• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Charges Laid for Corruption of a Database

Zip said:
Although I was not involved in any of it I can tell you that I walked into what was a poisoned work environment and in my personal opinion it sprang directly from having essentially a wife and wife pair working in the same job in the same office and one of them being the senior person in charge. 

I have no idea why DND allowed that arrangement.

Zip:

Interesting addition to the available information.  If that is the case, there are regulations that govern personal relationships, and may permit such arrangements where necessary - and it would appear that their next higher level of command failed to monitor and ensure things were working well.

So I guess my question becomes: where was the next level of supervision in this?  And why isn't someone from those supervisors also preparing to stand hatless?
 
Answer: Because those same said supervisors were probably scared to death of the crap-storm they would unleash on their heads if they were to split up a wife-wife pairing, especially in Ottawa.

Edmonton/Pet (insert your favorite base/unit), possible, maybe even probable that they would be treated like other service couples as I have seen in the past (and current here in Gagetown, just had one cross my desk properly handled with the proper references even).

But in Ottawa? I wish I was surprised, but I am not.
11.gif


ps. thanx for the smilie link Moe.
 
I have to agree with Draggon on this one,  I would say that half or more of the mbrs here have done the hatless dance at least once, and probably extras more than once, I know I am speaking for myself at the very least.  These 2 senior NCO's have been charged, not convicted, regardless of the need for a seperate military justice system the basic principles remain, such as innocent until proven guilty.  Because everyone who gets charged is guilty right.
 
Commenting on a different angle...

Having read the short entry in the travel blog and Zip's comment on the work environment there my view on this whole situation has broadened somewhat.  Anyone who's ever worked in a toxic environment (and been the brunt of it) knows that it's almost impossible to do things right no matter how hard you work.  Someone will always find fault.  Not saying that their alledged actions were warranted, but there may be some other serious factors at play that are being overlooked because of this incident.

My experience though is that an investigation will help to bring problems like that out in the open so that they are not repeated in the future...especially if the defence lawyer has any abilities whatsoever.

As for the two ladies being accused, I have no other comments on their alledged activities.
 
IDNUMBER      200808140004
PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
DATE:        2008.08.14
EDITION:      Final
SECTION:      News
PAGE:        A1 / FRONT
BYLINE:      David ********
SOURCE:      The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT:    585

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sailors accused of sabotage could face 10 years in jail, dismissal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two sailors could face up to 10 years in jail and dismissal from the Canadian Forces if they are found guilty of sabotage in a case involving a classified computer database at Ottawa's National Defence headquarters.

The rare charges were laid Tuesday by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service in relation to what Defence Department officials allege is the corruption of the database.

If the charges do proceed to a court martial, it is likely that such a hearing won't start until early in the new year.

A court martial is usually held at the location where the alleged incident took place, in this case Ottawa.

Petty Officer Second Class Sylvia Reid, now based in Victoria, B.C., and Petty Officer Second Class Janet Sinclair, a member of the Maritime Forces Pacific headquarters in Victoria, were each charged with one count of sabotage, one count of conspiracy, one count of mischief in relation to data and one count of willful property damage.

The two, who recently arrived in Victoria, are still on duty, but will be moved to less sensitive jobs in the Canadian Forces, according to military officials.

But the decision to allow the women to continue working has some questioning the severity of the incident.

"That raises the question about how serious can this be if you leave them still working," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. "Sabotage is a very serious charge, but it doesn't appear to fit with the fact they haven't been suspended, even suspended with pay."

The alleged incident took place in July 2007, according to National Investigation Service spokeswoman Capt. Paule Poulin.

The military is declining to release any more details about the circumstances of the case or the motives surrounding the alleged incident.

Petty Officer Second Class Sinclair is a sonar operator, while Petty Officer Second Class Reid is a naval combat information systems operator.

The charges against the sailors have set into motion a series of legal procedures. It will now be up to the commanding officers of each sailor to decide whether to refer the case to the director of military prosecutions, an organization similar to a civilian Crown Attorney's office.

"A commanding officer could review the file and decide the charge should not be proceeded with," explained Maj. Marylene Trudel, who works for the director of military prosecutions.

However, if the National Investigation Service does not agree with a commanding officer's findings, its investigators can still refer the charges further up the chain of command and ask that they be sent to military prosecutors.

