# Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan



## darmil (31 Dec 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081231/inmsurgent_death_081231/20081231?hub=TopStories

under investigation

Updated Wed. Dec. 31 2008 12:06 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is investigating whether proper procedures were followed surrounding the death of a "presumed" insurgent in Afghanistan.

At a news conference in Kandahar, Canadian military officials gave sparse details and took no questions about the investigation.

Master Warrant Officer Bernie Caron, Kandahar detachment commander for the NIS, said a probe has been launched into the death, which occurred on or around Oct. 19, 2008, in Helmand province.

He said the commander of Task Force Kandahar was notified of the allegations on Dec. 27, and quickly notified the NIS, which immediately launched an investigation.

"The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is investigating the allegation to determine the facts, analyze the evidence and if warranted lay the appropriate charges," Caron said.

Acting commander of Task Force Afghanistan, Col. Jamie Cade, confimed he learned of the incident in late December, and quickly informed the NIS.

"The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service has launched an investigation into these allegations, and to determine whether proper reporting procedures were followed," Cade said.

"The Canadian Forces takes such allegations very seriously. As an investigation is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time."

The majority of Canadian troops are deployed in Kandahar province, while the British have largely taken the lead in Helmand.


----------



## 043 (31 Dec 2008)

Wonderful! :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Dec 2008)

Canadian military unit probes possible 'inappropriate conduct' in Afghanistan
Investigation centres on alleged insurgent who died in Helmand province
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 | 2:09 PM ET CBC News  

The investigative arm of the Canadian Forces is probing possible "inappropriate conduct" stemming from the death of a "presumed insurgent" in Afghanistan's Helmand province, military officials said Wednesday.

Col. Jamie Cade, acting commander of Task Force Afghanistan, said the task force was made aware of the allegations on Dec. 27 and notified the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), which immediately initiated an investigation.

"The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service has launched an investigation into these allegations, and to determine whether proper reporting procedures were followed," Cade said during a brief news conference in Kandahar.

He said the alleged insurgent died "on or about" Oct. 19 in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province.

The investigation service will "determine the facts, analyze the evidence and if warranted, lay the appropriate charges," Cade said.

"As the investigation is ongoing, no further details will be released at this time."

The CFNIS is an independent military police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to national defence, property, departmental employees and Canadian Forces personnel serving in Canada and abroad.

Canada has about 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly based in the south around Kandahar. Neighbouring Helmand province is largely patrolled by British troops. 

Canadian troops were involved in an operation in Helmand in the days before Oct. 19, guiding the Afghan National Army in a battle against Taliban militants who had launched a three-pronged attack on the Helmand capital of Lashkar Gah. British troops were also involved.

Afghan Gen. Sher Muhammad Zazai has said Canadians were involved in fighting in Helmand on Oct. 16. The battle, which also involved air strikes, ended Oct. 18. Afghan and NATO officials said at the time that at least 100 Taliban were killed in the fighting.

It's not immediately clear if those incidents and the one under investigation are related.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Dec 2008)

News Release
CFNIS Investigation Started
CFNIS 2008-08 - December 31, 2008

OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has launched an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct relating to the death of a presumed insurgent in Helmand Province on or about October 19, 2008.

The Commander Task Force Kandahar was made aware of the allegations on December 27, 2008 and notified the CFNIS who immediately initiated an investigation. The CFNIS is investigating the allegations to determine the facts, analyze the evidence and if warranted, lay the appropriate charges. As the investigation is ongoing, no further details will be released at this time.

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, Departmental employees and Canadian Forces personnel serving in Canada and abroad.

- 30 -

For more information about the CFNIS, go to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2824


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jan 2009)

*Can't recall 'inappropriate conduct' during Taliban fight: Afghan general *
Steve Rennie, Canadian Press, 1 Jan 09
Article link

An Afghan army general who was on hand for October's bloody battle of Lashkar Gah said Thursday he has heard none of the allegations of "inappropriate conduct" surrounding the death of a presumed Taliban insurgent.

Afghan National Army troops killed so many Taliban fighters during the defence of Helmand province's capital city two months ago, it's impossible to say how they all died, Gen. Sher Muhammad Zazai said in an interview.

Afghan and NATO officials claimed at least 100 Taliban died in the three days of fighting, in which insurgents mounted a three-pronged attack on the city that ended Oct. 18.

"I don't know of any inappropriate way that Taliban were killed," Zazai said through an interpreter.

"So many were killed, I don't remember the exact way they were (all) killed."

The major crimes unit of Canada's military police is investigating a death that took place "on or about" Oct. 19 in Helmand - the day after the Lashkar Gah seige came to an end.

The deputy commander of NATO forces in Kandahar province, Col. Jamie Cade, said he learned Dec. 27 of the allegations. Few details have been released.

Cade said the military probe announced Wednesday will seek "to determine whether proper reporting procedures were followed" in the death of a "presumed" Taliban insurgent ....

_More on link_


----------



## Bass ackwards (1 Jan 2009)

I remember when the first report came out about US Marines in Haditha, Iraq, killing civilians. 
The _very next day_, Sun Media newspapers had a cartoon of GWB in a small boat saying everything was going well, while in the background was a huge storm cloud labelled "Haditha". 
And the storm did break. 

Since then, most, if not all of the Marines involved, have been cleared of any wrongdoing. That fact was reported in the _Marine Corps Times _ and picked up and distributed by conservative bloggers. No major news network reported that, and long after the fact, I recall hearing someone on CBC referring to "massacres like My Lai and Haditha". 
_"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."_

I don't know where these latest storm clouds are headed but I have enough faith in our wonderful unbiased media to believe that they would love nothing better than to see an end to all this nauseating (to them) support for the troops and the opportunity for them to go back to the glory days of vilifying the army while ignoring any good works going on, or real news (like the Medak pocket fight).

Just my .02


----------



## davidk (2 Jan 2009)

Updated: individual charged with second degree murder.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/02/soldier-charge.html


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2009)

> Capt. Robert Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder on Thursday, military officials said Friday in a news release. Semrau is accused of shooting a man with the intent to kill.



Lets try and keep speculation on this to a minimum & allow the information to gradually present itself.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2009)

HighlandIslander said:
			
		

> Updated: individual charged with second degree murder.


  And the COMMENTS are coming in faster than you can read them.


----------



## wannabe SF member (2 Jan 2009)

By god the lack of info is frustrating! 
CBC has failed to even provide us with any details of how or what happened except for the fact that an insurgent was killed in the "wrong" manner. How is that even possible?


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> CBC has failed to even provide us with any details of how or what happened except for the fact that an insurgent was killed in the "wrong" manner.


Perhaps, because of on-going investigations or OPSEC or other reasons, that is the only information released by the CF.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> How is that even possible?



Think about it just a bit.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

I have every respect for our troops currently in theatre.
Every investigation into Afghanistan based events conducted over the last 7 years (2002-2008) has only come up with conclusions that our Canadian troops have behaves in a professional manner.... no mater the wild allegations and inuendoes published by mainstream media.

Even Taliban captives have been forthcoming to declare that they have not been mistreated while in our hands.

Col Cade indicates that the investigation is being carried out "to determine whether proper reporting procedures were followed" in the death of a "presumed" Taliban insurgent.
- I am slightly puzzled by the wording of that statement .... but then, that's partly why CFNIS is involved.....

Let's sit back, relax, get back to doing our jobs (block leave is just about over) AND wait out on this one.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> By god the lack of info is frustrating!
> CBC has failed to even provide us with any details of how or what happened except for the fact that an insurgent was killed in the "wrong" manner. How is that even possible?



Ummm....





> to determine whether proper reporting procedures were followed" in the death of a "presumed" Taliban insurgent



NOT killed in wrong manner (whatever that is supposed to mean...... they're talking about inproper reporting procedures.... that's it, that's all.... 
:tsktsk:
Do me a favour - read & read again


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2009)

See http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2840 for the CFNIS press release on this issue.



> Captain Robert Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau was a member of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team at the time of the incident. He is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person. Captain Semrau is currently in Military Police custody and will be transported back to Canada shortly for a hearing before a military judge to determine whether he is to be retained in custody.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

> He is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person.



Thanks for the link DAP

The only thing I think should be pointed out is that, our troops shoot to warn & shoot to kill individuals who drive vehicles AND fail to heed warnings not to come any closer... (new incident in today's news).  Our terms of engagement are quite clear & no one has ever proven that we stray away from the rules that have been set.

A person who fails to heed a warning to stop OR keep away - even if he appears to be unarmed - could just as easily have an IED strapped to his body OR a grenade OR a pistol concealed on his person.

The circumstances surrounding this incident will come out in due course - let's not encourage idle public speculation on inproper behavior.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2009)

The frothing at the mouth comments are nothing new on the CBC.  The same sorts of things happened when MCpl Fraser was charged in the death of MCpl Fraser.  People screamed that he should not have been charged purely because he was a soldier who went to Afghanistan etc etc, and there's much of the same there.  CFNIS has a job to do, an investigation has been initiated, and I'm sure that if there was enough to refer a charge then there was something to the incident.  I'm sure the circumstances of the incident will come to light at the appropriate time and if any malfeasance occurred it will be handled appropriately.  I don't understand why people start jumping up and down when they have nowhere near enough information to form a real opinion.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

why.... they read what they want to see....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Jan 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people start jumping up and down when they have nowhere near enough information to form a real opinion.



Because people tend to suck and want to be the first to be outraged?  Who knows.
If it is any consolation to anyone, we don't have any more info here than any of you do.  Trust that the embed reporters will get things out lightning quick as they get info and our leadership will be forthcoming with as many details as possible.


----------



## KingKikapu (2 Jan 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people start jumping up and down when they have nowhere near enough information to form a real opinion.



Heh, that one is easy to answer; it's because they've got the crazies.


----------



## darmil (2 Jan 2009)

Read the comments on CBC and CTV they are like different side of a tennis court :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jan 2009)

News Release
Charge Laid Relating to Death of Presumed Insurgent
CFNIS 2009-01 - January 2, 2009

OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has charged one military officer late yesterday with an offence relating to the death of a presumed insurgent in Helmand Province on or about October 19, 2008.

Captain Robert Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau was a member of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team at the time of the incident. He is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person. Captain Semrau is currently in Military Police custody and will be transported back to Canada shortly for a hearing before a military judge to determine whether he is to be retained in custody.

The Commander Task Force Kandahar was made aware of the allegations on December 27, 2008 and notified the CFNIS who immediately initiated an investigation. The CFNIS laid the charge after analyzing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. As the matter is now proceeding in accordance with the Code of Service Discipline, and another part of the investigation is still ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, Departmental employees and Canadian Forces personnel serving in Canada and abroad.

- 30 -

For more information about the CFNIS, go to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2824


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jan 2009)

My thoughts go out to Captain Robert Semrau and his family.I cannot imagine what they are going through.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jan 2009)

Speculation should be kept to a minimum. We don't have all the facts, and we are not investigators. Maybe some folk at CBC and "analysts" should keep that in mind before spouting their anti-military rhetoric.

I wouldn't want to be in the investigator's shoes.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

FWIW, unless we have particular information that is not known to the general public, we should assume that this Captain behaved the same way as we would / should - in a similar situation.

Captain Semrau should be given the courtessey of the benefit of the doubt until such time as new facts emerge & substantiate inproper behavior.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Speculation should be kept to a minimum. We don't have all the facts, and we are not investigators. Maybe some folk at CBC and "analysts" should keep that in mind before spouting their anti-military rhetoric.
> 
> I wouldn't want to be in the investigator's shoes.



+1.

This is obviously a very sensitive and difficult matter and I won't call into question the professionalism of the NIS as many are apt to on the news commentary.  Let us do are part here by keeping the chatter to a minimum as this proceeds - lord knows the loud banging of the news headlines shakes the foundations of "innocent until proven guilty".

On another note, I know this man personally and was quite shocked to see this.  He is a experienced and respected soldier and a true professional.  I hope this can be resolved effectively in a timely fashion.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jan 2009)

Innocent until proven guilty. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms assures that, I presume.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> On another note, I know this man personally and was quite shocked to see this.  He is a experienced and respected soldier and a true professional.  I hope this can be resolved effectively in a timely fashion.



The damage to his reputation is already done, with the release of his name to the media.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Innocent until proven guilty. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms assures that, I presume.




Charter CH 11


> 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
> 
> a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
> b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> I hope the truth comes out, but I marvel love how investigators and lawyers, insulated from everything in life more dangerous than their morning commutes, are able to second-guess split-second battlefield decisions months after the fact.



With no perspective on how the investigation took place or what it uncovered this is exactly the type of statement I was referring to with my previous post.  For the sake of all involved, keep these types of comments to yourself and let the particulars do the talking.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (2 Jan 2009)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> This should be interesting...  proceed in a transparent manner.



I've no dog in this fight.  Your comment was unneccessarily speculative and added nothing.  I've removed it.

For issues with this action, please contact Mr. Bobbitt.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## observor 69 (2 Jan 2009)

Canadian soldier charged in Afghan death
 Article  Video  Comments   JANE ARMSTRONG 

The Globe and Mail

January 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM EST

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A Canadian soldier has been charged with second-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of an unarmed Afghan man last fall, military police said Friday.

Captain Robert Semrau is a member of a team of Canadian Forces mentors, which trains members of the fledgling Afghan National Army.

“He is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person,” according to a written statement from the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (NIS), the major crimes unit of Canada's military police.


More at link plus video of interview.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090102.wsemrau0102/BNStory/International/home


----------



## john10 (2 Jan 2009)

I'm sensing a palpable hostility to the media that I don't understand. What exactly have they done wrong here?

Isn't it completely normal to identify an accused murderer?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> I'm sensing a palpable hostility to the media that I don't understand. What exactly have they done wrong here?
> 
> Isn't it completely normal to identify an accused murderer?



My anger towards the media is not due to this reporting.Its due to the next story being about the possiability of Canadian forces members may be trafficing drugs....maybe.Just seems like we are going to slip into the dark days of before and nothing but negative media again.CTV lost my respect with the DRUG alligations,not this.


----------



## GDawg (2 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> I'm sensing a palpable hostility to the media that I don't understand. What exactly have they done wrong here?
> 
> Isn't it completely normal to identify an accused murderer?



I believe the hostility isn't directed at the media, but rather the commentary allowed on many MSM news sites. The G&M tends to close the comment boards when things get too out of hand, but the CBC "jump to conclusions mat" is still up and running last I checked. I question the utility of allowing the public to leave commentary after news articles. I feel that this new trend was intended to supplement or mimic the editorial page of print newspapers, but with newspapers they tend not to print the vitriolic, ignorant, or libelous statements that are common on the online MSM news comment boards.


----------



## Bo (2 Jan 2009)

I did basic training with Capt Semrau.

I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He always kept the morale high in our platoon, a natural leader. Everyone liked him.

He was a very balanced, intelligent, and keen individual. When I think of the one guy in our platoon that could be a general one day, it's him. The media might make him seem like a ruthless murderer but that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm certain once more information is revealed that these charges will be dropped.

I am still somewhat in shock that Rob, of all people, is being accused of this.


----------



## tech2002 (2 Jan 2009)

ooo man, I am in shock  , this remind me almost similar case from 2002 of Canadian Forces Sniper Cpl. Furlong.. I don`t know what to say much anymore..


----------



## bjr (2 Jan 2009)

Does anyone know where Capt. Semrau is based out of?

Also, I think we should remember that Capt. Semrau could be innocent AND the NIS staff could have been completely professional and above-board in performing their job. The possibilities are not mutually exclusive, because investigators are not judges or juries and don't use the same standard of proof. The job of investigators is not to reach a conclusion on guilt or innocence, it is to lay a charge when there is sufficient evidence to support the charge. And if military prosecutors use the same policy as civilian prosecutors (which I'm sure they do), it is their job to proceed with charges when there is a "reasonable possibility of conviction," NOT when they personally feel the accused is guilty. It is not logically inconsistent for an investigator to be acting in good faith and for a person charged to be innocent.

People seem to get caught up in the fact that charges have been laid. Just as in real life, it is pointless to speculate until the evidence comes out in court. There are a million possibilities. As one (completely hypothetical) example, there may have been evidence from witnesses that was sufficient for the NIS investigators to lay charges, but these witnesses might turn out to be completely unreliable. There might be one "side of the story" that paints a reasonable case for, say, a killing in self-defence, but another version of events that doesn't. In such a case it isn't the investigators' job to decide who they believe unless one version of events is unbelievable. They have to lay the charge and put the issue before the court.

So to make a long story short, there are two sides to every story, and we have to trust that the facts will come out eventually. This will no doubt be a crappy next couple of years for Capt. Semrau, though. Hopefully the defence lawyers and prosecutors both do their jobs.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Jan 2009)

Good summary, bjr.

Let's all wait and see what develops in the fullness of time. In the meantime, he is innocent in the eyes of the law.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> I'm sensing a palpable hostility to the media that I don't understand. What exactly have they done wrong here?



The media have a way to sensationalise things, and twist and manipulate the truth to suit them through controversy, and a one sided biased opinion in this unpopular war, all for ratings and sales.

I  have a very bad taste in my mouth when it comes to media period, all through experience.

Meanwhile, until the truth comes out in the wash through a proper investigation and then should this escalate to appropiate court proceedings, I'll stick to the facts at hand thru DND press releases, and continue to take whatever the media says as nothing but scribble on a shytehouse wall, for 999/1000, thats all they are worth.

CBC War Correspondant, actor and famous Canadian, Lorne Green would roll over in his grave, if could see the tactics used by the current CBC and their ilk. What they do is not really reporting anymore.

OWDU

EDIT: All IMHO of course.


----------



## TheCheez (2 Jan 2009)

So far the print media has been fairly restrained but I did have the misfortune of seeing a Ret'd Col on CTV trip all over himself trying to give them a good soundbyte and story to run with.

I hope for everyone the facts come out and and it's a positive ending.


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jan 2009)

I wonder is prosecuting the Capt in the best interests of the Crown.  Let alone the fact that all witnesses will have to be flown to Canada, and put up in Ottawa at Crown expense etc (I am guessing most of the witnesses would be ANA/OMLT members).

