Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[forgotten]

What cover up ?

Those folks i know who were wounded on peacekeeping operations were awarded their wound stripes on parade. So please tell me, what was covered up ?

It was not meant to come out that way..just wrong choice of words...my apologies..for offending people

 

[forgotten]

It was not meant to come out that way..just wrong choice of words...my apologies..for offending people

as well it was an attempt at humour that backfired..was more tongue in cheek..rather I inserted foot in mouth...

OK Update according to The Centre it looks very promising that I will get it, according to my records to get my wound stripe..finally after 31 years..so crossing my fingers also i was sent a newspaper clipping Calgary Sun September 14 in regards to a gentleman from Calgary who  helped design the new medal. he is a Korean vet who was wounded in Korea twice and rather upset that  The new Sacrifice medal is only backdated to 2001...I am amazed how bureaucrats decide who gets what..IMHO I feel all veterans deserve it..who were wounded..

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  also i was sent a newspaper clipping Calgary Sun September 14 in regards to a gentleman from Calgary who  helped design the new medal. he is a Korean vet who was wounded in Korea twice and rather upset that  The new Sacrifice medal is only backdated to 2001...

This may be the article to which you refer.

Medal irks soldiers of past conflicts

By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA Thu, September 11, 2008 UPDATED: 2008-09-11 02:20:16 MST

Canada's new medal honouring wounded post-9/11 veterans is a betrayal of soldiers from other campaigns, says a Korean War survivor.

Ex-Calgarian Richard Engel, who said he submitted designs for the Sacrifice Medal unveiled last month, insists he's not alone among older veterans in taking offence to being ineligible for the decoration.

"I don't begrudge people surviving Afghanistan but it's a slap in the face," said Engel, 78, who was wounded twice in Korea and once while training soldiers for that war in Calgary.

Engel said he worked on a design for the decoration with another veteran, submitting the drafts through Jim Abbot, Tory MP for Fairmount Hotsprings, B.C., where he now lives.

When he'd heard last month of the new decoration, though in a different design, he was initially pleased, until he learned only those eligible for service following Oct. 7, 2001.

"I was impressed with this sacrifice medal -- I thought 'finally, they've done something,'" he said.

"But it's as if we don't matter."

Veterans injured in action from past campaigns were awarded wound stripes worn on tunic sleeves, but Engel said they were never accepted by most warriors and seldom worn.

"They're awkward," he said.

The medal's design and designation was determined by the honours policy committee comprised of government bureaucrats, whose decision was ultimately approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Queen Elizabeth II, said Marie-Paul Thorn of the governor general's secretarial office.

The decoration is meant to honour soldiers of the more recent campaigns, said Thorn.

"It signalled the beginning of Canada's contribution to the campaign against terrorism in southwest Asia," she said, adding some veterans are "bound to feel betrayed."

 

[3rd Horseman]

Nothing wrong with your Wound Stripe Tess ... and it's no lesser than this Medal despite what some would think.

And for those who think it is because they are "at war", the new Medal is not just applicable to the sandbox ... even though some seem to think it is. They are quite erroneous in that respect.

"Hostile Intent" is not limited to Afghanistan.  Major Paeta Hess Von Kreudner. "Hostile intent". In a blue beret. Those that are thinking "need to be at war to get it" or "in the face of the enemy" need to read the criteria again ... because that is NOT one of the criteria.

Great points Vern! and Tess had some thoughtfull comments.
"Hostile Intent"  is the key to the disfunction of the medal......The first issue of the Wound Stripe had a "Hostile Intent" clause...thus the early wound strips were harder to get. For the guy trying for the wound strip from 31 years ago you would fall under the old version of the stripe unless the next genration of the strip over road the original one. I dont know.

3rd Horseman

 

[forgotten]

This may be the article to which you refer.

Medal irks soldiers of past conflicts

yes and thank you!!

 

[forgotten]

Great points Vern! and Tess had some thoughtfull comments.
"Hostile Intent"  is the key to the disfunction of the medal......The first issue of the Wound Stripe had a "Hostile Intent" clause...thus the early wound strips were harder to get. For the guy trying for the wound strip from 31 years ago you would fall under the old version of the stripe unless the next genration of the strip over road the original one. I don't know.

