# More on The PPCLI snipers From Ombudsman



## ark (29 Sep 2004)

> Military ombudsman investigating ill treatment of snipers
> 
> By TERRY PEDWELL
> 
> ...




http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/29/648743-cp.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Sep 2004)

First I've heard of it.  I know one of them has since been told he's going back to a rifle company (couple years later) but that is normal career progression.  He was neither treated any better or worse from what I have seen and heard.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Sep 2004)

Is that the same guy that was sent home early for threatening a padre?   I'm always ssuspiciouswhen parents get involved.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2004)

By their peers or by their chain of command?

I can't phathom any reason why their peers would treat them like that.

On top of that, what could really be done about it? Could the "offenders" be dinged with "creating a hostile or poisonous work enviroment"?


----------



## pappy (30 Sep 2004)

sad when any member of any armed forces gets treated like crap.  

But in general through out history Snipers have always gotten the bum-rap, unrightly so in my opinion.  
Seems some feel they are not "fighting fair". 
Some Officers, not all of course, are worse since Officers and Senior NCO's are one of the snipers main target, maybe they take it personally even if subconsionsly.






"Only Amateurs shoot from towers"


----------



## scm77 (30 Sep 2004)

Snipers say U.S. ties angered comrades

Military probe claims they were deemed traitors
Hailed as heroes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan

BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWAâ â€Hailed as heroes for their crack shots in the mountains of Afghanistan, a group of decorated Canadian snipers were considered traitors by their fellow soldiers for the simple reason they worked alongside American troops.

That's the troubling allegation behind a new probe under way by the Canadian military.

André Marin, the Canadian Forces ombudsman, has been given the task of finding out why the snipers were treated so poorly by their colleagues.

In an unprecedented request, Gen. Ray Henault, chief of defence staff, has asked Marin to probe the treatment that is blamed with forcing a few of the snipers from the military.

"It's the first referral we've received by the chief of defence staff," Marin said yesterday.

"The chief of defence staff is concerned about the nature of the complaints that he's heard and he wants an independent investigation to get to the bottom of it," Marin told the Star.

"These are very serious allegations," Marin said.

For the countless American soldiers whose lives were saved by sharp eyes and crack shots of the snipers, the Canadians were seen as heroes.

But other Canadian soldiers resented their close affiliation with the American troops and made no secret of it when the snipers returned to their base in Afghanistan and then home to Canada, a source told the Star.

The ombudsman said the abilities or the heroism of the snipers is not being questioned.

"They did a fabulous job over there. Everyone recognizes that they were heroes," Marin said.

The snipers, members of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, 3rd Battalion, were sent to Afghanistan in late February 2002 as part of the first deployment of Canadian Forces in that country after a U.S.-led coalition launched its war against terrorism.

More than 20 kills were unofficially accredited to the snipers during Operation Anaconda in Shah-i-Kot Valley.

Five of the snipers were nominated for one of the highest awards given by the United States military â â€ the Bronze Star, two of them with Vs for Valour, marking exceptional bravery. But in what was a signal of the troubles they were encountering, awarding of the American medal was delayed by Canadian protocol officials.

News of the investigation was bittersweet for the father of one sniper, who suggests his son, now on medical leave, was denied the assistance he needed after the mission ended.

"It's dangerous work and as far as I'm concerned they need to be treated properly.

"They need counselling, they need all sorts of things," said the father, who asked not to be identified.

Asked if his son was denied those services because others resented his close work with the Americans, he responded, "I think that's a fair statement."

"I know how my son was treated in Afghanistan and upon his return to Edmonton. It wasn't appropriate," he said.

Maj. Rita LePage said the forces conducted its own internal investigation into the snipers' complaints but wanted an independent probe to ensure nothing was overlooked.

Marin said he's been given "carte blanche" for the investigation and hopes to report on his findings in a few months.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1096495811749&call_pageid=970599119419&tacodalogin=no
----------------------------------------


----------



## axeman (30 Sep 2004)

no it wasnt the sniper who had allagations raised against him by a padre that were later proven to be lacking .


