the example.  My problem is that the media seem less interested in reporting on events and then providing analysis, and more interested in having high ratings.  The main exception to this could be CBC radio, which has no adverts on any of its programming.  Having said that, however, given realities, I can only imagine that there is no real division between CBC Radio News and CBC Television.
> ...


It all depends. If the individual did, in fact, speak "softly", then it is not subjective on the part of the reporter. It would be objective observation. Likewise, if a witness described his walking as "calm", again, it may be the witness' bias, but it should be reported as-is and not changed or adjusted if reported.

I understand your point, but if these things were true, then it should be reported.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jan 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> *JTF2 command 'encouraged' war crimes, soldier alleges*


This is further repetition of the same story, which should have been headlined: 

 CFNIS _STILL_ can't find any evidence of wrong-doing !!!   

--- note the extra exclamation marks to help sell the story ---   :nod:  


So, in addition to the single-source used to spin the story multiple times, commented on here, we now have an ATI report of THE SAME SOLDIER saying he "does not _believe_ they are investigating [despite the outcome being that they obviously_ did _ investigate and found no improprieties attributable to JTF2], and are being 'very nice to him,'" [OMG!!] 


Substantive news value = 0   :


Edit: typo


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I understand your point, but if these things were true, then it should be reported.



And if they are FALSE?

What is your opinion on that?  Do we continue to perpetuate a myth or lie?


----------



## Container (19 Jan 2011)

And if it gets looked into for years and everyone disagrees with one guy should the news report that one guys opinion as fact?

It reminds me of the guys on the boards who disagree with everyone else. The news shouldnt be an outlet for "that guy" to say whatever he wants in absense of any facts.

Of course they should report it if its true- but they shouldnt report things that have no evidence. Go and investigate if your curious but shut up until there is evidence of something.


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Feb 2011)

From CBC News December 01, 2010 (Video)
Canada's Secret Special Forces JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up


----------



## Journeyman (3 Feb 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> From CBC News December 01, 2010 (Video)
> Canada's Secret Special Forces JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up


Is there a reason for posting a two-month old video, rehashing the same disproven allegations? 
Did you miss the previous 4 pages?


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Feb 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Is there a reason for posting a two-month old video, rehashing the same disproven allegations?
> Did you miss the previous 4 pages?


I reread the whole thread.
The video headline (JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up) is a far cry from allegations of...
and it is what was presented on the News.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Feb 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> ....and it is what was presented on the News.


Yes, in December.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2011)

Highlights mine....


> The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has concluded its investigation into allegations of criminal wrongdoing by Canadian Special Operations Forces personnel in Afghanistan. *The investigation, known as “Project Sand Trap,” found no evidence that criminal acts were committed by any Canadian Forces members.*
> 
> This investigation was launched after allegations were brought to the attention of the CF Ombudsman’s office, and were passed on to Military Police. Due to the serious and sensitive nature of the allegations, the file was assigned to the CFNIS in June of 2008. A full-time investigative task force was assigned to the case, conducting approximately a hundred interviews and collecting evidence in both Canada and Afghanistan. The investigation was divided into two separate files so that the most serious allegations against the CF member could be addressed first.
> 
> ...


CF Info-Machine, 15 Dec 11


----------



## Snakedoc (26 Oct 2012)

I don't see this posted anywhere else at the moment.  An interesting read.

*Soldier who choked fellow JTF2 commando avoided courts
Warrant officer in elite unit 'almost killed' subordinate in Afghanistan, documents reveal
*
By James Cudmore, CBC News Posted: Oct 26, 2012 7:17 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 26, 2012 7:56 AM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/25/jtf2-commando-strangle-trial.html

A senior Canadian commando who choked and "almost killed" a subordinate in an apparently unprovoked attack in Afghanistan was never tried in court, despite a confession.

CBC News has obtained exclusive details of the little-known 2005 assault showing the warrant officer responsible for the attack admitted to the principal facts.

