Soldier charged in comrade's death.

I was going to place this in the other Afghanistan thread however it was getting close to 100 post, so I thought I would start a new thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

I am not sure what to think of the manslaughter charge?

---

quote:

---

Unionist:
Care to speculate on what happened here?

---

I am not sure, however I would agree with Jerry. I would also mention those other reasons from the other thread.

If the hired hands had announced publicly how Jeffrey Walsh had died around six months ago (because they obviously knew... they didn't need Sherlock Holmes or Inspector Clouseau...) - instead of covering it up all this time - then maybe, just maybe, the culprit who shot Cpl. Megeney might have been inspired by enough fear to follow the rules and ensure he didn't bring a loaded weapon into his tent?????

quote:

---

Unionist:
Meanwhile, the name of the culprit and the details of the killing of Cpl. Megeney are again being withheld,

---

Actually, I think that it is a good idea whether in military or civil law to withold the name of persons charged or suspected of a crime until after they have been proven guilty. There are some exceptions to this of course, only in the interest of public safety, but this isn't one of them.

quote:

---

If the hired hands had announced publicly how Jeffrey Walsh had died around six months ago.... then maybe, just maybe, the culprit who shot Cpl. Megeney might have been inspired by enough fear to follow the rules ....

---

Had they been civilians cruising around Toronto in a van, the cops would have charged the gunholder within 24 hours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Actually, I think that it is a good idea whether in military or civil law to withold the name of persons charged or suspected of a crime until after they have been proven guilty. There are some exceptions to this of course, only in the interest of public safety, but this isn't one of them.

---

People just suddenly disappear into the justice machine without the authorities confirming they have been charged? Isn't that the kind of thing that happened in the dark days of the desaparecidos in Argentina? Or Nepal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Actually, I think that it is a good idea whether in military or civil law to withold the name of persons charged or suspected of a crime until after they have been proven guilty. There are some exceptions to this of course, only in the interest of public safety, but this isn't one of them.

---

Well, I think it's a good idea too, but it's never followed in civilian matters, as you and I know very well. But how about dealing with the point. Why wouldn't the military release every last known detail of the killing of Walsh and Megeney as they happen, without naming the killers?

Afraid the terrorists might find out?

My theory is several-fold:

1. Useless bootlicking media who ask no questions for fear of losing their sources or maybe getting shot accidentally.

2. Coverup of criminally negligent commanding officers, who are the real ones to blame.

3. Coverup of the total lack of training of our troops, which gives rise to the murder of Afghan civilians and the negligent "friendly" killing of each other - besides 3-vehicle collisions. These people act like they trained themselves on video games, then were rubber-stamped "approved" for the front lines.

4. Political interference in criminal and disciplinary matters, aimed at hiding incompetence and stupidity in order to keep the blood money flowing.

Of course, I'm no expert, so those of you who are far better versed in military matters than I can perhaps opine as to why the details of the death of Jeffrey Walsh are being kept secret to this very day - because we still don't know what actually happened. It shows, besides anything else, the utter cold-blooded contempt which the military has for its own cannon-fodder and their bereaved families, whose interests and emotions are only remembered when they can somehow be exploited to help do propaganda for more warmongering.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
People just suddenly disappear into the justice machine without the authorities confirming they have been charged?

---

We have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Publicly advertising some one's arrest or suspicion of wrong doing, particularly of a heinous offense, destroys that right for all practical purposes.

We don't want people dissapearing into the system, but everyone charged with something should have the right to know what they are charged with, and if they want to go public with it, that is their choice.

What we also don't want is the authorities destroying reputations and livlihoods by convicting people in public opinion before the evidence is produced and judged at trial. The only person outside of the investigation who should have a right to know the charges or suspicions is the defendant. What they do with that knowledge is up to them.

quote:

---

Unionist:
Why wouldn't the military release every last known detail of the killing of Walsh and Megeney as they happen, without naming the killers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

My theory is several-fold:

1. Useless bootlicking media who ask no questions for fear of losing their sources or maybe getting shot accidentally.

2. Coverup of criminally negligent commanding officers, who are the real ones to blame.

3. Coverup of the total lack of training of our troops, which gives rise to the murder of Afghan civilians and the negligent "friendly" killing of each other - besides 3-vehicle collisions. These people act like they trained themselves on video games, then were rubber-stamped "approved" for the front lines.

4. Political interference in criminal and disciplinary matters, aimed at hiding incompetence and stupidity in order to keep the blood money flowing.

---

I have some answers to your theories.

1. The world is full of unprofessional reporters. In my opinion if the news can not be fit into a 30 second so clip, it is not worth reporting correctly. I have two examples in my mind however that is subject of another thread.

2. If there is a cover up, it is being done by someone or organization in Ottawa. I think it is the military not releasing information because they do not seem to think anyone would care about every incident that takes place. Please see number one.

3. There is no lack of training, people get killed in the work place, look at loggers in BC, they have a very high numbers of deaths and injuries each year. I would say the minimal amount of training for the average soldier in Afghanistan is 8 months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
We have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Publicly advertising some one's arrest or suspicion of wrong doing, particularly of a heinous offense, destroys that right for all practical purposes.