3rd Horseman

LOL..not to make light of receiving the wound stripe..ya it seems to change all the time..and according to someone else..they did not have the woundstripe..back in the 70's and i wasn't even aware at the time that such a thing existed..In my warped and weird way of thinking..it was just part of the job getting wounded..but I did suck back copious amounts of beer at the time from my other people i was with..

 

[3rd Horseman]

Forgtten

  Wait for it we all forgot what we were to get....as we have not even touched the surface of the POW medal! In Yugo we had POWs so not only is the WIA stripe confusing so is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe its the special pension that goes with the POW medal is why they still drag on that issue.

3rd Horseman

 

[Greymatters]

I thought the difficulty was recognizing that action as a 'war'?

 

[armyvern]

I thought the difficulty was recognizing that action as a 'war'?

Interestingly, this shouldn't be an issue.

International Law, (formed from the Hague Law, The Geneva Conventions etc) defines "war" as "Armed Conflict", ergo the name applicable is:

The Law of Armed Conflict (note that it does not say "war").

"Conflict" is then broken down into 5 main categories:

1. States of Emergency
2. Other Internal Conflicts
3. Civil Wars
4. Internationalized Armed Conflicts
5. International Armed Conflict

(Seems to me that the Balkans fits within that spectrum).

GENEVA CONVENTION (III) RELATIVE TO THE
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR – 1949

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well
as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such
armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging
to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias
or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements,
fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for
his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with
the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining
Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft
crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour
units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces,
provided that they have received authorization, from the armed
forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that
purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of
the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to
the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under
any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular
armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws
and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under
the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of
the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary
by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside
the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have
made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which
they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to
comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in
the present Article, who have been received by neutral or nonbelligerent
Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any
more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give
and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph,
58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the
Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power
concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where
such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom
these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the
functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention,
without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally
exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage
and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Seems pretty clear to me that they were considered POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949 ... and were recognized as and called such such by the belligerants who held them. Apparently not so to their own government though.

3rd has a good point. How many average Canadians were/are even aware that we experienced members of the Canadian Forces being held as POWs in the Balkans in the 1990s?? Not many I wager. Typical.

 

[geo]

Interestingly, this shouldn't be an issue.
How many average Canadians were/are even aware that we experienced members of the Canadian Forces being held as POWs in the Balkans in the 1990s?? Not many I wager. Typical.

When you get down to it, our troops were held captive every time the Serbs / Croats / Bosnian Serbs stopped one of our vehicles & stuck mines Fore & Aft - preventing our troops from going anywhere. 

 

[armyvern]

When you get down to it, our troops were held captive every time the Serbs / Croats / Bosnian Serbs stopped one of our vehicles & stuck mines Fore & Aft - preventing our troops from going anywhere. 

I agree ... but there were those who were "held hostage" (and by the LoAC definition - POW) in the Police Station, and handcuffed to the pole to prevent airstrikes ... and having the Red Cross coming in to deliver mail, pick up mail, food etc etc.

These guys had their names placed on the Red Cross list ... and were treated/inspected/monitored by them. Their families were also notified by Unit CoC of their loved one's status ... I happened to be sitting with my children's babysitter when they came to notify her of her husband's "captivity". Things ... were very tense for quite a long time until he was released as you can surely imagine.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Hero worthy of medal
But strict rules keep soldier who died in Afghanistan from honour

By JOE WARMINGTON

Last Updated: 16th September 2008, 7:57am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Furl Newsvine Reddit Technorati Blinklist Feed Me Yahoo Ma.gnolia Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle rel="blank"Co.mments Tailrank Sitejot + What are these?

Ben Walsh, a retired Mountie dressed in the RCMP's scarlet tunic, and his wife, Margaret, follow the casket of their son Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh at his funeral last month in Regina. Walsh died while on patrol in an accidental shooting by a fellow soldier. On patrol in deadly Afghani stan, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Now will his country honour him with highest medal given for sacrifice?

