- Reaction score
- 1,528
- Points
- 1,160
I believe the government has refused any legal assistance.
VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
- Thread starter brihard
- Start date
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Old Sweat said:
Well, speculate no more, Old Sweat. We don't live in a communist or ex-communist country ;D. The police, RCMP or not, cannot just come into someone's house and cart them away in irons unless they already have an arrest warrant or are doing so while catching them in the actual act of committing a crime. They can't just do it because they "suspect" someone or are investigating the person. To do that, they would have to have had the actual charge already laid. OK, I'm exaggerating: if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the person has committed the criminal act, they can carry out the arrest - but in this last case, they'd better be ready to argue, right away and in front of court that they already have enough evidence to warrant the matter be sent to trial - otherwise they are in big big big trouble. No such evidence here.
Why would the government require any legal assistance ???Rifleman62 said:
- Reaction score
- 2,280
- Points
- 1,160
The government has refused to help pay for his legal representation, something I gather that they have done in certain cases before. And he has retained a very good lawyer.
This man has Charter rights, he has civil rights and a right to due process. Just because he put the bag on XX years ago, does not mean he surrendered those rights.
This man has Charter rights, he has civil rights and a right to due process. Just because he put the bag on XX years ago, does not mean he surrendered those rights.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The point I was trying to make is that if the police had information that he had broken the law, they could have obtained a warrant. Perhaps the CDS was able to offer an option to save a little bit of face for the VCDS, although showing mercy is not considered the LPC's strong suit.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
MARS: I was joking! I know he has been refused access to the public servant legal protection program.
Old Sweat: Again here: if they had the evidence required to obtain an arrest warrant, it means they would have been in position to charge him right away with an offence. You don't get arrest warrants just so you can investigate a matter. Further investigation is possible after a charge is laid, but you cannot arrest someone unless you are in position to charge them with a specific crime, and to a level that will withstand the court's scrutiny when you bring them before the court for release awaiting trial.
it's those pesky little rights we have in Canada of being presumed innocent and of habeas Corpus.
Old Sweat: Again here: if they had the evidence required to obtain an arrest warrant, it means they would have been in position to charge him right away with an offence. You don't get arrest warrants just so you can investigate a matter. Further investigation is possible after a charge is laid, but you cannot arrest someone unless you are in position to charge them with a specific crime, and to a level that will withstand the court's scrutiny when you bring them before the court for release awaiting trial.
it's those pesky little rights we have in Canada of being presumed innocent and of habeas Corpus.
- Reaction score
- 6,749
- Points
- 1,360
Rifleman62 said:
And just piss away the years they spent building up a pension for a symbolic stand that would be forgotten by the next sound bite? Would you ask every Cpl. to do that?
They're not like Ministers who " resign" but then just go back sitting as a well paid flopper in the House again.
- Reaction score
- 28,662
- Points
- 1,090
What were the CDS' options? "Certainly, the second most important officer in the CAF is accused of improperly sharing information, but we can just overlook that, right?"
While the UK embraced that approach with Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt, it was perhaps not as successful as one might have liked. And with Canada's other recent imbroglio involving a naval officer, official secrets, and embracing too much the kindergarten exhortation of sharing everything you have, Gen Vance had few (if any) other options.
(The bureaucratic declaration that "We think you're guilty, so we won't pay a sous in lawyer's fees", on the other hand, is ripe for overturning. I suspect counsel for the RAdm is looking forward to that being argued in court... and, after all, it's all additional billable hours.)
While the UK embraced that approach with Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt, it was perhaps not as successful as one might have liked. And with Canada's other recent imbroglio involving a naval officer, official secrets, and embracing too much the kindergarten exhortation of sharing everything you have, Gen Vance had few (if any) other options.
(The bureaucratic declaration that "We think you're guilty, so we won't pay a sous in lawyer's fees", on the other hand, is ripe for overturning. I suspect counsel for the RAdm is looking forward to that being argued in court... and, after all, it's all additional billable hours.)
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,955
- Points
- 1,260
Whenever/if the truth ever sees the light of day it will be well worth the read.
To others asking why other senior officers and CWOs aren’t voting with their feet on this subject one has to look no further than at the term “institutional leadership” that has permeated more and more briefs I have been subjected too. That catch phrase should sum this up nicely.
