babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » DND restricts interviews during election campaign

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: DND restricts interviews during election campaign
helpistwosided
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15493

posted 20 September 2008 08:55 AM      Profile for helpistwosided     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Canadian Press

The Defence Department has ordered staff to limit media interviews during the federal election campaign in a move critics charge is nothing more than an attempt to contain potentially damaging coverage of the Afghan mission.

An official within the department said this week that a directive had been issued to staff that they cannot grant interviews for the duration of the five-week campaign.

"During an election period it is of utmost importance that National Defence employees and Canadian Forces members do not act in any way that could influence -- or be perceived as influencing -- the outcome of the electoral process," reads the directive, sent to The Canadian Press following a request for an interview on a health matter affecting Canadian Forces personnel.

"The government acts with restraint, confining itself to necessary public business. It is hoped that you may want to continue with your query after Election Day."

However, Marc Raider, a Defence spokesman, called the instruction "a guideline not a directive" and denied there is a total ban on media interviews during the election.

"It's not like we're not granting interviews," he said Friday, adding they are merely being cautious about not influencing the outcome of the election.

One Defence staffer said the instruction was issued just before the election call Sept. 7, and has been sent to personnel as a standard response for media requests.

"It's very frustrating" a Forces member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said while fielding a reporter's query.

The edict is affecting Canadian journalists at the military base in Kandahar, where they have been told that it could take days to set up interviews, if granted at all, and that the flow of information would be slowed during the campaign.

Critics were quick to condemn the order, alleging it fits with the Conservative government's practice of controlling the message by withholding information and not letting civil servants speak freely.

"It's ridiculous," said Chris Waddell, a journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"Whether there's an election on or not, these people are public servants and accountability shouldn't be suspended in the course of an election campaign nor should information be suspended."

A spokeswoman in the department's media office issued a statement that said officials "continue to communicate with media and the public and grant select interviews."

"For instance, yesterday we issued a news release on the important work of the HMCS St. John's in delivering much-needed food shipments to the people of Haiti affected by the hurricanes."

Myriam Massabki, a spokeswoman with the Privy Council Office, wrote in an email that "during an election, by convention, the government acts with restraint."

It wasn't clear whether other government departments had issued similar directives limiting what bureaucrats could say before the vote on Oct. 14.

Media analysts and the opposition have accused the Tories of trying to keep the contentious Afghan mission off the election radar as Canadians becoming increasingly dissatisfied with its progress.

A recent The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll found that 62 per cent of Canadians polled believe the cost in lives and resources in Afghanistan has not been worth it.

The results show that the public understands there is a global terrorism threat and it's centred in Afghanistan, but "the Canadian appetite for further direct involvement in this war is very limited."

The issue could be critical for Prime Minister Stephen Harper as he campaigns in vote-rich Quebec, which could push him into majority territory.

"If there' one issue that can in fact be damaging to the prime minister's ambition in Quebec, it has to be the war," said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and retired Canadian Forces colonel.

"There's no desire to have the Afghanistan issue raised and, by ricochet, anything that is related to it."

News of the clampdown comes days after Parliament's budgetary officer said he received all-party consent to release a report on the full cost of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan -- and he may do so before Canadians go to the polls.

Kevin Page said the report on all past and future costs of completing the six-year-old mission is being finalized and must then go through a peer review before it is made public.

It's a potentially damaging report for Harper, who fought to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to 2011 and under whose government the number of Canadian war dead has climbed to nearly 100.

Dawn Black, NDP defence critic, said the Conservatives have gone against their pledge during the last election campaign to be open, transparent and accountable.

"Now it appears they've totally shut down the department in allowing them to speak to the press or to the Canadian public through the press," she said from her riding in New Westminster, B.C.

"They don't want news that further pushes Canadians against the direction that Stephen Harper and his government have taken in Afghanistan."

Just another way to shut us up even though this "order" came down it also affects the "civi's" within the military family ie civi spouse, civi father, civi mom etc........

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: helpistwosided ]


From: patriotic heart | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 20 September 2008 09:50 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a little rich to read a nefarious plot into this story.

Every single government agency is placing limits on public communications to ensure that they are not perceived as influencing or attempting to influence the election in favour or against any party.

And rightly so.

It is not the place of unelected public officials - and particularly the military - to influence the political discourse in this way.

In Saskatchewan, The Election Act forbids any government communication during an election or byelection. The only exception is matters of public safety.

The federal rules are not as tight - and in fact, should probably be tighter.