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Sep 2004)

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2005)

I'll join this to the existing thread when I can find the darn thing, :-[

Army brass stonewalling sniper probe, Marin says
Document access being blocked, watchdog claims

Canadian soldiers shunned after tour of Afghanistan


BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWAâ â€Top army brass are deliberately trying to stonewall an investigation into reports that Canadian snipers who served in Afghanistan were treated harshly, charges the military ombudsman.

"The army is not prepared to allow an independent assessment of what took place," André Marin said yesterday in an interview. 

"It's a step back for accountability."

Gen. Ray Henault, the chief of defence staff, asked Marin last September to investigate complaints that snipers, who served with U.S. forces for part of their time in Afghanistan, were treated poorly by the forces and their comrades once they returned to Canada.

Hailed as heroes for their crack shots, the Canadians were considered traitors by their fellow soldiers for the simple reason they worked alongside American troops. 

Marin complains he's had little help from the army in getting the "crucial" documents needed to conduct the investigation.

He said the department, citing privacy concerns, has blocked access to the transcripts of key witnesses who appeared before the military's internal probe into the case. 

Of the 31 transcripts, Marin said so far he's received eight, some "highly edited."

Marin said the army has turned down his request to see the war diaries, the day-to-day account of the regiment.

"What commanders do for the Canadian Forces in exercising their command authority out in the field is by no stretch of the imagination personal information and rightly open to scrutiny," he said.

Capt. Greg Poehlmann said the army was committed to helping Marin's probe and said 10 more transcripts would be on their way to the ombudsman's office next week.

"From an army point of view, there is no problem. Whatever misunderstanding ... has been addressed and they're moving forward," he said yesterday.

Military documents obtained by the Toronto Star under access to information legislation suggest there were problems in the sniper unit, including:

An allegation the sniper squad was involved in the desecration of dead bodies. 

Pictures were found showing a body with a "F--- Terrorism" sign on his chest, a cigarette in the mouth and a missing index finger. A military investigation confirmed the indignities but there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone.

At no time were the snipers given stress counselling when they returned to camp. 

"An American padre gave the snipers a ... briefing after hearing that they had not yet received one," says one document.

That same document says it was evident that the "sniper cell became dysfunctional at times."

Lt.-Col. Pat Stogran, commander of the Afghan operation, told some battalion members they were going on a "suicide mission" and talked about how many soldiers, "including himself, would be casualties" â â€ tough talk that had some members fearing for their lives.

Two out of five snipers who deployed to Afghanistan were getting medical help after their time in action.

It was after the reports of indignities to the bodies that the "chain of command took a renewed interest in the welfare of the sniper section," Stogran writes in his own memo.

Stogran, who could not be reached for comment, said he met with the snipers "to alleviate some of their anxieties.

"It was a failed attempt at a stress debriefing due to the lack of participation of the snipers."

The snipers, members of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, 3rd Battalion, were sent to Afghanistan in February 2002 after a U.S.-led coalition launched its war against terrorism.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Jan 2005)

disgusting treatment through and through.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Jan 2005)

I have heard the allegations, but if they were true these gents would have been brought to by now, would you think... They were also awarded the Bronze Star for actions in support of US Ops. 

Can someone from that regt family shed some light on why this may become scandalous?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2005)

I know Mark C did in another thread but I can't find it.[ the thread kind of veered  I think]...........looking


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jan 2005)

No, but maybe I'm mistaken about who it was, I read through Mark C's posts but couldn't find it. Oh well.
Thanks


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Jan 2005)

This comes as a surprise as I was in Afghanistan with 3VP and the snipers were held in high regard by all of us there. That being said on return there was the usual slagging to all of us that we thought we were "war heroes". But that was just troops riding each other like we always do.
I don't know what it is like in the battalions since then as I was posted right after tour. If it is true they are being treated as such by WHOEVER then I think somebody should hang for their actions! :threat:


----------



## KevinB (15 Jan 2005)

There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye...

MarkC and others are privy to certain issues in great detail - but these will not be made public until the RCMP/NIS inquire is done - and likely never from them.

Suficient to say the few (3) who where "mistreated" where treated in acoradance to Canadian Law when certain allegations/information comes to light.

