Penticton Reservist (?): "It's time to end Afghanistan war"

[Drag]

I know of a case where a mbr got charged for spouting out at Speakers Corner on CityTV in Toronto in uniform...  So I don't see any problem at all with throwing the book at this particular individual.

 

[OldSolduer]

So where will all this take us? Will the national media (CBC/CTV etc) pick this up and run with it?

I'm hoping (I don't like that word "Hoping") that the NDHQ PAFFO types have a counter to this. Its not likely that the rabid anti military types will beleve it, but mainstream Canadians have more sense than that.
As for "Cpl" Demetrick...this man is not fit to wear the uniform. He has publicly lied and deserves to be released ASP.

 

[dapaterson]

I know of a case where a mbr got charged for spouting out at Speakers Corner on CityTV in Toronto in uniform...  So I don't see any problem at all with throwing the book at this particular individual.

Two diffferent cases.  As you stated, Cpl Bloggins on Speakers Corner was "in uniform", one of the terms under the NDA where he was subject to the CSD.  We've got nothing reported to date that indicates that any of the conditions under article 60 of the NDA were met - meaning he may not have been subject to the CSD.

It would be a refreshing change if people read the regulations and legislation before spouting off, but then again, this is the internet...

 

[Greymatters]

Two diffferent cases.  As you stated, Cpl Bloggins on Speakers Corner was "in uniform", one of the terms under the NDA where he was subject to the CSD.  We've got nothing reported to date that indicates that any of the conditions under article 60 of the NDA were met - meaning he may not have been subject to the CSD.

I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldnt have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...

 

[Danjanou]

Ok so where do we stand on this as of now?

Hopefully measures have begun to look into any official response that can be take against Cpl Demetrick (and despite any opinions or wishes to the contrary the man is at least for now a Cpl and therefore entitled to that honourific), for his actions. Whether he can be dealt with under the NDA/Code of Service Discipline or not is matter for those with expertise in those matters.

One would presume that our PAFFOs are looking into a measured and accurate reply to his wild and untrue allegations and one hopes that the truth will reach the MSM and the Canadian public and that in the doing so, he will not be turned into another martyr by the misguided and misinformed anti war coalitions. As suggested a possible campaign by former and retired service members such as myself and others here either as individuals and/or through Regimental Associations or the RCL etc may help this cause.

Finally as to our feelings towards Cpl Demetrick for this perceived breach of a sacred trust.

We who wear or have worn the uniform are unique brotherhood( sisterhood). We join it the minute we put on the uniform and swear the oath offering to stand on that proverbial wall and protect those that require it. Some of us make the supreme sacrifice in carrying out that duty, others are fortunate enough to serve without hearing a shot fired in anger. It matters not the fact is we are willing to serve while many in our society are not. We leave this hallowed group only when the sods land on our coffin lid, if then. In between we stand with each other through anything, good and bad, with a bond stronger than most blood ties.

I think the general consensus hear is that by his actions Corporal Paul Demetrick has disgraced us all and most especially our fallen comrades and their sacrifices in a noble cause. To that end irregardless of any legal or other ramifications of his actions, from now on he is no longer one of us. A fact that may mean nothing to him now and may never, but to us it will.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I saw that too, but it's the headline to people will relate to.

Now that you mention it, I notice the word "vet" is in quotation marks in the title - it's obvious the author of the Canada Free Press (appears to be) the first outside writer to refer to this chap as a veteran.  Perhaps part of the start of the message track saying, "here's someone who's 'been there' saying it's wrong"?  ('Been there" being taken in the BROADEST sense of the term, since he hasn't literally been there).

 

[CountDC]

Do we really want Scott Taylor's opinion? NO!!!!

With you on that - another short timer that was popular with his fellow soldiers according to the ones I talked to.

 

[OldSolduer]

We don't need Scott Taylor's "opinion", which is very biased. Nor Sunil Ram's either.
Maybe General McKenzie should weigh in on this one.

 

[Neill McKay]

I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldnt have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...

But, again, the Code of Service Discipline only applies to reservists under certain circumstances which are listed in Reply #77 in this thread.  Using one's rank or identifying one's self as a CF member is not, in itself, enough to make one subject to the CSD at that time.  As others have said, there are measures that can be taken against this member but a successful charge under the CSD does not appear to be one of them.

 

[Huzzah]

Well, THAT certainly didn't take long - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Afghanistan: 'Vet' Claims Canada Using White Phosphorus as Weapon
C. L. Cook, Pacific Free Press, 9 Oct 08
Article link (.pdf attached in case link doesn't work or disappears)

In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star newspaper, Corporal Paul Demetrick, a man claiming to be a Canadian veteran in the reserves, charged Canadian Forces with using White Phosphorus munitions as a weapon against "enemy-occupied" vineyards in Afghanistan.

Whiskey Pete, as it's colloquially known in the U.S. military, has such a gruesome impact on human physiology, (some of those horrors famously recorded during and after the second Battle of Falluja in 2005) its use is "restricted" to "illumination" and providing "smokescreen" cover for troops.

In Falluja, the U.S. military finally admitted it had deployed White Phoshorus into the city with predictable effect to the population there. 

The American military initially denied W.P. had been used, but following the release of graphic images captured by an Italian documentary crew, among others, the U.S. admitted bombing the city with burn agent.

American freelancer, Dahr Jamail produced some of the bravest English language reportage from Iraq, and was too in Falluja during the terrible siege. Pictures that made it past the American cordon revealed sacks of clothing laying in the streets, melted remnant bodies, oozing liquid and fat.

Doctors who had served during the long war with Iran said they recognized the casualties coming in, and those in the streets as  having suffered the chemical burns consistent with a phosphorus attack. It was another of the litany of disgrace America wears now as a mantle.

Canada is not generally thought of as a rogue state, practicing war crimes around the world, but if Corporal Demetrick is correct, and Canada has, and/or still is using White Phosphorus as a weapon, it too crosses the threshold leading to the new century's Nuremberg ....

I guess it's just me,but I don't really have a problem with WP being used to weed out/expose
an enemy who is trying to kill you.

I would also believe 0% of what Demetrick says Canadians did,or didn't do.

 

[OldSolduer]

Let's stop all the nitpicking about legalities etc. All very nice, BUT let's talk about the SPIRIT of what he did.
HE BROKE A TRUST. Plain and simple. That cannot nor should not be tolerated. I, for one, will at my next parade night, inform the troops that they are entitled to their opinions, BUT they should keep their mouths shut and if I hear of one of them spouting off crap, they will have to deal with me.

 

[2 Cdo]

I don't think Bob will have a leg to stand on. This "Cpl" (an insult to that fine rank) stepped outside the boundaries, pure and simple. Members of the CF cannot comment one way or the other on a matter of government policy.
We had a young fellow step outside the boundaries when the Airborne was disbanded, and he was charged and fined.
The same rule should apply.

I remember that young fellow, didn't he speak up on some political call-in show? I also knew his father, who had spent more than a few years in the Airborne Regiment, and he thought that his son should have done jail time for his transgression!
As for Penticton reservist. Do us all a favour and seek your release from the CF, as you truly don't have a clue what it is to be a soldier. :

 

[dapaterson]

I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldn't have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...

Sigh.

Yes, he signed off with rank and component.  But there have been other letters to the editor signed off by folks using name and rank - including Regular Force personnel subject to the CSD - what actions were taken against them?  Some spoke outside their lanes, but there was no repercussion - I could see Cpl D's lawyer pulling out a stack of press clippings and asking "What's different here?  Why are military members allowed to break the rules when their message supports the CDS / Gov't of Canada / etc?"

In addition, nowhere in the NDA does it state "If you claim to be in the military, you are subject to the CSD."  Read article 60.  If none of those conditions are satisfied, an individual is not subject to the CSD.  Full Stop.  Regardless of how we may feel, the law is the law.

There are three sets of issues here:  the legal framework, the administrative framework and the moral framework.  Since it appears the military legal framework as expressed in the Code of Service Discipline lacks jurisdiction in this matter, this will fall into the administrative framework.  And despite our disgust on the moral plane with what has transpired, the military is inhabited by professionals, who will follow rules and regulations, and ensure fair treatment in whatever processes are followed.

 

[OldSolduer]

With all due respect, this person broke a sacred trust. He does not belong in our Army.

 

[dapaterson]

Old Solduer:

We're differing about the process here, not about the end state.

 

[George Wallace]

I think that the Code of Service Discipline should be applied to this case.  Yes, he signed one letter as being a Cpl in the Canadian Army Reserves; but he also wrote several letters to the same newspaper using just his name, in which some of his comments came very close to subversion.  He has sent a chain of letters to the Press, in which one identifies him as a member of the CF.  I

If the man can not be Charged under the NDA, there is still the option of "Universality of Service".  This is usually applied to those in the CF who can not meet the PT Standards, but can also be applied to a wide variety of other points, such as use of non prescription or illegal drugs, certain Legal restrictions, etc.  If this 'person' is no longer a supporter of the ideals and mission of the CF, then he can not reasonably be expected to fulfill his "Universality of Service" and should be Released Dishonourably, if nothing else.

But that will be for the Legal Eagles to decide.  :-\

 

[Danjanou]

Ok I think this one is becoming an emotional as well as hot topic now judging by both page hits and responses. I’ve stepped away had a coffee and now although having already engaged am going to put my mod hat on.

Lets all be careful of what we post here least we accidentally interfere or prejudice with any investigations or procedures now being conducted by the relevant authorities re this situation. Let the system work as it’s supposed to fairly and impartially.

Think, step back, and breath before hitting the post button. If needed use PM to someone else to get it out of your system. I’ve had a couple this morning from more than one person, and have no problems getting more. I've vented via thos means myself too.

I do not want to be the person who has to come in here and remove posts and dish out warning and I doubt any other mod wants to either. We’re not at that stage yet but the potential is there so lets not go there.

Now having said that I’ll take the mod hat for one brief second for the following.

Cpl Demetrick, your actions noted here appear to have been seen by your brethren as a betrayal of a trust. I’m sure someone has pointed this thread out to you by now. Therefore as a fellow soldier (albeit no longer a serving one) on behalf of all of us I invite you to respond by these means with an explanation of your actions. We are willing to listen.

For the rest of you, should he respond, he gets a chance to explain the whys and wherefores of his actions. There will be no dog pile on him. We and what we stand for are supposed to be above that.

 

[CountDC]

reading through the thread I could not help but notice what I see as a chilling trend. The topic drifted from was this a legal matter to the vigilante action of the troops should take care of him with violence. It also changed from the fact that the info he presented was incorrect to that he should not have said anything period and that in fact all members of the military (at least those that do not support the war) should keep their opinions to themself.  The reality is that he did not do anything illegal so that is not an issue.  Part of the reason we all serve is to defend freedom of speach - including our own thus I do not see any problem with a member of the military not supporting the war saying so.  The only problem I see with his letter is that the information it contains is wrong and people will perceive it as correct because he is identified as a member of the military. If you are going to communicate with the press and identify yourself as military then the onus is on you to make sure the info is correct. As a member that did not serve in Afghanistan and has no real knowledge of our activities there then he should not have stated what he did.

Although I personnally support the Afghan Mission I have talked to members that do not and have no problem with that. They continue to serve professionaly, do their jobs and even in one case completed a tour. They simply have their own point of  view, such is life.

Action the military should take?  RSM should talk to the member and inform him to make sure his info is correct instead of spouting garbage. Members of the unit that have served in Afghanistan should take an evening, sit in the mess with him and tell him the reality of what goes on.  May accomplish nothing but at least a real professional attempt was made to present the truth to him.

Troops action should be restricted to professional conduct with him.  Treat him as rank requires, ignore him when there is no requirement to interact, stick to the book in all dealings with him (no special favours there), bottom of pile for extra employment, etc. Violence is not required. Eventually a person isolated will leave on their own accord.

Some people here have to face reality - not everyone in the military supports the Afghan Mission. This does not make them a bad person nor should it be a sole reason for them to leave.  Who here has agreed with every government and military policy that has come out? Let's go with disbanding of Airborne - I disagreed with it based on the info I had but according to some people I should not state this as it goes against what the government has done or I should get out. Of course this is a popular opinion so I never get flak for expressing it.

so -  the only thing the Cpl did wrong was he presented incorrect info as facts on a subject he does not have any real first hand knowledge about in such a manner that some people in the general public will perceive as actual truth from an internal source.

OldSolduer - I missed it somewhere - what sacred trust did he break?

 

[OldSolduer]

There is a bond between soldiers and society that we must never break, and that is our duty to do what we are told, when we are told providing its legal. Cpl Demetrick has broken that by lieing to the press and acting as an agent for our enemy, perhaps unwittingly.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Me thinks this guy is getting more attention than he deserves...