Yes I know these accusations are serious, but now that the MSM found its way in they will want a trial, and not be happy if the NIS says that there isn't enough evidence to go to trial.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I wonder is prosecuting the Capt in the best interests of the Crown.  Let alone the fact that all witnesses will have to be flown to Canada, and put up in Ottawa at Crown expense etc (I am guessing most of the witnesses would be ANA/OMLT members).
> 
> Yes I know these accusations are serious, but now that the MSM found its way in they will want a trial, and not be happy if the NIS says that there isn't enough evidence to go to trial.



It is a moot point.

This will be no different from any other Courts Martial/Trial that has been conducted by the CF in the past, which has included bringing people back from Afghanistan, and more distant corners of the globe.


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 Jan 2009)

The accusations and specualtions begin.....


*Two-month lag in Afghanistan murder charge raises questions *  

By Sue Bailey, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Tough questions are being asked about how a military force that learned the dark lessons of Somalia could have taken more than two months to reveal details of a suspected murder in Afghanistan. 


News that Capt. Robert Semrau has been charged with second-degree murder in the death of a presumed enemy fighter made shocking headlines Friday. 


"The biggest concern is the delay," says lawyer Paul Champ, a human rights specialist. 


"The allegations are that a Canadian officer - a mentor, at that - shot an unarmed man over two months ago. And we don't have any information about why it took so long for that allegation to come forward or be investigated. 


"That has to be the gravest concern which most closely parallels Somalia." 


Champ cited similar reporting delays in the 1993 beating death of Somali teenager Shidane Arone by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. 


"There was also a delay in the investigation by military police in what was clearly a brutal murder." 


Retired military officers bristled at such comparisons and stressed that Semrau is innocent until proven guilty. 


He is accused of shooting, "with intent to kill," an unarmed man in Helmand province "on or about" last October 19. Afghan soldiers, their Canadian mentors and British troops had defended the capital of Lashkar Gah from insurgent attack, retaking the Nad Ali district after a three-day fight ending Oct. 18. 


Afghan and NATO officials said at the time that at least 100 Taliban died in the fighting. 


Semrau is a member of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, the Canadian military unit that guides the fledgling Afghan National Army. 


Champ, who has led Amnesty International's legal bid to extend human-rights protections to detainees handed to Afghan security forces by Canadian troops, says the murder charge raises disturbing questions. 


"Was this individual being held in custody when he was killed? 


"Very little is disclosed by the military. And when we see an incident like this, it highlights why transparency is so important." 


Steven Staples of the independent Rideau Institute, which focuses on defence and foreign policy, echoed that concern. 


"We've been repeatedly assured that processes have been put in place that would ensure we would not have a repeat of Somalia," he said in an interview. 


"I think Canadians harbour a fear that as we get more drawn into Afghanistan that we could have a repeat of that terrible situation." 

Staples questioned the timeline described Wednesday in which Col. Jamie Cade, acting commander of Task Force Afghanistan, said he learned of the death on Dec. 27 - just after Defence Minister Peter MacKay left Kandahar following a Christmas visit. 

"The question will be asked whether it was merely a coincidence that the timing of the investigation spared the minister from having to respond to reporters' questions about the incident." 

It took several weeks for the Canadian public to learn what happened in Somalia, where Canadian soldiers were deployed on peacekeeping duties. 

The affair damaged the credibility of the Canadian Forces and prompted the federal government to order a public inquiry. Despite the fact it was cut short by the government, the inquiry found problems in the military's leadership. 

Retired Col. Chris Corrigan of the Royal Canadian Military Institute says the military has changed since Somalia. 

"Continuing the belief that there's a coverup just astounds me - that people are still propagating this sort of stuff. The system totally changed as a result of Somalia and the commission" of inquiry. 

Those changes included the creation of the national investigation service, a more defined separation between military prosecution and the chain of command, and what was supposed to be a more transparent public reporting system. 

Critics note that the military has clamped down on public requests involving Afghanistan through the Access to Information Act. 

Corrigan says justice must be allowed to run its course as the facts of the case come to light. 

"That Canadian soldier has a right as well to being protected by our legal system." 

Corrigan says he can see why it took two and a half months for the allegations to surface. 

"There have been a lot of inquiries, a lot of investigations going on during this timeframe that involved our own people dying. So I can fully understand why this may not have risen to the top of the command chain in Afghanistan. They were dealing with other life and death issues." 




_Copyright © 2009 Canadian Press 

Copyright 2009 © Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved._

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (2 Jan 2009)

Intersting, but on the way home I was listening to As it Happens on CBC....they were very low key on his arrest and seemed to question the fact that the investigation was very short, and that he was not charged until a day after the MND and CDS left.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jan 2009)

Wait'll Monday, when the newsrooms'll be back at closer-to-full staffing...


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2009)

Just watching Global national news. I was wondering how long it would take for them to bring up Somalia and they did not disapoint. Video of the mission complete with the pictures of Brown and Matchee posing with Arone.

Mr. Staples as usual crying "coverup"


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I wonder is prosecuting the Capt in the best interests of the Crown.  Let alone the fact that all witnesses will have to be flown to Canada, and put up in Ottawa at Crown expense etc (I am guessing most of the witnesses would be ANA/OMLT members).
> 
> Yes I know these accusations are serious, but now that the MSM found its way in they will want a trial, and not be happy if the NIS says that there isn't enough evidence to go to trial.



Why would the CFNIS investigation be conducted in Ottawa ???
It happened in Afghanistan and all the witnesses are over there - therefore, the investigation will/should be conducted over there


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jan 2009)

Col (ret) Drapeau said on the CBC that the CFNIS is not objective enough to investigate this and that it should be turned over to the RCMP.

In the same report, Amnesty International says that Canada has a long history of covering up events overseas..........


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jan 2009)

geo maybe because of this statement



			
				The NFLD Grinch said:
			
		

> News Release
> Charge Laid Relating to Death of Presumed Insurgent
> CFNIS 2009-01 - January 2, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (2 Jan 2009)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> Amnesty International has a long history of being full of... :



That may be your opinion, but this forum is not the place for unnecessary and potentially libelous statements about neutral international organizations. 

Post removed, back on track, please.

*
The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (2 Jan 2009)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> Same old,tired stuff from the MSM.In addition to the ever-present,ever-annoying Mr.Steven Staples,we can
> expect the resurgence of a Mr. Attaran some time in the near future.All members of the "Never-had-a- real-
> job" squad.



As above, speculation and inflammatory accusations with no proof (highlighted in orange) could see the site once again subject to legal action.

Post removed, back on track, please.  Issues with the moderation can be directed to Mr. Bobbitt.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Huzzah (2 Jan 2009)

I respect your decision with regard to my statements which you felt were out of line.It's not
my desire to cause any legal problems for the forum.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2009)

Prairie Dog said:
			
		

> What is the likelihood of the the Capt confessing to a friend or others about doing something like this, and then having himself or that friend report the incident to the CoC?


There is a vast array of possibilities.  Speculating such as this can only serve to generate rumours & misinformation.  Despite being devoid of truth, rumour & misinformation can bring damage to both the CF & the individuals involved.


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Why would the CFNIS investigation be conducted in Ottawa ???
> It happened in Afghanistan and all the witnesses are over there - therefore, the investigation will/should be conducted over there



I may have jumped the gun, and went to the next step, but said witness may be called upon to testify at a Court Marshal. 

NDA Para 183


> 183.   (1) The commanding officer of an accused person shall take all necessary action to procure the attendance of the witnesses whom the prosecutor and the accused person request to be called and whose attendance can, having regard to the exigencies of the service, reasonably be procured.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2009)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*After Somalia, Forces prove 'open and transparent'*
Christie Blatchford, Globe & Mail, 3 Jan 09
Article link

For all the facile comparisons to the odious Somalia debacle the latest news out of Kandahar already has brought, it appears the senior leaders of the Canadian Forces have learned the central lesson out of that sorry mess almost 16 years ago - that is, you do not hide from bad news, nor do you hide it from the Canadian people.

I refer, of course, to the terse announcement yesterday from the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the military equivalent of the major-crime unit of a civilian police force, that an officer, Captain Robert Semrau, has been charged with second-degree murder in connection with the Oct. 19, 2008, death of an unarmed Afghan, described in an official press release as "a presumed insurgent."

Capt. Semrau was among a small group of Canadian soldiers, members of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team or OMLT who had accompanied the Afghan National Army battalion they had been training into neighbouring Helmand Province, an area under British control. The shooting of the Afghan man apparently occurred during the course of or about the same time as heavy fighting near the province's largest city, Lashkar Gah, which was under attack from three sides. The fighting lasted several days.

Capt. Semrau was charged just a week after the CFNIS was first called in to investigate allegations of what was described, a few days later, as "inappropriate conduct" relating to the man's death.

While questions remain about the two-month-long delay between the date of the man's death and the date that senior commanders in Kandahar learned of the allegations, it seems clear that once informed, they acted swiftly and with transparency.

In fact, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who was in Kandahar during the Christmas break, was at a base in a Middle Eastern country awaiting the casket carrying a Canadian soldier with Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk when the general was approached by Brigadier-General Dennis Thompson, the commander of Task Force Afghanistan, and informed of the investigation.

Mr. MacKay said yesterday in a telephone interview that he could tell from the look on Brig.-Gen. Thompson's face that something serious had happened, and his first fear was that Canadian troops, who had just lost three soldiers in two days, had suffered another casualty.

But when he asked Gen. Natynczyk about it a few minutes later, Mr. MacKay was told there was a probe under way involving serious allegations against a Canadian. "That was all I heard until I got back to Canada," Mr. MacKay said.

That was Dec. 27, the very day that Colonel Jamie Cade, the deputy commander in Kandahar, later told reporters he had first learned of the allegations against Capt. Semrau.

It was also on that day that Col. Cade called in the NIS, which was established in 1997, in part as a result of recommendations stemming out of the Somalia affair.

What happened in the spring of 1993 in Somalia, when on March 16 teenager Shidane Arone was tortured and beaten to death by two members of the now-disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment there on a difficult peace-making mission, remains the single greatest stain in the history of the Canadian Forces.

But while it was two rank-and-file soldiers who were criminally charged and publicly vilified, an abbreviated inquiry into the incident, as well as knowledgeable military observers, held that the young man's death was really the result of an out-of-control culture fostered by lax and unaccountable senior leaders who later tried to whitewash and cover up the magnitude of what had happened - a validation of the old army creed which holds that there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers.

In the current case, unlike with Shidane Arone's death, the news did not leak out in dribs and drabs from courageous soldiers and dogged reporters, but rather was presented to the press by the senior command on Dec. 31 - just four days after the command itself had learned of the allegations and called in the appropriate authorities.

As former chief of defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier, said yesterday from Texas, where he is on vacation: "We do manage violence on behalf of the people of Canada. That is a heavy responsibility, and we have to have those checks and balances." Gen. Hillier emphasized that he "is out of the loop" and has read only some media reports, but said that two months for the allegations to make their way up the chain of command is "phenomenally quick."

Mr. MacKay acknowledged the enduring stain of Somalia, but said, "This is a different Canadian Forces. I think that those hard, hard lessons learned from Somalia do ring in the ears of anyone who was around then...

"The culture now is to be open and transparent," he said, "and they live and breathe in that culture. ...They are supremely professional, absolutely dedicated to what they do - and what they do first and foremost is the right thing."

In truth, no one more welcomes accountability in all its forms - whether through Rules of Engagement, which require that troops use force lawfully, or the Code of Conduct or NIS investigation - than the good soldier. An army is only as professional as the discipline of its troops and officers and their collective willingness to play by the rules. As one writer wrote recently on The Torch, a blog about the Canadian military, "Nobody who's thought about it for any length of time wants soldiers freelancing as to how they apply force. That makes them no better than an armed gang. The fact that they are controlled by a lawful government authority is what makes the violence they apply morally acceptable."

That is the standard to which the Canadian soldier must be held. As Colonel Ian Hope once told a group of the troops under his command, this almost three years ago at a hideous little base called Gumbad, "We need discipline and we need to keep up our professionalism," he said. "That's what distinguishes you from every other guy with a gun in this country."


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> geo maybe because of this statement
> 
> "Captain Semrau is currently in Military Police custody and will be transported back to Canada shortly for a hearing before a military judge to determine whether he is to be retained in custody"


The hearing will be held in Ottawa... the investigation will be done where it is most practical to see the scene of the incident AND where the witnesses (if any) can be found.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Col (ret) Drapeau said on the CBC that the CFNIS is not objective enough to investigate this and that it should be turned over to the RCMP.
> 
> In the same report, Amnesty International says that Canada has a long history of covering up events overseas..........


At present, in Ottawa, the CF is reputed to be the most OPEN department of the Federal Government.  Access to Information is a keystone of how we operate.  Col Drapeau, Amnesteyu International & Mr Ataran be damned, the CF can be read like an open book.  We don't keep secrets (we also leak like a sieve... but that's a different story).


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

At the same time there will be numerous interviews with the Capt by Defence Lawyers and Military Police while he is in Ottawa.  The investigation will probably still continue in various other locations, but be centered out of Ottawa.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> .........  Col Drapeau, Amnesty International & Mr Ataran be damned, the CF can be read like an open book.  We don't keep secrets (we also leak like a sieve... but that's a different story).



These people have the necessity to make these comments to stay in the Public eye and maintain a sense of self-importance and relevancy.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they are in anyway correct in what they espouse in public.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (3 Jan 2009)

And then we have, on the same CBC web page, this story - Canadian soldiers kill suspected suicide bomber, shared under the usual provisions:



> Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan's Shah Wali Kot district on Thursday shot and killed a suspected suicide bomber who was believed to be planning a "spectacular attack," officials reported Friday.
> 
> The alleged suicide bomber tried to drive a sports-utility vehicle into a bomb-sweeping patrol north of Kandahar City, said Maj. David Warnke, head of Canada's counter-improvised explosive devices (IED) unit.
> A presumed suicide bomber allegedly tried to drive this sports-utility vehicle into a patrol north of Kandahar City. A presumed suicide bomber allegedly tried to drive this sports-utility vehicle into a patrol north of Kandahar City. (Courtesy of Canadian Forces)
> ...



Interesting


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jan 2009)

What bothers me is what is the basis for the charges ? Statements from other OMLT members ? Taliban prisoners ? ANA soldiers ? 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_CanadianMurdercharge_010209w/



> [Battle-related murder charge for Canadian capt.
> 
> By Steve Rennie - The Canadian Press
> Posted : Friday Jan 2, 2009 11:56:40 EST
> ...


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What bothers me is what is the basis for the charges ? Statements from other OMLT members ? Taliban prisoners ? ANA soldiers ?


It is just as likely that all of this has come from some detailed reports that Capt Semrau himself submitted.

I have all confidence that Capt Semrau conducted himself in an examplary manner throughout his term within the OMLT.  The fog of war - when lots of things are flying in both directions - at a fast and furious rate, most certainly contributed to the incident.

I have no doubt that the good Captain will be, if anything, quite candid about what he did and why he conducted himself throughout the engagement.

Let's all settle down back to work and let everyone figure out this puzzle.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jan 2009)

Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 could be the overlying factor in this case, IMO. Seems like these charges are due diligence of NIS and the CF. Who's to say that Captain Semrau didn't witness the presumed insurgent drop a weapon and try to run away, or recognize the face from earlier in a close engagement? I believe there's too many factors for a proper trial or anything to come out of this, other than a show for the media.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> It is just as likely that all of this has come from some detailed reports that Capt Semrau himself submitted.
> 
> I have all confidence that Capt Semrau conducted himself in an examplary manner throughout his term within the OMLT.  The fog of war - when lots of things are flying in both directions - at a fast and furious rate, most certainly contributed to the incident.
> 
> ...



Obviously something took place in the last week or so that resulted in the charges. The alleged incident took place in mid-Oct '08, but it wasn't until 27 Dec '08 that it came to the attention of the Commander Task Force Kandahar who notified the CFNIS . It took the CFNIS just four days to carryout its investigation that resulted in Capt Semrau being charged. A four day investigation is pretty remarkable if you ask me. Either the evidence is pretty clear or the NIS has jumped the gun. 

Speaking of the NIS, is it usual for them (or any other MP unit) to actually charge someone with a crime? In civvie street the police investigate the crime and gather the evidence and present their findings to the Crown who decides if charges are warranted. Any clarification would be helpful.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

I think someone took some "literary licence" when they wrote the article as to "who" laid charges.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Jan 2009)

If I recall correctly, giving the military police the authority to lay charges came out of the Somalia Inquiry. At that time the commissioners criticized what they saw as abuse of the discretion allowed commanding officers to lay or not lay charges after receipt of a military police report. I am not sure that in fact they had any evidence of such abuse, as opposed to a fear that it could occur.


----------



## Occam (3 Jan 2009)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Speaking of the NIS, is it usual for them (or any other MP unit) to actually charge someone with a crime? In civvie street the police investigate the crime and gather the evidence and present their findings to the Crown who decides if charges are warranted. Any clarification would be helpful.



I can't speak to the ability of NIS to lay charges, but in civvie street it is most definitely the police that investigate and lay charges.  The crown prosecutors may advise police as to the likelihood of conviction, but the sole decision to lay charges is by the police.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2009)

Retired AF Guy,
You have to consider that OMLTs operate out of areas that are not necessarily under higher Canadian supervision or control.  It is not like this was a Canadian Platoon operating in our AOR.  This Afghan unit operated in Helman province - under Afghan command in the British AOR... not a Canadian AOR.  The delay in taking action undoubtedly has something to do with this.

WRT your other question...
Per se - CFNIS does not lay charges - they provide findings & make recommendations.  Commanders & the Judge Advocate's office look after the rest.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2009)

The NIS has authority to lay charges.  The charge will then go to the Director, Military Prosecutions (part of the JAG branch) where it may be modified, dropped, or proceeded with as is.  MPs not with the NIS have no authority to lay charges; their reports are sent to the parent unit for disposition.