Not so far. So count me in with those going to bat to see to it that this specific case be given a second look and that this fine Regina native be given the new Sacrifice Medal, which was announced last month by the governor general.

"The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of Oct. 7, 2001, died or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action," is the explanation on the GG's website.

So far Walsh, who earned three other Afghanistan medals, has been determined undeserving -- despite the unusual circumstances of his death.

If ever a case should be looked at for reconsideration, it's this one, because doing so could very well provide clarity as to what Canada defines as sacrifice.

In this instance it has been deemed that because he died while on patrol in a vehicle on Aug. 9, 2006, near Kandahar as a result of gunfire from a fellow Canadian soldier's weapon, he was not killed in combat and is ineligible for Canada's new Sacrifice Medal.

FAMILY UPSET

It does not sit well with Walsh's family -- specifically his 61-year-old father, Ben, a retired Mountie. "My son, and 96 other soldiers, gave their lives for Canada and in my opinion they are all deserving of the Sacrifice Medal," he said yesterday from his Regina home.

However, in a letter from Andre M. Levesque, director of honours and recognition at the department of national defence, it clearly states that "eligibility for the Sacrifice Medal, as that of the Wound Stripe which it replaces, is limited to those wounds and deaths which are the result of hostile action. As such, all accidents, diseases, natural deaths and other similar instances, even if they occur within a theatre of operations, are not eligible.

"Based on the information we have on file regarding your son, it appears that his tragic death was caused by the accidental discharge of a weapon by one of his colleagues and was not related to enemy action. This new medal, like its predecessor the Wound Stripe and many other similar foreign decorations such as the American Purple Heart, is solely intended to recognize those who die or are wounded in combat."

The big question is did what happened to Walsh, who turned 33 the day before, occur in combat? Or was he subsequently killed in a friendly fire incident?

Either way, according to Marie Paule Thorn at the governor general's residence Rideau Hall, he would be eligible.

STRICT RULES

However, the rules say friendly fire must occur in an incident in which the enemy is firing upon the Canadian soldiers.

It has been determined Walsh was not in clear-cut combat and was killed during an unfortunate accident that occurred while carrying out a patrol.

No matter which way you look at it, he was struck under the armpit from an accidental firing of a rifle and died in theatre.

Fellow soldier Robbie Fraser is facing charges of manslaughter.

The thing is the whole environment there is combat. It's never a quiet drive on a country road and soldiers are always in harm's way.

It's always hostile.

"With these rules it would mean there are 13 soldiers who would not be eligible," Ben Walsh said.

Specifically, with his son's case, there is enough grey area to bestow him this medal.

Please consider if Walsh had been killed by a roadside bomb on that same patrol, he certainly would have been eligible.

So being killed while looking for a roadside bomb, or a Taliban fighter trying to set one during that patrol, should not be any different.

The fact he was shot accidently just magnifies the kind of stress and tension these soldiers were under. It's all part of the same mission. There is not any one kind of sacrifice that should trump another -- and no sacrifice is any more or less worthy.

In this situation there has to be careful consideration since clearly the rifle's safety mechanism was not on and reports indicated there was a finger on the trigger.

These were not Canadian roads. It has to be looked at on the merits of doing patrols in a place where almost 100 Canadians have died.

For example, Jeff Walsh was not killed by an accidental discharge by someone cleaning his gun in a tent on base. That could be looked at differently.

These are not the facts here and this is one of those times where the letter of the law does not always work. There must be exceptions to every rule.

Some 1,200 agree and have signed an online petition, posted by Kitchener's Dan Gray, who feels to overlook Walsh here cheapens his sacrifice. He wants him to be awarded the Sacrifice Medal posthumously and if you agree, you can express that on petitiononline.com/EHDASM/petition.html.

Ben Walsh said, "When you lose your son like that, you lose part of yourself. It's not the medal I am fighting for. It's the point of the thing."

