Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Code apply to the CF?

[Michael Dorosh]

Ok, boys...this is where I stand on the matter:

I agree with the comments that combat_medic has made. You can never know the outcome, until the outcome unfolds before you. I've taken some philosophy in my days...and my general stance lies with a philosopher who believes that you can never really know anything. You may have good reason to believe something is so, but you can never truly "know," until the action/event unfolds.

Now imagine what detectives and policemen go through...they're forced to rely on knowledge and educated guesses in hopes to acheive positive consequences. Pressure.

As far as Military exclusion from the Charter/Human Rights Code...I stand my ground. In taking into consideration all that has been said, along with some of my own research into the area, I've been able to draw the following:

Considering we reside in a reasonably peaceful nation, and are seldomnly called upon in times of war/peace-keeping, I see no reason for full exclusion, or even partial exclusion for that matter, while Canadian soldiers/citizens are free of the atrocities brought about by war. However, in times of war, I believe that it is not possible for the military to abide by the Charter in full. Therefore, I think a decree should be passed by the legislative body, including and excluding the military from specific rights, freedoms and outlaws that are seen/not seen fit with the Canadian Military in times where drastic measures are likely to be taken.

As it stands, I don't see the Charter as interfering with the rights and freedoms of Canadian soldiers...and exluding the military institution from rights and freedoms granted to every Canadian citizen, when it's clearly unnecessary (i.e. when the Canadian military is in no position where they would have to apply force to maintain peace and sovereignty) would upset the equilibrium in our society. In times of war...I agree with a lot of the comments made: it is clear that military conduct comes into direct conflict with the Charter, and ammendments need to be made to the Charter when the situation calls for it. And who's to determine that? I think we may have just found our next topic of discussion...

seldom called upon?   We've had soldiers operating continuously in Yugoslavia since the 1990s, in Afghanistan since 2001/2002, and before that had troops continuously in Cyprus since the mid 1970s.   Not to mention the UNDOF and MFO missions (and many others).   Granted, there has been scarcely little "war fighting" but there were operational deployments in the face of either an armed enemy, or as a buffer between two similarly armed opponents.   There has been Oka and the FLQ here at home.

Legislation is not necessary, all we need is for QR&Os and CFAOs to take precedence over the Charter.   Is this not currently the case?

As Infanteer keeps saying (and he is correct) - train as hard as you would fight.  You can't have two sets of rules for man management, one for "good times" and another for "bad times".

As a soldier, you agree to have some of your freedoms stripped from you, for the greater good of the Army as a whole.

Kim Beattie wrote in DILEAS, his history of the 48th Highlanders in World War Two, that the greatest sacrifice the soldiers made was surrendering to constant invasions of their personal privacy.  We also beat the best trained, most highly motivated and most successful army in the history of the world on a consistent basis, and we didn't do it to secure oil supplies, we did it to stop mass genocide.  Had we maintained that kind of army and will in peacetime, perhaps the 6 million would have been a few million fewer.

 

[combat_medic]

Missmolsonindy: To draw another comparison for you, take this example. You show up at your current job with you hair down, or, as a guy, you show up having not shaven that morning (a little stubble, but nothing really unkempt). In virtually any other job, no one would even notice or care. In the military, you would be charged. There are sets of rules we are required to adhere to, in peacetime just as well as at war. To make a set of regulations for the military, they must be in force all the time. If your troops aren't used to regulations and discipline and then suddently a war breaks out when all sorts of new regulations come into place, you aren't going to be prepared.

Despite Canada not having declared a war against anyone for a long time, we are all still training for it. Train for war, pray for peace. All the war-fighting skills are still taught in courses, and we prepare ourselves for a potential war. Peacekeeping and war-fighting are not as vastly different as many people would lead you to believe, and there are a lot of skills that are valuable to both, with an obvious change in levels of force, and rules of engagement.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Just to be clear re: shooting the protestor etc.
A soldier disciplined in any manner for using force of  any kind would not, repeat not, be deprived of advancing a Charter based defence based on section 7 [i.e.the LLSP provision- life in peril or imminent peril, no choice but to make a life or death situation decision, and you can bet all extenuating circumstances will come into play, i.e ROE's etc.]  Murder is a full fault offence, a heavy onus requires that the Crown would still have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of the offence, mens and actus , for this type of charge. Convictions of this sort are rare in Canada, the most recent one that comes to mind is the case of Acting-Seargent Kenneth Dean of the OPP at Ipperwash. And, in my opinion, the conviction of the police officer was a travesty of justice. Incidentally, the circumstances of that case were closely analogous to the situation outlined by Spr. Earl.