For some light bedtime reading, look at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf which will let you know more about summary trials and military justice than you ever wanted to know (unless you're a CO or delegated officer, in which case you've already read it at least once)


----------



## bjr (3 Jan 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> I can't speak to the ability of NIS to lay charges, but in civvie street it is most definitely the police that investigate and lay charges.  The crown prosecutors may advise police as to the likelihood of conviction, but the sole decision to lay charges is by the police.


It actually depends on the province. In most provinces, the police have the authority to lay charges. In a few -- BC and New Brunswick spring to mind, but I'm not sure about NB -- the police propose charges, which are then screened by a Crown Prosecutor before they are formally laid. In practice it doesn't make much difference, because in provinces where there isn't pre-screening, a Crown will (usually) review the file at an early stage and decide whether or not the charges should be withdrawn, and in complicated investigations the police will often solicit the opinion of a Crown before they lay charges.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2009)

Tks for the clarification DAP - guess I had forgotten the material covered on Delegated officer training... been a while


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Jan 2009)

Bo said:
			
		

> I did basic training with Capt Semrau.
> 
> I cannot say enough good things about this guy. He always kept the morale high in our platoon, a natural leader. Everyone liked him.
> 
> ...



+1 ... he's just about the last person I could imagine ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jan 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The NIS has authority to lay charges.  The charge will then go to the Director, Military Prosecutions (part of the JAG branch) where it may be modified, dropped, or proceeded with as is.  MPs not with the NIS have no authority to lay charges; their reports are sent to the parent unit for disposition.
> 
> For some light bedtime reading, look at http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf which will let you know more about summary trials and military justice than you ever wanted to know (unless you're a CO or delegated officer, in which case you've already read it at least once).



Thanks for the link. To save folks some time here is the relevant info from the above link:

"_*Laying of Charges
44. A charge is a formal accusation that a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline has committed a service offence. A charge is laid when it is reduced to writing in Part 1 (Charge Report) of the Record of Disciplinary Proceedings (RDP) and signed by a person authorized to lay charges.

45. The following persons may lay charges under the Code of Service Discipline:
a. a CO;
b. an officer or NCM authorized by a CO to lay charges; and
c. an officer or NCM of the Military Police assigned to investigative duties with the CF National Investigation Service (NIS).

46. A person who lays a charge under the Code of Service Discipline must have an actual belief that the accused member has committed the offence and that belief must be reasonable.

For a full discussion on this subject see Chapter 8, Laying of Charges."*_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Christie Blatchford, Globe & Mail, 3 Jan 09
> Article link
> While questions remain about the two-month-long delay between the date of the man's death and the date that senior commanders in Kandahar learned of the allegations,



Now much as I like Ms. Blatchford's writings, she is severely out to lunch with this comment.

I guess if she gets assigned to investigate a member of the Hell's Angels she gives Maurice (Mom) Boucher a call to let him know?
Give your head a shake Christie.


----------



## Snakedoc (4 Jan 2009)

I'm curious that if the CFNIS has the authority to actually lay charges and not simply recommend them to a CO, who then becomes the convening authority in the matter?


----------



## Dog Walker (4 Jan 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> *After Somalia, Forces prove 'open and transparent'*
> Christie Blatchford, Globe & Mail, 3 Jan 09
> Article link
> 
> ...



Was there really a delay? How long dose it take for after action reports to be written and then move up the chain of command? Could the mid tour leaves delay the process? Some people are hinting at a cover up, but could it just be normal bureaucratic friction?


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2009)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Was there really a delay? How long dose it take for after action reports to be written and then move up the chain of command? Could the mid tour leaves delay the process? Some people are hinting at a cover up, but could it just be normal bureaucratic friction?


You bring up an interesting point DW.  
There is time between when the incident happened & the end of the operations in Hellman province while the OMLT & Afghan unit would've been under Afghan / UK jurisdiction (you don't stop an operation to start writing)
The time required for return to your home base.
The time required for the debriefing of the Afghan troops who were being mentored by our OMLT team.
The time required to prepare and submit the report.
The time required to receive & analyse the report.
The time required to transmit the result of the analysis to the Commander of all OMLT teams who must then brief the Canadian contingent commander in Kandahar.

Throw in HLTAs & any number of operations (planned & unplanned) involving the leadership & you could very well end up with the unintended delay the media and Amnesty International / Prof Attaran are all harping about.

I am convinced that Capt Semrau was quite candid and forthcoming in his reporting.  There was no attempt to cover up & the Capt conducted himself in an appropriate manner throughout the operation.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2009)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Was there really a delay? How long dose it take for after action reports to be written and then move up the chain of command? Could the mid tour leaves delay the process? Some people are hinting at a cover up, but could it just be normal bureaucratic friction?


Delay or no delay.  Our speculating is no more helpful than the media's.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2009)

If the CFNIS lays charges, it will be a court martial; charges will go to the Director, Military Prosecutions who will go through the Court Martial Administrator.

There were some changes to the process made this past summer (members now elect the type of court martial they want - panel, or judge alone); there's a CANFORGEN out there with some details.


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2009)

This might have already been posted, but here it is ......

Canadian troops keeping mum about murder charge
STEVE RENNIE The Canadian Press January 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM EST
Article Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Canadian troops at Kandahar Airfield weren't saying much Saturday about a fellow soldier who's been charged with second-degree murder in the death of a presumed enemy fighter.

Troops lounging on the sprawling base's wood-plank boardwalk politely declined to weigh in on allegations Captain Robert Semrau shot an unarmed man in Helmand province last October.

“Sorry, no thanks,” said one soldier when asked for comment, echoing the responses of several other troops.

Another soldier, sitting alone at a picnic table, said he was unaware of the allegations.
More on link


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Soldier's case 'doesn't smell right'
> From Vancouver, Capt. Semrau's only sibling said he is distraught over the serious charge hanging over his brother, but *his family is pulling together in a circle of silence, reluctant to interfere in an unprecedented criminal investigation for Canada's military in Afghanistan.*


Best advice I've heard on this deal yet.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2009)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Was there really a delay? How long dose it take for after action reports to be written and then move up the chain of command? Could the mid tour leaves delay the process? Some people are hinting at a cover up, but could it just be normal bureaucratic friction?



Or, mroe likely, NIS has been looking at it for a while, once they determined the significance of the issue they raised it to the HQ in theatre (they are not under the NCE - supported by, but independent).  Which is precisely how the system should work - investigation without interference, investigators pass along information when something significant will occur.

Looks to me as if the system worked as it should (process wise; I have no data about the information fed into or conclusions coming out of that process).


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2009)

My favorite US milblogger has posted about this case.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/canadian-soldie.html#comments

Alternative Title:  Is NCIS's Agent Fox on this case?

The Canadian military police are charging Captain Semrau with murder.  Details are below.  Any suggestions of how we can help the Captain, please put in the Comments.


----------



## chris_log (5 Jan 2009)

I just checked out the facebook group supporting this guy....

I've got to say that it has to be the dumbest thing I've seen, and especially considering that there are a number of CF members who are in that group. To claim that he is being unfairly charged is as stupid as claiming he is guilty. I dunno, it just seems like that last thing we should be doing is stubbornly closing ranks around one of our own without full details that tell prove him guilty or innocent. CF members have no business being part of an online group (considering your internet persona can and will come back to haunt you) that looks like it is seeking to interfere/contradict an ongoing investigation.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Jan 2009)

I have no specific information about this case beyond what the media has given us.  I am engaging in pure speculation. This post is so nonfactual, you probably shouldn't even read it. 

I think the general sentiment from those folks is that it is entirely possible that the Army had a nonlinear, tough case to look at, but rather than suffer the "negative optics" of what someone (read: the MSM) could construe as a cover up, they chuck the good Captain to the wind and say "well, the system will sort it out".  That protects everyone else from being touched by it.  So if four years from now, if he is found not guilty he can go back to pick up the pieces of his shredded life and career and resume being a hard working, dedicated soldier.  Then the race to get to say first "see, the system worked!" will be on.    
Or it was a bad shoot and he will get pinned for it.  We'll see.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2009)

I know what my money is on......


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jan 2009)

Media Advisory
Custody hearing to take place for charged Canadian Forces member
MA-09.001 - January 5, 2009

PETAWAWA, ON – A Custody Hearing will be held at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Petawawa, on Tuesday, January 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m., for Captain Robert Semrau, a CF member charged on December 31, 2008, by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) with an offence relating to the death of a presumed insurgent in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan on or about October 19, 2008.

Captain Semrau is currently in Military Police custody at CFB Petawawa. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if Captain Semrau will remain in custody.

Captain Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unnamed male person. 

As the matter is now proceeding in accordance with the Code of Service Discipline, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

-30- 

Note to Editors/ News Directors: :
Tomorrow’s Custody Hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m. at Building L106, CFB Petawawa. 

The hearing is open to the media and the public, however electronic recording devices and photographic equipment are not allowed within the court room. 

The Presiding Judge for this public hearing will be LCol L.V. d'Auteuil, with the Prosecution represented by Major Marylene Trudel and the accused represented by Major Steve Turner. 

The contact person for logistical information is Ms. Daphny Gebhart-Turcotte,
Cell: (613) 312-7182.

QR&O 105.18 Review of Report of Custody
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-02/chapter-chapitre-105-eng.asp#cha-105-18

Biography of Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, Military Judge
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/biosDauteuil_e.asp


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Jan 2009)

Custody hearing begins for Canadian soldier charged in Afghan killing
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 | 2:33 PM ET 
CBC News 

A Canadian Forces captain charged in the death of an unarmed man in Afghanistan is attending a hearing at an eastern Ontario base to determine whether to release him from custody. 

Robert Semrau faces one count of second-degree murder in the shooting death of a presumed insurgent in Afghanistan's Helmand province in October.

Tuesday's hearing at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa will determine whether Semrau will continue to be held in military police custody on the charge while awaiting trial. If convicted, he faces 25 years in prison.

Semrau had no comment as he made his way inside for the hearing.

At the time of the shooting, Semrau, originally from Pembroke, Ont., was among a group of Canadian soldiers mentoring Afghan soldiers in Helmand province.

In October, Afghan soldiers were defending the Helmand capital, Lashkar Gah, from a prolonged attack by insurgents. The soldiers were being supervised by Canadian military mentors with NATO's Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, and were backed up by British forces.

Military officials have said the death of the man allegedly happened "on or about" Oct. 19 in Helmand.

Canadian military officials were made aware of the allegations on Dec. 27, and notified the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which then began an investigation.

Canada has about 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly based in the south around Kandahar. Neighbouring Helmand province is largely patrolled by British troops.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2009)

And there is this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, that has some details of the *alleged* incident:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090106.wsemrau0106/BNStory/National/home

 Semrau makes military court appearance

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update
January 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM EST

PETAWAWA, Ont. — Captain Robert Semrau is accused of killing a severely-wounded Taliban insurgent last October in the Afghanistan province of Helmand, a military court heard today as the Canadian soldier applies to be released from jail while awaiting trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

The 35-year-old army captain was commanding soldiers in the British-controlled area On Oct. 19, 2008, when the soldiers and Afghan forces were ambushed by Taliban insurgents, the military court heard from a statement issued by the Crown prosecutor.

Air support from a United States helicopter helped rout the attack and the Canadians discovered a critically-wounded insurgent after the battle was over.

The insurgent's wounds were deemed too severe to be treated in the battlefield and his rifle was taken away.

Captain Semrau was the only person standing near the wounded insurgent when two shots rang out and the enemy combatant was found dead, the court heard.

One unnamed witness has testified to military investigators they saw Captain Semrau firing at the insurgent, prosecutor Major Marylene Trudel said. She said the Crown will assert that Captain Semrau fired both shots.

The body of the insurgent was left behind and never recovered.

Captain Semrau is currently awaiting a decision on his application to be released from custody while awaiting trial. Both the defence and the Crown prosecutor have agreed that he should be released under a set of conditions.

_More to come_
------------------


It’s been a long, long time since I had anything at all to do with the military justice system and I never was involved in anything as serious as this; can a lawyer tell us if Capt. Semrau has a real, provable crime for which to answer? Where’s the body; who says there’s a dead person?


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2009)

Hot off the presses:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/06/semrau-petawawa.html

Canadian soldier accused of killing insurgent following ambush: lawyers
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 | 3:22 PM ET Comments64Recommend34CBC News 
New details were revealed Tuesday about a Canadian soldier charged in the death of an unarmed man in Afghanistan.

Defence and prosecution lawyers released a joint statement of circumstances about Robert Semrau's case at a hearing at Canadian Forces Base to determine whether to release him from custody.

Semrau, originally from Pembroke, Ont., faces one count of second-degree murder in the shooting death of a presumed insurgent in Afghanistan's Helmand province in October.

According to the statement, on Oct. 19, Semrau was out on a mission with a small team of Afghan soldiers he was helping to command as part of a mentoring program.

The statement says the group was ambushed by Taliban insurgents, but managed to regain control with the help of U.S. air support.

Soldiers with the Afghan National Army later discovered a wounded insurgent on the ground. His injuries were too apparently too severe for him to be helped. The man's rifle was taken away by Afghan soldiers.

According to the statement, Semrau was then left alone with the injured insurgent and two shots were heard. An unnamed witness said he saw Semrau shoot the Taliban insurgent.

Both the Crown and prosecution have recommended that Semrau be released with conditions that he live with his family and continue working on the base. The judge is expected to make his decision later Tuesday afternoon.

The trial is unlikely to take place until late 2009. If convicted, Semrau could face 25 years in prison.

Semrau, who attended the hearing with his wife and seven-month-old daughter, had no comment when he made his way inside for the hearing.

Canadian military officials said they were made aware of the allegations on Dec. 27, and notified the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which then began an investigation.

Canada has about 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly based in the south around Kandahar. Neighbouring Helmand province is largely patrolled by British troops.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It’s been a long, long time since I had anything at all to do with the military justice system and I never was involved in anything as serious as this; can a lawyer tell us if Capt. Semrau has a real, provable crime for which to answer? Where’s the body; who says there’s a dead person?



There's allegedly at least one witness; there may be other footage from surveillance platforms or aircraft that could establosh the presence of an individual who could be the presumed victim in the area; others may be able to establish the presence of such an individual and describe other actions taken in that area at that time.

Not the easiest case ever to prosecute (no body); nor the most difficult (at least one witness).


The Criminal Code does state:



> 232. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation



In that case, sentencing would be:



> 236. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
> 
> (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
> 
> (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.




However, there is still a great deal to be resolved in this case, and still a tremendous amount that has not been disclosed.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2009)

On further reflection, I'll make a prediction:  Late April or early May trial, Guilty plea, 4 years imprisonment (suspended)


Capt Semrau will plead guilty to manslaughter, citing "heat of passion" during the TIC in the agreed statement of facts.  A joint submission for sentencing will be submitted (both the prosecution and defence in agreement), suggesting this case warrants the minimum punishment; in this case, manslaughter with a firearm, it would be four years imprisonment.  The joint submission would also recommend that the sentence be suspended (which a military tribunal may do, IAW s 215 of the NDA).

The court, having been spanked by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the past for once going against a joint submission, will grudgingly agree.  (See Castillo v R, CMAC-468, http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-468_e.shtml)

Given the time it will take to schedule the trial, and the time the lawyers will need to negotiate and write their submissions, I'd expect this to unfold in late April / early May.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jan 2009)

Its not like the Taliban ever ditched wpns in the past


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2009)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Its not like the Taliban ever ditched wpns in the past


I'm not sure how this is relevant to the senario described.  The event as described does not question that the individal was a Taliban fighter.  He was a Taliban fighter.  He was a casualty and his weapon was removed by ANA.  He would have been "hors de combat" and therefor protected by the laws of armed conflict.

... of course, that is based on the events as described in the press.  Things on the ground could have been different.


----------



## Thompson_JM (6 Jan 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Things on the ground could have been different.



For the sake of the Captain I hope so.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2009)

Tommy said:
			
		

> I personally have no sympathy for the deceased...



Irrelevant.



> Arguably according to CTV the wounded (suspected)Insurgent was going to die anyway...
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090106/soldier_hearing_090106/20090106?hub=TopStories
> "...and it was determined that his injuries were untreatable..."
> ...



Again irrelevant.  As MCG said, the information presented suggests he was hors d'combat and thus protected from use of force by soldiers under Canadian Military Law.  Mercy killings are not permitted - for one soldiers are not doctors and can't make legitimate calls on survivability.  Although in many cases it may be obvious, it doesn't matter - there is precedence with this (although in US law, but precedence in "The Long War" none-the-less) with an American Soldier being charged for putting out some guy with his guts laying all over the place.

Again, as MCG says, this is only sketchy details presented to the media - I'm waiting for the detailed facts to present themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2009)

Let's not speculate. Remember that a lot of _outsiders_, including media people, read Army.ca; some of them are looking for controversy.

Capt Semrau has competent military counsel and he can, of course engage good civilian lawyers, too.

There is time, now, for the 'system' to decide if there is, indeed, a case to be answered and how it should proceed. There are many legal protections for accused persons. I am confident that Capt Semrau will be able to make use of them all.

Good order and discipline require that unusual incidents be investigated and that our legal processes be used to resolve them, as appropriate. Let us allow our system to do its work.

Some members here know Capt Semrau and others have pretty strong views, informed by their own experiences in combat, on the incident. As Infanteer said that's all irrelevant. We don't know the details so we have nothing useful to offer. Our opinions about Capt Semrau's character and the circumstances in which he found himself are just that: opinions, and they have no real value to Capt Semrau or the Chief Military Judge.

Since we have little useful to say I suggest we say little.


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Since we have little useful to say I suggest we say little.


*And this suggestion will be enforced.

Cheers,
The Staff*


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Jan 2009)

The bare basic facts are now out.

What more can I say. 

Time to let the legal system run its course.

OWDU


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2009)

....(not to mention potentially detrimental, given ERC's wise caveat above) - even the prosecutor admits, if quoted correctly by the Canadian Press, the case is a work in progress (highlights mine)....