Maj. Trudel, who emphasized she was not discussing any specific incident, noted that when a case is received by military prosecutors it is reviewed using the criteria of whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to proceed with charges.

"Once we go through that criteria and we decide to lay charges, then we select the charges," she said. "It could be the same charges that were laid initially. It can be some of the charges. It can be new charges or we can decide not to lay any charges."

Ms. Black said the information released by the military is incomplete and could lead some people to believe there are serious security concerns when maybe that is not the case.

"I think the Department of National Defence and the minister should give Canadians some assurances about this case," she said. "Two Canadian Forces members charged with sabotage; that raises many questions and yet neither the government nor the department have given us any understanding of what this means."

An official with Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office said the minister has no comment on the case.

Military officials declined to discuss what effect, if any, the alleged corruption of the database had on government operations. They would also not provide details on what computer system was involved, other than to say it was a government network.
 
Haggis said:
Beer makes me type words that are mis-spelled.  When I'm drinking, I lack the discipline to use spell check.

(Right back at ya!)  ;D

mis·spell (ms-spl)
tr.v. mis·spelled or mis·spelt (-splt), mis·spell·ing, mis·spells
To spell incorrectly.

Haha!  Although, it is from an American dictionary, so I am guilty of foreign word use...


Back on track:  This sentence does interest me.
"That raises the question about how serious can this be if you leave them still working," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. "Sabotage is a very serious charge, but it doesn't appear to fit with the fact they haven't been suspended, even suspended with pay."

Not the part about 'suspended without pay', that only shows the NDP defence critic needs to 'git some learnin' on defence (geez, what does he think we are, a union?), but as to why they are still being employed.  Sabotage implies a deliberate and malicious act of destruction/damage, and if there is enough evidence to charge a person for this then there is enough evidence to support having them in a jail cell awaiting trial.   
 
Greymatters said:
mis·spell (ms-spl)
tr.v. mis·spelled or mis·spelt (-splt), mis·spell·ing, mis·spells
To spell incorrectly.

Haha!  Although, it is from an American dictionary, so I am guilty of foreign word use...


Back on track:  This sentence does interest me.
"That raises the question about how serious can this be if you leave them still working," said NDP defence critic Dawn Black. "Sabotage is a very serious charge, but it doesn't appear to fit with the fact they haven't been suspended, even suspended with pay."

Not the part about 'suspended without pay', that only shows the NDP defence critic needs to 'git some learnin' on defence (geez, what does he think we are, a union?), but as to why they are still being employed.  Sabotage implies a deliberate and malicious act of destruction/damage, and if there is enough evidence to charge a person for this then there is enough evidence to support having them in a jail cell awaiting trial.   

Greymatters, this has been going on for more than a year already.  I'd think Dawn Black would have been the first one screaming bloody blue murder if either of these women had been suspended for an "alleged" infraction.  Innocent till proven guilty.
 
Zip said:
Greymatters, this has been going on for more than a year already.  I'd think Dawn Black would have been the first one screaming bloody blue murder if either of these women had been suspended for an "alleged" infraction.  Innocent till proven guilty.


The point is that there is still a disconnect between the charge and the current activities of person(s) charged.  Sabotage is supposed to be a serious charge and is supposed to be applied to willful acts of damage/destruction accompanied by intent to do so - is this person actually dangerous or is some officer/MP stretching the interpretation of definitions a bit and 'over-charging' on what should be a less serious matter? (Its not like it would be the first time that happened) 

I find this to be an unusual case and worth discussing.  If all you want to point out is that they are 'innocent until proven guilty', then why even discuss it?  Let's lock up this thread and not talk about it anymore until after the trial...
 
These two should not even be Privates let alone be allowed to keep the rank of PO 2. I am sure there are lots of tears and they are telling everybody that they didn't do it or it was a mistake. If they keep them in the forces then send them to Afghanistan with out weapons and let them command an out post for two.
PO Reid has always been a screw up but for some reason she seems to get away with it time and time again.  I am sure the words discrimination will come up because they are gay; this would not be the first time she has used this excuse.
Before you get all upset I am not against gays I believe in equality for everybody.
From what I know of Reid her family is military with every member either serving or has served at one time for the past 4 generations. She has put her own family to shame.
We have members putting there lives at risk all over the world why should these two be allowed to sit at home and collect the monthly pay cheque.
Can some body please tell me why ????????????????????????????????????
:crybaby:
 
sgt bob,

I'm not sure if you are trolling or not. But the phrase: "Inocent until proven guilty" applies. It is one of the cornerstones of our society and the right of every citizen of Canada, including those who defend it. Someone has to prove these allegations "beyond reasonable doubt" before any sanctions can be taken against these two. Suppose we were to take the actions you suggest and the verdict is "Not Guilty", how would you make things right again? Perhaps you would be one of the first to accuse the Military of acting hastily and commiting grevious harm to those same two individuals you currently want to hang from the yardarm.
 
sgt bob.....you can consider that post your freebie.