---

Asking the state to withhold information in order to protect individual reputations is asking the state to manipulate public opinion by limiting its access to information. Should the fact of Conrad Black's trial, for instance, and the list of charges against him, have been kept from the public in order to protect his reputation? Of course not!

quote:

---

We don't want people dissapearing into the system, but everyone charged with something should have the right to know what they are charged with, and if they want to go public with it, that is their choice.

---

The principle of public trials is as much for the benefit of society as a whole as it is for the accused person. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Secret trials are anathema in a democracy.

quote:

---

What we also don't want is the authorities destroying reputations and livlihoods by convicting people in public opinion before the evidence is produced and judged at trial. The only person outside of the investigation who should have a right to know the charges or suspicions is the defendant. What they do with that knowledge is up to them.

---

What is a defendant to do with that "knowledge" - issue a press release from prison? Is that what Maher Arar did from his grave-sized cell in Syria? What about the hundreds of thousands who went to Pinochet's prisons and were never heard of again? I guess it was "up to them" to make their identities known to the public and organize their own defence campaign?

The fact is that there is an enormous public interest in having the names of arrested people available to the public. For one thing, there may be witnesses who have valuable evidence about a case who would never be able to come forward if the names of accused persons were kept secret; there may be advocacy groups or pro bono lawyers who could offer assistance to the defence. For another, citizens would be disappearing mysteriously off the street and ending up in a legal system shrouded in secrecy, not to be seen for months or years at a time.

What you are advocating is a hallmark of every fascist and repressive regime on Earth. It's a throwback to the Inquisition, the Star Chamber, and the Moscow Trials. It goes hand in hand with secret arrests, secret wiretaps, secret subpoenas, secret prisons, secret trials, and secret torturing. Civil libertarians in the United States are fighting right now for the right to have open trials of accused terrorists and for the release of their names.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Well Webgear, let's reflect a bit. In the other thread, I demanded immediate (instant) and transparent information from our hired hands as to what had happened to Kevin Megeney. You thought that was a bad idea. Interfered with some unknown person's rights.

---

How would you have all this information involving Canadian personal in Afghanistan or other locations released?

I have seen information sent back to Ottawa, via a number of different organizations and political groups and they never release this information to the public.

For example NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black release a 5 paragraph news release about her trip to Afghanistan that contained nothing of value or interest.

Another example would be previous visits by a former Governor General, she was a reporter and she did not release any information to the public that I am aware of.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
What you are advocating is a hallmark of every fascist and repressive regime on Earth. It's a throwback to the Inquisition, the Star Chamber, and the Moscow Trials.

---

Totally over the top, foaming at the mouth BS.

quote:

---

Civil libertarians in the United States are fighting right now for the right to have open trials of accused terrorists and for the release of their names.

---

Who said anything about not having open trials. You read way too much into what I said then proceed to attack a straw man.

quote:

---

For another, citizens would be disappearing mysteriously off the street and ending up in a legal system shrouded in secrecy, not to be seen for months or years at a time.

---

A separate issue. A persons' rights are protected if he/she has the right to know the charges and the right to counsel and a phone call. That the state or its agents would deprive people of these rights is something to be concerned about and speaks to a separate remedy.

quote:

---

The fact is that there is an enormous public interest in having the names of arrested people available to the public. For one thing, there may be witnesses who have valuable evidence about a case who would never be able to come forward if the names of accused persons were kept secret;....

---

Witch hunts are good policy? Besides, public information on a crime aimed at soliciting more witnesses can be made without involving the name of the accused.

Disclosing the names of fugitives is something different, however.

quote:

---

It should not be up to the accused to decide whether the charges should be made public. We don't have secret trials in our system. Even when for legitimate reasons members of the public are excluded from the courtroom the fact that a trial is taking place, the name of the accused, and the charges against her should never be hidden from the public.

---

I am not arguing for closed courts or secret trials, that doesn't apply here either.

quote:

---

That's nonsense. People have a right to be considered innocent in the eyes of the justice system until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with the accused's reputation.

---

Your standards for individual rights appear to be somewhat lower than mine. People have a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, period. And, destroying the reputation of an innocent person is wrong.

Perhaps, under your system, persons who are falsely accused should have considerable and uncontestible remedy against the police and district attorneys who prosecuted them, and against all news organizations and others who publicized the charges outside of the court room.

quote:

---

Should the fact of Conrad Black's trial, for instance, and the list of charges against him, have been kept from the public in order to protect his reputation?

---

Why not? But Conrad Black is not the best example. I edit a newspaper. Our policy is no names get printed until there is a conviction in most cases. You may not have ever seen it, but I have witnessed police fishing expeditions and unsupportable accusations that could have seriously harmed innocent people had the media frenzy that you suggest been engaged in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Our policy is no names get printed until there is a conviction in most cases.

---

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Your policy is a disgrace to journalism and a slap in the face to a free society.

---

You might support witch hunting and gay bashing, we find nothing disgraceful about opposing them. The freedom to hound innocent people and destroy them is not one that we feel belongs in a "free society."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I have been thinking all night about the manslaughter charge and I do not agree with it.

