Navy probes employee's ties to Ottawa murder victim

[GAP]

Navy probes employee's ties to Ottawa murder victim
Article Link
CTVNews.ca Staff Tue. Nov. 8 2011 8:20 AM ET

Canada's navy has launched an investigation into the personal relationship between one of its civilian employees and an Ottawa murder victim with ties to organized crime.

CTV Ottawa reported Monday night that Joey Medaglia has for two years served as the administrative assistant to Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy.

It has now come to light that Medaglia was a close friend of Graham Thomas, a convicted Ottawa drug dealer with links to the Hells Angels and organized crime groups in Montreal.

While the navy has not made any allegations against Medaglia, it is moving ahead with an investigation into his friendship with Thomas.

"Immediately after being made aware of a possible association between Mr. Joey Medaglia and Mr. Graham Thomas, the commander Royal Canadian Navy, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison . . . asked that the situation be investigated," a spokesperson said in a statement.

Liberal Sen. Colin Kenny said the work that Medaglia did for the navy gave him regular access to classified information, which is why the organization is obliged to learn more about his ties to Thomas.

"My understanding is he saw virtually everything coming into the admiral's office and leaving it," Kenny told CTV Ottawa.

"Having said that, we have no reason to believe that he misused it."
More on link

 

[vonGarvin]

From our charter of rights and freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

I just thought of this given this little snippet:

Liberal Sen. Colin Kenny said the work that Medaglia did for the navy gave him regular access to classified information, which is why the organization is obliged to learn more about his ties to Thomas.

"My understanding is he saw virtually everything coming into the admiral's office and leaving it," Kenny told CTV Ottawa.

"Having said that, we have no reason to believe that he misused it."

EDIT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATION
I'm fairly confident that Mr Medaglia passed a security check prior to being hired, or at least employed in such position.  So, his background has already been checked, including references, etc.  So, why probe his ties now when there is "...no reason to believe that he misused (his position)"?

 

[GAP]

I agree completely. Just because you know someone does not make you complicit in their activities.

 

[yoman]

I agree completely. Just because you know someone does not make you complicit in their activities.

However, if you knowingly associate with someone that participates in shady activities wouldn't an accidental disclosure of controlled information be more likely? If I was the person granting security clearance's I would probably take that into consideration.

 

[McG]

I'm fairly confident that Mr Medaglia passed a security check prior to being hired, or at least employed in such position.  So, his background has already been checked, including references, etc.  So, why probe his ties now ...

The passed security check would have been based on no ties to organized crime having been identified. 
Information to the contrary becomes available = situation changed -> re-do assessment.

 

[vonGarvin]

But then there's that statement "no reason to believe...", and that pesky little freedom in the charter. 

 

[yoman]

But then there's that statement "no reason to believe...", and that pesky little freedom in the charter.

Your free to associate with whom ever you want to. However, there might be consequences to that association.

 

[aesop081]

From our charter of rights and freedoms:

So ?

I'm fairly confident that Mr Medaglia passed a security check prior to being hired, or at least employed in such position. 

Having passed a security check is not a lifetime blank check.

 

[McG]

... and that pesky little freedom in the charter. 

So, you believe we should allow security clearances to pers with known connections to organized crime?

 

[vonGarvin]

So, you believe we should allow security clearances to pers with known connections to organized crime?

No; however, if they are good friends with someone who happens to have been convicted of a crime, and they freely admit that, and there are no other reasons, then yes.  I'd like to point out that the person in question has no connections to organised crime, but his friend does. 


And everyone has freedom of association.  Don't like it?  Too bad.

 

[vonGarvin]

Having passed a security check is not a lifetime blank check.

Agreed.  They only last so long; however, Mr. Wassisface has done nothing to make people think that he's passing secrets.  And as far as I know, he may have listed this convicted person as a friend during his security check, he may have grown up with him, etc.  I just hate the notion that "If you know or associate socially with person 'x', then you must be culpable of that which 'x' is", when the charter specifically states that we are free to associate with whomever we choose.


We ought to be judged on our actions, not on our friends' actions.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No; however, if they are good friends with someone who happens to have been convicted of a crime, and they freely admit that, and there are no other reasons, then yes.  I'd like to point out that the person in question has no connections to organised crime, but his friend does. 


And everyone has freedom of association.  Don't like it?  Too bad.