He believes if you die serving your country in a war theatre, in any fashion, you should get that Sacrifice Medal. "And I am hoping her excellency, the governor general, will change this error," he said. "I believe the prime minister can change it too with one phone call."

They certainly should take a second look at his son's unique circumstances since no matter how you slice it, in war-torn Afghanistan, a Canadian father of three did make the ultimate sacrifice.

Copyright © 2008 Toronto Sun All Rights Reserved


A little media coverage.

I have unlocked this, please let us keep this civil.

dileas

tess

 

[coffee4ourtroops]

This was also on Global News in Regina, SASK last night.  You can see the interview with his father here:

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/regina/index.html

 

[armyvern]

So, now we're going to widen the debate to include the definition of combat?

That just opened a whole 'nother big cans of very ugly worms with that other new "initiative" coming slowly down the pipe ...

The Combat Action Badge; not that anyone here never saw the controversy with that one coming either ... (which combat is actual "gold", "silver" or "bronze" level combat ... and ... aren't they all - by virtue of being there actually "in" combat?? That seems to be the way the arguements now leaning with the Sacrifice Medal.)

Eerily, although I really do "feel" for this family ... I don't see the word "combat" in the criteria either. I see "Hostile Intent".

 

[brihard]

So, now we're going to widen the debate to include the definition of combat?

That just opened a whole 'nother big cans of very ugly worms with that other new "initiative" coming slowly down the pipe ...

The Combat Action Badge; not that anyone here never saw the controversy with that one coming either ... (which combat is actual "gold", "silver" or "bronze" level combat ... and ... aren't they all - by virtue of being there actually "in" combat?? That seems to be the way the arguements now leaning with the Sacrifice Medal.)

Eerily, although I really do "feel" for this family ... I don't see the word "combat" in the criteria either. I see "Hostile Intent".

Oh god... I'd ask you to tell me you're joking about this badge, Vern, but I somehow doubt that you are. It sounds just like the kind of brilliant idea that would come out of Disney-On-The-Rideau... Got any links about this, or is it still RUMINT?

 

[Fusaki]

Ben Walsh, a retired Mountie dressed in the RCMP's scarlet tunic, and his wife, Margaret, follow the casket of their son Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh at his funeral last month in Regina. Walsh died while on patrol in an accidental shooting by a fellow soldier. On patrol in deadly Afghani stan, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

Was MCPL Walsh not killed inside KAF? I was of the understanding that a C6 was not properly cleared off the range, causing it to discharge as it was loaded in the back of a G-Wagon.

Not that I think it matters. An ND is NOT friendly fire and therefore NOT hostile action. I can see how it would look that way to civillians like Joe Warmington, but from a military perspective we all know that friendly fire and NDs are not even close to the same thing.

 

[armyvern]

Oh god... I'd ask you to tell me you're joking about this badge, Vern, but I somehow doubt that you are. It sounds just like the kind of brilliant idea that would come out of Disney-On-The-Rideau... Got any links about this, or is it still RUMINT?

(Former) Mod Post!!

DO A SEARCH!!

Dammit.



(Gawd ... that felt good!)  ;D

 

[brihard]

(Former) Mod Post!!

DO A SEARCH!!

Dammit.



(Gawd ... that felt good!)  ;D

LOL, I'd heard of this before on this site- I just thought you might have been referring to something new, that's all. I was just hoping that after the time it's been since I last heard of this abortion of an idea that perhaps no news was good news...

 

[armyvern]

Was MCPL Walsh not killed inside KAF? I was of the understanding that a C6 was not properly cleared off the range, causing it to discharge as it was loaded in the back of a G-Wagon.

Not that I think it matters. An ND is NOT friendly fire and therefore NOT hostile action. I can see how it would look that way to civillians like Joe Warmington, but from a military perspective we all know that friendly fire and NDs are not even close to the same thing.

No. He was killed outside while doing a patrol.

See this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58709.0.html

I Believe that you are thinking of Cpl Kevin Megeney's which was also caused by an ND, but which occured within the confines of KAF in his tent.

 

[geo]

Ayup - I hear ya & know where you're coming from.

Am just happy that we didn't lose anyone under such conditions.