> ....Semrau's lawyer, Maj. Steve Turner, said the agreed statement of circumstances is not the final word in what is a continuing investigation.  While the Crown contends that Semrau fired the two shots that were heard by witnesses, Turner told the court "the defence theory, of course, will be different."  The case appears far from open and shut.  Military prosecution lawyer Maj. Marylene Trudel noted that *military prosecutors have not yet even determined whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, and said the charges could change as the investigation progresses.  "We're still a step behind that process," she told the court in arguing for Semrau's release pending trial....*


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jan 2009)

They charged him with a crime that they're not even sure they can convict him on, possibly tarnishing this man's career just for fun?

Something smells about this whole situation, but I'm sure justice will prevail and things will be sorted out.


----------



## Garett (7 Jan 2009)

As a friend of Rob's I've been holding off commeting on this issue as I wouldn't want something I post to end up in a CBC news storey, but I'm furious at the Globe and Mail due to the article I just read with Rob's wife's and daughter's names, what Rob's wife's job is and where she got her degree from. I'm pretty damn sure that has absolutely nothing to do with whatever happened in Afghanistan. 

I'm also pissed at the people who think they're helping by posting comments on Facebook and other places saying that theres nothing wrong with killing wounded insurgents because they would do it to us. If anyone wants to help, they should just keep their mouths shut and let this play out. This issue could further polarize the Canadian public when we really need to be coming closer together on Afghanistan and other issues.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Jan 2009)

Congrats to the mods and other contributors for their work at keeping this thread on solid ground.
Spare me the thoughtless, uninformed and emotional outbursts.


----------



## PanaEng (7 Jan 2009)

Commentary from Ms Blatchford:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090107.wblatch07/BNStory/Front

cheers,
Frank


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2009)

Canadian Press says


> A military judge has released an army officer charged with murdering a wounded and apparently unarmed enemy fighter in Afghanistan.  The judge, Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, has granted a joint request by both defence and prosecution to allow Capt. Robert Semrau, 35, to rejoin his unit at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa and live at home in neighbouring Pembroke, Ont.  D'Auteuil placed conditions on the soldier's release, however, ordering him to remain under military authority, to stay in Canada, to surrender his passport and not to communicate with any Afghan National Army troops or five Canadian soldiers.  Semrau is also not allowed to handle any weapons or explosives, even in his soldierly duties, without prior approval from the court....



_- edited to change subject line for this post only - _


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Jan 2009)

NATIONAL NEWS      
Last updated at 8:48 AM on 07/01/09   






 Capt. Robert Semrau arrives under military police custody for his custody hearing at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont., Tuesday. - Photo by The Canadian Press  

Witness to testify 
Army captain accused of shooting severely wounded insurgent

PETAWAWA, ONT.
BRUCE CHEADLE 
The Canadian Press

A Canadian soldier charged with second-degree murder was seen firing his weapon at a severely injured Afghan insurgent - but the body was never recovered, according to documents read into the military court record.

Capt. Robert Semrau, 35, faced his first court appearance Tuesday since being charged Dec. 31 for an offence alleged to have taken place last October in Helmand Province.

According to an agreed "synopsis" of known circumstances surrounding the Oct. 19 incident, Semrau was with a Canadian operational mentor and liaison team under British command and working with the Afghan National Army when they were ambushed by the Taliban during a 26-kilometre overland pursuit.

A U.S. Apache helicopter was called in, after which the group discovered one dead insurgent and another with wounds "too severe for any type of treatment" in the field.

An assault rifle was taken from the injured man.

According to the court document, the dead and wounded were photographed by Semrau's group "in accordance with standard procedures," after which Semrau was seen standing alone by the two insurgents.

Two shots were heard and "at least one witness" will say he saw Semrau firing his rifle at the wounded insurgent.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Jan 2009)

Garett said:
			
		

> I'm also pissed at the people who think they're helping by posting comments on Facebook and other places saying that theres nothing wrong with killing wounded insurgents because they would do it to us. If anyone wants to help, they should just keep their mouths shut and let this play out. This issue could further polarize the Canadian public when we really need to be coming closer together on Afghanistan and other issues.




+1 ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2009)

A few more details from a later rewrite by Canadian Press (highlight mine):


> ....Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, the presiding judge, agreed with the military prosecution and Semrau's military lawyer that keeping Semrau in custody pending a court martial was not necessary. A trial is not expected before the autumn, at the earliest .... Both the judge and the Crown, Maj. Marylene Trudel, noted the investigation is continuing and that Semrau's second-degree murder charge is at a "preliminary level" and *has not yet been referred to the director of military prosecutions*.  Trudel noted Tuesday during the custody arguments that whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction must still be determined and the charges could change...


----------



## Redeye (8 Jan 2009)

Garett - I know what you mean - the FB group is borderline ridiculous.  Some of the crap being spouted there - by CF members, no less, is almost terrifying.  These folks seem to have no concept of what "stay in your lane" means.  There's a lot of nonsense being posted there.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2009)

Some more reasoned commentary:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/07/michael-ross-saving-captain-semrau.aspx



> *Michael Ross: Saving Captain Semrau*
> Posted: January 07, 2009, 3:19 PM by Marni Soupcoff
> Michael Ross
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (9 Jan 2009)

Soldier's story
Captain's case already being played out on the pages of Facebook
By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
Friday, January 9, 2009 
http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2009/01/09/7964931-sun.html



> Here's the thing about the pending trial of Canadian Forces Capt. Robert Semrau on a charge of second-degree murder, in connection with the death of a Taliban insurgent in Helmand Province last Oct. 19.
> 
> Those who really know what happened aren't saying - not yet. And those who don't know? They're saying an awful lot. In fact, judging from what you read on Facebook, it's impossible for them to contain themselves.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2009)

*Canadian Forces Officer to Face General Court Martial *
CF news release, 18 Sept 09
Release link

Captain Robert Semrau will face a General Court Martial in relation to the shooting death of a wounded insurgent that occurred in Afghanistan in October 2008.

Capt. Semrau was arrested on December 31, 2008, by the National Investigation Service and charged with Second Degree Murder while deployed in Afghanistan as Commander of an Operational Mentor Liaison Team. Capt. Semrau was released under conditions on January 7, 2009, by the Military Judge presiding over the custody review hearing at CFB Petawawa.

Following referral to the Canadian Forces Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), Captain (Navy) Holly MacDougall, the original charge of Second Degree Murder, and three additional charges were brought forward or "preferred" to Court Martial.

The charges facing Capt. Semrau are:

- Second Degree Murder - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code;
- Attempt to Commit Murder (alternative to the Charge of Second Degree Murder) - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 239(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code;
- Behaving in a Disgraceful Manner - contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act; and
- Negligently Performing a Military Duty - contrary to Section 124 of the National Defence Act.

The charges have been forwarded to the Court Martial Administrator who will convene a General Court Martial at the first available date and at a location to be determined.

A General Court Martial is composed of a military judge and a panel of five members. The accused is represented by a defence counsel designated by the Director of Defence Counsel Service.

The DMP considers two main issues when deciding whether to prosecute a charge at court martial:

- Is the evidence sufficient to justify the continuation of charges as laid or the preferral of other charges?
- If the evidence is sufficient, does the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?

DMP continually reassesses these issues as new information about the case becomes available and has the discretion to bring forward, or "prefer," the charge or any other charge based on facts disclosed by evidence in addition to, or in substitution for, the charge.

The DMP is a separate and independent authority for military prosecutions who exercises prosecutorial discretion within the military justice system, free of influences, and based on legal principles and criteria.

Further information:

Charge Laid Relating to Death of Presumed Insurgent
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2840
(News Release - 2 January 2009)

Custody hearing to take place for charged Canadian Forces member
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2841
(Media Advisory - 5 January 2009)

Custody hearing decision:
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2009/doc/Semrau%20Decision-CRH-eng.pdf 

_- edited to remove merge suggestion, change link to CF site now that statement is available there -_


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2009)

Hmm... a Friday afternoon press release... imagine that...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hmm... a Friday afternoon press release... imagine that...


Well, at least it wasn't sent at 4:57pm, was it?


----------



## Fusaki (25 Sep 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I don't disagree, no remorse.  So why are we discussing charging this Officer for dispatching a badly wounded person who moments ago was more than willing to dispatch him?  frig 'em all.



The Officer, from my Regiment, has only been accused of a crime.  I don't know him personally, but those who do speak VERY highly of his character.   I trust the opinions of those who've told me that Capt Semrau is a true professional and I don't think it's fair to speak as if he's actually done something before the verdict is read.

That said, the fact that we make laws and we enforce them is what separates a professional army with the likes of the Taliban.  Whether or not it should be illegal to "finish off" a mortally wounded enemy is a separate issue.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Sep 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The Officer, from my Regiment, has only been accused of a crime.  I don't know him personally, but those who do speak VERY highly of his character.   I trust the opinions of those who've told me that Capt Semrau is a true professional and I don't think it's fair to speak as if he's actually done something before the verdict is read.
> 
> That said, the fact that we make laws and we enforce them is what separates a professional army with the likes of the Taliban.  Whether or not it should be illegal to "finish off" a mortally wounded enemy is a separate issue.



You seem to delight in technicalities, so here's another:  I never said he did it, I said being charged with it.  See the difference?

edit:  my mistake, it seems I said "for" instead of "with".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Oct 2009)

I'm no crown, but I'm curious how one can be charged with murder *and* attempted murder for a single victim?  Either you killed a guy, and it was not just an attempt.  Or you tried to kill a guy and he's still alive.  That just strikes me as being a bit of too wide a net cast.  
I hope Capt. Semrau is doing well and is enjoying his time with his family.


----------



## FastEddy (12 Oct 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm no crown, but I'm curious how one can be charged with murder *and* attempted murder for a single victim?  Either you killed a guy, and it was not just an attempt.  Or you tried to kill a guy and he's still alive.  That just strikes me as being a bit of too wide a net cast.
> I hope Capt. Semrau is doing well and is enjoying his time with his family.




Yes and Yes, I echo those thoughts exactly.

I sure hope whoever reported the facts or events of this incident, are really feeling good about themselves for doing their DUTY, yes Sirree, just the kind of guys you'd like to have a beer with.


----------



## tango22a (12 Oct 2009)

It appears to be a bit of a shotgun approach. If not guilty on one charge, we'll whack him with the other.

Years ago, when I was taking my Corporal's Course, we were told " When laying a charge ALWAYS add a charge of " conduct prejudicial to  good order and discipline."  If you really wanted to hang the guy out and you couldn't get him on a major charge you could almost always get him on "conduct prejudicial".

tango22a


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Oct 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm no crown, but I'm curious how one can be charged with murder *and* attempted murder for a single victim?  Either you killed a guy, and it was not just an attempt.  Or you tried to kill a guy and he's still alive.  That just strikes me as being a bit of too wide a net cast.
> I hope Capt. Semrau is doing well and is enjoying his time with his family.



I agree.  Is this like being "kind of" pregnant?  

I, too, agree with your final comment.


----------



## Monsoon (12 Oct 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree.  Is this like being "kind of" pregnant?


I have a hunch that the "attempted murder" charge is to protect against the defence claiming that there's a reasonable doubt that the insurgent died of his battle wounds even if it can be shown that the accused shot him with the intent to kill.

Without a fall-back in that case he'd be found not guilty. Given that the person was already seriously wounded, it would be impossible to conclusively prove what caused his death.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I have a hunch that the "attempted murder" charge is to protect against the defence claiming that there's a reasonable doubt that the insurgent died of his battle wounds even *if it can be shown that the accused shot him with the intent to kill.*


Or *if* the intent to kill can't be proven, as mentioned in one earlier prediction in this thread:


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> .... citing "heat of passion" during the TIC in the agreed statement of facts ....


...although I notice manslaughter is no longer on the list for now.

I, too, hope Capt. S and his family is doing okay - I look forward to seeing the legal process unfold.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Oct 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I sure hope whoever reported the facts or events of this incident, are really feeling good about themselves for doing their DUTY, yes Sirree, just the kind of guys you'd like to have a beer with.



Facts cannot be buried forever, it is best to deal with issues in a transparent, forthright fashion, since the Afghan soldiers also reported the incident. If the allegations are accurate I am sure Capt S had his reasons and he should be prepared to defend them.


----------



## PanaEng (12 Oct 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Facts cannot be buried forever, it is best to deal with issues in a transparent, forthright fashion, since the Afghan soldiers also reported the incident. If the allegations are accurate I am sure Capt S had his reasons and he should be prepared to defend them.


+1

Hope for a speedy trial, found not guilty - for whatever reason - and a return to duty ASAP.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (12 Oct 2009)

I know there is a history  of this sort of thing happening in the past conflicts, myths or facts. I read something about an Officer from that  country a general or other high ranking officer  and he was quoted as saying he saw nothing wrong with the actions taken on the battle field. 
I guess our Canadian or western values rate this sort of action in the worst light possible. I hope this matter is resolved fairly  and in an open way so it all can be reported honestly and without negative reviews on the boots on the ground of all ranks. I am sure if the officer did what  they charged him with he did not do it without knowing the side effects and I am sure he will have to live with that  choice long after the trials and the arm chair quarter backing is done. Good Luck sir with your outcome.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Oct 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> yes Sirree, just the kind of guys you'd like to have a beer with.



You probably wouldn't get the chance, since they have likely been promoted since and wouldn't drink with the likes of us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2009)

This from DND:


> General Court Martial proceedings will begin January 25, 2010, at the Asticou Centre in Gatineau, Québec, for Captain Robert Semrau in relation to the shooting death of a wounded insurgent that occurred in Afghanistan in October 2008.
> 
> Captain Semrau is currently serving as a staff officer with the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment, at CFB Petawawa.  He shall be tried by a General Court Martial, which is composed of a Military Judge and a panel of five military members.  The military judge for this public hearing will be Colonel Mario Dutil.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2009)

For those interested:
For the 1st charge (130 NDA: second degree murder {s. 235.1 CCC})


> 235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
> Minimum punishment
> (2) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment


For the 2nd charge (S. 130 NDA, attempt to commit murder using a firearm (s. 239(1)(a.1) CCC).)


> 239. (1) Every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
> (a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
> (i) in the case of a first offence, five years


For the 3rd charge (S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.)


> 93. Every person who behaves in a cruel or disgraceful manner is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.


Finally, for the 4th charge:  S. 124 NDA, negligently performed a military duty imposed on him.


> 124. Every person who negligently performs a military duty imposed on that person is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service or to less punishment.


Finally, for info, the scale of punishments:


> 139. (1) The following punishments may be imposed in respect of service offences and each of those punishments is a punishment less than every punishment preceding it:
> (a) imprisonment for life;
> (b) imprisonment for two years or more;
> (c) dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service;
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2009)

tango22a said:
			
		

> Years ago, when I was taking my Corporal's Course, we were told " When laying a charge ALWAYS add a charge of " conduct prejudicial to  good order and discipline."  If you really wanted to hang the guy out and you couldn't get him on a major charge you could almost always get him on "conduct prejudicial".



Oddly enough, on my ISCC we were taught that "shotgunning" charges was the mark of a weak case; the Sergeant Major who taught me military law said that if you had the guy to rights, then don't bother with the lesser charges like "section 129" because the tendency was to give the lesser punishment. It also ment that we needed to be quite sure that we did have the guy dead to rights, all statements taken, all evidence accounted for and the paperwork properly worded to ensure a conviction.

Just my .02


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Dec 2009)

> 235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
> Minimum punishment
> (2) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment



This doesn't mean life behind bars forever.  Nobody gets that unless you get whacked with a dangerous offender status (Which Capt. Semrau clearly is not).  I just means you are on parole forever.  After a while, the status really doesn't mean much of anything other than if you crap the bed bad enough you can go back to the bucket for a while till they spring you out on parole again.  
Given the politics behind this and the current prisoner handling flinch going on at present IMO the good captain will beat the two CC charges and will get dogpiled on the DND charges.


----------



## old medic (24 Jan 2010)

Cdn soldier accused of battlefield execution
By Murray Brewster and John Ward
THE CANADIAN PRESS
24 January 2010
copy at: http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/world/2010/01/24/12594591.html



> OTTAWA — A Canadian soldier will face a court martial Monday, accused of the 2008 murder of a wounded, unarmed Taliban fighter in southern Afghanistan — a case a military expert says is almost certainly the first of its kind.
> 
> Capt. Robert Semrau has been charged with second murder in the battlefield killing of an insurgent fighter following a prolonged clash in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.
> 
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (25 Jan 2010)

old medic said:
			
		

> "Drapeau said Canadian and international humanitarian law does not recognize mercy killings and it’s unlikely such a defence would stand."


Oh, well. If a retired public affairs officer says so...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2010)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Oh, well. If a retired public affairs officer says so...




Just for the record: Michel Drapeau is a retired army logistics colonel and a practicing lawyer.

While I do not agree with some many most of his stands I can tell you, from personal experience, that he was a first rate logistician who got results for us when we were at the far end of a tenuous, resource starved supply chain and I have heard no complaints about his legal skills and knowledge.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2010)

This from the Canadian Press:


> .... (Defence counsel) Maj. Steve Turner laid out the broad direction of those applications Monday and most deal with perceptions of impartiality in the military court martial process.
> 
> Turner opened with the seemingly picayune: Whether five, yet-to-be-selected officers acting as jurors - or panellists in court martial parlance - should be required to wear civilian clothing.
> 
> ...



More from the _Toronto Star, National Post_ and Christie Blatchford's take on the uniform arguements here.


----------



## captloadie (26 Jan 2010)

This doesn't bode well for the defense's case if they are trying to get the process halted before any testimony is given. As has been mentioned in previous posts, a weak prosecutor's case often includes many of the catch all charges in hopes that something sticks. A weak defense's case often attacks the process, not the facts.


----------



## trencher (26 Jan 2010)

Is there any more news about Capt Semrau ? I have looked around the net and no info on this


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Jan 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> This doesn't bode well for the defense's case if they are trying to get the process halted before any testimony is given. As has been mentioned in previous posts, a weak prosecutor's case often includes many of the catch all charges in hopes that something sticks. A weak defense's case often attacks the process, not the facts.



