Time to Arm Cenotaph Guard? (split from Domestic Terrorism)

[Gunner98]

To be fair, that order has since been clarified to allow for direct travel in uniform to and from work. It's only public appearances and detours (coffee shops, getting groceries, going to the bank) that remain prohibited.

Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?

 

[cupper]

Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?

Underwear first, then socks, then shirt. Pants, either one leg at a time, or for the more daring, both at the same time. Belt, tie shoes then finally jacket (if necessary).

;D

 

[Gunner98]

Underwear first, then socks, then shirt. Pants, either one leg at a time, or for the more daring, both at the same time. Belt, tie shoes then finally jacket (if necessary).

;D

As for the top layer - the order of dress would be? Shame, embarrassment?

???

 

[PMedMoe]

As for the top layer - the order of dress would be? Shame, embarrassment?

Urban camouflage. 

 

[JS2218]

Is the "public appearances" your wording?  So if a serving member is going to be attending a meeting at non-DND building such as a civilian conference - how would they dress?

At this time all "outside of garrison" appearances are to be in civilians:

To increase awareness, increase vigilance and enhance alertness, CAF members must reconsider their daily routines and adapt behaviour that will reduce personal vulnerability. 

The wearing of military uniforms outside of garrison is suspended until further notice with the exception of transit directly to/from garrison (garrison includes all buildings in the NCR where DND business is conducted) via private or public transport.

The mode of transport will remain at the discretion of individuals. Stopping in public venues (such as supermarkets, day care facilities and others) is prohibited.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I know it's a whole different jurisdictional "ball of string" being wrestled with in the U.K., and we're talking about guarding a military base instead of a monument on public property, but here's what the Brits are doing to protect at least some ceremonial functions:

Military sources said the decision to deploy armed guards at the entrance to Horse Guards Parade was made by local commanders following the shooting of Canadian soldier Corporal Nathan Cirillo, 24, in Ottawa last week.

(....)

Although popular with tourists, Horse Guards Parade is a working military barracks where soldiers from the Household Cavalry Regiment live and work, with the public having limited access during the day.

It is also the headquarters of the Army's London District.

As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent.

Eyewitnesses said the two armed soldiers had stepped onto the street outside the base to check on the more traditional guards on horseback at the gates.

One asked the tourists to move back so the ceremonial procession could pass by.

'The MoD routinely reviews the security arrangements at all of its establishments,' a spokesman at the Ministry of Defence told MailOnline.

'Clearly we do not comment publicly on the substance of these.' ....

Caption:  "Vigilent: As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent"

 

[Edward Campbell]

And what the Brits are doing make sense. Soldiers on "public duties" are putting on a show, they are not, in any military sense, "guarding" (defending) anything. They might as well be armed with swords or halbreds (liken the Swiss Guards at the Vatican) for all the good a loaded weapon would do.

If there is a continuing threat then we have two sensible options:

    1. Remove the ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial; or

      2. Provide adequate security at the National War Memorial for visitors and guards alike. (And, NO, I don't know what "adequate" means - I'm neither a policeman nor a physical security specialist.)

Arming the ceremonial guard - providing loaded weapons - is pointless.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I will respectfully disagree it's not pointless in fact it's rather a pointed statement. Now if you employ a police officer to watch over them, then you are sucking up someone's resources and money and cops likely cost more per hour than soldiers. As for legal issues, it would take little to change the status of the Memorial and it's not that uncommon to have soldiers with loaded or guns with bullets nearby on public property. I would have the guard equipped with rifles with a loaded mag in the weapon but not up the spout and armed soldier acting as overwatch and to prevent interactions. during peak periods security guards can provide a way of managing public interactions while the solider does overwatch. Considering what just happened it would make sense and the majority of people will easily accept it, except of course the chattering class who will accept nothing. In fact most people I speak to are stunned by the fact that the soldiers had no means to protect themselves and no ammo for their guns. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:  Spot on.  +300

 

[Edward Campbell]

I will respectfully disagree it's not pointless in fact it's rather a pointed statement. Now if you employ a police officer to watch over them, then you are sucking up someone's resources and money and cops likely cost more per hour than soldiers. As for legal issues, it would take little to change the status of the Memorial and it's not that uncommon to have soldiers with loaded or guns with bullets nearby on public property. I would have the guard equipped with rifles with a loaded mag in the weapon but not up the spout and armed soldier acting as overwatch and to prevent interactions. during peak periods security guards can provide a way of managing public interactions while the solider does overwatch. Considering what just happened it would make sense and the majority of people will easily accept it, except of course the chattering class who will accept nothing. In fact most people I speak to are stunned by the fact that the soldiers had no means to protect themselves and no ammo for their guns.