The problem is that one's right (and I agree it is a right) to freedom of association may collide with one's duty and the restrictions that duty brings with it.

An admin assistant at that level almost certainly opens and logs the paper mail, some of which might deal with matters of policy and operations - security at seaports, for example, might be the subject of a formal letter between the Chief of Naval Staff and Canada Customs. The contents of that letter might be of great interest to the Hell's Angels, the gang with which the dead man was reported to be affiliated. The civil servant in question was more than just an acquaintance: he was godfather to the dead man's child according to the media reports I read/heard/saw. The Department is acting appropriately and the civil servant's rights are not being breached - he still has a job, just not the one he had last week.

 

[McG]

And everyone has freedom of association.  Don't like it?  Too bad.

Yet, association with organized crime can (and does) result in security check fails and clearances being denied.
Why should chronology of the government discovering the association be a factor in a person holding a security clearance?  If the association is learned up front, deeper investigation is done before a clearance is authorized.  If the association is learned after the fact, due diligence should have us going back to review that clearance and do the deeper digging that would have been done.

 

[aesop081]

They only last so long;

It is not a question of expiry dates. You are always open to scrutiny when holding clearances, not just initialy or at update time.

In this case, iformation has come to light which warrants looking into.

 

[OldSolduer]

It is not a question of expiry dates. You are always open to scrutiny when holding clearances, not just initialy or at update time.

In this case, information has come to light which warrants looking into.

Yes - you have the freedom to associate with who you want, but be prepared to pay the price if your associates are called into question..... This is a particularly sensitive case as the person in question holds a particularly important position.

The gang in question is certainly capable of "turning" law abiding individuals into unwilling partners in crime through bribery, extortion, threats of safety etc. I've seen it done to  pretty good people.

This case bears looking into.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So were security checks questioned and redone on all our government people, from high ranking liberals to everyday clerks, that associated with the Adscam criminals?

Oh wait, that's in house white collar crime. How silly of me :facepalm:

 

[Good2Golf]

It is not a question of expiry dates. You are always open to scrutiny when holding clearances, not just initialy or at update time.

In this case, iformation has come to light which warrants looking into.

:nod:
Concur.

Kenney should not have said there is no reason to suspect...and just because he did say that does not mean there shouldn't be some investigative activity pursued on the issue.


Regards
G2G

 

[aesop081]

So were security checks questioned and redone on all our government people, from high ranking liberals to everyday clerks, that associated with the Adscam criminals?

Oh wait, that's in house white collar crime. How silly of me :facepalm:

So, because it wasn't done then, it shouldn't be done now ?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, because it wasn't done then, it shouldn't be done now ?

That's not what I said.

It's just that they seem to be very selective when they do these sorts of things.

BTW, there is still ample time to revette those people I mentioned. The majority of the case is not that old and I'm sure there is still some cleanup investigation ongoing. So why not them also?

 

[vonGarvin]

Yet, association with organized crime can (and does) result in security check fails and clearances being denied.

*sigh*
He was associated with another person, not with organised crime.  That other person was balls deep in organised crime, I get it. 


Just forget everything I said and let's just scratch that little annoying line from the Charter.  Because if he didn't do anything (eg: if there is no suspicion of him passing along secrets, etc), then why are they doing anything?

I mean, for fucks sakes, I have had a former subordinate who was charged with drug crimes.  When I saw him in the mall, I made a point of going up to him and seeing how he was doing.  In the end, he wasn't convicted, but it pisses me off to no end when people treat others like the plague in such situations.

Now, I'm guessing here, but since one was god father to the other's child, I can only assume that these two have known each other for a very long time.  And I'm going to assume further that during the conduct of his original security check, this association was known.  And so, from my assumptions (which may be 100% out to lunch, I get that), it is "situation: no change".  This is just my opinion, that's all. 

And if I were Supreme Allied Commander of NDHQ, I would simply ask CSIS (or whoever) "did you know about this when you did his check?"  And if the answer were "yes".  I'd say, "Good enough.  Now, in other business....." But reference my assumption above, I'm going to assume that the answer would be "yes".  And if the answer were "no", then have a look at his actions, because the issue wouldn't be that he knew this guy, but that he failed to admit it when asked.  (If that's the case).  Since none of us know the background, I think we all ought to STFU on this.


(Editted for grammar)