BGen Ménard relieved of Afganistan Comd & other fall-outs

[The Bread Guy]

Perhaps someone should remind LCol Sweet the difference between administrative actions and discipline.

Hmm seams like his lawyer does not understand the difference between Administrative and Disciplinary Actions!!!!!

Ah, the Defence Counsel Message/Story Line Crafting begins:  where people with military experience have very precise ideas around "punishment" (the more legalistic "a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence" version), the general public reading this will more likely think of "punishment" more broadly (more like "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing").  The defence's message:  public exposure + rumour mongering + damage to reputation = "punishment" enough.

If BGen Ménard really wanted to show leadership, and if he really did the things of which he is accused, then perhaps he should advise his lawyer to STFU.

Unless he approves of his lawyer's paving the way for a "hasn't he been 'sanctioned' enough for this?" defence and/or sentencing mitigation.  If so, I guess that answers the "leadership" question, right?

 

[vonGarvin]

If so, I guess that answers the "leadership" question, right?

Agreed.

 

[armyvern]

Ah, the Defence Counsel Message/Story Line Crafting begins:  where people with military experience have very precise ideas around "punishment" (the more legalistic "a penalty or sanction given for any crime or offence" version), the general public reading this will more likely think of "punishment" more broadly (more like "a penalty imposed for wrongdoing").  The defence's message:  public exposure + rumour mongering + damage to reputation = "punishment" enough.

Agree completely. LCol Sweet & the BGen are both fully aware of all mil refs that clearly indicate that "Adminstrative action" is quite seperate from "Disciplinary action", but the average Canadian audience to whom they now speak are not.

If this is the way his defense is going to go ... I be pulling the stats on all those Court Martials and charges the BGen has caused to occur throughout his career and their "disciplinary" outcomes. Given his rank & TI - they can not be "few". Then I'd be holding those stats up against the numbers of "Admin actions" he also caused to occur to same-said charged & "already" disciplined individuals. And vice vesa - how many "already Admin actionned" individuals has he then caused to be disciplined?

Something tells me that they'd not be few either. 

How the tune changes when one's own butt is the hatless one.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How the tune changes when one's own butt is the hatless one.

A butt without a hat?  What an odd picture....  ;D
</goofy getting-close-to-lunchtime tangent>

 

[OldSolduer]

His defence attorney darn well knows the difference. He's trying to influence the potential panel that may be called to stand in judgement.

 

[armyvern]

His defence attorney darn well knows the difference. He's trying to influence the potential panel that may be called to stand in judgement.

Yes, he does know the difference ...

I'm also sure that the Officers sitting on the CM Panel will also be very familiar with "the difference" between the two. Many of them will also have caused both Administrative and Disciplinary actions against same individuals given their place in the heirarchy.

It's a moot argument as far as I am concerned; it's covered in the NDA. "Administrative Sanctions do not negate Disiciplinary Actions being taken against an individual."

But, it does make for good copy ... and heck - one's defense has to start somewhere. The starting point does not necessarily have to be grounded in fact or reality ... or even what one has caused, quite possibly, to occur to a soldier under their very own command at some point in time ... obviously.

 

[The Bread Guy]

But, it does make for good copy ... and heck - one's defense has to start somewhere. The starting point does not necessarily have to be grounded in fact or reality ... or even what one has caused, quite possibly, to occur to a soldier under their very own command at some point in time ... obviously.

Especially if the reporter doesn't (appear to, in any case) ask the right questions in response to the quote.

 

[armyvern]

Especially if the reporter doesn't (appear to, in any case) ask the right questions in response to the quote.

True enough. A good question to ask would be, "has your client ever undertaken POCT (Presding Officer Certification Training) and has he ever had to renew that qualification?"

I, when posted into a certain location as the Detachment Commander, had to under POCT because, as the WO, I was the Snr RegF rank in the province and had been delegated authority down by the BComd of the base who oversaw our activity from a neighbouring province. It is a mandatory course for those who will "lay charges" and has an expiry date. I have since had to renew my qualification.

There is no doubt in my mind that a BGen would have had to undergo both this course and the renewal of the qualification given his daily duties and responsibilities as a Commander.

Given that, there is no doubt in my mind that he also "must have" passed this course if he has ever caused a charge to be laid against an individual; it therefore follows that he is very familiar with the difference bewtween "Administrative" sanctions and "Disciplinary" actions and is also quite aware of the fact that the application of one does not preclude the application of the other - it is all covered in that very qualification he obtained.

Wonder if he drafted up any "double jeopardy" concerns to the JAG then ... or any time previous when he has caused both to occur to a soldier under his Command. I'd wager not ~ as they are clearly two seperate and distinct items and are not, in fact, double jeopardy at all.

Finding that it is "double jeopardy" would be akin to a civilian judge ruling that a convicted sex offender serving prison (Disciplinary action) time can not have his name placed on the Sex Offender Registry (Administrative sanction) because it would be "double jeopardy".