I agree, I'm hearing the same thing, but ... a loaded rifle, even one with a round up the spout is useless to a soldier who is standing stock still, eyes to the front when, as this attacker did, the enemy is creeping up from behind.

I agree that the soldier on "overwatch" should be armed ... but (s)he should be a Military Police officer with all the necessary constabulary power and (I hope) some training in how to kill an attacker when (s)he, the enemy attacker, is 'hiding' in a crowd of tourists.

IF we think there is a real threat, and IF we think there is an important public message to be sent by keeping a ceremonial guard on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then we can, surely, sort out the jurisdictional issues and put the loaded weapons in the hands of the right people ... not the people performing a public spectacle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know it's a whole different jurisdictional "ball of string" being wrestled with in the U.K., and we're talking about guarding a military base instead of a monument on public property, but here's what the Brits are doing to protect at least some ceremonial functions:

Caption:  "Vigilent: As with other military bases, soldiers are permanently on guard at the entrance but since Monday these troops from the Household Cavalry Regiment have been more prominent"

The British always have covert coverage of the ceremonial events in London, especially since 1982 when the IRA took out the Guards' horses, including Sefton, with a nail bomb (as well as a bunch of humans - note the British priorities ). This coverage can extend to 'overt' presence as required.

The message here is that:

1) The British will continue to conduct themselves as they have always done, unhindered by terrorism; and 2) There IS ALWAYS some kind of cover available, either via police or other assets, because they have learned the hard way that to do otherwise is fatal.

We should now make sure that we do the same, of course.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree, I'm hearing the same thing, but ... a loaded rifle, even one with a round up the spout is useless to a soldier who is standing stock still, eyes to the front when, as this attacker did, the enemy is creeping up from behind.

I agree that the soldier on "overwatch" should be armed ... but (s)he should be a Military Police officer with all the necessary constabulary power and (I hope) some training in how to kill an attacker when (s)he, the enemy attacker, is 'hiding' in a crowd of tourists.

IF we think there is a real threat, and IF we think there is an important public message to be sent by keeping a ceremonial guard on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then we can, surely, sort out the jurisdictional issues and put the loaded weapons in the hands of the right people ... not the people performing a public spectacle.

This is where I'm modifying my position.

No cost to the public. Duty to be done by Military Police ( I spelled it in full lest someone think Elizabeth May, MP, will be standing guard ). Given full police powers utilizing the Force Continuum http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/The%20Force%20Continuum%20Conundrum.pdf Whatever model is decided on.

Leave the Guard as is but protect them. However, it may be prudent to provide them a full mag, nothing chambered, in case it becomes a real shit hits the fan situation. At least, if their guard becomes incapacitated, it will give them time to charge the weapons, hopefully assess the situation and react.

 

[Tibbson]

I agree with dapaterson: the duty is sort of thing for which our own Military Police branch people are adequately qualified. They can also remind other CF members passing by the National War Memorial that it is a saluting zone.

I would not believe the MPs have authorities in this instance at this location.  The monument itself may be argued to be DND "owned" because they fall under the management of the Directory of History and Heritage but the land they are on is not DND property and policing of the area falls to Ottawa police.  If people start to contend that the armed MPs would be there guarding the guards "because they are CAF members" performing an official function then it could be argued that MPs should be required to accompany all CAF members outside of a defence establishment 

 

[Tibbson]

Just my opinion again....

1.  There should have been video surveillance along with a minimum team of 4 plain clothes police defending the area to identify the threat and engage it before they were capable of attacking the honour guard.

2.  Once the threat was raised I have enough trust in our soldiers to give them bullets, so that they can participate in 'guarding' the area. 