Bruce
army.ca staff
 
Chief Tech

If the accused had been charged within a month of committing the crime then yes I would think the Military was acting hastily. But a year long investigation somebody has done there homework. Can you tell me the last time any member of the Canadian Forces was charged with Sabotage? I don't mean found agility just charged.
I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money.
The moral in the military is low at the moment and we see day in and day out people not pulling there weight (or pulling to much in some cases) we have them in every unit. It is time the military starts going after these people. If these PO 2S are found guilty then the full weight of the law should be brought down on them, As I said before this is not Reid's first screw up if she had been dealt with correctly in the first time around then we would not be in the situation we are in at the moment.
I have seen members charged with far less then these two but they still ended up wearing white coveralls and doing every crap job on the base or unit.
Why do you think these two have not had such pleasure handed to them??
:cdn:
 
sgt bob said:
I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money. 

First point - I think thats a bit of a harsh reprisal for investigation staff - some investigatiosn take years with no results for the effort, not from lack of trying but from lack of solid evidence that can be used in court, which is not the investigators fault.

Second point - Some investigations are conducted not because of a specific crime being reported, but because a commander or politician wants to pursue an issue of little or no importance.  The investigators have no option except to follow through on an investigation, even when they know the likelihood of finding and charging offenders is low. 

 
sgt bob said:
Chief Tech

If the accused had been charged within a month of committing the crime then yes I would think the Military was acting hastily. But a year long investigation somebody has done there homework. Can you tell me the last time any member of the Canadian Forces was charged with Sabotage? I don't mean found agility just charged.
I would be very surprised if they will found guilty on all charges but if they do managed to talk there way out of trouble (again) then somebody on the investigation side should be held accountable for wasting military time and money.
The moral in the military is low at the moment and we see day in and day out people not pulling there weight (or pulling to much in some cases) we have them in every unit. It is time the military starts going after these people. If these PO 2S are found guilty then the full weight of the law should be brought down on them, As I said before this is not Reid's first screw up if she had been dealt with correctly in the first time around then we would not be in the situation we are in at the moment.
I have seen members charged with far less then these two but they still ended up wearing white coveralls and doing every crap job on the base or unit.
Why do you think these two have not had such pleasure handed to them??
:cdn:

Sgt Bob.

I am currently working in the place where these two PO2's were, I arrived as this thing blew up and was interviewed by the NIS.  My  suggestion is that you hang up the axe you are grinding and let they system do it's job.

If those of us affected by this incident can let it proceed then surely you can.

By the way, Ried's former mistakes do not make her guilty of this one, the fact that they are lesbians does not mean they are or have been treated differently.

You said it yourself
If these PO 2S are found guilty then the full weight of the law should be brought down on them
.
 
    Not the part about 'suspended without pay', that only shows the NDP defence critic needs to 'git some learnin' on defence (geez, what does he think we are, a union?),
 

    Small clarification - Dawn Black is a she.
 
Greymatters
Point taken.
My apologies I did not mean to accuse the Investigating team of not doing there job or have them take the fall if no charges are laid in the end. I agree that not all investigations are done under the best intentions. My full support goes to those that are involved in this or any other investigation and sorry if I caused any insult.
We see these types of investigation year and year out and in the end we do not hear the final verdict. If the PO’s luck out and do get off then we should be told why and how. This would exonerate any blame being put unfairly onto the investigating team. I understand if the outcome affects National Security then we would not be informed.
All we can do is hope that no loop holes will be found for these two to get through.


 
By the way, Ried's former mistakes do not make her guilty of this one, the fact that they are lesbians does not mean they are or have been treated differently.
Nor should they be brought up in a public forum with no proof. Allegations without proof can get one in legal trouble.
 
This will be an interesting case to watch, I think. I do not remember anyone in the forces being charged with sabotage. Ubique
 
Back
Top