To others asking why other senior officers and CWOs aren’t voting with their feet on this subject one has to look no further than at the term “institutional leadership” that has permeated more and more briefs I have been subjected too. That catch phrase should sum this up nicely.
- Reaction score
- 4,379
- Points
- 1,260
Rifleman62 said:
Hmm.
Those would be the same senior officers and CWOs who navigated us through the turbulent CPC waters of over-promising on defence, and then slow rolling the entire process through a complicit Public Service to ensure that CAF would turn back enough money to balance the budget, each and every year? The same ones who learned from that lesson and hence crafted a Defence Policy that is output based, requires the funding to meet it, and will be difficult for government of any stripe to walk away from?
Are those the people you mean?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Far from me to enter the discussion on if/and/when/why General officers should resign in protest, but I must take exception to this statement of PPCLI Guy:
The most recent Defence policy is not output based, except for the lowest priority - UN operations - and even then is so unclear as to not make it possible to know if the XXX people here and YYY people there are from the land/air or sea or support trades, or whatever.
Similarly, while it costed out the main purchases it wishes to make in the next electoral cycles (none during THIS cycle), it creates no mechanism whatsoever that would "require" this funding or guarantees it in any way form or shape. I am not even sure such mechanism is possible in a Westminster democracy.
Finally, any government of any stripe, including even this one, could walk away from this Defence Policy tomorrow morning without incurring any backlash whatsoever, just has as been done with the last five such Policies. There is nothing anyone can do about it: the government spends and crafts each annual budget whichever way it wants and there is no political lobby or will in Canada to stand for anything on defence and hold governments accountable for breaking their own defence policies.
PPCLI Guy said:
The most recent Defence policy is not output based, except for the lowest priority - UN operations - and even then is so unclear as to not make it possible to know if the XXX people here and YYY people there are from the land/air or sea or support trades, or whatever.
Similarly, while it costed out the main purchases it wishes to make in the next electoral cycles (none during THIS cycle), it creates no mechanism whatsoever that would "require" this funding or guarantees it in any way form or shape. I am not even sure such mechanism is possible in a Westminster democracy.
Finally, any government of any stripe, including even this one, could walk away from this Defence Policy tomorrow morning without incurring any backlash whatsoever, just has as been done with the last five such Policies. There is nothing anyone can do about it: the government spends and crafts each annual budget whichever way it wants and there is no political lobby or will in Canada to stand for anything on defence and hold governments accountable for breaking their own defence policies.
- Reaction score
- 4,379
- Points
- 1,260
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I'm not sure we read the same document. Specifically, pg 81 lists the 10 (or 12, depending on how you slice it) missions that the CAF must be able to conduct concurrently and includes specific statements of size. We have never had that before, and it is perhaps the key element of SSE.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
We are straying from the actual topic, but, to be sure, this is the list you are talking about:
CONCURRENT OPERATIONS
At any given time, the Government of Canada can call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to undertake missions for the protection of Canada and Canadians and the maintenance of international peace and stability. It will often call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to deploy on multiple operations at the same time. This policy ensures the Canadian Armed Forces will be prepared to simultaneously:
• defend Canada, including responding concurrently to multiple domestic emergencies in support of civilian authorities;
• meet its NORAD obligations, with new capacity in some areas;
• meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; and
• contribute to international peace and stability through:
o two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel in two different theatres of operation, including one as a lead nation;
o one time-limited deployment of
~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
o two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
o two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
o one Disaster Assistance Response
Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
o one Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.
Well, I am sorry to say that, the first three items (defence of Canada, NORAD and NATO) are the most important ones in order of importance and have absolutely no specific statements of size, and they have all been stated in past policies, almost exactly in the same terms. Even better, the NATO commitment is, in my estimation, a cope out when compared to past commitments: It commits the CAF only to obligations under Article 5, which is the one that applies AFTER an attack on any one of the members and has no specifics to its obligation - other than by then, we are all at war. For reference, I am including the text of Article five at the bottom.
As I said before, the contribution to International peace and stability is the only one with specific numbers but not description that would permit understanding what they refer to [for instance, are the two sustained deployments of between 100-500 pers covered by the fact that the Navy maintains one frigate deployed with the permanent NATO group and another one in the Gulf on anti-piracy ops? We don't know.], and it should be the lowest priority of all since good basic defence policy is to take care of oneself first, then assist others. But even then, since they are supposedly to be simultaneous, just this lowest priority require enough personnel to have DART, an Evacuation of Civilian force (of what size, we don't know, nor how many evacuees) and anywhere between 1900 (all the lowest figures) and 6500 (all the highest figure) members out somewhere, while still having enough people to, all at the same time, (1) defend Canada, (2) deal with multiple domestic emergencies, (3) fulfill all our NORAD obligations, plus some non described new ones and (5) fulfill our NATO obligations under article 5 [meaning we are at war and act accordingly to support our allies being attacked].
You say this is all specifically addressed for size in there? I didn't see it anywhere.
North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
CONCURRENT OPERATIONS
At any given time, the Government of Canada can call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to undertake missions for the protection of Canada and Canadians and the maintenance of international peace and stability. It will often call upon the Canadian Armed Forces to deploy on multiple operations at the same time. This policy ensures the Canadian Armed Forces will be prepared to simultaneously:
• defend Canada, including responding concurrently to multiple domestic emergencies in support of civilian authorities;
• meet its NORAD obligations, with new capacity in some areas;
• meet commitments to NATO Allies under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; and
• contribute to international peace and stability through:
o two sustained deployments of ~500-1500 personnel in two different theatres of operation, including one as a lead nation;
o one time-limited deployment of
~500-1500 personnel (6-9 months duration);
o two sustained deployments of ~100-500 personnel;
o two time-limited deployments (6-9 months) of ~100-500 personnel;
o one Disaster Assistance Response
Team (DART) deployment, with scaleable additional support; and
o one Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation, with scaleable additional support.
Well, I am sorry to say that, the first three items (defence of Canada, NORAD and NATO) are the most important ones in order of importance and have absolutely no specific statements of size, and they have all been stated in past policies, almost exactly in the same terms. Even better, the NATO commitment is, in my estimation, a cope out when compared to past commitments: It commits the CAF only to obligations under Article 5, which is the one that applies AFTER an attack on any one of the members and has no specifics to its obligation - other than by then, we are all at war. For reference, I am including the text of Article five at the bottom.
As I said before, the contribution to International peace and stability is the only one with specific numbers but not description that would permit understanding what they refer to [for instance, are the two sustained deployments of between 100-500 pers covered by the fact that the Navy maintains one frigate deployed with the permanent NATO group and another one in the Gulf on anti-piracy ops? We don't know.], and it should be the lowest priority of all since good basic defence policy is to take care of oneself first, then assist others. But even then, since they are supposedly to be simultaneous, just this lowest priority require enough personnel to have DART, an Evacuation of Civilian force (of what size, we don't know, nor how many evacuees) and anywhere between 1900 (all the lowest figures) and 6500 (all the highest figure) members out somewhere, while still having enough people to, all at the same time, (1) defend Canada, (2) deal with multiple domestic emergencies, (3) fulfill all our NORAD obligations, plus some non described new ones and (5) fulfill our NATO obligations under article 5 [meaning we are at war and act accordingly to support our allies being attacked].
You say this is all specifically addressed for size in there? I didn't see it anywhere.
North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
The fundamental reality now is that no defence policy statements mean anything to the politicians in our governments if they find that they are not affordable (or carry real fatality risks) compared to other things that they think might help with their election or re-election. Defence spending gets few votes other than in selected ridings and certainly is not a serious election winner.
Sad, cynical, realistic and Canadian am I.
Mark
Ottawa
Sad, cynical, realistic and Canadian am I.
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 1,774
- Points
- 1,060
Rifleman62 said:
- Reaction score
- 28,662
- Points
- 1,090
Again:
What is the appropriate CDS response when the RCMP inform him that his second in command may be leaking cabinet confidences to third parties?
What is the appropriate CDS response when the RCMP inform him that his second in command may be leaking cabinet confidences to third parties?
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 530
How would that have "forced" the RCMP to do anything? The RCMP could care less whether he is sitting at home with full pay and benefits, or if he is at the office working to earn them.FSTO said:
Don't confuse an administrative process with a criminal one.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Doesn't seem like there's much process happening in either direction.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,085
- Points
- 1,210
So where is the evidence that the admiral would be subjected to admin action? Did he get an IC? RW? Anything? Are the MP’s involved? Where is the paperwork?garb811 said:
The Proud Boys action was more egregious than Adm Norman and it was handled administratively in lightening speed compared to this event.
Similar threads
- Article
