Sun Papers: CF AWOL Cases Up Since 9-11

[couchcommander]

Ah, Mr. Staples strikes again. shameful.

There are plenty of things to properly criticize about the armed forces, their operations, or their political masters... digging up random statistics and making far flung conclusions based on an already discredited and horribly tasteless subject is not one of them.

Stories ARE out there, you just have to find them, not expect them to drop into your lap.

 

[Fusaki]

EXPERTS AGREE: TERRORISTS INFILTRATING THE CF

Petawawa -- The number of Canadian soldiers who have been charged for not shaving has doubled in the last six years, Crackerbox Media has learned.

Records obtained through access to information show 708 troops were convicted of not shaving in 2005 - more than two times the 340 who were convicted of the offence in 2000. Experts agree that this sharp rise is an indicator of soldiers trying to grow beards, a trait common to such infamous terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Ladin, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev who was killed on Sunday by Russian Special Forces.

Spokesman Lieut. I.P. Freelee said brass are not concerned with the rise in unshaven soldier convictions because the numbers correlate to a general increase in new Canadian Forces recruits, and the "vast majority" are for those who frequent the Pembroke Bar known as "Shots" on Thursday nights.

Charges are considered relatively minor with punishment meant to maintain "good order and discipline. You'll find that the majority of charges are the newer people who are joining," Freelee said.

But Scott Scandal of the Cynosura Institute called the numbers "astounding" and suggested they reflect a growing terrorist faction within the CF.

"The fact that is that our new soldiers are attempting to emulate these terrorist leaders. Just the other day I saw a young man I presume to be a soldier wearing a Che Guevara  T-Shirt outside the Tim Horton's in Petawawa. This young man didn't even look Cuban!!!" he said.

:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Another data point without an explanation.  AWOL charges are up.  But why?  Maybe a cultural "manana" attitude has taken root among the recruit's generation.  But fcuk it; research is too much work.  Let's just make up a curve to fit the data point.

 

[HDE]

I'm always intrigued how Mr. Staples has become the go-to-guy whenever the media need a complex issue dumbed down for public consumption.  Sort of lazy analysis for a lazy media  :tsktsk:

 

[Franko]

Oh God.....make it stop....    :

AWOL....as it was already gone over before, could be anything from 5 minutes late ( and usually hung over ) or tied up in traffic.

Usually the charge is a last resort to get a member sorted out.

It's very rare to actually have someone AWOL.

I've only seen it once, personally, in my 18 years of service....and the member was mentally unstable at the time, and I'll leave it at that.

The Sun is grasping at straws as is Mr Staples who, IMHO, has his own agenda and can't be relied upon for any factual analysis.

I wonder if they have any idea the actual scope of their ill-informed opinions have on today's society.....

Oh who really cares? Just as long as it sells papers. Freakin' vultures    :

Regards

 

[couchcommander]

Staples is the spokesman I believe - I don't think he actually does any analysing of his own re: military, just spouts the stuff.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

I get a kick out of the guys who get dinged for not being 5 minutes early to their 10 minute early timing.

Not to stray too off topic but we had an instructor on course a few years ago who used to give us push ups whether or not we were early, on time or late.

If we were early, he would say "If you go into battle early, you go while the artilery is still falling and you die"

If we were on time he would say "You are supposed to be 5 minutes early for all your timings"

And if we were late...well, I should hope I don't have to tell you what he would say then...besides, I think it would break the profanity filter  ;D

Ahh...good times.

 

[bguerett]

Me and a bud  served 14 days detention in 1971 for being 2 hours late after driving from Kingston to Thunder Bay and back over the Good Friday-Easter Monday weekend. Got caught in a snow storm from Sault Ste Marie to Belleville, closed the 400 and 401, called the Duty Officer and let them know we were coming down the back roads.

The PL WO marched us right into the exchange Brit OC who stated..."How do you plead, and it had better be guilty!"

Right off the guard house! Oh, those were the days!! :'(

 

[boots]

This goes a little off topic, but I did a google search for the Polaris Institute, and this amusing page turned up: http://www.bottledwater.org/public/2005_Releases/IBWA_Challenges_Polaris_Institute_Statements.html

It looks like we're not the only ones they go after... :rofl:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Whats the Polaris Institute?

