JTF2 & AFG (merged)

[vonGarvin]

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.

The victim in the shooting, 52-year-old Si Cheng, of Toronto, was shot in the back at the Main Street Library in Toronto's east end.

Police said the accused and the victim knew each other and it was not a random attack.

The library was filled with afternoon patrons at the time of the attack, many of whom witnessed a man calmly enter the building and fire a crossbow.

"There were a number of people inside and a number of people have been taken to various police stations to be questioned," Const. Tony Vella said late Thursday.

A short time after the incident Fang was arrested near Phenix Drive and Hollis Avenue, which is southeast of Danforth Avenue and Birchmount Road. That location is about three kilometres east of the crime scene.

There were reports that the shooter may have used pepper spray before firing the crossbow.

Paramedics pronounced the victim dead at the scene.

The man's body was removed from the library on a stretcher overnight. The arrow was still protruding from his body, which was covered with a sheet.

The cause of death will not be known until later Friday, or Saturday, Vella said.

Crossbows are not subject to the same restrictions as guns and can typically be purchased without the license or certificates required for firearms. On its website the RCMP said only crossbows that are less than 50 centimetres in length and can be fired with one hand, are prohibited.

Area resident Linus Smith said that as she sat in a restaurant across the street, she watched a man leave the library with something in his hand, get into a U-Haul van and drive off.

"He came out of the library, he was calm, he went into the U-Haul and he drove off," she said. "He didn't speed off or anything, he just drove."

Vella said it was the first time he had been involved in a homicide investigation involving a crossbow.

"You hear about shootings with guns or knives involved, but definitely a crossbow is a unique situation," Vella said.

Toronto Public Library said the Main Street branch will remain closed on Friday. Support and counselling will be provided to staff and patrons affected by the gruesome incident.

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.

Police were called to the library near Main Street and Gerrard Street East in the city's east end just after 4 p.m.

Si was pronounced dead at the scene.

Witnesses said that they saw a man approach the victim, who was sitting on a bench in the library, and pepper-spray him. He was then shot, either in the face or the back, witnesses said.

Police officers saw a man run north on Main Street after the shooting. He jumped into a U-Haul rental truck and drove off. Police tracked the truck and arrested the driver.

Police believe the victim was targeted, although they are still trying to determine the motive.

"It was not a random attack," said police spokesman Const. Tony Vella.

It's believed to be the first time a crossbow has been used in a homicide in Toronto.

Zhou appeared in Ontario Court of Justice at College Park on Friday morning and was remanded in custody until Dec. 8.

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]

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]

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.

The soldier told the ombudsman's office "that although he reported what he witnessed to his chain of command, he does not believe they are investigating, and are being 'very nice to him,' " according to the documents, which CBC News obtained through access to information.

As such, the soldier alleged, the chain of command helped create an atmosphere that tolerated war crimes.

The ombudsman's documents state the soldier was subsequently directed to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, CFNIS, which in turn launched its own investigation.

The CFNIS told the ombudsman the investigation was "now their No. 1 priority."
News tips

If you have more information on this story, or other story idea, please contact investigations@cbc.ca.

The member alleged that a fellow JTF2 member was involved in the 2006 shooting death of an Afghan who had his hands up in the act of surrender. That CFNIS probe ended without any charges.

The soldier who raised those allegations also claimed that in January 2008, his team was sent to conduct a mission alongside an American special operations team. He said he witnessed the U.S. forces kill a man who was wounded and unarmed.

The documents make clear that the soldier didn't believe the military was taking his allegations seriously and that he had lost faith in the forces' leadership.

He told the ombudsman's office in one of many telephone conversations he felt "more and more of his peers are being encouraged to commit war crimes by the chain of command … which they may be held accountable for one day as superiors walk away."

The soldier said he wasn't coming forward to have "the guys who pull the trigger" investigated, who he said were "being incited to do those things" by their superiors.

"This is done by promoting those who do, and not promoting those who don't," the ombudsman's office staffer handling the file wrote in the document.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/18/military-jtf2-probe.html?ref=rss#ixzz1BRgCyseC

More at link.

 

[The Bread Guy]

<hair splitting on media word choice rant>

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]

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:
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:versus this: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: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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

From CBC News December 01, 2010 (Video)
Canada's Secret Special Forces JTF2 Acussed Of Murder Cover Up

 

[Journeyman]

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]

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]

....and it is what was presented on the News.

Yes, in December.

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.

Phase one of the investigation focused on allegations that a CF member committed criminal acts between 2005 and 2006; namely, two allegations of negligence, one allegation of assault, and one allegation of murder. There was no evidence found to support these allegations; moreover, the investigation determined that the CF member acted within the Rules of Engagement in all instances.  Therefore, phase one was closed in October of 2009. 

Phase two of the investigation focused on whether CF members failed to properly report serious criminal offences allegedly committed by individuals from other nations in 2007 and 2008. The investigation found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by any members of the Canadian Forces. Information collected during the course of the investigation pertaining to non-CF members was brought to the attention of the appropriate foreign investigative authorities.

“The CFNIS has devoted considerable time and human resources to these investigations,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Delaney, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS.  “Project Sand Trap was a highly complex undertaking and the investigators collected and analyzed a large amount of information in order to determine the facts in this case. In the end, those facts did not support any criminal charges against any CF members.” ....

CF Info-Machine, 15 Dec 11

 

[Snakedoc]

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]

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.

So to recap:
-The MCpl was likely no where near death.
-The MCpl does not appear to have lost consciousness.
-A choke/strangle was not held for 45 seconds. Pressure to the neck perhaps, but not a choke.

Perhaps the CF didn't want to admit that a member of the ski team didn't know how to properly apply a rear naked choke, and therefore covered it up in court? Or maybe they figured he didn't strike a member, no one lost consciousness, no damage was done, and therefore there's no charge, or such a light one that it'd be a waste of everyone's time? Who knows. I just know that this article cannot be completely accurate.

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]

:goodpost:

 

[Allgunzblazing]

FJAG,

Thanks for your post. I was waiting to hear your take about this incident and the subsequent proceedings.

Cheers.

 

[cupper]

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]

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]

Thanks, FJAG, for a bit more of the rest of the story.