---

Do you know what manslaughter is? You have to put together some articles of the Criminal Code:

quote:

---

222.(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;

(b) by criminal negligence; [...]

229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not; [...]

234. Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter.

---

In other words, if you kill someone, and you had no intention of killing or wounding them seriously, but you were criminally negligent or committing some other unlawful act - you are guilty of manslaughter.

For example, when you're driving a car with blood alcohol content of higher than .08 and you accidentally kill someone - that's manslaughter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Specifically, why are you jumping to conclusions about what happened, just as you did in the Megeney case?

---

Jumping to conclusions, what do you mean? Please tell me what conclusions I have upon made in either case?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Jumping to conclusions, what do you mean? Please tell me what conclusions I have upon made in either case?

---

My pleasure.

On Cpl. Megeney:

quote:

---

My guess is that Cpl. Megeney was most likely killed when someone was cleaning his/her personal weapon. [...]

I would compare this incident to driving a car everyday, sometimes people do not pay attention to what they are doing when driving. If you do not follow the rules of the road, you may get into a car accident and people may get killed. [...]

A simple mistake took the life of a young man, happens everyday.

---

Webgear, even though you were making educated guesses, you spoke with much certainty - and you totally discounted the possibility that a crime had been committed. One would hope the latest news about Walsh would make you reflect again about Megeney - but here, too, without having a shred of information about the facts, you have already drawn this conclusion:

quote:

---

I have been thinking all night about the manslaughter charge and I do not agree with it.

---

I did not discount any scenario. I stated what the most likely situation is provided by the information given by the media.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
You might support witch hunting and gay bashing, we find nothing disgraceful about opposing them. The freedom to hound innocent people and destroy them is not one that we feel belongs in a "free society."

---

Journalists are not supposed to be in the business of suppressing information. You are obviously in the wrong profession.

Mr. Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada once famously remarked as follows:

quote:

---

Many times it has been urged that the 'privacy' of litigants requires that the public be excluded from court proceedings. It is now well established, however, that covertness is the exception and openness the rule. Public confidence in the integrity of the court system and understanding of the administration of justice are thereby fostered. As a general rule the sensibilities of the individuals involved are no basis for exclusion of the public from judicial proceedings. The following comments of Laurence J. in R. v. Wright, 8 T.R. 293, are apposite and were cited with approval by Duff J. in Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow (1909), 41 S.C.R. 339 at p. 359:

“Though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned, yet it is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings of courts of justice should be universally known. The general advantage to the country in having these proceedings made public more than counterbalances the inconveniences to the private persons whose conduct may be the subject of such proceedings.”

The leading case is the decision of the House of Lords in Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417. In the later case of McPherson v. McPherson, [1936] A.C. 177, at p. 200, Lord Blanesburgh, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, referred to "publicity" as the "authentic hallmark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

But yes you are correct this could have been a murder, committed by a fellow soldier.

---

Or it could have been manslaughter.

General Lewis MacKenzie said (linked by me in other thread) that "it has been drilled into all personnel to clear their weapons – removing the bullet from the chamber – as well as removing the ammunition magazine before going into their sleeping quarters."

I am not that up to date on military and civilian law however I do not believe you can be charged twice with the same charge.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Evidently you are unable to discern the difference between witch hunting/gay bashing and publishing the name of an accused person.

---

Not true. Sometimes they are the same thing.

quote:

---

Public confidence in the integrity of the court system and understanding of the administration of justice are thereby fostered. As a general rule the sensibilities of the individuals involved are no basis for exclusion of the public from judicial proceedings.

---

So what? Irrelevant to the issue at hand. I agree that the public should not be excluded from judicial proceedings.

quote:

---

“Though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of the particular individual concerned, yet it is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings of courts of justice should be universally known. The general advantage to the country in having these proceedings made public more than counterbalances the inconveniences to the private persons whose conduct may be the subject of such proceedings.”

---

I don't disagree with this either. This requirement is fully met if those proceedings are published after the verdict is rendered.

quote:

---

Journalists are not supposed to be in the business of suppressing information. You are obviously in the wrong profession.

---

Ethical journalists have a responsibility to ensure accuracy of the informantion that they publish. Some may consider refusual to publish false or unsubstantiated information as suppression, others, however, see it as responsible.

Fans of the National Enquirer I am sure will disagree, or maybe they just think that everything that they read is true.

I suppose next in your line of argument will be the position that in judicial proceedings journalists must be obligated to disclose all of their material and sources?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Actually, I think that it is a good idea whether in military or civil law to withold the name of persons charged or suspected of a crime until after they have been proven guilty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
If you want better reporting Spector, then start writing. Or if you are, then why hide on a web forum unless you're afraid of somehow damaging your professional status.

---

M.Spector, like you or me, has a right to anonymity on this board without having it used as a debating point, even in a discussion like this one.

I think both he and Jerry West have defensible positions, but somehow extremes have crept in.

The question is not whether the names of accused persons should be kept secret. They must not (except in justifiable cases, such as minors). The question I think is whether and how the media should exercise discretion in what they report.

