Uhuh.
Lawyers be lawyering.
Whatabout a soldiers impartiality? Is that just a given?
I always thought that "beyond a reasonable doubt" covered that.
You know....that whole unlimited liability thing.
Any Mil Judges subject to that?
Yes, but that's within the judicial chain of command. Impartiality requires being separate of the standard military chain of command. It's a bit of an apples and oranges thing.
Maybe soldiers should be protected by " 1) security of tenure; 2) financial security (i.e. pay and benefits must be established by law and not arbitrarily controlled by the executive); and 3) independence of the administration of the military functions."
That's a tough one. In a lot of ways, all of those are in fact in existence by way of various laws, regulations and policies. In effect a covenant between the people of Canada, its government and individual soldiers exists but is so disjointed that most people have troubles understanding and accessing the system. The problem is where the rubber meets the road. Are these policies sufficient and are they arbitrarily instituted and administered by the government?
I'm a great believer in the need for a proper social covenant between the people of the country and its forces, both as an entity and as individuals. I've previously spoken as to such a covenant for reservists as between the government, the soldier, the soldier's family and his civilian employer. I don't believe that you can have a properly functioning reserve force without such a policy with clearly defined terms.
IMHO that goes to the forces as a whole as well. It's a constitutional issue IMHO that arises from s 91 of the Constitution Act 1867 which states:
the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, ...
7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.
By giving the federal legislature exclusive jurisdiction in these areas it not only empowers the feds with the right to act but, IMHO, it also imposes a moral, if not a legal, obligation to act on behalf of all Canadian citizens', service members' and veterans' best interests. Obviously the Feds prefer to see the powers as permissive rather than obligatory.
I think that most people believe that such an obligatory covenant does exist. The problem is in defining its extent.