I'm curious to know who would want the military to influence elections.

No democrat, certainly.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 21 September 2008 08:58 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would agree. Nevertheless, there has been an uneveness in the past. Think RCMP in the last election.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
helpistwosided
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15493

posted 21 September 2008 09:08 AM      Profile for helpistwosided     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I personally don't remember anytime in the last 10 years being asked to "stand down" and "shut up" about media interviews!
From: patriotic heart | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 September 2008 09:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:
I would agree. Nevertheless, there has been an uneveness in the past. Think RCMP in the last election.

But surely that was in a good cause - exposing flagrant Liberal interference in the stock markets! Or something like that. My memory is fading.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 September 2008 09:22 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by helpistwosided:
I personally don't remember anytime in the last 10 years being asked to "stand down" and "shut up" about media interviews!

Interesting ancedote about inside the situation experiences, that people should take serious note of. In particular, in light of the recent PTSD and families in crisis exposure. This issue needs to be addressed in a timely manner, and cannot wait IMV, for an election to be over and it needs media exposure to force action apparently.

And in light of the fact that today a Canadian military person was arrested in Cyprus, while there to debrief before coming home, for pulling a kniife on a cabbie. Which suggests a fair bit of emotional/mental instability that is occuring amongst some returning personnel. Must be tremendously frightening for the wives and children awaiting their spouse/parent's coming home.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 21 September 2008 09:54 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

But surely that was in a good cause - exposing flagrant Liberal interference in the stock markets! Or something like that. My memory is fading.


I think that is a bit of stretch, Unionist. I as well am the victim of fading memory, but as I recall, the RCMP at the highest level announced an investigation into the possibe leak of pre-budget information. The implication was that it had taken place. As far as I am aware, it is quite unusual to release details of an investigation before it begins.

From a partisan viewpoint, it tickle me pink as the investigation was begun after a complaint by an NDP MP. From an objective viewpoint (and given the cops pro-Harper priorities), it was a case of totally improper interference.

The RCMP have not been shy about using their influence to interfere in the political process. I think back to the fact that TV cameras "just happened" to be at Glen Clark's residence when they arrived on the doorstep. Contrast this with statements the BC Rail investigation did not touch on any politicians, but now it is coming to light both a Liberal Cabinent Minister and an MLA drew their interest.

The RCMP is politisized - I would hate to see them joined by the military in any greater way then already exists. Mind you, with the propaganda bs hiding the truth about the Afghan situation, it could be argued that has already happened.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 September 2008 09:57 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:

I think that is a bit of stretch, Unionist.


[blush] So do I - I confess I was kidding, munroe. The RCMP comments at the time were outrageous, and of course the so-called "investigation" finally turned up no wrongdoing. Unfortunately Paul Summerville and Judy Wasylycia-Leis got sucked in to pontificating about possible criminal and SEC infractions.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 21 September 2008 10:03 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

[blush] So do I - I confess I was kidding, munroe.


Gosh, that's too bad. I thought I had a comrade in arms when defending some of my more senile rantings!


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 September 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
I'm curious to know who would want the military to influence elections.

No democrat, certainly.


This is horseshit, Malcolm, and I can't believe babblers haven't called you on it in this thread.

The last thing the Harpocons are worried about in this election is the military influencing how people are going to vote - unless the military is actually going to tell the truth to the media about the war. Then Harper will get worried.

The purpose of this gag order is to block access to information. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Things are going badly for the imperialist forces in the war. Harper doesn't want the war to be an issue in the election.

It's just another in a whole series of Harper moves to try and limit and micromanage access of the media to government that began the day after the last election.

I repeat the following words from the CP story in the OP:

quote:
One Defence staffer said the instruction was issued just before the election call Sept. 7, and has been sent to personnel as a standard response for media requests.

"It's very frustrating" a Forces member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said while fielding a reporter's query.

The edict is affecting Canadian journalists at the military base in Kandahar, where they have been told that it could take days to set up interviews, if granted at all, and that the flow of information would be slowed during the campaign.

Critics were quick to condemn the order, alleging it fits with the Conservative government's practice of controlling the message by withholding information and not letting civil servants speak freely.

"It's ridiculous," said Chris Waddell, a journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"Whether there's an election on or not, these people are public servants and accountability shouldn't be suspended in the course of an election campaign nor should information be suspended."


"Nefarious plot", Malcolm?

You're damn right it is.