Thus, while my neighbour's divorce proceedings (for a hypothetical example) may be easily accessible by anyone who wishes to inspect public court documents, that doesn't mean the Toronto Star should publish them on the front page - unless there is an issue of public interest involved. That decision, of course, should remain with the newspaper.

quote:

---

It shows, besides anything else, the utter cold-blooded contempt which the military has for its own cannon-fodder and their bereaved families, whose interests and emotions are only remembered when they can somehow be exploited to help do propaganda for more warmongering.

---

MCpl Robbie Fraser, of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Regiment (PPCLI), was charged with one count of Manslaughter, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 236 of the Criminal Code, and one count of Negligent Performance of Duty, contrary to Section 124 of the National Defence Act.

[ 13 March 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Off topic but I find it amusing when a net anon like Spector informs a real person that they're in the wrong profession, while providing absolutely no personal information of their own.

If you want better reporting Spector, then start writing. Or if you are, then why hide on a web forum unless you're afraid of somehow damaging your professional status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Ethical journalists have a responsibility to ensure accuracy of the informantion that they publish. Some may consider refusual to publish false or unsubstantiated information as suppression, others, however, see it as responsible.

---

All the daily newspapers in Canada and all the journalism schools in Canada disagree with you.

Since then, the matter has been under investigation. Unlike yellow journalists (and online cranks), investigatibve authorities don't generally make broad announcements about "what happened" until they are at or near the completion of the investiagtion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
But Jerry is one of the few people who contribute to this board who actually has the guts to be a real person. And that demands respect.

---

I respect Jerry because of his well-researched and earnestly argued progressive opinions, even in those areas where we disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
In fact, when I was at MCpl Walsh's funeral, the chaplain made it a point to include prayers for the other soldier (and his family).

---

How terribly thoughtful, on both your parts.

quote:

---

Unlike yellow journalists (and online cranks), investigatibve authorities don't generally make broad announcements about "what happened" until they are at or near the completion of the investiagtion.

---

Except when they slaughter innocent civilians. In that case, they pronounce them "Taliban" before the corpses are cold. No human rights or privacy issues there - they're just the savages we're saving from themselves, right Malcolm?

quote:

---

Likewise, the announcement of Cpl Menegy's [SIC] death also included the detail that it was a discharge of another soldier's weapon - this time inside the camp and in the tent.

---

Gee, Malcolm, when they say "truth is war's first casualty", they mean that that's like a bad thing, y'know? You and the truth should get together more often, then you might not be such strangers.

Here was the typical bullshit DND announcement of Cpl. Megeney's death, in case your memory and your internet have both failed. I'll quote it in full:

quote:

---

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - March 6, 2007) - Corporal Kevin Megeney, a reserve member of the 1st Battalion Nova Scotia Highlanders, serving at Kandahar Airfield, succumbed to a gunshot wound shortly after 7 p.m. Kandahar time today. His next of kin have been notified.

No further details are available at this time regarding the circumstances surrounding this incident, although enemy action has been ruled out, since the incident occurred within the secure confines of Kandahar Airfield.

Joint Task Force Afghanistan's National Investigation Service Detachment is investigating this incident.

The thoughts and prayers of the men and women of the Canadian Forces go out to the family and friends of the deceased.

---

Of course, you may have your own private pipeline to the military, Malcolm. I'm just going by their public announcements.

[ 13 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

The widow of a Canadian soldier, who died when a weapon discharged during a routine patrol in Afghanistan last year, is upset that her husband's friend and fellow comrade has been charged in his death. [...]

"It's painful enough when a soldier loses a brother," she said. "It's even harder when you lose a friend and it's your weapon that went off."

Mason said she met with Fraser on Monday. She said she let him know "it's not his fault" and she told him she's there to help him as much as she can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Webgear is speculating that these were both accidents resulting from a tired or poorly-trained soldier improperly cleaning his weapon. Others have speculated on other explanations. The public at large hasn't been told what the military investigators' explanation is, so we are left to speculate.

---

I do not think that I stated that the soldier in either case was not properly trained. If that is the case, I am wrong to do so.

quote:

---

Unionist:
The question is not whether the names of accused persons should be kept secret. They must not (except in justifiable cases, such as minors).

---

I'm not arguing that names of those arraigned and on trial should be kept secret, and I am certainly against shielding the names of those convicted, even minors. If one can rationalize the need to shield minors from the consequences of their acts, then we can eventually rationalize it for others, and others, and others.

I think all court documents should be open, as well as all court proceedings.

My main concern is releasing personally damaging information in investigations that is speculative and unproven. Society is and individual rights are not served well if we use the media to destroy innocent people. Witch hunts and character asassinations should not be elements of our justice system. MS apparently thinks otherwise.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
You may consider it unethical to inform the public of the identity of persons charged with a criminal offence.

---

I do if it is speculative and a fishing expedition that can do irrepairable harm to innocent people.

By your logic here the Young Offenders Act should be thrown out.

quote:

---

All the daily newspapers in Canada and all the journalism schools in Canada disagree with you.