I don't think building the defensive plan around neutralizing a team of up to 8 attackers is outside what should have been expected.  I think since one untrained whackjob got a unmolested shots off on two unarmed honour guards it's safe to say the plan was significantly less than that.

Again, regardless of what historical norms were, whomever authorized the previous plan needs to be called onto the carpet.


M.

I can't help but wonder what the laws are regarding the arming of soldiers within Canada in situations such as this.  Unless my memory is faulty, even during times of formal aid to civil power requests where CAF members may encounter looters and other miscreants...we don't go armed.  As much as the death of this Cpl was tragic and despicable I just don't see a need to arm a ceremonial sentry or provide 10s of thousands of dollars of police protection. 

One thing I've been wondering about since this entire incident occurred is where were the snipers on the Hill?  I've been there a number of times for both planned events and as a tourist and on every occasion I can recall looking up and seeing 2 or more on the roof of the building keeping overwatch on the lawn and other areas.  One would think that they would have seen the individual approach across the lawn as people fled.  If that couldn't stop someone from attacking Parliament I can't see how an armed guard on a sentry post would make a difference. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I would not believe the MPs have authorities in this instance at this location.  The monument itself may be argued to be DND "owned" because they fall under the management of the Directory of History and Heritage but the land they are on is not DND property and policing of the area falls to Ottawa police.  If people start to contend that the armed MPs would be there guarding the guards "because they are CAF members" performing an official function then it could be argued that MPs should be required to accompany all CAF members outside of a defence establishment

All they would need is a letter of understanding from the powers that be in Ottawa and then they would have the proper jursidiciton.

 

[Remius]

I can't help but wonder what the laws are regarding the arming of soldiers within Canada in situations such as this.  Unless my memory is faulty, even during times of formal aid to civil power requests where CAF members may encounter looters and other miscreants...we don't go armed.  As much as the death of this Cpl was tragic and despicable I just don't see a need to arm a ceremonial sentry or provide 10s of thousands of dollars of police protection. 

One thing I've been wondering about since this entire incident occurred is where were the snipers on the Hill?  I've been there a number of times for both planned events and as a tourist and on every occasion I can recall looking up and seeing 2 or more on the roof of the building keeping overwatch on the lawn and other areas.  One would think that they would have seen the individual approach across the lawn as people fled.  If that couldn't stop someone from attacking Parliament I can't see how an armed guard on a sentry post would make a difference.

What snipers on the hill?  You likely either saw something you thought were snipers or if they were, were there for a specific reason the day you were there

 

[quadrapiper]

All they would need is a letter of understanding from the powers that be in Ottawa and then they would have the proper jursidiciton.

Expect that would be one of the less "exotic" security arrangements in Ottawa - uniformed Canadian-trained LEO hanging about a fixed location with a well-defined and public task.

Seems, conceptually, like a task that could be developed in parallel to the current reserve ceremonial sentries for reserve MPs

 

[dapaterson]

Reserve MPs are not badged. A whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Robert0288]

Might be worth a separate thread, and I apologize for the derail.  But what is a non-badged reserve MP designated as?  Do they have peace officer status?

 

[Loachman]

Would there be support in arming all civilians, with the proviso they are properly trained with sidearms so they could also defend themselves from possible future extremist attacks in much the same way as we want CF members protected

"All" civilians? No. There are many people who should not have guns.

Or cars, or children.

Very few would seek to arm themselves anyway, even if there was a legal ability to do so.

Only a small (single-digit) percentage of US citizens have concealed carry permits, yet even that small number provides a significant deterrence to criminals. Yes, the US murder rate is higher than hours, but that is largely fuelled by gang activity. Many jurisdictions have lower murder rates than similar jurisdictions in Canada, and their overall violent crime rate is lower than ours.

Concealed carry permit holders have lower arrest and conviction rates than police have, shoot more criminals per capita, and fewer innocent bystanders per capita.

Most of them shoot far more frequently than many police members, have a greater incentive to stay out of legal trouble, and are better able to determine who is a justifiable target and who is not.

Handguns are simple machines with few controls. The laws governing self-defence are not complex. This is not rocket surgery.

And a lot of people can be trained and armed for the cost of one military funeral, and even more for the cost of a state funeral.