 

[George Wallace]

Google - Your Friend!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2005-37,DVXA:en&q=Polaris+Institute

 

[Jarnhamar]

People are always talking about my apparent friend google when I ask a question, I should meet this guy he seems to know all the answers to my questions!  Thanks 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

They had Staples on from the Polaris institute talking about this on AM 640 talk radio on Friday morning. He went off spouting off how about they are an independent think-tank and that unlike some other defence analyst they don't take any money from DND. Of course no names, no pack drill. One other thing that I found really offensive was that he said that DND had sent a PAO had been sent around to Cpl Boneca's so that they could come up with a statement that supported the military line, in other words that Cpl Boneca’s father was lying. Unfortunately, they didn't have any call-ins so that people could ask some questions.  :rage:

Now here is my take on the original post. What's happening here is once again we have a reporter who knows nothing about the military and gets his facts mixed-up. The problem here is that he is confusing two different things - desertion and AWOL. Here are the relevant sections dealing with the two from the National Defence Act:

Desertion

Offence

88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

Definition

(2) A person deserts who

(a) being on or having been warned for active service, duty during an emergency or other important service, is absent without authority with the intention of avoiding that service;
(b) having been warned that his vessel is under sailing orders, is absent without authority with the intention of missing that vessel;
(c) absents himself without authority from his place of duty with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty;
(d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or
(e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required.

Presumption of desertion

(3) A person who has been absent without authority for a continuous period of six months or more shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty.

R.S., c. N-4, s. 78.

Absence without Leave

Offence

90. (1) Every person who absents himself without leave is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.

Definition

(2) A person absents himself without leave who

(a) without authority leaves his place of duty;
(b) without authority is absent from his place of duty; or
(c) having been authorized to be absent from his place of duty, fails to return to his place of duty at the expiration of the period for which the absence of that person was authorized.

R.S., c. N-4, s. 80.

As you can see they are different sections under the NDA and that is how a person is charged. In a nutshell, desertion is when you deliberately absent yourself from your place of work with the intention of never coming back and/or to avoid service. AWOL as previous posters have remarked you could be charged AWOL for being 10 minutes late for a parade. Big difference. IN the 31 years I spent in the military I only personally know of only two cases of desertion and both took place during basic training in Wainwright. A third case, also during basic training, involved a cook who went missing. Unfortunately, his body was found about eight months later during WAINCON when a helo flew over a slough and the FE spotted something in the water and it turned up to be the cook's body. The speculation was that he had been into town and on the way back had taken a shortcut across a frozen slough and fell through.

 

[North Star]

Yeah, but Mr. Staples won't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of spreading his message. Ironically, the Frasier Institute seems to be more "impartial" than the Polaris Institute, but has to deal with the "right-wing" label.

 

[Edward Campbell]

They had Staples on from the Polaris institute talking about this on AM 640 talk radio on Friday morning. He went off spouting off how about they are an independent think-tank and that unlike some other defence analyst they don't take any money from DND. Of course no names, no pack drill.

Sadly, Staples is right.  DND funds and otherwise supports its own lobby group: The Conference of Defence Associations - http://www.cda-cdai.ca/ .  Many of us (knowingly or otherwise) support CDA, too.  I know I do through my membership in my Regimental Association which, through the Canadian Infantry Association, supports CDA.  Like it or not the 'experts' from CDA do take money from DND so their conclusions are open to debate, to say the least.

One other thing that I found really offensive was that he said that DND had sent a PAO had been sent around to Cpl Boneca's so that they could come up with a statement that supported the military line, in other words that Cpl Boneca’s father was lying.

If Cpl Boneca's father contacted DND to say something like "Hey, I want to set the record straight" then it is logical that DND would, indeed, have sent a PAFFO (or whatever they're called) to, at least, pick up the statement.  It was reported (I'm half way 'round the world - on the dark side - so I cannot follow everything as well as I might wish) that Mr. Boneca's statement was released on DN letterhead.  f that's true then it indicates some level of DND involvement.

I'm no fan of Polaris but slagging Staples for telling the truth is counter-productive, I think.