They have at least some sense of their obligation to report the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

---

Just like the National Enquirer. Is that your standard for responsible journalism?

The Klu Klux Klan disagrees with me on race relations too, so what?

What if the charges that the report turn out to be untrue, should they be responsible for damages? Should the police and prosecutors?

And back to the main topic:

quote:

---

The widow of a Canadian soldier, who died when a weapon discharged during a routine patrol in Afghanistan last year, is upset that her husband's friend and fellow comrade has been charged in his death. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
I'm not arguing that names of those arraigned and on trial should be kept secret...

---

quote:

---

Actually, I think that it is a good idea whether in military or civil law to withold the name of persons charged or suspected of a crime until after they have been proven guilty.

---

quote:

---

We have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Publicly advertising some one's arrest or suspicion of wrong doing, particularly of a heinous offense, destroys that right for all practical purposes.

---

quote:

---

The only person outside of the investigation who should have a right to know the charges or suspicions is the defendant. What they do with that knowledge is up to them.

---

quote:

---

...public information on a crime aimed at soliciting more witnesses can be made without involving the name of the accused.

---

quote:

---

I edit a newspaper. Our policy is no names get printed until there is a conviction in most cases.

---

quote:

---

M. Spector:
Will the real Jerry West please stand up?

---

Sure. The police and prosecutors should not normally be releasing names of those under suspicion or being charged. In fact those names should be protected until the case goes on record before a judge. This is not remotely the same as denying public access to the courts.

The accused should have the right to all information and actions taken in her/his case, including the right to release it to the public.

There should be no protection regarding national security, if the government doesn't want the evidence public, drop the case.

Neither officials nor the press should engage in witch hunting or disseminating damaging information that is not proven.

The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty should be absolute, and not limited to court proceedings.

Granted that once a person is charged in a court proceeding the name becomes a matter of public record, and should be. However, the ethical problem still exists around how that information is used. The media is often prohibited by court order from publishing information on a case before the courts, protecting the reputation of those accused before they are convicted is no different.

quote:

---

Cueball:
Until there is a conviction, or until there is an official court proceeding, and public disclosure of a prosecution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
The police and prosecutors should not normally be releasing names of those under suspicion or being charged. In fact those names should be protected until the case goes on record before a judge. This is not remotely the same as denying public access to the courts.

---

The fact is that once someone has been charged with an offence, that charge is public property. It makes no sense to say that on the one hand anyone can go down to the courthouse and see the indictment or sit in on the court hearing, but on the other hand newspapers shouldn't publish the name of the accused. Either it's public knowledge or it's not. If it is, newspapers have no business censoring it.

quote:

---

The accused should have the right to all information and actions taken in her/his case, including the right to release it to the public.

---

quote:

---

There should be no protection regarding national security, if the government doesn't want the evidence public, drop the case.

---

quote:

---

Neither officials nor the press should engage in witch hunting or disseminating damaging information that is not proven.

---

quote:

---

The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty should be absolute, and not limited to court proceedings.

---

quote:

---

Granted that once a person is charged in a court proceeding the name becomes a matter of public record, and should be. However, the ethical problem still exists around how that information is used.

---

quote:

---

The media is often prohibited by court order from publishing information on a case before the courts, protecting the reputation of those accused before they are convicted is no different.

---

• For one thing, the courts almost never order that the name of the accused be kept secret (if they do, they get their asses kicked by appeal courts).
  
• For another thing, courts never order a blackout on reporting court proceedings out of concern for the reputation of the accused. In fact, such a motive would be improper. Under the Criminal Code, "blackout" orders are intended mainly to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses of crime, not the accused. Blackouts can also be ordered before a jury is selected to prevent contamination of the jury pool and support the accused's right to a fair trial. That's a very different thing from protecting his reputation.
  
• For another thing, these blackout orders are by no means routine, and must be rigorously justified in order to displace the usual presumption of complete opennness.
  
• For another thing, blackout orders under the Criminal Code are not total gag orders, but only relate to proceedings and evidence given in court. They never prevent newspapers from publishing information gleaned about the case from police or witnesses or the accused or anyone else with information. It's called freedom of the press.
  
• For another thing, newspapers have no duty to "protect the reputation" of anyone, least of all, by suppressing information about them. If they do have such a duty then they owe Conrad Black and a whole bunch of other people a big apology.
  
• For another thing, if someone's reputation is going to be damaged by publishing the truth, that should not stop a newspaper from publishing it. Falsehoods are of course a different matter, and there are defamation laws against that. But publishing the fact that a certain person has been charged with a certain offence - if in fact (s)he has been so charged - has nothing whatsoever to do with defamation.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
No reputable newspaper ever does that.

---

That is a very subjective value decision about what is reputable and what is not. One could say that no reputable person uses a pseudonym either. I wouldn't, but again it is a personal decision.

quote:

---

The fact is that once someone has been charged with an offence, that charge is public property. It makes no sense to say that on the one hand anyone can go down to the courthouse and see the indictment or sit in on the court hearing, but on the other hand newspapers shouldn't publish the name of the accused. Either it's public knowledge or it's not. If it is, newspapers have no business censoring it.

