Afstan: Canadian snipers snubbed
At least the US gave them the Bronze Star. Follow the discussion at Army.ca.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 4:07 p.m.
Monday, May 15, 2006
The Torch is a group weblog focusing on the Canadian military.
Contributors:
- Damian - Babbling Brooks
- Mark from Ottawa
- Paul Synnott - BBS
- The Monarchist
- The Phantom Observer
- Tony - Milnews.ca
Damian's Afghanistan Posts
- Welcome to the two-way range
- The winning percentage
- Tac Hel
- Compatriots
- On the boardwalk
- Patrol, pt.1 - headed to Double K
- Patrol, pt.2 - Dand District Centre
- Corrections: thankless and rewarding
- Canada/Afghanistan (and me)
- A little goes a long way
- Photo Album
The opinions expressed in each blog post at The Torch are those of the specific post's contributor, and should not be attributed to any other group, organization or individual with which any of the contributors is affiliated, including each other. Neither do others' comments to these posts represent the contributors' opinions. Furthermore, any links provided to other websites are for information purposes only, and don't imply any endorsement on the part of the contributors.
This website is not endorsed by the Department of National Defence, the Government of Canada, or any other group or organization.
LCol John McCrae
Maps
Afghanistan pol/topo
Afghanistan ethnolinguistic
SW Asia ethnolinguistic
Afghanistan ISAF RC & PRT
Kandahar districts
Previous Posts
- The big, important question - *yawn*
- Do the right thing
- Afstan: Poll shows strong support for Canadian mis...
- One last trip
- One simple answer in a sea of complicated questions
- Darfur: What can and should Canada do?
- Maritime surveillance: What the expanded NORAD wil...
- Canadian PRT's at work in Afghanistan
- Afstan: NY Times admits it got it wrong about Canada
- If the helmet fits...If the magic works
14 Comments:
Hopefuly that should teach em not to cut off fingers for soveniers, very frowned upon by the general public, and probably the reason for the poor treatment by their commanders.
Blanks57, unless you have proof that they did that, you need to back off with the accusations. As far as I know, none of the Canadian snipers was ever charged with, let alone convicted of mutilating a body.
Did blanks57 read the article?
Just once before I'm an old old man, I would like to read a story about CF soldiers going off and doing their jobs and then being properly supported and honoured for their work when they are done.
Instead I read things like Ghosts of Medak Pocket and this etc etc etc and I want to scream.
Damian ...
The fact that they were not charged indicates that sufficient evidence was not found for a conviction, not that the investigation was unwarranted.
And the 129 charge for swearing at the chaplain is similarly not unwarranted. Chaplains are officers; master corporals do not swear at officers in my army.
The article doesn't strike me as particularly balanced.
"The fact that they were not charged indicates that sufficient evidence was not found for a conviction, not that the investigation was unwarranted."
Which, in the eyes of the law, means they are innocent.
End of story.
Yes, Cameron, it means in a narrow legal sense that they are innocent.
It does not mean that they are innocent in fact. So no, it is not the end of the story; it's a legitimate line of inquiry.
Bear in mind that the magazine story is hardly balanced, as several comments at army.ca point out. The story is slanted to make victims of the soldiers, while omitting important facts, such as the basis of the charge involving the chaplain, in which the facts are not in dispute despite the charge being withdrawn.
A gentle reminder that this line of discussion was prompted by an unsupportable accusation that Canadian soldiers mutilated a corpse. Unless blanks57 has evidence the soldiers actually did this, he shouldn't bandy the charge about.
The chaplain issue is completely separate.
babbling, exactly so.
There are two separate issues, the chaplin incident, which everyone seems to agree happened and the mutilation.
There appears to be no basis in fact to support the charge of mutilation, based on what we've been told, so in the end we're all guessing.
I'd agree that there isn't cause to assert that this actually happened, as blanks did. But there is a big difference between the accusation being disproven, and the facts not being established.
The facts of how an officer was hospitalized following the course party on my QL6a course were never established; that does not mean that the incident did not occur. It also does not mean that all of the people questioned in connection with the incident were being truthful when they claimed to have no knowledge of the incident.
Point being, if you want to assert that this never happened in fact, you have to look at where the accusation came from, not whether the investigation found anything.
Finally, if the 129 charge involving the chaplain has nothing to do with anything, well, it's odd that Maclean's included it in the article as further evidence that these guys were being persecuted, isn't it?
Sorry, you can't have that one both ways.
Oddly enough I don't work for Maclean's and am unable to speak to their actions...
No, Cameron, but you were happy to jump on their train, weren't you?
wonderdog, would up be so kind as to show me where I went on and on about the Chaplain related charge?
Because I didn't. Why Maclean's included it is not something I can speak to.
If Blanks could squeeze in here, I completly bandy about and then ask why are these fellows being treated this way,I didn't just fall off the turnip truck kids.Their superiors wouldn't be treating them this way if their wasn't a reason. Military are subject to public opinion because their bosses are elected by the public who are very unforgiving when it comes to any kind of mistreatment of prisoners or desicrating.
That's not say they did any such thing, but my brilliant hypothesis as too the question which is obvious. Why are they being treated this way ?
Post a Comment
<< Home