----------

Edit: I'm not sure DND provides direct financial support any more.  When I was still serving the VCDS of the day was trying to remove DND financial and direct staff support in order to save a bit of money and remove the paid lobbist stigma from CDA.  DND still provides plenty of other support, including extensive (public funded) 'support' by senior staff at CDA events.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Hmmmmm, go figure :

Brian Lemon said...
Great work, BBS
The Polaris Institute is associated with the Canadian Communist Party, Marxist Leninist, so are hardly an unbiased observer.
They desire to destroy the entire Western Economic and cultural system.
My post: http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2006/05/canadian-press-shills-for-marxists.html#links
In reviewing their speaking and writing and frequent travel around the world, I used to wonder how they afforded this (and their gasmasks and molotov cocktails for G8 and WTO meetings). Learned it's not from their trust funds. It's from Fidel, Abdullah, Kim, Hugo, et al.

Taken from:
http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2006/05/spin-cycle-polaris-and-cp-news.html

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Steven Staples was a guest on CTV's Question period today, along wth Lew Mackenzie and David Bercuson.  It was really fun watching Staples spout off, particularly on the Boneca file, and get his clock cleaned by both of the other two gentleman.

Staples other major contention was that our original commitment to Afghanistan in 2001 was peacekeeping- unlike today  which is pure "American-worshiping toadying-making-the-world-safe-for-Haliburton-to-build-oil-pipelines-everywhere" (I'm paraphrasing) :

When Gen Mackenzie corrected him, Staples cut him off and told him he was wrong.  Craig Oliver did not allow a response, but I thought Lew was going to cut him a new one right on national TV.

The Polaris Institue may be independent, but they are in no way impartial.  Or in possession of a firm grasp of reality.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Re:  Boneca's father's statement - I wasn't in on the discussion, but speaking to people who were, it appears to be the dad wanting to set the record straight, and DND (specifically Land Forces Western Area) PAffO (who was with the mom/dad from the start, soaking up the emtional turmoil of a mom and dad losing their only child) facilitated/distributed.  Father's first language isn't English, so that may have played a role in his not getting in front of a camera/microphone.  I'm guessing if there was going to be anything the CF couldn't support, they wouldn't have put it on LFWA letterhead:
http://www.army.dnd.ca/LFWA_HQ/Documents/2006/MA/MA-Boneca_Statement_Jul06.pdf

Sad I missed CTV QP - if I can hunt up a transcript, will share.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I found this on this (Halifax Peace Coalition) web site at: http://www.hfxpeace.chebucto.org/content/view/111/2/

Steven Staples is the Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute, a public interest research organization based in Ottawa. The
Polaris Institute is widely credited as playing a key role in preventing the Canadian government from joining the U.S. missile defence program in 2005.  Steven is a frequent contributor to journals, magazines, and conferences, and is often called upon to comment on defence and public policy-related issues by the national and international news media including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, Time, CTV National News and CBC Television's The National and the BBC. He is regularly invited to appear before federalvcgovernment committees and departments to speak about defence and foreign policy issues, including the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Standing Committee on Finance. His years of work with popular organizations, including the Council of Canadians, has made him well-known amongst civil society organizations, and he speaks regularly to audiences in Canada and the United States, and around the world. Born in the Maritimes and a long-time resident of Vancouver, Steven
now lives in Ottawa with his wife and two children. He holds a Bachelors of Education (Hon. History) from the University of New Brunswick.

A few years back Staples was with Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians (source: http://sandelman.ca/lists/html/opirg-events/2001/msg00434.html ) and he spent some time before that, or maybe concurrently, as Chair of the International Network on Disarmament and Globalization (source: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html#SS ).  The latter organization seems to have folded its tents.

Staples has his many of his own “boots on the ground” – see, for example: http://www.ceasefire.ca/site/c.afLJJWOuHkE/b.1533619/k.2BC7/April_21_2006.htm which appears to be an offshoot or subset of Polaris.

My disdain for Education degrees approaches that which I have for those ‘awarded’ for Journalism so, on the basis of not saying anything if you cannot say anything nice I will refrain from further comment.

Steve Staples appears to be a professional left wing activist (another name for busybody) with no special qualifications (based on either education or practical experience) in strategic studies or defence policy – but one can learn a lot by reading and listening.

 

[couchcommander]

That report to the standing committee on defence was.... well in the best of terms sleazy, and while not blatantly expounding any fallacies he is twisting the situation to suit his own needs. It is amazing, really. I was under the impression he was just a spokesman spouting other people's garbage, but to find he actually believes some of this stuff. The urge to beat the man is incredible.

*edit* Ah I think I've found a few things.. a post may follow - belated unfortunately.