---

The same logic, then applies to gag orders. So, you are arguing against the court's right to issue a gag order?

There are different degrees of public knowledge.

quote:

---

This apparently means that the accused person has the right to censor the news.

---

Anything for an arguement, eh? What it means is that not only does the accused have a right to know what she is accused of, he can take it to the public if she so desires. Not publishing unproven and injurious allegations against someone is for their protection, if they want to disseminate it, its up to them.

quote:

---

Something of a double standard here, obviously. You would happily disclose information the government wants kept secret, but you wouldn't publish the name of the accused person without his or her permission.

---

Totally different circumstance, but then you probably already knew that.

quote:

---

And of course nobody should have ever heard the name of Robert Pickton because he hasn't been convicted yet. Is your paper still keeping that little secret, Jerry?

---

The Pickton case is of no concern to us. And what real benefit is there in publishing his name anyway? In contrast I know of cases where innocent persons would have been irrepairably hurt, even ruined, had the false allegations against them been published. What remedy would you offer such people, or does innocence matter?

quote:

---

I guess cops shouldn't be suspended from duty while awaiting their rape trials, eh Jerry?

---

You are really getting desperate here. A nonsequitur.

quote:

---

Falsehoods are of course a different matter, and there are defamation laws against that. But publishing the fact that a certain person has been charged with a certain offence - if in fact (s)he has been so charged - has nothing whatsoever to do with defamation.

---

Publishing the fact that someone has been charged with certain offenses can do irrepairable damage to them, even if the charges are dropped. This is no different than publishing a falsehood in its effect.

Suppose someone were to falsely accuse you of molesting little children and your local paper printed the fact that you had been accused of it and your local TV station splashed you face and child abuser together on the screen, should they be held harmless? After all they were only reporting the fact that you had been accused.

Sorry about the tar and feather party and the drive by shooting you endured in response. Maybe if you move to someplace without TV where they don't speak English you can get a job again.

I'm reacting against your calling out Jerry. He's the journalist you're the anonymous forum poster. I don't care what you post. I don't care what anybody posts, to be honest. I like reading it all. But don't come on here and blast Jerry for being an incompetent journalist unless you care to have your 5000 posts here on babble public information, after you publish your first article, and admit to it here on babble. Or maybe you're a pro of some kind, in which case you don't want your real name associated with what you post.

In other words, put yourself in Jerry's shoes, dumbass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I'm reacting against your calling out Jerry. He's the journalist you're the anonymous forum poster.

---

You're an anonymous forum poster, too. Are your opinions worthless as a result?

Do I have to run for Parliament before I'm entitled to criticize Stephen Harper? Do I have to have a degree in environmental science before I can have an opinion on climate change?

You said "I don't care what you post." That's no surprise to me, because obviously you care less about what someone actually says than who it is that's saying it. That's why you decline to refute my opinions, preferring rather to dismiss them out of hand because you assume I don't have the credentials you apparently value so highly.

Try this little thought experiment: If I told you my real name was M. Spector and that I had graduate degrees in journalism and law, would that make my above arguments any more persuasive? If your answer is yes, then you have just proved my point. The arguments are the same, and the facts I refer to are just as true or false, regardless of my "credentials".

quote:

---

M. Spector:
....in order to make the real Jerry West look bad.

---

"The widow of a Canadian soldier, who died when a weapon discharged during a routine patrol in Afghanistan last year, is upset that her husband's friend and fellow comrade has been charged in his death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Suppose someone were to falsely accuse you of molesting little children and your local paper printed the fact that you had been accused of it and your local TV station splashed you face and child abuser together on the screen, should they be held harmless? After all they were only reporting the fact that you had been accused.

---

The media regularly report on the identities of people who have been arrested and charged with offences. Surely you are aware of that, even though your own newspaper seems to be the only exception.

Should they be held harmless? you ask.

Well, no court of law has ever held or ever will hold them liable for reporting the truth - namely, that you have been arrested and charged with an offence. Is that what you mean by holding them harmless? If so, then the answer is yes, they should be held harmless for reporting the truth.

You're obviously not happy with the law as it is. That's fine. Maybe you should lobby your MLA to have the Legislature implement draconian press control laws that would prevent newspapers from reporting on people who have been charged with child molesting and other "heinous" crimes. I would suggest, however, that you start making a list of the "heinous" offences that would be covered by such a law, so that the legislators will know where you want them to draw the line - because there's no obvious place to draw it.

For example, would armed robbery make it onto your list, or is that not damaging enough to an accused person's reputation? How about insider trading? Possession of cocaine? Marijuana? Child abandonment?

I've done the research. And, yes, I think the Jerry West of rabble.com is the same one as posts here. But I have my doubts about Piatkowski and Michelle.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
By "accused" I assume you mean charged with an offence under the law.

---

No, I also mean accused, suspected, under investigation for. Sometimes just targeted because of accusing you of something is a way to harrass you for something else.

Assumptions here are probably responsible for a good portion of the length of this discussion.

quote:

---

The media regularly report on the identities of people who have been arrested and charged with offences. Surely you are aware of that, even though your own newspaper seems to be the only exception.