ETA: Thanks to babbler Paul Gross for drawing my attention to this article:

quote:
Alan Williams, a former senior public servant who served more than 30 years in departments ranging from Defence to Public Works to Indian and Northern Affairs, said this is the first time he has seen such a ban.

"I don't recall at anytime such as dramatic shut down" during an election, said Mr. Williams, who retired as the Defence Department's assistant deputy minister for materiel.

"The vast majority of public servants understand their apolitical role and they are very careful about that," he added.

"But to curtail all public activity and conferences for a period of five weeks; what does that say about taxpayers' money being used effectively?"

The edict is even spilling over into efforts to improve the way the government works.

James Lahey, the senior bureaucrat at PCO responsible for public service renewal, backed out this week as the key speaker at a closed meeting of the National Joint Council in Quebec City. The council, which represents federal union and management officials, drew about 150 people.

Michele Demers, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, said PCO's no-show at the conference that's held for bureaucrats shows how "muzzled" the public service has become under the Harper government.

"It is becoming a sick paranoia," she said. "It's so ridiculous there is no word to describe it. Public servants don't have the right to speak out at the best of times so this muzzling during an election campaign has been taken to the extreme. So now we can't even talk about public service renewal."

It is not clear whether the PCO's ban was developed in conjunction with the Conservatives or whether it was issued by the Privy Council Office on its own.

But Mr. Williams said he is not surprised by the PCO edict. It follows a trend in the Conservative government to tightly control information and limit public access to senior department officials, he added. "I think it's sad because you would think there would be more confidence in bureaucrats," Mr. Williams said. "Canadian citizens expect more and deserve more, especially from senior public servants."


[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 21 September 2008 07:48 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist, M.S.

I can assure you that in any election campaign, public agencies are considering the potential political impact - real or perceived - of any public statement, any media interview, any public act.

And rightly so.

Personally, I think the Saskatchewan legislation is the right way to go. Significant restrictions on any public utterances from government agencies unless there is a safety issue (ie, a storm warning.)


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Harumph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15117

posted 28 September 2008 11:27 AM      Profile for Harumph     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist, M.S.

I can assure you that in any election campaign, public agencies are considering the potential political impact - real or perceived - of any public statement, any media interview, any public act.

And rightly so.

Personally, I think the Saskatchewan legislation is the right way to go. Significant restrictions on any public utterances from government agencies unless there is a safety issue (ie, a storm warning.)


Amen.

Any time the military is seen to be "politicking", people get fired and the far-far-far-left starts waxing apocalyptic about our military dictatorship and how the fascists are coming.

Better just not to say anything at all. Of course, then the same people jump on the DND for being patsy to the government and trying to help the Cons by keeping their mouths shut.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


From: West of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 September 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fine, then. You're damned.

Come now, military fans. Surely it's more than a trifle disingenuous to suggest that the DND should embargo all information requests during a war because the Harper government suddenly got oh so very sensitive about not wanting the public service to influence the election!

Besides, why isn't the government's blatant attempt to keep the lid on potentially embarrassing or damaging information about the war seen as an attempt to influence the election?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 28 September 2008 06:14 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a general rule, I think all government communications should be hoist during an election campaign - the Saskatchewan rule.

Nothing disingenuous in that.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Harumph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15117

posted 29 September 2008 08:23 PM      Profile for Harumph     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Fine, then. You're damned.

Come now, military fans. Surely it's more than a trifle disingenuous to suggest that the DND should embargo all information requests during a war because the Harper government suddenly got oh so very sensitive about not wanting the public service to influence the election!

Besides, why isn't the government's blatant attempt to keep the lid on potentially embarrassing or damaging information about the war seen as an attempt to influence the election?


They're not "embargoing" all information requests, they're just not granting as many interviews and what interviews they do grant are much more limited - IE less commentary and more bland statements of fact.

And if we're damned, which you agree we are, we might as well annoy the segment of the population that already hates us as opposed to annoy the government we're accountable to. That segment's going to hate us no matter what we do, so why bother trying to please them?


From: West of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 September 2008 10:17 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right. We must never forget you are accountable to the Harpocon government, not the people of Canada.

And, if you had read the stories I linked to and quoted from above, you would have to acknowledge that it is not just wacky leftist military-haters like me who think this is an outrage.

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412

posted 04 October 2008 06:35 AM      Profile for A_J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Besides, why isn't the government's blatant attempt to keep the lid on potentially embarrassing or damaging information about the war seen as an attempt to influence the election?