As much as I hate to, I have to side with the defense here.  It is the defenders job to try to explore every avenue in order to gain the best possible advantage for their client.  It is the judges place to shoot down the silly requests/attempts as they appear.  In this case, it worked.  Sadly, on the civilian side, the defense get away will all sorts of idiotic shenanigans.  
I think it's pretty early to be throwing Capt Semrau under the bus just yet. 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Mercy killing was Dr Death Kevorkian's defence. They sentenced him to 10-15 years in the Michigan Pen. I don't know if mercy killing is a defence in Canadian courts? It wasn't for Robert Latimer.



No, it is not a defense.  Strangely though, we routinely decide when our old people have had it and then put them on a steady diet of morphine with no food or water.  They call it "palliative care".  For whatever reason, it isn't considered murder.  Go figure?   ???
(for the record, I support mercy killing)


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Yet the terminally ill are forced to live out their last days while enduring insufferable pain, or drugged up beyond comprehension.  Something just isn't right there...



You never know how families will react to an Expected Death outside the hospital until it happens. Sometimes they hand you the DNR Order, then a minute later rescind it and tell you to save them. Or, some of them are telling you to save him, and others are telling you to stop. 

Peter Worthington on the case:
"Semrau a scapegoat?
Century-old Breaker Morant case echoes current court martial":
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/01/21/12562536.html

The court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau begins Monday in Gatineau, a few miles on the Quebec side of Ottawa, on charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban insurgent who ambushed his patrol in Afghanistan in 2008.

In some ways, Semrau’s case has disquieting relevance to the movie Breaker Morant — based on the true story of Australian soldiers in the Boer War, scapegoated by the British in the name of political expediency. Anyone interested in this trial and Afghanistan might find it instructional to rent and watch the movie.

The Canadian government has prorogued Parliament in part to delay and perhaps escape the consequences of Canadian soldiers accused of turning over Taliban prisoners to Afghan authorities to be mistreated and tortured. Unlike our troops in Somalia in 1993, there are no allegations that Canadians in Afghanistan have tortured anyone.

Generals say they knew nothing about torture. The PM and defence minister plead ignorance and lack of proof or evidence, dissing a diplomat (Richard Colvin) who insists his warnings of torture (which he didn’t witness) were ignored. Meanwhile, a respected Canadian officer faces court martial, accused of murdering a wounded Taliban insurgent on the battlefield. Capt. Semrau and his military lawyer might check the Breaker Morant movie and relate it to their own situation.

In the movie version (replete with poetic licence), Breaker Morant and two fellow officers were in the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC) — a counter-insurgency unit formed at the orders of Lord Kitchener to combat Boer (Afrikaner) “commandos” who wore no uniforms and waged a merciless and effective guerrilla war against the British.

The Bushveldt Carbineers took few prisoners and were as rough as Afrikaner commandos. When Morant’s friend, Capt. Hunt, was wounded, captured, tortured to death and his body mutilated, Morant and his unit captured the perpetrators and shot them.

The resulting court martial was more a kangaroo court. Two of the three officers were sentenced to death. The war was ending and Kitchener denied the policy of executing prisoners. Morant and Lt. Handcock were executed by a firing squad in 1902. Outrage at the injustice reverberates in Australia to this day.

While atrocities were rampant on both sides, the Brits generally resented the “colonial” Aussies (“They only salute officers they like,” complained a Brit). There’s little question that the trial was a travesty with political ramifications.

Fast forward to the present: Why is Canada so immersed in worrying about what Afghans do to their Afghan enemies? Afghanistan is not our country. Canadian soldiers are not abusing prisoners. So why the pretence that we care?

As for Capt. Semrau, *he is the first Canadian ever to be charged with murdering an enemy on the battlefield in war.* Why now? Is this another ploy to enhance political correctness? Is Semrau being scapegoated? In past wars, such incidents were ignored.

In Canada, it’s traditional that the military is a fall guy when it’s convenient to trim the budget or take pressure off the political process (“It’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ chuck him out, the brute!”).

While most Canadians relish our soldiers being professional and competent, others are embarrassed that we are good at soldiering, and would prefer our soldiers not be so adept at their chosen trade.

In short, Breaker Morant seems alive and well in Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Jan 2010)

What a coincidence that I am three quarters through "Shoot straight you Bastards",  all about The Breaker.  Circumstances (trial wise and politics) of the two could make Mr Worthington ponder the connection and similarities.   Personally I hope the best for Capt. Semaru and will be pleased should he be found not guilty.  Morant, Handcock, Whitton and the others were indeed Scape Goats of the Empire.  Hopefully we won't follow this path for the sake of political expediency to please the masses.


----------



## 40below (28 Jan 2010)

Apropos of nothing, after reading Blatchford's piece I'm seriously considering adding "Not required to defend the airfield" on my business cards.


----------



## Gunner98 (28 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> All I know is that he's been accused of something and he's going before a court martial to decide guilt or innocence.



I feel the need to state the obvious - the finding will be guilty or not guilty.  Once you are charged and subject to the judicial process you will not be found "innocent".  Innocence can only be claimed by the finding of another person guilty of the same single act or by having the charges dismissed.  There are many reasons for a "not guilty" finding which  in the case of courts martial is "reasonable doubt." 

As for mercy killing, that is whole different story best left to the world of advanced care directives and compassionate medical practitioners and not soldiers on a battlefield.  In the end we will all die, what is in question in the "mercy scenarios" is whether it should be decision, a consequence, a natural or un-natural cause.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Jan 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I feel the need to state the obvious - the finding will be guilty or not guilty.  Once you are charged and subject to the judicial process you will not be found "innocent".  Innocence can only be claimed by the finding of another person guilty of the same single act or by having the charges dismissed.  There are many reasons for a "not guilty" finding which  in the case of courts martial is "reasonable doubt."


Fair enough.


----------



## ballz (28 Jan 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> This is getting off topic (in any case the Captain has not been charged with mercy killing nor has he offered it as a defence), but I take issue with your comparing how we treat pets with how we treat the terminally ill. Pets are not people, they are animals. We can also put pets down when they become an inconvenience to us.



The comparison is still very real, whether you take issue with it or not.

In countries where assisted-suicide is legal, the terminally ill can/will have a loved one "put them down" when they become an inconvenience to their family.

Assisted suicide here is illegal, because a majority of people decided it was inhumane and immoral. It is also illegal to euthanize a pet yourself since it could be inhumane if done improperly.

Has there been any threads on assisted-suicide on this board? I feel like we're headed there...


Back to the topic at hand... 

I'm not trying to take sides here because of my own personal bias, but since the burden of proof lays with the prosecution, and they can only prove he fired off 2 shots, and can't even really prove he fired them into the "victim," and even if they could prove that, without a body and an autopsy and all, at the very worst couldn't he just say "Yeah, I shot them. But they were already dead. I was just being a prick and taking out some personal frustration on a corpse."

And the worst charge he could get, which I can't think of the name right now, but it would be significantly less punishment than a murder charge....


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Has there been any threads on assisted-suicide on this board? I feel like we're headed there...


There is now:  Mercy Killing? Euthanasia? Split From Capt. Semrau Thread



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> And the worst charge he could get, which I can't think of the name right now, but it would be significantly less punishment than a murder charge....


Indignity to a body, perhaps?


----------



## ballz (28 Jan 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Indignity to a body, perhaps?



Is that the name of the charge? It is what I was talking about, I'm not sure what the "proper" name is. Anywho, everyone knows what we're talking about, anyone know the min and max sentences?

I should add a disclaimer to my other post: I'm not advocating he lies in court. He can sit pretty and keep his mouth shut. I'm just saying if I was on the jury, I'd be bringing that "reasonable" possibility up...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Feb 2010)

Military seeks publication ban in murder case
Capt. Robert Semrau charged with killing wounded Taliban soldier
Last Updated: Thursday, February 4, 2010 | 12:58 PM ET 
The Canadian Press  






Capt. Robert Semrau faces a second-degree murder charge for his alleged shooting of a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan in October. (Canadian Press) 

Military prosecutors are seeking a publication ban on some of the evidence to be presented at the court martial of a Canadian officer accused of killing a wounded Taliban fighter on the battlefield.

Lawyers will ask the court on Friday to ban the public from hearing the entire contents of a witness affidavit to be used against Capt. Robert Semrau. Semrau was charged with second-degree murder for allegedly shooting the presumed insurgent in Afghanistan's Helmand province in October.

The statements would have to be weighed behind closed doors.

One military legal expert calls it a highly unusual move that's clearly aimed at protecting the identity of the witness who provided the statement.

Affidavits are usually accepted in high-profile cases only when witnesses have died, or there is some other extreme circumstance, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau.

There are a number of witnesses whose identity the government would not want revealed, for one reason or another, including members of the highly secretive JTF-2 commando unit, intelligence officers, or even foreign military members.

But Drapeau said the inability of Semrau's lawyer to challenge the evidence raises questions about whether the infantry officer, who was mentoring Afghan soldiers at the time of the alleged killing, will get a fair trial.

© The Canadian Press, 2010

_Thanks MODS....._


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Feb 2010)

I've forgotten almost all I knew about courts martial - any possibility/provision in the law/rules for in-camera testimony to be heard by the panel, but not the public?


----------



## Loachman (4 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm just saying if I was on the jury, I'd be bringing that "reasonable" possibility up...



If you were on a jury, you'd be listening to the evidence and arguments presented, and weighing same.

You have no ability to bring anything up.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I've forgotten almost all I knew about courts martial - any possibility/provision in the law/rules for in-camera testimony to be heard by the panel, but not the public?



Yes.  CMs have a good deal of flexibility and can close the doors to the public where warranted (QR&O volume II is wonderful light reading).


One peripheral question:  Capt Semrau's DEU shows no ribbons.  Reports state he has prior service in the UK.  Given he's a member of The RCR, I'd have thought the Bn Adjt would have requested permission for him to wear his UK decorations; given that they're from another Commonwealth country, it's relatively straightforward.


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Is that the name of the charge? It is what I was talking about, I'm not sure what the "proper" name is. Anywho, everyone knows what we're talking about, anyone know the min and max sentences?



From the Canadian Criminal Code:

182. Every one who 
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or 
(b) *improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not, * is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. 
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178.


----------



## mariomike (4 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> at the very worst couldn't he just say "Yeah, I shot them. But they were already dead. I was just being a prick and taking out some personal frustration on a corpse."



I am not at all suggesting any similarity to the subject case. I only know what is reported in the papers.
However, what you said reminds me of a book I borrowed from the library. If memory serves, there was some speculation that is what *might have happened* in that case:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo4/no2/book-livre-04-eng.asp

Again, any similarity to the subject, or any other case is purely co-incidental.

Ref. Reply #12:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=sv08d58gjk3po3s57qp1ejhgh3&topic=67039/post-624944#msg624944

From what I recall reading in the book, the man executed may, or may not, have believed that the man he shot was already dead. There seemed to be some doubts raised.


----------



## 1911CoLt45 (4 Feb 2010)

:2c:

This is a war, and when faced with the crappy rules of engagement and all the other red tape that the bureaucrats throw at soldiers in the west I cant believe that more "murders" happen. due to frustration.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2010)

:2c:

Judging by the length and extent of your service, you have no authority to comment on our Rules of Engagement and whether they are crappy or not.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Feb 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Judging by the length and extent of your service, *you have no authority to comment on our Rules of Engagement* and whether they are crappy or not.


I would also offer that Rules of Engagement are considered to be of a sensitive nature, and I would avoid commenting on them at all.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (4 Feb 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes.  CMs have a good deal of flexibility and can close the doors to the public where warranted (QR&O volume II is wonderful light reading).
> 
> 
> One peripheral question:  Capt Semrau's DEU shows no ribbons.  Reports state he has prior service in the UK.  Given he's a member of The RCR, I'd have thought the Bn Adjt would have requested permission for him to wear his UK decorations; given that they're from another Commonwealth country, it's relatively straightforward.



When this case first came to light in the press, I recall seeing that Semrau had only served 3 years in the British Army. It is entirely possible that he did not deploy at all in that time.


----------



## TheHead (4 Feb 2010)

Ahh screw it   

I deleted the post. I'll let someone else sort him out.


----------



## old medic (5 Feb 2010)

Court martial of soldier in Taliban killing on hold
The Canadian Press
04 Feb 2010
copy at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/court_martial_100204/20100204?hub=Canada




> OTTAWA — The military judge overseeing the court martial of a Canadian soldier, accused of killing a wounded Taliban fighter on the battlefield, has adjourned until next week.
> 
> The case against Capt. Robert Semrau will resume Wednesday in Gatineau, Que., when the composition of the panel will decided. *(gic)
> 
> ...



* grammar in context


----------



## FastEddy (5 Feb 2010)

"The court will be asked to ban the entire contents of a witness affidavit and to keep the name of the person a secret." 

I wonder why ? one would think he/she would be proud having done their Civic Duty so to speak.

Cheers.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> "The court will be asked to ban the entire contents of a witness affidavit and to keep the name of the person a secret."
> 
> I wonder why ? one would think he/she would be proud having done their Civic Duty so to speak.
> 
> Cheers.



Many hypotheticals that could explain it.  For example, an Afghan national fearing reprisals against his family.

The military judge will review and decide; and that decision could be appealed to the Federal Court.


----------



## ballz (5 Feb 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> From the Canadian Criminal Code:
> 
> 182. Every one who
> (a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
> ...



Max sentence of 5 years vs minimum 10 years before parole (2nd degree murder is life, 10-25 before parole no?)... Yeah I think I'd know which one I'd choose.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> If you were on a jury, you'd be listening to the evidence and arguments presented, and weighing same.
> 
> You have no ability to bring anything up.



Loachman, what I'm about to ask is out of genuine curiosity, I have no idea what knowledge your have on the subject but it's probably more than me (I have none).

I didn't mean in court, I meant behind closed doors, sitting at the table that seats 12, after hearing the prosecution's case, I would probably look at the other 11 people and say "does anybody else think this might be possible?" That is fair game no?

With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the defence doesn't even have to put forth a case. Would it not be the jury's job to then decide amongst themselves "given the prosecution's case, were there any other possibilities... Oh yeah, here's one." It would NOT have to be a possibility that was brought up by the defence, correct?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the defence doesn't even have to put forth a case.


 :brickwall:

Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129


----------



## ballz (5 Feb 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :brickwall:
> 
> Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129



Easy pal. I never said I'd take that route.

So are you going to answer slash clarify my question?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2010)

It's the job of the defence counsel to provide plausible refutation of any admissible prosecution claims (had you not dismissed the defence as unnecessary).

Yet you seriously believe that during the jury's deliberations, Juror A will suddenly shout, "Eureaka! Here's an option not considered," and render a verdict based on "facts" not presented during the court martial?


Sorry. I'm incapable of answering what you clearly, but falsely, believe to be an intelligent question.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I didn't mean in court, I meant behind closed doors, sitting at the table that seats 12, after hearing the prosecution's case, I would probably look at the other 11 people and say "does anybody else think this might be possible?" That is fair game no?



It's not your job as a juror to invent alternative arguments.

http://www.gregmonforton.com/columns/role-of-jury.asp



> A juror’s job is to decide on the facts of the case as they are presented at trial.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :brickwall:
> 
> Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129



"But... but... but... I just didn't polish my boots!"

"Sorry.  First time as an assisting officer."


(Obviously, a summary trial within The RCR...)


----------



## ballz (5 Feb 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> based on "facts" not presented during the court martial?



No, it is entirely based on the facts (that will assumingly be) presented by prosecution. The facts that are being presented that we know of right now are:

1. Taliban was alive when
2. Capt Semrau was left alone with the Taliban
3. 2 shots were heard fired
4. Taliban was dead upon arrival

Assuming they prove all this, there is still no proof that the Taliban wasn't dead before he was shot. EDIT TO ADD: If a defence council didn't point this out to me, I don't see how/why it is invalid.

That is deciding on the facts as they were presented no? That's not "inventing" SFA. I like how you tried to completely change / take out of context what it was I was saying though.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry. I'm incapable of answering what you clearly, but falsely, believe to be an intelligent question.



That's not surprising, you're also incapable of keeping your panties from bunching up. I'm sorry I asked too much of you. My mistake.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It's not your job as a juror to invent alternative arguments.
> 
> http://www.gregmonforton.com/columns/role-of-jury.asp



Thank you, and thank you for keeping a cool head.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2010)

Well Matlock, thank you for reiterating this point:





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I have no idea what knowledge your have on the subject but it's probably more than me (I have none).


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Feb 2010)

For those suggesting that Assisting Officers provide legal counsel: they don't.  

For those suggesting that The RCR summarily executes those who fail to polish their boots: we don't.  We just give them a different cap badge and call them "Patricia".  >


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Feb 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For those suggesting that Assisting Officers provide legal counsel: they don't.
> 
> For those suggesting that The RCR summarily executes those who fail to polish their boots: we don't.  We just give them a different cap badge and call them "Patricia".  >




oooohhhh them's fightin words!! (done in Yosemite Sam voice, of course) ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Feb 2010)

Don't forget that you also put back the frontal lobe...........


....and now that I've buried myself, lets try and keep this on topic.
Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## FastEddy (5 Feb 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many hypotheticals that could explain it.  For example, an Afghan national fearing reprisals against his family.
> 
> The military judge will review and decide; and that decision could be appealed to the Federal Court.



And hypothetically, who would that be from ?

Cheers.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Feb 2010)

We aren't really going to thunder in this topic with hypothetical trial what ifs, are we?  Ballz, Wikipedia is your friend.  People are trying to be helpful but you are making it hard.  Just let this trial unfold as needed.


----------



## PanaEng (7 Feb 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We aren't really going to thunder in this topic with hypothetical trial what ifs, are we?  Ballz, Wikipedia is your friend.  People are trying to be helpful but you are making it hard.  Just let this trial unfold as needed.


Wikipedia, google, bing, etc. ... don't put your trust on what you read on the internet - even here  ;D
Ballz had some fair, maybe not excellent questions. Some people were helpful but some others not so much.

As things stand now we have done enough speculation and, as you said, lets "let the trial unfold" and as more news comes out we can then jump on them and speculate some more.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2010)

From the *Ottawa Citizen*

Judge rejects constitutional challenge to court martial of Canadian soldier

A military judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the jury selection process in the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau.