---

Why would you even assume that I wasn't? And whether we are the exception or not probably depends on a matter of degree. In our case there are exceptions just as imagine in other papers there are decisions made on what to print or not print for whatever reason including avoiding undue harm to people for no good reason.

quote:

---

Well, no court of law has ever held or ever will hold them liable for reporting the truth - namely, that you have been arrested and charged with an offence. Is that what you mean by holding them harmless? If so, then the answer is yes, they should be held harmless for reporting the truth.

---

Even if the truth propagates a harmful lie? In civil law if someone slanders a person and another person reports that the person had been slandered and repeats the slander, I think that they are also liable for slander.

quote:

---

You're obviously not happy with the law as it is.

---

Not really. What I am more unhappy about is people who would replace trial by judge or jury with trial by mob and media.

quote:

---

....implement draconian press control laws....

---

I guess that depends on one's definition of draconian. Your characterization is a bit over the top.

quote:

---

There's no principle involved in your position....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
No, I also mean accused, suspected, under investigation for. Sometimes just targeted because of accusing you of something is a way to harrass you for something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Soldier's widow angry over charges against friend

---

Webgear, I posted this same link 6 hours before you did - although I know it may be difficult to find on-topic posts while wading through the West-Spector debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

And, our policy remains not to print names in most cases until there has been a conviction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

I do not think that I stated that the soldier in either case was not properly trained. If that is the case, I am wrong to do so.

I have stated that most, if not all soldiers in Afghanistan have at least 9 months of training.

---

quote:

---

Briguy:
That's just silly.

---

Note the qualification "most cases"

quote:

---

But it does help explain why it took one whole month before the public was made aware that local Conservative MLA Ernie Fage was involved in a trffic accident while under the influence.

---

Maybe not, you would have to ask the editor. But imagine if it were an NDP or GP candidate and they were falsely accused during a campaign, should the paper verify that the accusations are true or just run with the story?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Note the qualification "most cases"

---

It's apparently an ad hoc decision in each case depending on whether you wish to protect or embarrass the accused person in question.

quote:

---

M. Spector:
This is why I say....

---

And we thought that you were done saying.

quote:

---

OTTAWA — The safety on the rifle that killed Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh could have been flicked off accidentally when the gun rubbed against a piece of equipment, military experts said yesterday.

Those comments came as Mr. Walsh's relatives decried the charges of manslaughter and negligence brought against MCpl. Robbie Fraser as exceedingly harsh. In a tearful phone call Monday, Mr. Walsh's wife, Julie Mason, consoled Mr. Fraser.

The two men were sitting side by side in the backseat of a G-wagon on a bumpy Afghanistan road last August, when MCpl. Fraser's C-7 rifle discharged, killing his comrade and close friend.

The rifle's safety switch had to have been off, in violation of Canadian Forces standard operating procedures. But a retired general said MCpl. Fraser could have inadvertently activated the roughly two-centimetre-long switch in the cramped space of the vehicle.

Link to full article in the G&M

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

From what I have read I fail to see anything but a no fault accident unless the weapons were not supposed to be loaded.

---

How can you possibly draw such a conclusion without seeing the evidence? You and I have absolutely no clue what happened - none. You are just speculating.

What if there's a witness who says Fraser was intoxicated and waving his weapon around when it discharged. Would that change your mind?

quote:

---

Unionist:
How can you possibly draw such a conclusion without seeing the evidence? You and I have absolutely no clue what happened - none. You are just speculating.

---

Of course I am speculating, note that I said from what I have read. My gut feeling from experience with these things is that MCpl Fraser is being made a victim of somebody else's agenda. If they were all drunk, which I hope is not the case, that would change things, and it would put a few more heads on the block right up the chain.

quote:

---

My view all along has been that disclosure should have been public from day one - with or without the name of the accused.

---

I am not going to argue that this case was handled properly because we don't have enough evidence to decide that either way. It may well not have been.

But, I will point out that those who are responsible for releasing the information to the public are most likely not the witnesses to the event and are dependent upon others to carry out a through investigation of the incident which may take time given the mobile nature of those involved and the place they are mobile in and the possibility that there might be different versions of what happened that need to be sorted out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Prematurely releasing information that turns out to be innaccurate might be worse than waiting for the complete story.

---

Events in life are not as complicated as all that.

quote:

---

Unionist:
....was Cpl. Megeney shot by his own weapon?

---

That is a good question, but not related to my issue with the case of MCpls Walsh and Fraser.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

That is a good question, but not related to my issue with the case of MCpls Walsh and Fraser.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

This whole thing stinks of politics. Perhaps someone should investigate the person(s) who pushed for the manslaughter charge in the first place. From what I have read I fail to see anything but a no fault accident unless the weapons were not supposed to be loaded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Mr West - the investigation was conducted by the NIS, and part of the fall out of the Somalia Inquiry is that they are quite literally beholden to no one in the chain of command. As such, they conducted their investigation, and they laid the charges.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Would that mean that the Fraser family's lobbying is futile?