There were five witnesses to the attack, three of whom pulled the warrant officer off his victim during the altercation at a forward operating base in Afghanistan. But even with those witnesses in hand, the military never put the soldier on trial.

Instead, the case was subject to a series of court battles between different groups of defence department lawyers, and the man at the centre of those fights never set foot before a judge.

The case calls into serious question the willingness of the Canadian military to pursue charges against its secret and elite special forces troops.

It also comes at a time that the Canadian Forces are wrapping up a four-year investigation of the command and control of Canada's special forces.

That inquiry was prompted by insider allegations of murder, reckless bombardment, battlefield executions and allied war crimes. Those allegations were first reported by CBC News and were subject to years of investigation by military police, who nicknamed the file "Sand Trap."

No charges were ever laid.

CBC News has learned the top-secret work of that board of inquiry is complete, but military lawyers are currently vetting its report.

The new allegation of serious wrongdoing in Afghanistan could lend credibility to the suggestion Canadian commandos are not as well controlled as they should be.

*Eyewitnesses described attack*
The warrant officer in this case was a senior member of Canada's top-tier special operations regiment, Joint Task Force 2. His victim was a subordinate, a master corporal who apparently talked back when asked to help set up some targets for a firing range.

Documents obtained by CBC News show the attack happened on Aug. 10, 2005, at a forward operating base in Kandahar province, where the Canadian commandos had just been deployed.Details are contained in part of a letter written by the JTF2 commander at the time, Lt-Col. Mike Day, who was later appointed commander of all Canada's special operations forces.

The letter from Day, who is now a major-general, says that "after a dispute with one of his subordinates, the [warrant officer] assaulted the latter by strangling him."

Day wrote that the choking attack carried on for about 45 seconds.

"It took the robust physical intervention of three other members of JTF2 before the [warrant officer] finally freed his subordinate."

Day's letter was written to explain his decision to send the warrant officer back to Canada to face an investigation and potentially a court martial.

In his letter, Day described details of the attack that were related to him by witnesses and those who intervened.

"[The warrant officer] acted in a fit of rage … after a verbal exchange between the master corporal and him about how to do a task (preparing targets for a firing exercise)."

The warrant officer had apparently been transporting targets to the range area when he asked the master corporal for help.

"He jumped down from a trailer he was working on and ran to the master corporal and strangled him from behind," military documents say.

"[The warrant officer] admitted the principal facts, but mentioned he had done so in self-defence."

"[He] didn't demonstrate any remorse, but, to the contrary, he maintained that he was justified."

*Rank demanded full court martial*
As a senior soldier, the warrant officer was employed in a leadership role in JTF2, likely as the second-in-command of a troop of highly trained special operations assaulters.

According to the documents, Day sent the senior soldier home to be investigated and tried because his senior warrant officer's rank demanded a full court martial, rather than a summary trial conducted on the ground in Afghanistan with officers on hand.

The warrant officer was later charged with mistreating a subordinate and aggravated assault.

The allegations in Day's letter have not been tested in court — because the military never did bring the case to trial.

That's because it felt it was unable to bring charges against the warrant officer without exposing his name and membership in a semi-secret unit to public scrutiny.

Military security rules require all soldiers — even lawyers — to keep secret the names of members of JTF2.

But, in Canada, all courts — even military courts — are presumptively open to the public.

The issue of openess became the subject of a legal fight between the director of military prosecutions and the chief military judge of the Canadian Forces.

Deciding that issue took until December 2006, when a Federal Court judge dismissed a request from the director of military prosecutions that would have compelled the chief military judge to assign a judge to the court martial of the JTF2 member. The chief military judge had declined to appoint a judge in the case because the charge sheet was classified as secret.

By then it had been 16 months since the attack on the master corporal in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, the warrant officer had already been administratively relieved of his command and sent off to work in another unit on so-called extra-regimental employment.