The latest death in Afghanistan occurred after this "nefarious plot" was put into motion, yet it received no less coverage than any other. Likewise in the case of the civilian killed when his truck was fired on as it approached a Canadian convoy.

There is absolutely no evidence, as you would allege, that this sensible order to reduce the the department's influence on the election is restricting the flow of important news or information.


From: * | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 October 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You seem to think the only important news about the DND is the latest casualties in the war.

You also assume that there is some way the DND and the government could hide the deaths of soldiers from the Canadian public, in a country far away in a war covered by journalists from many lands.

There is far more information that is important to know, and media inquiries are made daily to the DND about a myriad of matters other than the name of the latest soldier to die needlessly on foreign soil. Those inquiries are being stalled and stymied for the duration of the election campaign.

For example, what is the total cost of the Afghanistan War so far? The government is withholding that figure until after the election. They have the number, but they aren't letting us know.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
blackhand9
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15486

posted 05 October 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for blackhand9   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Victory impossible...

The entire point of the exercise in Afghanistan was reduce threats to international security by defeating the Taliban who were viewed as the source of terrorism.

Now we have our general saying that it is not possible...

Now logically that means we ought to leave or radically change the mission goal and then leave...

Will this affect the election and voting patterns? It should.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 October 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, very logical. However, imperial entanglements are typically justified using a technique called "moving the goalposts". See also: cheating, lying and unsportsmanlike conduct.

Of course, even at the time of the initial bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the offer of the Taliban to assist in the capture of bin Laden - provided something called "evidence" was supplied - was met with haughty derision and a determination to bomb.

I would add that the "barbaric" destruction of a giant and historic Buddhist work of antiquity by the Taliban - which received lots of press in our part of the world - was matched by the no less barbaric abandonment of the priceless works of antiquity in the Iraqi National Museum by the Yanqui occupation forces there in 2003. Oil fields were more important and worthy of attention, it seems, than the irreplaceable records of the origin of human civilization in the great delta of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Even since then, B-52 has been President of Afghanistan ... whatever puppet is nominally in charge.

[ 05 October 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
blackhand9
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15486

posted 08 October 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for blackhand9   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question though should not be confused with the old moral relativism argument. I am not getting out of my chair and taking the first plane to Kandahar to tell everyone there they are stooges for US war mongering. I'd get my ass blown off by both sides.

quote:
The idea that Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies could simultaneously be aiding the Taliban and like-minded militants while taking money from the United States is not as far-fetched as it may seem.

new york times magazine

But there is information out there that shows how reparations paid to villages bombed by B52s or whatever in pursuit of Taliban fighters is given back to the Taliban by the local mayor who eventually received the discounted funds...

So you have the zardoz effect - the same war machine funding both sides of the conflict. We are not at war with the Taliban we are at war with war itself.

quote:
The reason the Pakistani security services support the Taliban, he said, is for money: after the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistani military concluded that keeping the Taliban alive was the surest way to win billions of dollars in aid that Pakistan needed to survive. The military’s complicated relationship with the Taliban is part of what the official called the Pakistani military’s “strategic games.” ...

[ 08 October 2008: Message edited by: blackhand9 ]


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Harumph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15117

posted 08 October 2008 10:24 PM      Profile for Harumph     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Right. We must never forget you are accountable to the Harpocon government, not the people of Canada.

And, if you had read the stories I linked to and quoted from above, you would have to acknowledge that it is not just wacky leftist military-haters like me who think this is an outrage.

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


Of course we're accountable to the government and not the people. The two are not the same thing. The government is elected to do the bidding of the people. The military is an unelected branch of the government accountable to the elected executive branch.

A sub-contractor is not beholden to the customer, he's accountable to the contractor that employs him. The contractor, in turn, is accountable to the customer. Our "contract" so to speak, is with the government - the contractor - not with the people - IE the customer.


From: West of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2008 10:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
A sub-contractor is not beholden to the customer, he's accountable to the contractor that employs him. The contractor, in turn, is accountable to the customer. Our "contract" so to speak, is with the government - the contractor - not with the people - IE the customer.
That's about the dumbest analogy I've seen in a month.

In other news:

quote:
People who work for Canada's federal government say they have never felt more politically pressured. A barrage of new directives, staff changes and punitive practices are interfering with job performance.

Employees say they have been subject to muzzling and allegations of disloyalty over their personal political allegiances. The bureaucracy is rife with stories of unqualified people catapulted into top management positions, presumably because of political connections, and presumably to carry out political directives.