---

quote:

---

Grizzled Wolf:
Mr West - the investigation was conducted by the NIS, and part of the fall out of the Somalia Inquiry is that they are quite literally beholden to no one in the chain of command. As such, they conducted their investigation, and they laid the charges.

---

From what evidence has been presented in the media that I have seen then, I would guess that either NIS does not understand combat operations or that evidence is being withheld.

What next? In a firefight a trooper slips throwing a grenade which falls short and blows up a mate and he gets charged with manslaughter?

The downside of pushing for manslaughter in a case of accidental discharge in a vehicle is that there might be a tendency to unload weapons in vehicles in a combat zone which means more troopers get shoot up in an ambush struggling to load in a vehicle under fire instead of returning fire.

Mr. Fraser has been charged with two offenses he is obviously guilty of. He will more than likely only be convicted of the lesser negligence charge (although he SHOULD be convicted for BOTH, IMHO, as well as CONDUCT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE). Welcome to the Military! This is the way things are done, for those unfamiliar with the CF.

The NIS generally does NOT release information to the public regarding open investigations, nor are they under any obligation to do so. Once they have passed their investigation on and the accused has been charged, the CF are then under no obligation to provide information to the public, either. If you want to know why, it is literally none of your darned business.

The families in question, God Bless Them and their sacrifice, should just shut the hell up. They are military families and should know better. I can appreciate and sympathize with their problems, but this isn't "civvy street," as it were. Things are done in the CF in a specific sequence and with a specific methodology.

What's more, it's not the public's right to know anything at all relating to offences under the Queen's Regulations and Orders. You may think it wrong, and rail against it, but that is just the way it is. Anything happening within the QR&Os, as a military offense, is IMMEDIATELY RESTRICTED, and may be reclassified any other way the CF sees fit. When you sign your name on the dotted line and give your oath, you give up certain freedoms that Canadian Civilians take for granted. That's just the way it is.

[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: Village Idiot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

From what evidence has been presented in the media that I have seen then, I would guess that either NIS does not understand combat operations or that evidence is being withheld.[QUOTE]

My experience would definitely be the former.

---

quote:

---

This is a pretty hairy place we are talking about - no worries about going out anything other than readied. As an aside, it is generally referred to in the CF as aan ND (negligent rather than accidental)

[QUOTE]Of course if the trooper charged was goofing around and pointing his weapon at his buddies, then it is a different story, but the reported evidence does not say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

I am sure that will come out in the trial.

---

But you and I and Jerry may never hear about it if the trial is held in secret - which is what I understand Village Idiot to be saying may occur:

quote:

---

What's more, it's not the public's right to know anything at all relating to offences under the Queen's Regulations and Orders. You may think it wrong, and rail against it, but that is just the way it is. Anything happening within the QR&Os, as a military offense, is IMMEDIATELY RESTRICTED, and may be reclassified any other way the CF sees fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Trial information can be found on the internet and will be most likely report in the news only if the media takes any interest of the story in a few months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Although this could be a Harper government conspiracy and all previous trial information has been erased and secret trials are now the norm for Canada now.

---

I asked the question here because several posters claim to have some insight into these matters. I don't even know whether the trial under (ostensibly) Criminal Code charges (criminal negligence and manslaughter) will be held by military or civilian tribunals. Do you?

2) Court martial information is publicly available. See, for instance: Chief Military Judge - Courts Martial Results.

3) In terms of the availability of information, it's important to distinguish between information pertinent to an investigation (generally secret) and information pertinent to a trial (generally public - once the trial happens).

quote:

---

A Canadian soldier charged in the shooting death of a fellow soldier in Afghanistan will face a court martial on charges of manslaughter and negligent performance of duty, the Canadian Forces director of military prosecutions confirmed Friday.

Master Cpl. Robbie Fraser will face a military trial on charges related to the death of Master Cpl. Jeff Walsh during a patrol on an Afghan road on Aug. 9, 2006, said navy Capt. Holly MacDougall.

The decision comes despite the fact members of both the Walsh and Fraser families have expressed doubt about the need for prosecution. The families say that the two men were friends, as well as comrades.

---

"Master Cpl. Robbie Fraser had been charged with manslaughter and negligence in the performance of military duty.

His gun allegedly discharged on Aug. 9, 2006 in the cramped quarters of a Canadian Forces G-Wagon outside Kandahar, killing Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh, of Regina.

"But today the defence put forward this theory that in fact it could have been a pure accident, where nobody actually pulled the trigger of the weapon that caused the death," said CTV Calgary's Kelly Dehn from outside the court.

The defence argued successfully on Tuesday morning in Shilo, Man. that the accident happened as a result of the way the guns were stored in the vehicle.

My first A2 had a buffer spring that was too strong; often there were marks on the first round in the magazine after round was chambered.

I was always concerned about a round being fired.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
I've never heard of a C-7 just going off on its own, even if dropped.

---

When you ready a weapon the firing pin leaves a little indent on the primer of the round so there is contact between the firing pin and bullet.

A strong enough jolt on the weapon can and does sometimes cause the weapon to fire, Ive seen it happen when someone dropped their readied weapon out of the back of a truck (where they were promptly charged for it).