He complained about that and made a series of other administrative grievances to an independent board. It's in documents from that board that the details of the attack in Afghanistan are laid out.

*'Big boy rules'*
They show that just two days after the attack the warrant officer voluntarily wrote a declaration in which he furnished his version of the facts.

He later wrote about his conduct that he "refused to participate in a leadership popularity contest and adopt the TV-style approach demanded by his subordinates," and that he applied "the big boy rules."

The latter is a special forces phrase that suggests elite commandos do what they feel they need to do, and don't wait or expect to be managed or watched over like privates in the regular army. But the phrase is also freighted with the suggestion a soldier who plays by those rules doesn't need to be disciplined when he makes an error.

The documents say the warrant officer "believes he acted preventatively, in self-defence, although he admits he took the first shot."

They say five witnesses to the attack all indicated the warrant officer "had completely lost control of his conduct," and continued to choke his subordinate even when the master corporal was trying to cry "uncle" by slapping the ground.

The grievance board concluded it was an "explosive situation" that, left unchecked, would have put the commando troops' broader mission in Afghanistan in peril.

Despite the shocking and violent nature of the attack and the written confessions in hand, military prosecutors chose to keep arguing legal points with other military lawyers, instead of trying to find a way put him on trial by court martial.

Instead, the director of military prosecutions chose to appeal the 2006 Federal Court decision and argue its secrecy point before the Federal Court of Appeal.

That decision came down in December 2007, two years and four months after the attack happened.

According to the Defence Department, the court concluded that allowing the charge to be sealed for as long it takes a military judge to hear a request for confidentiality would not offend the open court principle.

Documents show that two months later, in February, military prosecutors finally and successfully laid criminal charges against the warrant officer. For some reason, three months after that, prosecutors withdrew them.

Military prosecutors withdrew the charges in 2008 because they "no longer had a reasonable prospect of conviction," according to Melanie Villeneuve, a spokeswoman with National Defence.

It's hard to imagine how that could be true, given the warrant officer's written admissions and the presence of five witnesses.

"As a result of this incident, the chain of command at JTF2 lost confidence in the individual and he was removed from employment with the unit and has not served with JTF2 again," Villeneuve said.

That leaves a senior soldier, supposedly an elite commando, who attacked and "almost killed" a subordinate at a forward operating base in Afghanistan, unpunished by law.


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2012)

toughenough said:
			
		

> These "facts" do not add up. I suspect a large degree of sensationalism being made here.
> 
> One does not choke someone for 45 seconds while the person remains conscious and attempts to tap out. If a choke is properly applied, it will take less then ten seconds for the person to go unconscious, depending on their heart rate. After the person goes out, this is when you're entering dangerous territory and continuing to hold the choke can lead to permanent damage or death.
> 
> ...



Its quite clear from your speculation that you did not bother to find or read either the Federal Court Trial decision or the Federal Court of Appeal's decision.

In short, The CO of JTF2 referred charges against the warrant officer to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff who referred them to the Director of Military Prosecutions. The charges were under s 130 of the National Defence Act and s 268 of the Criminal Code for aggravated assault and s 95 of the NDA for mistreatment of a subordinate. DMP then preferred a charges for trial by court martial.

So far so good and clearly indicative of the fact that JTF2, the chain of command and the prosecutors wanted to have this individual tried by court martial. The procedures used were appropriate and mandated by the NDA.

Where things went off track were as a result of the fact that the charge sheet was marked SECRET in accordance with internal DND directives that specific info about JTF2 and its members be so classified.

Ordinarily when a charge sheet is preferred the Chief Military Judge assigns a trial judge to hear the trial. In this case the CMJ refused to assign a judge on the grounds that the charge sheet was marked SECRET and because trials are to be "open to the public" and he considered the security classification to be contrary to that. Under then existing provisions of the NDA a trial judge could close proceedings to the public or protect secret information but could not do so before a trial judge is assigned. This is nothing more or less than a systemic "Catch 22".