"We're feeling political pressure like never before," says Bob Kingston, President of the Agriculture Union. A career food inspector with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), he has been in the news over the listeriosis outbreak and its links to federal regulatory changes that let the food industry police itself.

Kingston says civil servants are feeling pressure "both in terms of being told to be quiet and in asked to do things. For instance, every single CFIA employee received messages saying 'don't talk to the media.' With a climate of firing everybody who talks," such as CFIA scientist Luc Pomerleau, who publicly leaked news of the government's plans to turn inspection over to the companies and get rid of staff, "people are more scared to talk publicly than ever."

Politically-driven directives have become common in Canada's civil service, says Kingston, but he was particularly astonished when, last May, CFIA staff were ordered to replace the phrase "Government of Canada" with "Conservative Government."

"I've never seen anything like it," says Kingston. "We thought it was a joke. I find it unbelievable that a manager would force staff to do this." - Source



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 October 2008 11:26 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
Of course we're accountable to the government and not the people.
Not true, in reality you are accountable to the Queen.

Canadian military Oath of enlistment:

, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law.

quote:
The two are not the same thing. The government is elected to do the bidding of the people. The military is an unelected branch of the government accountable to the elected executive branch.
Again not true, as the Bosnian affair showed, your are also accountable to the Civilian oversight board, as your are employees of the Canadian peoples.

Moreover, you are accountable to parliament, just NOT the government.

Here is some infor you appear to be short on, spread it around so you in the military know.

quote:
The relationship between the armed forces and the political executive is a complex one in a democracy. Understanding that relationship is essential to understanding the workings of the military and civilian structures that direct, guide and support the armed forces.

Canada's defence structure reflects Canada's system of Cabinet and parliamentary government

...accountabilities are fundamental to the fulfilment of the defence mandate and to the place of the military in a democracy. In Canada, this is expressed in terms of:

ministerial control over the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, and

effective Parliamentary oversight over the defence programs and activities of the Government.


In most important respects, the Department of National Defence is an organization like other departments of government. It is established by a statute - the National Defence Act - which sets out the Minister's responsibilities, including the Minister's responsibility for the Department.

Under the law, the Canadian Forces are an entity separate and distinct from the Department. They too are established by a statute - the National Defence Act - which enables the Governor-in-Council (the Cabinet) and the Minister to make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good governance of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces are headed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is Canada's senior serving officer and who, "subject to the regulations and under the direction of the Minister (is) ... charged with the control and administration of the Canadian Forces".

The activities of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, like those of every other federal government organization, are carried out within a framework of legislation that is approved and overseen by Parliament. Departmental employees and members of the Canadian Forces are governed not only by the National Defence Act but also by the Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by statutes and regulations such as the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act, the Employment Equity Act, the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, among many others2.


Much longer of course and it seems you need to read it!

quote:
A sub-contractor is not beholden to the customer, he's accountable to the contractor that employs him. The contractor, in turn, is accountable to the customer. Our "contract" so to speak, is with the government - the contractor - not with the people - IE the customer.

You are not mercenaries for fuck's sakes, you are the defense arm of the Canada peoples.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 October 2008 01:31 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
Any time the military is seen to be "politicking", people get fired and the far-far-far-left starts waxing apocalyptic about our military dictatorship and how the fascists are coming.

Even the not so far lefties can figure out that the fascists are already here.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 October 2008 01:38 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
Of course we're accountable to the government and not the people.

Which is why rebranding could go a long way towards improving public relations with the 'far far left.' The People's Army of Canada has a nice ring to it.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 October 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is now 33 days since September 7, when Sgt. Prescott Shipway was killed in Afghanistan. Coincidentally, that was the same day that Stephen Harper called the federal election.

No Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since then. This is the longest death-free period for our troops in the war since last March.

Does anybody here think it is beyond the realm of possibility that the order went out from Ottawa 33 days ago to keep the troops in the barracks until October 15?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 10 October 2008 02:20 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Does anybody here think it is beyond the realm of possibility that the order went out from Ottawa 33 days ago to keep the troops in the barracks until October 15?

It's possible, and probable. Personally, I hope that you are not proven wrong.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 10 October 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
It is now 33 days since September 7, when Sgt. Prescott Shipway was killed in Afghanistan. Coincidentally, that was the same day that Stephen Harper called the federal election.

No Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since then. This is the longest death-free period for our troops in the war since last March.

Does anybody here think it is beyond the realm of possibility that the order went out from Ottawa 33 days ago to keep the troops in the barracks until October 15?