Period.


----------



## DFW2T (15 Jan 2005)

Kevin B,
   Your retort is scandulous and insinuating........bring it out or or sum up!


----------



## Armymedic (15 Jan 2005)

DFW2T said:
			
		

> Kevin B,
> Your retort is scandulous and insinuating........bring it out or or sum up!



He brought out what he knew and no more, now wait for it....



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> MarkC and others are privy to certain issues in great detail - but these will not be made public until the RCMP/NIS inquire is done - and likely never from them.
> 
> Period.


----------



## DFW2T (15 Jan 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> He brought out what he knew and no more, now wait for it....


   I will wait!.... But I gotta say as a veteran of many tours (like yourself..I read your profile blah..blah...blah) I was with the "Borne" when they disbanded!  I'm in Baghdad as I print this  (as a civi security contractor)..and I was in Kabul when the said "Snipe DET" supposedly (as insinuated..."DONE WRONG" for the lack of a better term). We all know the CAR was disbanded to save face for the LIBERAL GOVERNMENT(even though we did alot more good, than Matchee did wrong.) ( Hey 10 years later...does it still seem like that it was a good move?????) Comments like that...without substantiation feed that fire for those that look for your demise.
    So if you'e on the team SAY IT!  If your one of   "them"   you are loud and clear....OUT!


----------



## KevinB (15 Jan 2005)

Rob that you?

 I all know is second hand from buddies that I know - some of them where in the Sniper cell during Apollo.  Don't get me wrong I think a lot of BS goes on in the CF in the name of saving face.

 MarkC was the OC of Cbt Spt during Apollo as such he is privy to a lot of info that the rest of us have only heard in rumour or innuendo.  Since he has no posted - and he is a great advocate for the troops - I would suggest that we all wait take a deep breath and see where it goes.


----------



## Bartok5 (15 Jan 2005)

KevinB,

Exactly - a deep breath is required here.   Although I personally feel that the allegations of mistreatment are unfounded, it is not for me to say.   Let the Ombudsman's team perform their duly-constituted   function.   I suspect that the results will speak for themselves.   

DFW2T,

Unless you were there and know the skit, I would ask you to refrain from publicly assuming that some sort of bureaucratic or institutional "cover-up" is the driving force behind the sniper allegations of having been "maligned".   Your past service is sincerely appreciated, but your current presumptions are not.  To state that what KevinB said was "scandalous and insinuating" is completely uncalled for and (moreover) incorrect.  Check your baseline assumptions....

And that is all that I am going to say until the investigation is complete.   We have the ultimate "advocate" now independantly examinining the allegations.   If that doesn't satisify the "conspiracy theorists" then nothing will.   Let the investigation run its course. and then perhaps we can discuss the specifics.   Until then, everything is pre-conceived heresay and conjecture.   Quite frankly, I have zero time for either.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jan 2005)

DFW2T said:
			
		

> Kevin B,
> Your retort is scandulous insinuating........bring it out or or sum up!



I don't see anything scandalous there, and he's not levelling any accusations at you personally, is he?


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2005)

Dont worry DFW and I talked via PM - we are coming from the same side.
 Just some lines got crossed.


----------



## DFW2T (16 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I don't see anything scandalous there, and he's not levelling any accusations at you personally, is he?


  Well all I can say to you ...and no offense to any navy types. (this retort is to whiskey and whiskey alone)..is that if you go into battle ( or an RV...[ask your PO]) that your BROTHERS-IN-ARMS will be there.  No matter what   (No matter if he or she Isa bank robber,  thief whatever!  The guys in your section...the company covering you flank...IS GOING TO BE THERE! so it doesn't (the accusation was not levelled at me, but my brethren )  Until the charges are laid and the punishment is donned...they are the guys WATCHING YOUR 6!
  God help the troops that need NAVY assistance, especially when you have a predetermined agenda! 
   5 years in the military and you got it all figured  out    eh?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2005)

Since we've had the matter settled by those who are "in-the-loop", all I can see coming out of this is a flame war.  I'm sure if something new or groundbreaking comes out, a new thread will suffice.

Infanteer Out.


----------