 

[McG]

Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet says a decision by the military to lay charges against Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard after removing him from command and cancelling a pending appointment is excessive.

I wonder if anyone has tried that defence in a civilian court?  "I lost my job for my actions, so now it would be unfair if I am also subject to the Criminal Code of Canada."  If some one had tried, they would have found themselves unsuccessful .... same is true of the NDA.

The military is also making an unfair example of Ménard while staying quiet for weeks in the case of Col. Bernard Oullette, the Canadian commander in Haiti who lost his job for allegedly having an affair with a civilian working for the United Nations, in a similar breach of military rules.

Of course, the military has already done press releases explaining this.  BGen Ménard was filling a very public role and his removal could not be hidden - the CF could not maintain his privacy while awaiting the investigation completion after the removal.  Col Oullette and MCpl Langlois were both in positions where they could quietly be removed, and so they were

 

[Wookilar]

From the CBC 15 minutes ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/23/menard-court-martial.html

Would this be an election or would he be offered a choice?

I'm not overly surprised at the main charge given the circumstances, but the charges of obstruction are a bit of a surprise. You could argue that the obstruction charges are just as serious, if not more so given his postion and rank.

Wook

 

[jollyjacktar]

I thought that he had already been fined for this situation.  If so, would this not count as a case of double jeopardy?  I suppose the MCpl he was involved with will also go to trial then.

 

[Journeyman]

Would this be an election or would he be offered a choice?

"Only service members below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel can be tried by way of summary trial."1

I thought that he had already been fined for this situation.  If so, would this not count as a case of double jeopardy?  I suppose the MCpl he was involved with will also go to trial then.

He hasn't been fined, so there's no double jeopardy. The legal procedings against the MCpl have already been completed.



1. DND, B-GG-005-027/AF-011 Military Justice at the Summary Trial Level - V2.1, 11-5, para 17. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Check out the big brain on JM!  And you thought that presiding officer course wouldn't come in handy!  >

 

[Journeyman]

Check out the big brain on JM!  And you thought that presiding officer course wouldn't come in handy!  >

Although Menard's prosecutor was one of the instructors.

 

[Nemo888]

Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)

To pick a hypothetical, then, you're OK with a section commander hitting on one of his/her section members?  A platoon commander hitting on a member of the platoon?  How about if you were being hit on by a boss of yours, and you didn't like it?  What business is it of the Army's/your employer's right?

Or how about if your boss treats the person s/he's F%$*-ing differently than you, giving them better assignments or fewer s**t duties?  That OK too?

I think it's just you.

 

[Navalsnpr]

He was previously Court Marshalled for the Negligent Discharge that occurred. This is another Court Marshall for a separate incident(s) as listed in the media report. The CF Court Martial Calendar hasn't been updated as yet:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/index-eng.asp

All CF Personnel sign a 'No fraternization' policy prior to or soon after deploying into an operational theatre. Therefore, he dis-obeyed a lawful order from a Superior Officer.

 

[Journeyman]

Is it just me? I don't really care who people F%$*. This seems a bit unfair and none of the Army's business in the first place.(Unless they get a dose, in which case get me the X-long gloves)

If you think it's only an issue if STDs are involved, I suspect you don't have much understanding of military leadership.

What if the subordinate-ranked member seems to be getting fewer duties? Avoids the more hazardous tasks? Adds to admin burdens because of marital status of either participant and word gets to the home-front? Pisses off co-workers because they're away from loved ones and aren't getting any?

Leadership is about perceptions as well as abilities.


Sorry, but I'm thinking it's just you....and the usual cohort of ill-informed opinion that posts at CBC

 

[Nemo888]

Actually my old section commander married her. I did sleep with my boss once(20 years ago). In the end it was messy. When she tried to get me fired I got a great package once all the info came out. I don't like people telling me what I and another consenting adult do in their off time. Though honestly I did get the best work while I was  screwing my boss. I see your point. Maybe the publicity is a bit much though.

 

[Edward Campbell]

From the CBC 15 minutes ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/23/menard-court-martial.html

Would this be an election or would he be offered a choice?

I'm not overly surprised at the main charge given the circumstances, but the charges of obstruction are a bit of a surprise. You could argue that the obstruction charges are just as serious, if not more so given his postion and rank.

Wook

Personal opinion, because I'm too long retired to know about Mil Law anymore: were I a member of a court I might be inclined to view the (main or alternative) "conduct to the prejudice" charges as being issues of human failure or human weakness that, while involving a breach of regulations by a senior officer who must have known better, are 'understandable' as human failings that require only a modest punishment - presuming the charges are proven.

Obstruction of justice appears, to me anyway, to be a more serious. Without having read the charge sheet I might feel that we are talking about a general officer lying to investigators, trying to cover up and so on. As a member of a court, I might consider that an issue that, assuming again that the charges are proven, warrants very serious punishment, indeed.