There has been no change in Canadian activty. Luck has been on our side for the last few weeks.

Canadian soldiers uncover major Taliban supply caches in three-day patrol


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 12 October 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
why isn't the government's blatant attempt to keep the lid on potentially embarrassing or damaging information about the war seen as an attempt to influence the election?

Ummm, What embarrassing and damaging information is that which you speak of?


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 12 October 2008 07:28 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
Ummm, What embarrassing and damaging information is that which you speak of?
Ummm, I don't know! And that's precisely my point.

But if there is some, we won't be allowed to have it until after the election, if ever, thanks to Harper's information management techniques.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 October 2008 08:52 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
It is now 33 days since September 7, when Sgt. Prescott Shipway was killed in Afghanistan. Coincidentally, that was the same day that Stephen Harper called the federal election.

No Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since then. This is the longest death-free period for our troops in the war since last March.

Does anybody here think it is beyond the realm of possibility that the order went out from Ottawa 33 days ago to keep the troops in the barracks until October 15?


In a word, no.

The only other possibility is that there is a news blackout currently to prevent any impact upon the election. I would imagine the military brass would happily support their Conservative friends with such a gesture.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 13 October 2008 07:13 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is my assesment, however I do know we did get attacked as a local resident had a head trama that the family was worried about. This was reported. However I don't remember at any point it making the national news? This was about 2 weeks ago, does anyone remember a report about an Improvised explosive device around that time?
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 08:20 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The news media usually don't report injuries. If they did it would shock the public.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are many stories are reported however most are carried by non progressive media groups.

Military forums also have stories of attacks not reported im the major media groups.

Here is one of the best sites I find.

Canoe News War on Terror

and the Canadian Press Website

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 14 October 2008 05:49 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Join welcome route for injured Windsor soldier

"Farrah, 23, a member of CFB Petawawa-based 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment, was the driver on Oct. 5 of a light-armoured vehicle that hit an improvised explosive device which detonated under his vehicle.

He underwent two hours of surgery for a fractured skull.

Farrah had just begun his second Afghan tour when he was injured."


There are reports, most are at the local level.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 October 2008 03:26 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With the election safely over, the fighting (and the casualty reports) can now resume:
quote:
Three Canadian soldiers have been wounded in an improvised explosive device blast during a foot patrol in a volatile district of Afghanistan west of Kandahar City.

Military spokesman Maj. Jay Janzen says the soldiers have been airlifted to the hospital on the Kandahar Airfield base, where one remains in critical condition and the other two are in fair condition.


Canadian Press, today.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Harumph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15117

posted 02 November 2008 11:32 PM      Profile for Harumph     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

You are not mercenaries for fuck's sakes, you are the defense arm of the Canada peoples.


We're the government's "defense arm". We're paid by the government and it's the government that decides where we go. Until policy, military or otherwise, is decided by plebiscite, we're employees of the government, not the people. If you're so naive as to believe that the government IS the people, or even an accurate representation thereof (what with all its bureaucratic manifestations), then you're living in a far more idealized world than I could ever imagine.

As for the information that you think I need to know, thanks dear - I already know it - I took the oath and I'm well aware that it's the Governor General (on behalf of the Queen) and MND that signed my commissioning scroll. I'm more than a little familiar with the role of the military within the government. The Poli Sci 101 excerpt you quoted supports exactly what I said - we're beholden to the government. The parliament is part of the government - the PM is the head of the government, the Queen is the head of state and the Governor General is her representative. All are part of our government. The charter, NDA, etc. are all pieces of legislation formulated and given effect by the government. We work for the government, specifically the DND. We are not elected. A very small fraction of the government is elected. I work for the DND, a department accountable to the Minister of National Defence. I don't work for the clueless masses, nor am I accountable thereto. I answer to another officer who answers to another officer who answers to another officer who answers to the MND who is "accountable" to the people every 4-5 years. If you think that means I work for you, you're out to lunch. You've said (or quoted) quite a bit and managed to make nothing even remotely resembling a decent retort.

As for civilian oversight, under whose authority, appointment, etc. do you think they operate? Do you think they're spontaneously generated by the faceless, disorganized mass of meat that makes up "the people"? No, they're appointed, organized, and derive their authority (binding or not) from the government.

If the government were "the people", or anything close thereto, it would be even less effective than it is. The "people" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground most of the time - that's why you have bureaucrats, politicians, etc. to use their training, expertise, etc. to shepherd the country with only the most basic involvement (IE elections) by the "people".


From: West of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca