Posted by Greg on May 25, 2021 at 15:35:22:
In Reply to: Non-starter posted by Reggie Millar on May 23, 2021 at 16:03:28:
While you can change the title of the person the CDS
reports to, all that does is change the letterhead that
pertains to NDHQ. Elected officials at levels are
first and foremost beholden to "political correctness".
That's why I'm suggesting a proper check and balance
system. I'm also not proposing that the military not
be under civilian control. I'm just proposing a more
effective system of checks and balances so that our
armed forces can operate more effectively. In fact,
if you look at it, in no way would government lose any
degree of control of the armed forces.
You are right about the National Defence Act being
passed by parliament. That seems to be where your
point escapes me. If you check closely and examine
our legal processes, you'll find that there methods for
changing laws. That's the reason why people talk
about making changes and witchcraft is no longer
illegal. I fail to see the relevence of your point.
Also, while I agree with your point about everything
the government wanting not being bad, I'll disagree
with the idea that we have to accept everything they
say as gospel. If we did, the political will to change
that you spoke of would never happen.
You'll also note that I never said that "all officers
are careerists". Just as there are overly career
minded enlisted personnel, there are hard working and
dedicated officers. The reason, however, that the
officers get the lion's share of the blame is simple.
Authority without responsibility is meaningless. Last
time I checked, the officers were supposed to lead the
armed forces. Since it's obvious that there are problems,
the bulk of responsibility must lie at the feet of the
officers. That's why it seems that everything is
blamed on the officers. They aren't the only source of
problems, but taking responsibility is one of the joys
of command.
Lastly, on the subject of the military justice system,
maybe you can answer this question for me: Excepting
during times of war, why do we need a military justice
system? What purpose does it serve? What can it do
during peacetime that the civilian system can't handle?
How is it possible that every other profession in
Canada can handle it's own internal discipline as it
relates to the job, leaving the criminal matters to
the properly appointed and trained criminal justice
system? Simple discipline problems can be handled
without a costly and archaic system that, despite your
assurances that it "reflects the checks and balances
found in the Canadian justice system", fails to
recognize the basic concepts of a fair trial by your
peers. Assuming for a minute that you're right and it
does, why the redundancy? If it has the same basic
values, couldn't we make up some of the legendary
budget shortfalls if we scrapped the military justice
system and had the civilian justice system handle it?
I await your answer.
As long as we're on the subject, the name of all
Canadian Armed Forces member's boss is Queen Elizabeth II
, not the Minister of Defence. So before you try
telling people not to form contrary opinions to your
own, make sure you've got your facts straight.