As far as QR&O's   etc. go, they do not take precedence of over the Charter, but where they are inconsistent with the Charter, the regs   may be saved in very limited and extremely rare circumstances. That would depend on a competent and compelling argument put forth on the part of the Crown .... not likely to happen given their current propensity concede arguments and then go off strange tangents.        

 

[muskrat89]

Dang - interesting (and long) thread. Unfortunately, I'm not as eloquent as some of you, but my feeling is this:

(And Infanteer alluded to this fact, earlier) - Soldiers are asked to do things that NO other element of society is asked to do - it is unfair and impractical to try and hold them to them to the same standards, as the rest of society.

On the flip side, I think, generally, they also self-govern themselves better than most segments of society..

I think it is sad that so many, in the general population, are armchair experts, in regards to their rights. It's too bad that they weren't so knowledgeable, in their responsibilities...

 

[George Wallace]

So Bruce, if someone levels a plastic gun that is identical to a real handgun at a police officer, the officer is criminally liable for murder even if the person levels a toy gun at the officer just for the purpose of "making a point"?

Not really.  I have a collection of DeWadded wpns in our Regt'l collection.  They were once valuable artifacts, now they are junk; unless someone were to take one and use it in the commissioning of a crime.  Then they are legally considered weapons again. 

GW

 

[Brad Sallows]

I would not like to see any body of regulations supercede the Charter.

I am confident there are already laws on the books in the QR&O, Criminal Code, etc that might be found unconstitutional if challenged.  Wait for a challenge.  If a regulation is deemed important enough to retain, no Charter amendment is necessary; the notwithstanding clause may be used.  If government agrees with the challenge, it is within the power of government to accept the outcome and to assume whatever risk follows.

 

[clasper]

There have been a few scenarios put forth, but I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why military members should be exempted from some or all of the Charter as a matter of course.

First, the argument of "added responsibility".  This is absolutely true, soldiers do have more obligations than civilians (including keeping there hair short, being clean shaven, going into possible life threatening situations, etc.)  This is what the QR&O's are for, and since they are publicly available, Pte. Bloggins knows (or should know) what rights he's giving up and what his new obligations are when he signs on the dotted line (which he does voluntarily).

Secondly, the deployment in Oka.  The Surete de Quebec were trying to enforce a legally obtained warrant, and were fired on for their trouble.  The government subsequently deployed the military to act against some of its own citizens (which requires an act of Parliament, IIRC).  So did the military violate the Charter rights of the protesters?  I don't think so- the deployment went according to the law of the land.  Whether having a golf course built on your ancestors graves constitutes a Charter violation is a whole other argument which doesn't really apply to the military discussion at hand.

Thirdly, the protester holding the flaming bottle.  If the situation is happening in a foreign land, then there will be ROE's agreed upon by the UN, NATO, or whatever other authority we're deployed under.  The ROE's will be in line with what the international community is trying to accomplish in said foreign territory, and as long as the soldier acts according to the ROE's, I don't see how a protester can claim that his basic human rights were violated by the soldier.  He might argue that his basic human rights were violated by a foreign government invading his territory, but this dispute is way above the pay grade of the individual soldier.

If the protest was taking place on Canadian soil, and was beyond the ability of the RCMP (or other police service) to take care of it, then the military could be called in.  This would involved the declaration of martial law (again, an act of Parliament) and many Charter rights would be suspended for all citizens for the duration.  If the government doesn't have the time to write specific ROE's for this scenario, I'm sure some planners have prepared some and filed them somewhere.

Fourthly, the observation that some of our allies have rolled back some rights by banning women from the combat arms.  I don't think this is necessary, and here's why.  I work in an industry (the oilfield) that is physically demanding, politically conservative, and male-dominated.  Over the years I've met probably about a thousand rig workers, including one female roughneck (which is the dirtiest, most basic, and most physically demanding job in the industry).  She was tough as nails, and no one gave her a harder time than anyone else because she could do the job.  How does the industry get away with this 99.9% gender imbalance?  Simple- it comes down to who can do the job.  I don't know how many women out there can do the job of the infantry, but I know the number is larger than zero.  As Infanteer mentioned earlier, the Charter doesn't demand that half of our soldiers are women, nor do we want it to.  But not excluding them is reasonable, I think.

To sum up, yes Charter rights do get suspended from time to time for certain individuals, and we already have processes in place for this.  So why should we exempt military personnel from some or all of the Charter as a matter of course?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

seldom called upon?   We've had soldiers operating continuously in Yugoslavia since the 1990s, in Afghanistan since 2001/2002, and before that had troops continuously in Cyprus since the mid 1970s.   Not to mention the UNDOF and MFO missions (and many others).   Granted, there has been scarcely little "war fighting" but there were operational deployments in the face of either an armed enemy, or as a buffer between two similarly armed opponents.   There has been Oka and the FLQ here at home.

In comparison to other nations in the globe? Yes, seldom called upon. Canada is by no means a nation that exerts superior military force, nor has it been throughout history. Realistically, the Canadian Military, although well-trained and knowledgable, is underfunded, outdated and ridiculed. If war were ever waged on Canadian grounds, the capacity of our military strength would contain the enemy temporarily, and eventually collapse. My intentions are not to drive a stake through the heart of the Canadian Military, but to offer you a perspective that many civilians share. The majority of you hold a rank within the Canadian Military, so naturally bias is ingrained within your responses, much like it is in my own. I have genuine respect for the Canadian Military, and agree that government funding needs to be instated, as well as sustained. Understandably, cut-backs will have to be made...perhaps they could start with the cutting of a "bilingual standard" on all Canadian documentation.

Scenario:

War is waged on Canadian grounds, and Canada is brought into direct hot conflict. Would you...

A) Rather have agreed to cut-backs on a bilingual standard on all Canadian documentation, saving the government millions of dollars, which could then be funneled into important bodies of government, such as the Canadian Military, allowing Canada to augment her military forces and perhaps even stand on her own two feet in the face of conflict. (Yes, the people of Quebec may not have a copy of documentation translated into french, for their own archives...but I'm almost certain there are those that have come to master both languages, and could maybe even (bear with me here) translate it orally.)

Or

B) Rather have kept bilingualism as a running standard in Canada, rendering the Canadian Military stagnant politically, socially and economically. Although the Canadian political, economic and social structure would collapse as a direct result of war, at least when the citizens of Quebec came to the West Coast and rummaged through debris, they could read and understand wash, rinse and repeat cycles on shamphoo bottles.

Legislation is not necessary, all we need is for QR&Os and CFAOs to take precedence over the Charter.   Is this not currently the case?

Agreed. When the situation calls for, I think that the QR&Os and CFAOs should take precedence over the Charter. It's a sticky situation, but I suppose you're right; It seems like one of very few viable options. But you also have to understand that the "precedence" of military rules and regulations comes with its own set of problems. The Charter and the Military Code of Conduct come into direct conflict...common ground will have to be found, with neither being exlcuded in part or in full, but overlooked/conclusively "inapplicable," as seen fit with the situation.

As a soldier, you agree to have some of your freedoms stripped from you, for the greater good of the Army as a whole.

Which ones in particular? I'm not arguing you on this point, I'm just another curious mind...

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

There have been a few scenarios put forth, but I'm still waiting for a convincing argument as to why military members should be exempted from some or all of the Charter as a matter of course.

My sentiments exactly. Don't argue scenarios in favour of your stance for the sake of arguing. Many of the scenarios presented, although taken into consideration, would have difficulty finding any ground to stand on in the face of the Canadian legislative assemblies, who ultimately predominate in law-making.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

In comparison to other nations in the globe? Yes, seldom called upon. Canada is by no means a nation that exerts superior military force, nor has it been throughout history.

Never exerted superior military force in our history?   We had the 4th largest air force in the world in 1945 and the 3rd largest navy/surface fleet in the world at the same time.   First Canadian Army was responsible for clearing the Rhineland - the prelude to the Rhine River crossings in March 1945. From the air, the RCAF killed, maimed and left homeless tens of thousands of German civilians in places like Hamburg, Berlin, and the Ruhr (Happy Valley).    In World War One, we were considered an elite - the Canadian Corps were used as shock troops and the Germans always rushed their best units into the line when they found out either the Canadian Corps or the ANZACs had moved in opposite them - as it always told them a major offensive was in the offing.

Also, regardless of whether or not we actually fought on North German Plain, Canada had a full mechanized   brigade in Europe from the 1950s through the 1980s preparing to fight World War Three.   Regardless of whether or not they fired a single shot, and this is the entire point, they had to be ready to go into combat at a moment's notice.   That outweights other considerations - discipline had to be maintained just as importantly as if they were in a shooting war, otherwise they would have been useless in a fight.

Even had our military not fired a shot at places like Kapyong, Tora Bora, or Medak Pocket, the point is that the military has to be prepared to do so.   There are distinctions drawn between peace time and wartime armies, but they should not include standards of discipline.   In fact, in peacetime standards are usually higher - certainly for dress they are.

Which ones in particular? I'm not arguing you on this point, I'm just another curious mind...

All of them!   You don't get to dress how you want, do your hair as you want, decide whether to shave or not, some commanders even tell you what kind of undershorts you are allowed to wear.   You subordinate your own interests and desires to those of your unit.   In theory - it's not as spartan or rigid as that in practice, and good commanders will indulge their troops - but only in small ways, such as letting you wear your favourite Stanfields under your uniform.   But the Sword of Damocles is omnipresent.

 

[Eowyn]

Agreed. When the situation calls for, I think that the QR&Os and CFAOs should take precedence over the Charter. It's a sticky situation, but I suppose you're right; It seems like one of very few viable options. But you also have to understand that the "precedence" of military rules and regulations comes with its own set of problems. The Charter and the Military Code of Conduct come into direct conflict...common ground will have to be found, with neither being excluded in part or in full, but overlooked/conclusively "inapplicable," as seen fit with the situation.

I think it's time for a little lesson in law.  Having spent some time in law school, I can most assuredly state that no statue or regulation takes precedence over the Constitution, which includes the Charter.  A legislative body can invoke a portion of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) to shield some statues from the effect of the Charter.

As well, statues overrule regulations.  So if there is a conflict the constitution rules, the statues and lastly regulations.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Never exerted superior military force in our history?   We had the 4th largest air force in the world in 1945 and the 3rd largest navy/surface fleet in the world at the same time.   First Canadian Army was responsible for clearing the Rhineland - the prelude to the Rhine River crossings in March 1945.   In World War One, we were considered an elite - the Canadian Corps were used as shock troops and the Germans always rushed their best units into the line when they found out either the Canadian Corps or the ANZACs had moved in opposite them - as it always told them a major offensive was in the offing.

Allow me to rephrase. I've glued my eyes to History Books over the course of my study, and am well aware of Canada's contributions during the war years, as well the years that followed. I never meant for you to gather that history had never witnessed Canadian military force, but instead for you to understand that military strength is not Canada's strong-point. Looking back, Canada has made innumerable contributions, including all of the ones you just finished mentioning, but take a look at the contributions from an analytical stand-point. Would we still have been considered an "elite" military force had we not been backed by Democratic Powerhouses? Would Canada have even made contributions if it were not backed by nations with tremendous military strength? I have no aims of undermining the Canadian Military, but many of Canada's contributions throughout history have been alongside nations whose military strength was significantly stronger than our own, making Canada's contributions more successful than they would have been otherwise.

Again, if war were waged on Canada...our political, economic and social structure would collapse if the American Military refused Canada aid. You failed to comment on this point...does this mean you agree, or does it mean you're still searching for a rebuttle?

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

I think it's time for a little lesson in law.   Having spent some time in law school, I can most assuredly state that no statue or regulation takes precedence over the Constitution, which includes the Charter.   A legislative body can invoke a portion of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) to shield some statues from the effect of the Charter.

As well, statues overrule regulations.   So if there is a conflict the constitution rules, the statues and lastly regulations.

I stand corrected. You're the expert. I'm still at the beginning of my long road to law school. What kind of law do you study?

 

[combat_medic]

Not to venture any further off topic, but Canada has made more contributions, per capita, to international peacekeeping missions than any other country in the world since the inception and invention of peacekeeping by Lester B Pearson in the 50s. Just because we don't exert military force through war doesn't mean we're not active militarily. Currently, there are nearly 2,000 Canadian troops overseas everywhere from Haiti to the Sudan in 14 different NATO and UN peacekeeping missions. That alone shows the need for a strong and active military... and no, we're not the laughing stock of the world community, as you seem to think. Canadian soldiers are very highly thought of as professionals, and our training is some of the best in the world.

As for legalities, do you think if a soldier said that it was within his charter rights to have a goatee and long hair, and believed in it strongly enough to take it to court, do you honestly think he would win the case and be allowed to stay in the CF?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Allow me to rephrase. I've glued my eyes to History Books over the course of my study, and am well aware of Canada's contributions during the war years, as well the years that followed. I never meant for you to gather that history had never witnessed Canadian military force, but instead for you to understand that military strength is not Canada's strong-point. Looking back, Canada has made innumerable contributions, including all of the ones you just finished mentioning, but take a look at the contributions from an analytical stand-point. Would we still have been considered an "elite" military force had we not been backed by Democratic Powerhouses? Would Canada have even made contributions if it were not backed by nations with tremendous military strength? I have no aims of undermining the Canadian Military, but many of Canada's contributions throughout history have been alongside nations whose military strength was significantly stronger than our own, making Canada's contributions more successful than they would have been otherwise.

Again, if war were waged on Canada...our political, economic and social structure would collapse if the American Military refused Canada aid. You failed to comment on this point...does this mean you agree, or does it mean you're still searching for a rebuttle?

The entire point of alliances, though, is bo have either equal partners, or partners capable of providing different things of benefit to each other.  If Canada wasn't "backed" be democratic powerhouses, we wouldn't have been in the war.  And vice versa.  Canada contributed economically too - we made more light machine guns in Canada during WW II than Britain and Australia put together.  We trained more aircrew in Canada than anywhere else (BCATP), and the majority of sailors on the North Atlantic Run were Canadians.  We were an equal partner in many ways - having an Army headquarters in Europe in WW II was a huge indication of that.  And you keep saying our allies had "tremendous military strength".  So did we.

Which is the point.  While of course we are dependent on our allies - so too are our allies dependent on us.  For that reason, we need a viable military capable of deploying in slightly less time than it takes the proverbial asthmatic ant to carry his heavy shopping home.

So to answer the question about an invasion of Canada - military action never happens in a political vacuum and it is folly to presume it ever would, or could.  We are, as you well know, symbionts with the US.  If you are suggesting surrendering our soveriegnty to the US, I disagree.   However, that discussion seems off topic.  If you can come up with a viable scenario of anyone invading Canada and the US refusing to assist (you may want to reconsider what NORAD is all about, for one, then check out NATO's agreements where the majority of Europe have pledged that an attack on one member is to be considered an attack on all), I'd be willing to consider the question.  But it seems irrelevant.

The salient point is that our armed forces need to be viable, and must always train as if they were needed to fight a war tomorrow.  Our niche, as discussed in another thread, may be peace missions under the auspices of the UN, may be security missions under NATO, or may be bailing out after a tsunami in Vancouver - but whatever those missions are, they will be predicated on having a professional, disciplined group of soldiers to carry them out.  Which is why we don't have special rules to live by in peacetime that are different in wartime - it simply can't work that way.

If you are suggesting we not live up to the expectations of our allies, I would have to ask where your pride is.  In more practical terms, we've seen the effect of not joining the coalition of the willing on such issues as softwood lumber and Mad Cow/the closed border.  (I live in beef country...)  Do you really think Canada can afford to go on thumbing its nose at its allies?

 

[Cloud Cover]

"I think it's time for a little lesson in law.   Having spent some time in law school, I can most assuredly state that no statue or regulation takes precedence over the Constitution, which includes the Charter.   A legislative body can invoke a portion of the Charter (the notwithstanding clause) to shield some statues from the effect of the Charter.

As well, statues overrule regulations.   So if there is a conflict the constitution rules, the statues and lastly regulations."

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Sigh... well, I don't know much, but I do know this:

The rights Pte. Bloggins is giving up are, at worst, minimally impaired, if at all. And to reiterate, none of his section 7-11 rights are fettered with at all, even though the military has it's own variety of a criminal justice system.    

With respect to Oka, that was 12 years ago, and Charter law has left those types of situations in the dust. Any government that tries anything like that   now better have deep pockets, because the lawyers will out number the troops 10 to 1. Count on it ...and... tons of Charter and HR based litigation arose out that particular dispute, some is still ongoing, some failed and a few were ultimately successful. Bottom line there: to my knowledge no individual culpability was assigned to any CF member who was there, and several civvies were injured in a few of the clashes, not to mention the CF members who took the odd kick in the groin.  The precedence of the Dean decision may well alter the preceding observation. Anyway, as I recall, more than a few warning shots were fired live on TV....

WRT to our much maligned Sergeant Lipshitz , if he taps someone overseas IAW ROE, he isn't gonna get jacked up by his own side. If he strays off course, CYA is the law of the political jungle and I can assure you he is at the bottom of the food chain.    

WRT the notwithstanding clause: section 33 of the Charter is a general override provision. Quebec used it with Bill 178 [the language law].  Outside of Quebec, the power of override has only been used once, in Saskatchewan, to protect a back to work law. Don't count on it ever being used by the FG, b/c to do so would be â Å“illiberalâ ?, so to speak.

WRT Martial Law: on its face, the Emergencies Act does not suspend Charter rights, indeed it would appear to enshrine those rights. The Act says nothing about suspending rights, just civil liberties, with compensation ... there is a wide gap between those 2 concepts. No immediate Act of Parliament is required for a Minister to declare, for example, a public order emergency, however  a motion for confirmation must be tabled in Parliament forthwith and in any event no later than 7 days. The validity of any of the provisions of the Emergencies Act remain untested at the present time.

And, not all Charter rights may be overridden by section 33:

Rights that can be overridden: [these are heavily truncated]

Section 2: fundamental freedoms: conscience, religion, thought, expression, belief, opinion, press, peaceful assembly and association;

Sections 7-14: legal rights: LLSP, presumption of innocence, search, seizure, arbitrary detention, right to be informed of the charge without unreasonable delay and to have a trial without delay, retain a lawyer, self- incrimination; trial by jury [except for a purely military offence tried before a military tribunal]; prosecution only for offences known to Canadian or International law at the time the offence was committed.

Section 15: Equality Rights: disability, sexual orientation, gender, race and religion etc. [note: religious equality is not the same as the right to guaranteed right to have a religion.]

There are more that can be overridden, but they are not germane to the subject matter at hand.

Rights that CANNOT be overridden:

Section 3: Democratic Rights: voting, calling elections etc.
Section 6: Mobility Rights: freedom of movement unless imprisoned or other order of the court;
Sections 16-23: Language rights;
Section 24: Enforcement Provisions: empowers court to order a remedy where right is infringed;
Section 28: sexual equality. [note: this is not the contentious equality provision, although arguably it would do fine one was in a pinch.]

 

[Cloud Cover]

And WRT ..   my last TX:

"WRT to our much maligned Sergeant Lipshitz , if he taps someone overseas IAW ROE, he isn't gonna get jacked up by his own side. If he strays off course, CYA is the law of the political jungle and I can assure you he is at the bottom of the food chain."

Isn't this where fostering a military culture grounded in an institution of excellence comes in? Training, professionalism, seflessness, unwavering obedience and loyalty to the corps etc.?    

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

A little objection, and the crowd goes wild.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A little objection, and the crowd goes wild.

Seems like the consistent theme in all the responses has been the need for a professional, disciplined army in peace as in war.   You haven't presented a viable alternate case.   In fact, you've relied on suppositions that are actually falsehoods (chiefly the notion that Canada hasn't had a need, or actually expressed, military force throughout its existence).

You may want to change your focus to go back and re-examine the prerequisites for a professional military and whether on not the Charter inhibits this.  The other historical precedents you talk about have only served to drag the conversation off topic.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

As of yet, I haven't denied the need for a "professional, disciplined army" in peace and war, and instead encouraged it. You're right, my case my not be entirely viable, but if we're speaking in those specific terms, neither is yours, or any other case presented here. The difference between you and I is that I accept that the case that I'm trying to present has holes, and I take criticism in a constructive manner.