The DMP then went to Federal Court to compel the CMJ to assign a judge but for very technical reasons the FC would not do so.

DMP disagreed with this decision and appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which in Dec 2007 granted the appeal, reversed the trial judge and made an order that CMJ assign a trial judge. This happened and charges were preferred and the matter resumed until the charges were subsequently withdrawn by DMP on the basis of "no reasonable prospect of conviction."

What you have to understand that DMP is independent of the chain of command and on these matters makes decisions based on her analysis of the law. Prosecutors must prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Where the prosecutors make a determination that they cannot do so they should (but all too often don't) withdraw the charges. That point can be either a determination that the evidence isn't there, or there is some overriding legal principle that would result in the charges being tossed by a judge. 

I quite frankly do not know what caused DMP to withdraw the charges but I am certain it wasn't any of the issues you raised.

The point here is that the decision was a legal one made by an independent legal authority within DND to make it. Your suggestion (and frankly that of the CBC) that their is something in the way of a chain of command decision here is off base. By the CO and the DCDS both refering the charges to DMP, the only conclussion that anyone can make about the chain of command is that they took this matter very seriously and did everything they could to bring this WO to trial.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Allgunzblazing (26 Oct 2012)

FJAG, 

Thanks for your post. I was waiting to hear your take about this incident and the subsequent proceedings. 

Cheers.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2012)

FJAG

What about the possibility that the DMP figured with the long delay due to all of the legal back and forth would likely result in a loss on appeal based on said delay?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Oct 2012)

Is the standard set now for future cases that a member of the JTF 2 can and will be charged in the future?  Would it not be able to see how the Americans and the Brits treat court cases and secret squirrels and see what if anything can be extrapolated and applied to our forces?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2012)

Thanks, FJAG, for a bit more of the rest of the story.


----------



## Thumbshark (27 Oct 2012)

If the DMP would have gone through with prosecution, apart from the secrecy issues with the identity of the members,  the defence would have requested the matter be withdrawn as the per Supreme Court Ruling:
 Askov v. R., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.

The appellants argued successfully that criminal charges against them should be stayed on the grounds that their trial had been unreasonably delayed, contrary to the Charter’s guarantee under Section 11(b) that "Any person charged with an offence has the right... to be tried within a reasonable time." Disagreeing with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Supreme Court found that the delays were indeed unreasonable and directed a stay of proceedings against the appellants. Thousands of pending criminal cases were consequently dismissed on similar grounds.


----------



## FJAG (27 Oct 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> FJAG
> 
> What about the possibility that the DMP figured with the long delay due to all of the legal back and forth would likely result in a loss on appeal based on said delay?



I wish I had more insight on this but unfortunately don't.

I don't think that delay would have been the issue.  While initial judicial response to the R v Askov rule resulted in numerous overenthusiastic dismissals by the court, the decision mellowed in time and a much more balanced approach to analysing delay developed over time. 

The unit brought charges quickly and the paperwork seemed to go through the system quite well until it came onto the desk of the CMJ. DMP took the matter to court where it was rejected once before the Court of Appeal overturned it. It seems to me that the chain of command and the prosecutors acted diligently to move this matter forward even though it took a long time.

Generally where the prosecution and court moves diligently but the matter is delayed by outside circumstances and there is no prejudice to the accused the courts do not dismiss for delay.  I'm greatly generalizing a very complex law here. While I'm not certain I would think it was something else.

I sometimes think that we're often the cause of our own problems by being so secretive about many things like what were the reasons why the prosecution came to the conclusion that there was no"reasonable likelihood of conviction"? By not publicly stating why a certain decision is made we leave the public to speculate and once they do it's only too easy to think the worst. 

Here's an example of where we kept information restricted when it ought to be made very public. 

In 1999 there was a Fatal Accidents Inquiry in Winnipeg. The inquiry concerned the 1997 death of a civilian scrap metal worker who died as a result of cutting into a live German 105mm HEAT-T round that had been cleared off the Shilo ranges. He was using hydraulic sheers to separate steel from aluminium components. You should be aware that the Shilo ranges were swept annually for scrap metal, especially inert 105mm TP-T rounds which were subsequently sold to scrap yards.

During the course of the 1999 inquiry it was determined that a similar fatality to a scrap worker had occurred in Winnipeg in 1981 when he had been doing the same type of job using a cutting torch. The subsequent BoI and FAI were advised the Germans had in the late 1970s fired 250 of these rounds and had an inordinate blind rate as a result of which they stopped firing the rounds and never fired them again at Shilo. Besides the 1 round that exploded in 1981 another 12 x 105mm HEAT-T rounds were found at the scrap yard. 105mm HEAT-T and TP-T after firing and scouring by Shilo sand and years of weathering can look virtually identical. 

By the time of the 1997 death Canadians were responsible for the final level 3 screening of scrap before it left the base.

During the course of the 1999 FA Inquiry the Canadian ammo tech witnesses involved in the level 3 screening had only anecdotal information about the 1981 incident. Most had thought the 1981 incident had involved a Canadian artillery 105mm HE round. They all denied any knowledge that German 105mm HEAT-T had ever been fired on the ranges. They had never been provided the information that came out of the 1981 incident BoI or the FAI which made it clear the rounds had been fired and had many blinds.

In effect by not disseminating the "confidential" 1981 BoI and FAI findings as to the presence of a significant number of blind 105mm HEAT-T rounds to the subsequent ammo techs responsible for the screening of scrap, the circumstances for the second incident were set in motion.

We've gotten a lot better but we still over classify and hide away too much information.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Oct 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Where things went off track were as a result of the fact that the charge sheet was marked SECRET in accordance with internal DND directives that specific info about JTF2 and its members be so classified.
> 
> Ordinarily when a charge sheet is preferred the Chief Military Judge assigns a trial judge to hear the trial. In this case the CMJ refused to assign a judge on the grounds that the charge sheet was marked SECRET and because trials are to be "open to the public" and he considered the security classification to be contrary to that. Under then existing provisions of the NDA a trial judge could close proceedings to the public or protect secret information but could not do so before a trial judge is assigned. This is nothing more or less than a systemic "Catch 22".



Interesting.  If the "Charge Sheet" was "over classified" as SECRET, then why did someone not think to go back to the "ORIGINATOR" and have them lower the CLASSIFICATION?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2012)

For a thread about a legal issue, there was a lot of crap about passive-aggresiveness and the physics of a chokehold.  Let's keep this one on topic.


----------



## FJAG (27 Oct 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.  If the "Charge Sheet" was "over classified" as SECRET, then why did someone not think to go back to the "ORIGINATOR" and have them lower the CLASSIFICATION?



The explanation given by the DMP prosecutor in his affidavit for the Federal Court was as follows: DMP was the originator and had set the security classification because it was mandated by both National Defence Security Instruction 27 and DCDS 05/1993 _Security and Public Affairs Policy JTF2_. In the end, the FCA agreed with DMP that the MCJ should have accepted the charge sheet as classified. 

DMP and MCJ did try to work the matter out but couldn't come to a solution. We have two highly ranked senior legal officers here who do know how the system works. I can only presume that downgrading the security classification was either not possible or desirable and the CMJ was hung up in the Catch 22 situation. 

You should note that at the time there was already legislation drafted which would have created a mechanism to resolve the issue but it was not yet before the legislature (Those things frequently take years to get on parliament's agenda). The issue wouldn't happen today.


----------



## Snakedoc (29 Oct 2012)

Thanks for your insight FJAG, that is some great information to help better understand the case and it is great to have your expertise on the forum!


----------