More on link


----------



## Ammo (10 Feb 2010)

Not much more:
GATINEAU, Que. — A military judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the jury selection process in the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau.

Semrau is charged with second-degree murder for the alleged shooting of a disarmed Taliban insurgent on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

The next issue for a decision is whether the trial should be moved to Afghanistan or CFB Petawawa. northwest of Ottawa. Lawyers are trying to come to an agreement to present to the court next Monday.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Feb 2010)

Hence the reason I didn't feel the need to post it in its entirety.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Feb 2010)

*Court martial of Canadian soldier over Afghan death to open March 15*

A ground-breaking court martial involving an alleged battlefield execution in Afghanistan has been adjourned to next month.

The court set March 9 for hearing any final legal arguments before the first evidence is delivered March 15. Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder and other military offences in the death of a disarmed and badly wounded Taliban insurgent during an operation in August 2008.

Semrau's lawyer argued unsuccessfully today to hold the trial in Afghanistan.

The prosecution suggested it be moved to Canadian Forces Base Petawawa in eastern Ontario, home to Semrau and his regiment.

The trial judge ruled the proceedings should be held in the military court room of a federal complex just across the river from Ottawa.

Part of the trial may have to be held in Afghanistan, to take testimony from Afghan witnesses, but the judge says that will be decided later.

It's believed to be the first time a Canadian soldier has been charged in a battlefield death.

The body of the unidentified insurgent at the centre of the case was never recovered.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Feb 2010)

> Part of the trial may have to be held in Afghanistan, to take testimony from Afghan witnesses, but the judge says that will be decided later.



This may be the key.  Surely they must have a statement then, from somebody who was there?  It then begs the question, if the witness can't/won't testify, will they try to push the statement through without them?  Typically, that doesn't happen unless the witness is dead.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2010)

This, from the _Ottawa Citizen_/CanWest:


> Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced, “Not guilty your honour,” when presented with the charges against him.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greymatters (24 Mar 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would also offer that Rules of Engagement are considered to be of a sensitive nature, and I would avoid commenting on them at all.



I think thats an ongoing topic of debate - if ROE's were more openly discussed, we would have fewer members and civilians misunderstanding them.  Although the specific ROEs being used in current operations are sensitive, those used in past operations are not.


----------



## Greymatters (24 Mar 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> This may be the key.  Surely they must have a statement then, from somebody who was there?  It then begs the question, if the witness can't/won't testify, will they try to push the statement through without them?  Typically, that doesn't happen unless the witness is dead.



Very well depends on the quality of the statement - was it done properly and who witnessed it?


----------



## SeanNewman (24 Mar 2010)

Agreed on this mission vs other missions, but I personally could not care less if civilians do not understand ROE if it means letting the bad guys know what we could do and when.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2010)

One hearing+multiple eyes/ears/pens=multiple angles - a bit of a roundup.

Sun Media/QMI:


> A Canadian soldier has pleaded not guilty to four charges, including second-degree murder, related to the 2008 shooting death of a wounded Taliban insurgent.
> 
> Clean-shaven and wearing full military uniform, Capt. Robert Semrau pleaded not guilty to two charges under the Criminal Code, second-degree murder and attempted murder, and two charges under the National Defence Act, behaving in a disgraceful manner and negligently performing a military duty.
> 
> ...



_Ottawa Citizen_:


> Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in Afghanistan.
> 
> On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced: "Not guilty, your honour," when presented with the charges against him.
> 
> ...



CanWest News Service:


> Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in Afghanistan.
> 
> On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced: "Not guilty, your honour," when presented with the charges against him.
> 
> ...



_Globe & Mail_:


> The battle had ended and the Taliban insurgent was disarmed and seriously wounded – badly enough that one onlooker said whether he lived or died was in “Allah’s hands.”
> 
> But instead of arranging medical attention, Canadian Army Captain Robert Semrau fired two bullets into the insurgent’s body – an act that he later described to a subordinate as a mercy killing of sorts, military prosecutors allege.
> 
> ...



_Toronto Star_ (end o' day 24 Mar 10):


> Before the alleged killing of an unarmed Taliban fighter, Capt. Robert Semrau told a young comrade to look away, a military prosecutor says.
> 
> Two gunshots and several moments later, the experienced officer is alleged to have admitted to putting the wounded man out of his suffering.
> 
> ...



_Toronto Star_ (first version 25 Mar 10)


> A Canadian soldier facing a murder charge lived by an unwritten "soldier's pact" in which enemy combatants put dying adversaries out of their misery on the battlefield, an historic court martial has been told.
> 
> Capt. Robert Semrau is alleged to have killed an unarmed Taliban fighter with two gunshots in October 2008, first telling a younger comrade to look away before he pulled the trigger, the prosecution said Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Mar 2010)

> Before the alleged killing of an unarmed Taliban fighter, Capt. Robert Semrau told a young comrade  to look away, a military prosecutor says.



I guess we'll be hearing from this "team" member in due course.  From what I have come to hear, this was the whistle blower.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Mar 2010)

I heard that we should keep the rumours and speculation to ourselves.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Mar 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I heard that we should keep the rumours and speculation to ourselves.



True that,

Where has any of that occurred?

dileas

tess


----------



## cn (26 Mar 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> *Court martial of Canadian soldier over Afghan death to open March 15*
> 
> The body of the unidentified insurgent at the centre of the case was never recovered.



The burden of proof lies in the prosecution and if there is no body (as in no solid evidence), all the charges seem to be based on hearsay and speculation.  IMO there are no legs for these charges to stand on.  

Just my thoughts based on what has been presented.. I can't believe he would be charged to begin with.  


Out of curiosity, would it be the MPs who would investigate/lay charges in the battlefield?


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2010)

cn said:
			
		

> The burden of proof lies in the prosecution and if there is no body (as in no solid evidence), all the charges seem to be based on hearsay and speculation.  IMO there are no legs for these charges to stand on.
> 
> Just my thoughts based on what has been presented.. I can't believe he would be charged to begin with.


Does your village know you're posting stuff online?




			
				cn said:
			
		

> *long time reader, first time poster* haha


Maybe read a bit longer.

....'cause when you post dumb stuff, _some_ people around this site can be rude 

I'm just sayin'  :nod:


----------



## cn (26 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Does your village know you're posting stuff online?
> 
> Maybe read a bit longer.
> 
> ...



The second quote was meant as a joke, posted in a thread about a hbo miniseries so the tone was much lighter than that in this one.  It would be very distasteful to make a comment like that in a topic as serious as this.  

And as for the first, all the periodicals posted SEEM to indicate that the entire case is based on an event that no one actually witnessed firsthand, I may be wrong and they can’t say because the case is on-going, but why attack my opinion that this case seems to lack any concrete evidence?

All I was implying is that an officer’s career and life is on the line based on some “whistle-blower” who may not have even seen anything at all, and without a body there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit any crime at all.  

In your opinion, do you think the prosecution could get a conviction based on “he said this” or “he heard him say that”, especially without the body to determine an actual cause of death?  Because the basis for my post was just that, I wouldn’t think he could be found guilty based on what has been presented.  Your thoughts?


----------



## FastEddy (26 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Does your village know you're posting stuff online?
> 
> Maybe read a bit longer.
> 
> ...




Yes your quite right, people here can be quite rude, I'm sure "cn" will find that out sooner or later, especially if he cross's the click.

Maybe he's not with the JAG, but his observations just might hold some truth.

But on the up side, its refreshing to hear a Civy that's in the Captains court .


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Mar 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> True that,
> 
> Where has any of that occurred?
> 
> ...



Cancel last,

I have been sorted out by a wise and trusted mentor 

dileas

tess


----------



## observor 69 (26 Mar 2010)

Global News
Soldier told to assist wounded Taliban, major says

Captain accused of murder sought advice over radio, court martial hears
Andrew Duffy, The Ottawa Citizen: Friday, March 26, 2010

Capt. Robert Semrau's commanding officer ordered him to offer first aid to a wounded Taliban insurgent found on a battlefield, a court martial heard Thursday.

Maj. Steven Nolan said he received a radio call from Semrau at 11 a.m. on Oct. 19, 2008. Semrau was the leader of a small group of Canadian soldiers embedded with the Afghan National Army (ANA), which was clearing Taliban insurgents from around the town of Lashkar Gha, in Helmand Province.

Nolan said Semrau wanted to know what to do. He had encountered a wounded Taliban whom the Afghans were not treating. "My reply was fairly standard," Nolan testified. "Mentor the ANA in providing first aid."

Semrau replied, "Roger, out."

It was Semrau's job as leader of a mentoring team to teach the Afghan what to do in such a situation, Nolan said. The idea, he said, was to "try your best to get the Afghans to step in and do it and step in to prevent failure."

Five to seven minutes later, Semrau came back on the radio, Nolan said, "and indicated to me the Taliban had died of his wounds."

Semrau, 36, of CFB Petawawa, is on trial for second-degree murder for allegedly shooting the severely wounded, unarmed Taliban insurgent in the chest with a C-8 rifle. The court martial has heard that Semrau later justified the shooting as a mercy killing.

Nolan testified that the operation during which Semrau allegedly committed the crime was hastily assembled. He received orders to move with 297 Afghan soldiers and 30 Canadians into a dangerous part of Helmand 12 hours in advance of their scheduled departure. The Canadians were divided into three groups, with Semrau leading a team of three soldiers and an interpreter. The Afghan police, British and U.S. forces were also involved.

The job of the Canadians was to assist and mentor their Afghan counterparts and "not let them fail in the execution of their mission," Nolan said.

On Oct. 19, the stated mission was to clear seven to 10 kilometres of terrain near Lashkar Gha. Intelligence reports suggested there were 50 to 70 Taliban in the area.

By 11 a.m., Apache helicopters had twice been called to fire upon Taliban insurgents; one wounded Afghan police officer had been evacuated by Chinook helicopter.

Nolan told the court martial that he didn't think twice about Semrau's encounter with the wounded Taliban.

Later that day, however, he had a strange exchange with an Afghan colonel. The colonel, who had been chewing a psychotropic substance most of the day, congratulated him on the fact that one of his soldiers had killed a Taliban.

It seemed completely out of context, Nolan said, and he dismissed it as another "bizarre comment" from the Afghans. He would later learn Semrau was being accused of shooting an unarmed insurgent.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Also more at TORONTO STAR


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Maybe he's not with the JAG, but his observations just might hold some truth.
> 
> But on the up side, its refreshing to hear a Civy that's in the Captains court .


In many threads here, you'll read the expression, "stay in your lane." Much like I wouldn't turn to you for advice on infantry tactics (nor would I presume to offer you opinions on policing), _cn_'s stated beliefs on burden of proof, acceptable evidence, courtmartial protocols, etc  demonstrates that his expertise is based exclusively on watching TV.

In the demonstrated absence of his having an _informed_ opinion on this topic, I submit to the court that he should not be exempt from hearing "stay in your lane," based on the only mitigating circumstance that he's supporting "our guy."




			
				cn said:
			
		

> ...but why attack my opinion that this case seems to lack any concrete evidence? All I was implying is that an officer’s career and life is on the line based on some “whistle-blower”


I will liimit myself to suggesting (since I'm not a lawyer but I am familiar with courtmartials and other aspects of the military justice system -- with my hat and without   ), that courtmartials are not stood-up for chuckles; there's always a preliminary investigation to determine if one is warranted. And while there is not a physical body, what you dismiss as merely "he said, she said" is referred to as "witnesses," with it being up to the courtmartial to determine as credible or not.

That being said, I'm more than happy to apologize if I'm mistaken and the court rules "oh, go on, we've got nothing; you're free to go."


----------



## cn (26 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In many threads here, you'll read the expression, "stay in your lane." Much like I wouldn't turn to you for advice on infantry tactics (nor would I presume to offer you opinions on policing), _cn_'s stated beliefs on burden of proof, acceptable evidence, courtmartial protocols, etc  demonstrates that his expertise is based exclusively on watching TV.
> 
> In the demonstrated absence of his having an _informed_ opinion on this topic, I submit to the court that he should not be exempt from hearing "stay in your lane," based on the only mitigating circumstance that he's supporting "our guy."
> 
> ...



Stay in my lane? Fair enough.  I didn’t realize that posting MY OPINION in a public forum to discuss opinions, issues and ideas was stepping outside of my boundaries. I’ll try to refrain from exercising my opinion or right to free speech.  Respectfully, I wouldn’t dare to offer my opinion on things I do not know about, but you should heed that advice before you jump the gun yourself.  You’re right, I do not know anything of court-martial proceedings but I do have a (and I’ll admit limited) background in Canadian law.  

And although I find it COMPLETELY unnecessary to qualify myself to you, just so you are aware, my OPINION is based on 3 years worth of college classes in Law and Society (prerequisites I was taking before I changed career choices), I’ll admit that hardly makes me an expert by any stretch, but I do feel that it is a valid educated observation (read OPINION), not picked up from television as you were so quick to assume.  

As for your point about ‘witnesses’, am I wrong to assume you believe in Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster then?  Because there are dozens of “witnesses” that have claimed to have seen both.  I won’t rule out the possibility, but without any proper EVIDENCE I’m inclined not to believe based on the facts presented.  Which any defence would point out as a flaw in relying on just witnesses accounts.  Remember all that matters is what you can PROVE to gain a conviction, and you can’t prove the accuracy of a witness’ perception of events.  (Something I picked up from college, not television)

My point was and is, again IN MY OPINION; without proper evidence, (the body, the cause of death, etc, there is even the tiniest of possibilities that the wounded man did survive after everything was said and done!), that the accused should not have been charged in the first place.  There may be more evidence not presented to the press that we are not aware of (which IS most likely the case) but based on what HAS been reported, that is what I believe.  Excuse me if expressing my opinions irks you for some reason.

If you did not agree with my post, I am extremely open to constructive criticism, discussion or to an alternate point of view (thus the basis for posting on forums); but your reply was not constructive nor did it elaborate on why you disagree with my post.  If you want to discuss that discrepancy further please feel free to PM me.  Let us try to be civilized.    

This is my final post on the matter until any new information, if any, is presented.  I may stand to be corrected, but until all the facts are on the table or there are any new developments, I think we’ve explored everything there is to be said and there is no use arguing further.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Mar 2010)

op:


----------



## armyvern (26 Mar 2010)

More from CBC ...

Reproduced under the fairdealings provisions of the copyright act. 

From this article, it would seem that awareness of the alleged incident was brought about by an Afghan medic.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/semrau-court-martial.html


> Afghan medic accused Semrau of killing
> Last Updated: Friday, March 26, 2010 | 12:46 PM ET Comments89Recommend35.
> 
> Five words of broken English from an Afghan army medic — "Capt. Rob boom, boom Taliban" — led to second-degree murder charges against Capt. Robert Semrau, his court martial heard Friday.
> ...


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I guess we'll be hearing from this "team" member in due course.  From what I have come to hear, this was the whistle blower.


Reading between the lines, I'm not so sure I like what seems to be implied by the quotation marks used ... I'm probably reading too much into it.  I don't suspect you would suggest that, to be a good team-member, one should turn a blind eye to violations of CF code of conduct, RoE, LoAC, Canadian ethical expectations, the NDA, other lawful orders, etc, etc ...

Given the magnitude of the allegation, a soldier reasonably believing this to have happened would have moral duty to the larger team (the whole CF) to report it (not to mention the legal duty to report it).  If it is an honest but incorrect perception, the investigative process and courts will determine this.

... and that is where we are at now; letting a court decide.


----------



## FastEddy (27 Mar 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Reading between the lines, I'm not so sure I like what seems to be implied by the quotation marks used ... I'm probably reading too much into it.  I don't suspect you would suggest that, to be a good team-member, one should turn a blind eye to violations of CF code of conduct, RoE, LoAC, Canadian ethical expectations, the NDA, other lawful orders, etc, etc ...
> 
> Given the magnitude of the allegation, a soldier reasonably believing this to have happened would have moral duty to the larger team (the whole CF) to report it (not to mention the legal duty to report it).  If it is an honest but incorrect perception, the investigative process and courts will determine this.



Its quite obvious your definitely a "team" player. By the way, when did you learn how to Walk on Water ?.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Mar 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Its quite obvious your definitely a "team" player. By the way, when did you learn how to Walk on Water ?.



If that isn't some inside joke, then you're just being a genuine dickhead IMO.

What are you, 8 years old?   :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Mar 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Reading between the lines, I'm not so sure I like what seems to be implied by the quotation marks used ... I'm probably reading too much into it.  I don't suspect you would suggest that, to be a good team-member, one should turn a blind eye to violations of CF code of conduct, RoE, LoAC, Canadian ethical expectations, the NDA, other lawful orders, etc, etc ...
> 
> Given the magnitude of the allegation, a soldier reasonably believing this to have happened would have moral duty to the larger team (the whole CF) to report it (not to mention the legal duty to report it).  If it is an honest but incorrect perception, the investigative process and courts will determine this.



I guess given the seemingly sketchy physical evidence, coupled with the political aspect of this one given the whole detainee issue, I would have hoped the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you and behind you would have kicked in.  If this is as bad as they are painting it ie) mercy killing, then everyone there would have been aware of how bad (medically) the Taliban guy was.  It would stand to reason they could emotionally get their head around the "why" of it, right or wrong.  It would also stand to reason that someone would have actually SEEN the shooting.  Therefore, if nobody saw it, everyone knew it was "necessary" at the time and life had moved on, what was the point of bringing it up later?  
Yes, there will never be a time when the system can tolerate mercy killing.  If that is what happened, the good captain is going to get pile driven.  

They way I see this has no standing in law, nor can I really defend it in any tangible way.  Mine is more of a feeling cultivated from a fog of war.  As long as men have taken up arms and killed each other, there has been a special bond between two soldiers fighting for their lives together.  Yes, around 1948 some men decided to attach rules to war.  That was a good idea and still is.  But those rules didn't change our human reaction to being put into life and death situations.  And since it is morally superior to "keep comfortable" our parents with morphine while we starve and dehydrate them in palliative care in their final days than to bring a swift end to a guy that is torn to shit by an Apache, polite society can poo-poo such "barbaric" conduct.  

*IF * this was a mercy killing and the Taliban was as badly off as has been described, Captain Semrau was more human, humane, honourable and brave than most people ever will be.  

I will be more than happy to be dogpiled by the morally superior folks who have certainly been put in similar situations and chose "better".


----------



## GAP (27 Mar 2010)

Excellent post....I agree 100%


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Mar 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I guess given the seemingly sketchy physical evidence, coupled with the political aspect of this one given the whole detainee issue, I would have hoped the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you and behind you would have kicked in.  If this is as bad as they are painting it ie) mercy killing, then everyone there would have been aware of how bad (medically) the Taliban guy was.  It would stand to reason they could emotionally get their head around the "why" of it, right or wrong.  It would also stand to reason that someone would have actually SEEN the shooting.  Therefore, if nobody saw it, everyone knew it was "necessary" at the time and life had moved on, what was the point of bringing it up later?
> Yes, there will never be a time when the system can tolerate mercy killing.  If that is what happened, the good captain is going to get pile driven.
> 
> They way I see this has no standing in law, nor can I really defend it in any tangible way.  Mine is more of a feeling cultivated from a fog of war.  As long as men have taken up arms and killed each other, there has been a special bond between two soldiers fighting for their lives together.  Yes, around 1948 some men decided to attach rules to war.  That was a good idea and still is.  But those rules didn't change our human reaction to being put into life and death situations.  And since it is morally superior to "keep comfortable" our parents with morphine while we starve and dehydrate them in palliative care in their final days than to bring a swift end to a guy that is torn to shit by an Apache, polite society can poo-poo such "barbaric" conduct.
> ...



I said something along those lines here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91849/post-907823.html#msg907823
You said it better.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Mar 2010)

While only 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the CF were involved with the incident and shouldn't be commenting on it since the matter is under investigation, a much larger percentage is more than welcome to make comments about some of the names mentioned above and how many times X person may have made questionable calls, as well.

Not in any way making claims about this alleged incident, but in the many other things during that tour.  Glass houses.


----------



## Franko (28 Mar 2010)

EITS and Fast Eddy.....take it to PMs.
*
The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> While only 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the CF were involved with the incident and shouldn't be commenting on it since the matter is under investigation, a much larger percentage is more than welcome to make comments about some of the names mentioned above and how many times X person may have made questionable calls, as well.



Technically, if the matter was still under investigation it wouldn't be before the courts.  I agree, one shouldn't talk about an active investigation.  However, due to disclosure, there is now public access to the Crown's case (if one knows where to look and who to talk to) 



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Not in any way making claims about this alleged incident, but in the many other things during that tour.  Glass houses.



Indeed!


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Mar 2010)

Yes you are right, and I stand corrected; technically the investigation part is done (I'm still in the mind set of when CNIS came to brief all of us).  _See how that works Vern, someone actually makes a good point and I admit I was wrong. _

That being said, everyone is still voicing their opinions on a lot of bits and pieces of the whole story, which I'm not a big fan of, but I can only control myself  :-X


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Mar 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes you are right, and I stand corrected; technically the investigation part is done (I'm still in the mind set of when CNIS came to brief all of us).  _See how that works Vern, someone actually makes a good point and I admit I was wrong. _
> 
> That being said, everyone is still voicing their opinions on a lot of bits and pieces of the whole story, which I'm not a big fan of, but I can only control myself  :-X



 ;D   When does that start?    ;D


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ... around 1948 some men decided to attach rules to war.


It happened long before that.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> *IF * ... the Taliban was as badly off as has been described, Captain Semrau was more human, humane, honourable and brave than most people ever will be.


What would your position be if it were a Taliban on trial for putting rounds into a Canadian in similar state?  Should he be charged or would you still argue he was doing the brave, honourable and humane thing?



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> *IF * this was a mercy killing and ...


And *IF* it was not?  As opposed to turning a blind-eye or covering-up, should not the proper authorities decide what happened?



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I guess given the seemingly sketchy physical evidence, coupled with the political aspect of this one given the whole detainee issue, I would have hoped the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you and behind you would have kicked in.


In your argument, you are assuming knowledge in the head of the first to report - knowledge which may not have been there.  Said person may only have had a reasonable belief that a serious violation of LoAC occured without many of the finer details that you speculate.  In action would have been tantamount to covering up the event (regarless of what a proper investigation and competent courtl may later decide actually did happen).  

Lets also look at this from a more macroscopic perspective.  Sure buddy beside and behind are on the team, but the team is a whole lot bigger than just them.

Consider, the whole Canadian Airborne Regiment suffered for the acts of a few miscreants and a few more "team players" who blindly went with " the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you."  The public's first perception of the incident was media lambasting the military for doing nothing.  Because action was not seen to be taken prior to the out-cry, the institution was seen to be complicit in the acts of a few, and cover-up was declared.  Public confidence in the military leadership was broken and the integrity of the institution (the whole CF and DND) was seen as deviant.  The whole CF suffered for the next few years.

Down at the tactical level with the motivations, the individuals, the acts, etc - the current and past situations are light years apart.  At the strategic level, there are a lot of common hazards.  This time, the publics first perception of the incident was of the military taking action.  The public retains confidence in the military leadership and we've retained the exceptional street-cred that has been built over the last two years.  The CF gone unscathed had the first reports been the media questioning in-action and institutional integrity.  There probably would not be another regiment lost, but we would have been hammered in that last budget and we would be feeling repercussions well into next year or beyond.

I would hope that a soldier would not risk strategic damage to the whole military if that soldier reasonably believed a violation of RoE, LoAC and the CF Code of Conduct to have occurred.  In such circumstances, reporting would be the act of a team player and (given the open contempt displayed by some early in this thread) it would require significant moral courage to do so.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Mar 2010)

Nobody is going to be able to say you are wrong, myself included.  But I still stand by my statement.  Take it as you will.


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2010)

PETER WORTHINGTON, Toronto Sun
April 10, 2010 
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/04/10/13538651.html


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2010)

Is there any kind of specific reason that military law is based on the balance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt?


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

In Canada:

Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof at the Summary Trial level.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is burden of proof at the Courts Martial.

Source:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/militaryjusticemilitaire/CourtMartial-eng.pdf


----------



## Occam (12 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> In Canada:
> 
> Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof at the Summary Trial level.
> 
> ...



Are you sure?  I may have missed it, but I don't see anything in that link regarding the burden of proof at Summary Trial.

However, the presentation "Lesson 7 – Conduct of Summary Trial" on the JAG website says "To determine that the offence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he/she must conclude that each element of the offence charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt".


----------



## ballz (12 Apr 2010)

Simian's link answers my question well enough since it was court martials I was wondering about.

I think that article (which now the link doesn't work) has been changed (drastically). Here is the new version: http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/04/03/13455676.html

In the original, it had said that this trial would be based on a majority decision as opposed to unanimous decision, which is the second time I've read (while reading about this trial) that court martials in Canada were based on a balance of probabilities, hence me asking the question. Either which way, Simian's link works for what I was wondering about.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> Are you sure?  I may have missed it, but I don't see anything in that link regarding the burden of proof at Summary Trial.
> 
> However, the presentation "Lesson 7 – Conduct of Summary Trial" on the JAG website says "To determine that the offence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he/she must conclude that each element of the offence charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt".



The Dickson Report/Somalia Inquiry (http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol5/v5c40be.htm) lead to the amendment of  the NDA (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/LS/361/c25-e.htm) recommended the following:

The 40.27 The standard of proof at a trial for major disciplinary or criminal misconduct be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

40.29 The standard of proof at a trial of minor disciplinary misconduct be proof on a balance of probabilities. 

I am unaware of a more recent amendment.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 Apr 2010)

I see nothing in the actual bill about changing how findings are made.

I recently completed Presiding Officer Training, and it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt at summary trials.

For administrative matters the balance of probabilities applies.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

T2B

Perhaps you did not close enough:

" e.  Summary Trials (41)

            1)   Reduced Powers of Punishment...

In consequence of this diminished disciplinary power, clause 42 would eliminate the existing requirement that certain punishments be approved by a higher authority. The punishments available to a commanding officer at summary trial which require prior approval by higher authority are detention of a person above the rank of private; detention in excess of 30 days; and reduction in rank (see section 163(2) of the Act).(43)

Note: (43)  The reduction of the maximum period of detention following summary trial from 90 to 30 days, the restriction to reduction of one rank level for the punishment of reduction of rank following summary trial, and the related abolition of the requirement for prior approval by higher authority of certain punishments, mirror recommendations 16, 19 and 20 of the first Dickson report. The Somalia Inquiry recommended that any sentence of detention should only be imposed by a court martial (see recommendation 40.1).* The Inquiry also recommended, however, that the standard of proof at summary trials be reduced from the current criminal standard to the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities and that accused be compellable witnesses at summary trials (recommendation 40.29).*


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 Apr 2010)

Read the Bill, not the recommendation report.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

Military Law is never a simple matter, the Presiding Officer Training Course Slides and Handbook offer insight and references.  Mr. Dickson's recommendations were added as footnotes to the actual Bill to amend the NDA. 

Your honour, the question has been asked and answered to the satisfaction of the asker, can we move on...No...OK.  As has been stated...

The Determination of Guilt at both a Summary Trial and a Court Martial is based on reasonable doubt.

"The presiding officer must consider the evidence received as well as the representations
of the accused and determine whether it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused committed the offence charged.  In order to make such a finding, the presiding officer
must conclude that all the required elements of the offence have been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.  The required elements would include, as a minimum, the following: that the
accused was the person who committed the offence; that the accused intended to commit the
offence; that the offence was committed on the date that was alleged in the charge report portion
of the RDP; and that the acts or omissions alleged occurred. [/b]"

Some administrative matters at both ST and CM can be made on the balance of probabilities, for example from NDA: *Fitness to Stand Trial - Presumption of fitness*

198. (1) An accused person is presumed fit to stand trial unless the court martial is satisfied on the *balance of probabilities* that the accused person is unfit to stand trial

*Mental Disorder When Offence Committed*

Defence of mental disorder

202.13 (1) No accused person shall be held responsible under this Act for a service offence in respect of an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Presumption

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the* balance of probabilities.*

Summary Trials by Commanding Officers

Jurisdiction

163. (1) A commanding officer may try an accused person by summary trial if all of the following conditions are satisfied:...

(e) the commanding officer does not have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused person is unfit to stand trial or was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

References:

POTC Handbook: http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf

NDA: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-n-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-n-5.html#history


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

Wait there was a subsequent Bill to amend the Bill to amend the NDA!

Since Bill C-25 also required the Defence Minister to arrange for an independent review of the Bill's provisions and operation every five years. :

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=1917

Amendments to the National Defence Act: Bill C-25, its review, and Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the National Defence Act
BG-06.010 - April 27, 2006

Highlights of Bill C-7 include:
•	enhancing the independence of military judges;
•	permitting the appointment of part-time military judges;
•	*requiring the unanimous decision of a court martial panel to find an accused guilty or not guilty*;
•	providing for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent sentences and restitution orders; and
•	clarifying the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Reform of the military justice system is not a one-time event. As Canadian law evolves, it is essential that the National Defence Act be updated to reflect current Canadian values and legal standards, and to ensure that it continues to be an effective instrument in maintaining the operational effectiveness of the CF. Bill C-7 represents the latest evolution in a continuing process to improve an already sound and fair military justice system. 

Link to Bill C-7

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1

b.  Evidence

New section 203.5 of the NDA provides that when a court martial sentences an individual, a *disputed fact must be proved on a balance of probabilities.*  However, the prosecution must always* prove aggravating facts and previous convictions beyond a reasonable doubt*.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 Apr 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Military Law is never a simple matter, the Presiding Officer Training Course Slides and Handbook offer insight and references.  Mr. Dickson's recommendations were added as footnotes to the actual Bill to amend the NDA.



I agree that Military Law is not a simple matter, which is why I had to go through the Presiding Officer training.   I keep the references on my office bookshelf and read them plus the online QR&O before, during and after presiding over a trial.  I also talk to the legal advisor before trial and among other things he reminds me that I must find that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before rendering a guilty finding.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

What I liked about being part of a BOI is the way they dealt with findings.

We were actually allowed to make findings based on 98% (for argument's sake) truth.

It wasn't ever a matter of taking logic jumps or anything or a crystal ball, but we were allowed to say "We don't have everything but we have a whole lot of evidence pointing to _________ so that's what we can say we believed happened with all reasonable probabilities".


----------



## McG (13 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> What I liked about being part of a BOI is the way they dealt with findings.


Of course, a BOI is an administrative investigation and something all together different from disciplinary investigations or the military judicial system.


----------



## SeanNewman (13 Apr 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, a BOI is an administrative investigation and something all together different from disciplinary investigations or the military judicial system.



Of course, absolutely.  It was just to state that it was nice not to have to do the 100% "without a reasonable doubt" thing.  I am by no means suggesting that when someone's life or freedom is on the line.

I obviously can't go into details about anything, but say for example it was on an ND causing death or something like that (mine wasn't, I'm just using smoke and mirrors to parallel my example).  How can you possibly state with 100% certainty that the bullet was accidental, careless, or malicious?

I don't envy the prosecutor at all in this case, because his job is to prove more with less than what we had.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2010)

The facts of this case have not been pushed out to the media.  The prosecution has them, the defence has them, and no one here has them.

Guessing and second guessign reasons for the proceedings are irrelevant; the Crown decided there was sufficient evidence to proceed.


That Peter Worthington knows not of what he writes (unanimity at a court martial has been required for several years), and regularly slags non-combat arms personnel as somehow unworthy (despite MSE Ops, for example, spending more time outside the wire/outside the FOBs than pretty much all the Cbt Arms types) is another topic.


----------



## TheBlackCat (17 Apr 2010)

I read the witness statements and in terms of the morale imperitave leadership needed in counterinsurgency operations compared to textbook leadership he did the right thing morally in my opinion but he can easily get nailed by not going by the book.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2010)

Canadian soldier thought insurgent was already dead
 By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa CitizenApril 20, 2010
Article Link

A member of Capt. Robert Semrau's mentoring team told a court martial that he did not offer first aid to a downed Taliban fighter because he thought the man was already dead.

Semrau, 36, of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, faces four charges in the case, including second-degree murder. The father of two young girls has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie was the first Canadian soldier to see the insurgent, who had been shot during a firefight on the morning of Oct. 19, 2008.

The firefight erupted in the early hours of an operation to clear a swath of ground next to the Helmand River.

Semrau's four-man team was embedded with an Afghan battalion, which led the operation.

The prosecutor, Capt. Tom Fitzgerald, asked Longaphie why he didn't offer first aid to the downed Taliban fighter given that military rules require soldiers to collect and treat the wounded.

"At that time, I didn't feel there was a need for me to go over there," Longaphie testified. "Visually, from what I perceived to be a dead Taliban, I didn't think there was any need to go to confirm whether he was dead or alive."

Prosecutors allege the insurgent was still alive, and that shortly after Longaphie left the scene, Semrau fired two shots into the man's chest.

Longaphie, a 25-year military veteran, earlier told court about the confusion that marked the early hours of the Helmand operation.

The Canadian mentoring team, he said, encountered a chaotic scene at the planned line of departure. Afghan National Army forces were there along with Afghan National Police and border officers.

"The ANP and border police were literally running all over the place," he told the court martial.

The Canadians found the Afghan army company to which they were attached, then began to move along the Helmand River.

About an hour into the mission, Longaphie and another Canadian soldier, Cpl. Tony Haraszta, near the front of the Afghan company, came under enemy fire.

Semrau and his battlefield partner, Pte. Steven Fournier, were somewhere behind them.

The soldiers hunkered down for about five minutes beside a handful of Afghan soldiers, then decided to make a run for a tall cornfield nearby. Gunfire followed them.

"It didn't stop us from running," Longaphie said, "but it scared the bejesus out of me."
More on link


----------



## old medic (25 Apr 2010)

Key witness to testify in Semrau case
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
25 April 2010
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/04/25/13714406-qmi.html


> OTTAWA — The case against a Canadian captain charged with murdering a wounded Afghan on the battlefield is expected to come to a head Monday when a court martial hears from the prosecution’s key witness.
> 
> Cpl. Steven Fournier is expected to testify that his mentor, Capt. Robert Semrau, told him he shot a man to relieve him from his suffering.
> 
> ...


----------



## rormson (25 Apr 2010)

My thoughts and best wishes are with Capt Semrau.


----------



## old medic (26 Apr 2010)

Semrau witness: All wounded were to be aided
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
26 April 2010

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/04/26/13722311-qmi.html


> GATINEAU, Que. — Canadian soldiers were repeatedly instructed to provide medical aid to friends or foe equally, a key witness testified Monday at a Canadian captain’s court martial for murder.
> 
> Cpl. Steven Fournier testified his four-man team was told during numerous training sessions on combat care and rules of engagement that first aid should be provided to those who needed it most.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2010)

Cellphone video of alleged Afghan victim shown to murder court martial
Article Link
By: THE CANADIAN PRESS 26/04/2010

A cellphone video of the victim of an alleged battlefield execution in Afghanistan was shown at an unprecedented court martial of a Canadian soldier.

The 10-minute video, shot by a soldier in the Afghan National Army, shows a bearded, motionless man covered up to his chest in a light blue blanket.

When an Afghan soldier partially pulls back the blanket, one of the victim's legs is seen to be all but severed above the ankle, although no other wounds are visible.

Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder for allegedly firing two shots into the man from close range shortly after the video was taken in October 2008.

The grainy images show no signs of life from the alleged victim, nor do they show any efforts at medical care, nor Afghan soldiers kicking sand on him as has been testified in court.

The video also calls into dispute testimony that a fierce firefight was underway at the time, as Afghan and Canadian soldiers are seen standing upright in an open field seemingly at ease for several minutes.

Cpl. Steven Fournier, one of the key prosecution witnesses, is set to testify about the events surrounding the video and what he saw take place after the camera was shut off.

Fournier was Semrau's junior partner in their four-man Operation Mentor Liaison Team, which was helping guide the Afghan National Army troops during an operation in Helmand province.

Earlier Monday at the court martial, Fournier had testified about the field medicine course he had taken in preparation for working on the liaison team, and the way it applied to the Canadian Forces' code of conduct. The injured were to be treated starting with the most badly wounded first, regardless of whether friend or foe.

"It was very clear cut," Fournier told the court martial. "It didn't matter who it was, you treat him the same as everybody else."

Fournier also described a relationship with Semrau, his superior officer, that went beyond the purely professional.
More on link


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Apr 2010)

Accused Canadian captain pointed rifle at insurgent’s chest, court-martial hears

Article Link

The key prosecution witness at an unprecedented court-martial says he saw a Canadian captain standing over a captured Afghan insurgent with his rifle pointed at his chest seconds after two quick shots were fired.

Captain Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder for the alleged battlefield execution of a severely wounded and disarmed Taliban in October, 2008.

Standing outside the witness box in a military courtroom, Corporal Steven Fournier demonstrated Capt. Semrau's stance with his C8 assault rifle barrel “at a perfect 45-degree angle” toward the wounded insurgent.

“The muzzle was within a metre of the man on the ground,” Cpl. Fournier testified.

The most junior member of Capt. Semrau's four-man Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, or OMLT, is a crucial witness in a bizarre murder trial that includes video footage of the alleged victim but no body and no confirmed cause of death.

Cpl. Fournier testified Tuesday that Capt. Semrau told him and an Afghan interpreter to leave him alone with the injured insurgent: “We can head back; that we don't have to see this.”

They had gone no more than 10 steps, Cpl. Fournier said, when two shots were fired “behind me, in quick succession.”

He spun around, looking for incoming fire, only to see Capt. Semrau standing almost directly over the insurgent and closing the ejection port on his C8.

The body of the insurgent has never been recovered, although the court-martial was shown a cellphone video of the limp, unmoving casualty taken by an Afghan National Army soldier shortly before he was allegedly shot by Capt. Semrau.

More on link


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Apr 2010)

Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory?  

This case is just so odd on all levels.  ROE's and SOP's may have been broken; however, I find it very hard to sit here and condemn someone who was operating in an environment that I know nothing about.  

Regardless of whether he did or didn't do it, I have a feeling that Capt. Semrau is already being hung out to dry for higher political reasons.  This is bad on the political level and kind of like the detainee scandal in a sense that it is a hot potato that government wants nothing to do with. I think we would be putting our heads in the sand if we thought this is the first and only time this has happened.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

That brings up a very interesting point and kudos to you for bringing it up.

Yes, every member has an obligation to act if they feel that something wrong is taking place, and they become culpable in the event if they do not.

As taught in Ethics training, "Doing nothing is not an option".


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory?



What do you expect Cpl Fournier could have done?  He couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.  The only thing he could have, and should have, done, if he felt that something illigal had been committed, was to report it immediately up his Chain of Command.  It appears that he did not do this 'immediately', thus he could in fact be considered an accessory.  Perhaps, now with some thought, Cpl Fournier is trying to do some CYA.  Whatever the situation is, it will be brought up by either the Defence, or the Prosecution.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.



Agreed that would be less than ideal, but an interesting read about WO Hugh Thompson.  During the My Lai massacre (not comparing this incident to that) WO Thompson landed he helicopter in the middle of it and gave his door gunners orders to shoot the American soldiers if they continued murdering the Veitnamese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

He was heavily scolded by higher US Army brass, called a traitor, etc for decades.  Then in the 1990s he was presented a soldiers' medal, the highest non-combat medal possible, and became an Ethics instructor at I believe Anapolis and West Point.

Again, not comparing that situation to this one so much as to show that there have been examples of Blue-on-Blue escalations of force.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

OK, back on the topic.


> Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory?


No.  Being present and being able to stop an incident one knows to be illegal, yet doing nothing about it, would not make anyone an accessory.  It would make them guilty of their own crime, as I understand it.  Irrespective of that, from his testimony, Cpl Fournier would not be considered an accessory or culpable of anything illegal.



> This case is just so odd on all levels.  ROE's and SOP's may have been broken; however, I find it very hard to sit here and condemn someone who was operating in an environment that I know nothing about.


You should use that same restraint when commenting in this thread.  This has nothing to do with ROE or SOP.  This is about black and white criminal law.



> Regardless of whether he did or didn't do it, I have a feeling that Capt. Semrau is already being hung out to dry for higher political reasons.  This is bad on the political level and kind of like the detainee scandal in a sense that it is a hot potato that government wants nothing to do with. I think we would be putting our heads in the sand if we thought this is the first and only time this has happened.


Restraint.  Use it.  The detainee "scandal" is nothing like this: that "scandal" is a political hot potato.  Capt Semrau is before a military court, aka "court martial" for a ciminal matter.  He was charged after being investigated.  There is no hanging him out to dry.  

And I say this, fully acknowledging that I call Capt Semrau a friend.  And I will continue to call him my friend, irrespective of the verdict of the court.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What do you expect Cpl Fournier could have done?  He couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.  The only thing he could have, and should have, done, if he felt that something illigal had been committed, was to report it immediately up his Chain of Command.  It appears that he did not do this 'immediately', thus he could in fact be considered an accessory.  Perhaps, now with some thought, Cpl Fournier is trying to do some CYA.  Whatever the situation is, it will be brought up by either the Defence, or the Prosecution.



No he obviously couldn't shoot the man but maybe a pat on the shoulder saying "Hey Bud maybe you should reconsider doing that" especially in such trying circumstances, adrenaline was probably pumping, perhaps cooler heads would have prevailed.

What about even looking at this from another angle.  They were there mentoring Afghan soldiers.  Had a company of Afghan soldiers under there command, Afghan Captain says "leave him die," had they started administering medical aid would that potentially break the trust with the Afghan forces.  I can't imagine ANA like the Taliban too much, would your OMLT team who is working in with an Afghan company decide trust or would you put the insurgent out of misery.  Better to do the latter then risk alienating the men you are supposed to be working with.

Also I don't think it was the good Corporal who came forward, I believe the allegations came from the Afghan army, did they not?  Correct me on this one if I am wrong.


----------



## SeanNewman (28 Apr 2010)

Techno,

Agreed.  This was first being investigated at the end of 2008; long before the detainee potato combusted as it has.

Stymiest,

Things can be done at the tactical/operational level (gaining trust of the ANA) that may not pass the strategic "Globe and Mail test".  

Even in a case where a soldier is protecting his convoy against a speeding car that's approaching and failing to observe the warnings to slow down, if that soldier shoots and it is told in the media the wrong way, that poor guy not has the court of public opinion against him even though he did everything that was expected of him.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Apr 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> OK, back on the topic.No.  Being present and being able to stop an incident one knows to be illegal, yet doing nothing about it, would not make anyone an accessory.  It would make them guilty of their own crime, as I understand it.  Irrespective of that, from his testimony, Cpl Fournier would not be considered an accessory or culpable of anything illegal.
> You should use that same restraint when commenting in this thread.  This has nothing to do with ROE or SOP.  This is about black and white criminal law.
> Restraint.  Use it.  The detainee "scandal" is nothing like this: that "scandal" is a political hot potato.  Capt Semrau is before a military court, aka "court martial" for a ciminal matter.  He was charged after being investigated.  There is no hanging him out to dry.
> 
> And I say this, fully acknowledging that I call Capt Semrau a friend.  And I will continue to call him my friend, irrespective of the verdict of the court.



Point taken, My intent is not to compare it to the detainee scandal as I feel thats on an entirely different level of hot potatoes; however, to say that a Canadian soldier shooting a incapacitated enemy is not a Hot Potato wouldn't be doing it justice.  Bringing this to a court martial has as much to do with politics as it does with doing the right thing.



> Things can be done at the tactical/operational level (gaining trust of the ANA) that may not pass the strategic "Globe and Mail test".


  

I am going to tread away from this topic as I don't want to invoke a strong response, but this just proves my point.  A decision was made at the tactical level, it somehow made its way up to the strategic level and failed the litmus test, thus there is a need to do something about.

As Nelson Mandela would say, "Everything is a political calculation"


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2010)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Bringing this to a court martial has as much to do with politics as it does with doing the right thing.


Wrong.  Bringing this to a court martial has everything to do with the investigation and recommendations made.  It was a decision based on the allegations, and politics has NOTHING to do with this.   And remember, I say this as a friend of mine sits accused.  


			
				Stymiest said:
			
		

> I am going to tread away from this topic


Best thing.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2010)

‘*It’s OK, it was me,’ Semrau quoted as saying after shots fired*

April 28, 2010


GATINEAU—“It’s OK, it was me.”

With those calmly spoken words, Capt. Robert Semrau is said to have reassured a fellow Canadian Forces soldier that two shots had come from his rifle, not the enemy.

An unprecedented court martial in Gatineau, Que., has heard more testimony from the key prosecution witness into allegations that Semrau executed a badly wounded and disarmed Afghan insurgent on the battlefield in October 2008.

Cpl. Steven Fournier says he was walking away from the wounded insurgent when he heard two quick bursts of gunfire.

He’s testified he spun around looking for enemy threats, only to see Semrau standing over the insurgent with the muzzle of his C8 assault rifle only a metre from the man’s chest.

Fournier says Semrau then calmly stated he hadn’t expected the two rounds “to go through him like that,” and that Semrau said the rounds had ricocheted off the ground.

Semrau is charged with second-degree murder in what is being characterized as a battlefield “mercy killing.”

Semrau, Fournier and an Afghan interpreter were alone with the badly wounded man when the alleged shooting took place.

As they walked away after the two shots were fired, Fournier testified that Semrau told him that he “felt it was necessary.”

“He felt it was the humane thing to do, he couldn’t live with himself if he left an injured insurgent, an injured human, behind,” and then described the act as a “mercy killing.”

Fournier, a private at the time on his first tour of duty, said he was in a state of shock and did not ask any questions.

_The Canadian Press  © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2010 _


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Apr 2010)

*Wounded Taliban's death a 'mercy kill,' soldier testifies*  

By Andrew Duffy, The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — Moments after firing two rounds through the chest of a severely wounded Taliban insurgent, Capt. Robert Semrau told another Canadian soldier that the shooting was a "mercy kill," a court martial has heard.


Cpl. Steven Fournier testified Wednesday that he was in a state of shock as he walked away from the scene with Semrau and their Afghan interpreter, Max.


“Just after we started walking, Capt. Semrau said he felt it was necessary,” Fournier told the court martial. “He felt it was the humane thing to do. He couldn't live with himself if he left an injured insurgent or an injured human being in this condition.”



Semrau calmly told him that he was “willing to accept whatever followed on it and that it was a mercy kill.” 


Minutes later, Semrau huddled with the other two members of his Canadian mentoring team and repeated that he had shot the wounded insurgent in a mercy killing.


Semrau also told the team that “he hoped anyone would do the same thing to anyone else, even himself.” 


One member of the team, Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie, has testified that no such battlefield meeting took place in Helmand Province.


The five-member military panel hearing the case will have to decide who is telling the truth about what happened on Oct. 19, 2008.


Semrau faces four charges, including second-degree murder, in connection with the incident. He has pleaded not guilty. 


Fournier, 26, told the court martial that during the Helmand operation, he went to photograph the wounded insurgent in case he was a high-value target. The Taliban fighter had been shot from a tree by an Apache helicopter and had suffered serious leg injuries and a stomach wound.


Semrau and the interpreter came along. After Fournier took his photos, Semrau told him to go back with the interpreter. Seconds later, Fournier said, he heard two shots in quick succession.


Thinking they were under attack, he turned with his rifle raised and scanned the nearby cornfield for Taliban. 


According to Fournier, Semrau told him, “It's OK, it was me.” 


Fournier said he was still trying to make sense of what had just happened when Semrau told him “he didn't expect his rounds to go through him like that and that he saw his two rounds ricochet off the ground.”


A nearby Afghan army captain was angered by the shooting, Fournier told the court martial. The officer, Capt. Shafiqullah, had earlier told the Canadians to leave the injured fighter alone so that Allah could decide his fate.


The incident occurred on the first day of a Taliban clearing operation led by the Afghan National Army. Semrau and his team were embedded with an Afghan rifle company as mentors.


At the end of that first day, Fournier said, he understood the significance of what he had witnessed, but he did not report it to any superior officer.


As the junior member of the four-man mentoring team, Fournier said, he believed a more senior member, Semrau or Longaphie, should report the incident.



Semrau and Longaphie asked Fournier how he felt about the day's events. Fournier told them he was “fine.” 


“I didn't know how to bring it up,” Fournier testified. 


An investigation was not launched until late December 2008 after Maj. Steven Nolan heard persistent rumours about the incident.


© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


----------



## GAP (1 May 2010)

Afghan forces battle-fatigued, unmotivated: witnesses

Testimony paints picture of frequent friendly-fire incidents and describes national army as disorganized and sometimes farcical
  Article Link
By Andrew Duffy, Canwest News ServiceMay 1, 2010

The court martial of a Canadian soldier has offered a ground-level view of the difficulties faced by coalition forces as they ready the Afghan National Army to take on the Taliban.

Capt. Robert Semrau, accused of first-degree murder in the shooting death of a wounded Taliban insurgent on a battlefield in Helmand province, served as the leader of a four-man Canadian team embedded with an Afghan rifle company.

Their job, by all accounts, was challenging and perilous. From forward operating base Sperwan Ghar, west of Kandahar City, Semrau's team was to mentor the Afghans in the art of war: planning, tactics, ethics.

But the Afghans were not always receptive to the message of Canada's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams, the court martial, which resumes Monday in Gatineau, Que., has heard.

Witnesses have variously described the Afghan forces as battle-fatigued and unmotivated. Drug use was said to be common, while professional development among the officer corps was almost unknown. Lower level commanders often had trouble reading maps.

The Afghan National Army had trouble with supplies, and would scavenge everything from a battlefield, including the weapons of Taliban casualties.

Friendly fire accidents were a constant concern.

"They [the Afghans] had a tendency to shoot at noise," Col. Joseph Shipley, former commander of the mentoring program in Afghanistan, testified at Semrau's court martial.

About 200 Canadian soldiers remain embedded with the Afghan National Army in Kandahar province.

The professional development initiative is crucial to NATO's withdrawal strategy, since it doesn't want the Taliban to overrun the country as soon as international forces leave.

NATO needs a strong, cohesive Afghan military to defend the country and its elected government.
More on link


----------



## GAP (16 May 2010)

Spent ammunition introduced as evidence in Canadian soldier's murder trial
  Article Link
 By Ian MacLeod, Ottawa Citizen May 14, 2010

After a week of in-camera legal wrangling, key prosecution evidence — in the form of spent ammunition — was unveiled Friday at the court martial of a Canadian soldier charged with murdering a wounded Taliban fighter on an Afghan battlefield.

Two bullet casings and two spent 5.56-millimetre tracer rounds recovered at the scene of the alleged October 2008 slaying were shown to the five-man panel of military officers deciding the case against Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, of CFB Petawawa, the first Canadian soldier charged in connection with a battlefield death.

He has pleaded not guilty to four charges, including the most serious of second-degree murder.

The bullets and casings were found at the Helmand Province battle scene in January 2009 by an investigative team led by Chief Warrant Officer Bernard Caron, of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

The items are crucial to the prosecution, which is attempting to prove a murder took place without being able to point to a body or even the name of the deceased Taliban member, whose corpse was never recovered.

Caron told the court Friday the rounds and casings appeared to be the same ammunition used in the Colt C8 carbines carried by Canadian soldiers — including Semrau and his team members on the day of the battle.

Semrau was the leader of a Canadian mentoring team embedded with an Afghan National Army rifle company, which was leading a sweep along the Helmand River on Oct. 19, 2008. About two hours into the operation, insurgents opened fire on the soldiers near the village of Lashkar Gah.

A helicopter gunship was called in, which fired on the Taliban. Afghan soldiers subsequently discovered two downed Taliban fighters, one dead and one severely injured.

The Afghans asked the Canadians to leave the man in Allah's hands.

Military prosecutors allege Semrau returned to the wounded insurgent and fired two tracer rounds into his chest.
More on link


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> The bullets and casings were found at the Helmand Province battle scene in January 2009



Wierd thing to find at a battle scene.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wierd thing to find at a battle scene.



yeah.....really....


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 May 2010)

Obviously the RSO did a pretty shabby job of ensuring all brass was policed up.


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2010)

Actually, that's the wierd thing now that I think of it.  Usually Afghan kids have sites like this policed up better than a CF Range within the day.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2010)

> Two bullet casings and two spent 5.56-millimetre tracer rounds



Tracer rounds?  What kind of load was he carrying?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 May 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tracer rounds?  What kind of load was he carrying?



George,

Many will carry tracer as a form of indication. "Watch my trace". Others will load it into their mag to give themselves visual indication of their present mag capacity. There is all sorts of reason for carrying trace.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 May 2010)

Last time I was in KAF (Dec '09), we were given tracer rounds with our ammo issue.  Maybe it's a common thing.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2010)

It was common with us......a tracer every fifth round, with the last two being tracer....great at night for zeroing in during ambush/firefights....my  :2c:


----------



## SeanNewman (16 May 2010)

Finding two specific tracers that allegedly went through someone from 1m away on a 45 degree angle is certainly quite impressive.

Considering the muzzle velocity and the extremely high probability of the rounds fragmenting, and all those fragments driving into the dirt, it's even more impressive.

While a C8 can not produce 975m/sec like a C7 can, from 1m it will still break apart like a mofo:


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Finding two specific tracers that allegedly went through someone from 1m away on a 45 degree angle is certainly quite impressive.
> 
> Considering the muzzle velocity and the extremely high probability of the rounds fragmenting, and all those fragments driving into the dirt, it's even more impressive.
> 
> While a C8 can not produce 975m/sec like a C7 can, from 1m it will still break apart like a mofo:



Brings back memories






I've recovered bullets from game and they were a little worse for wear, soft point mind you.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 May 2010)

Does this make sense?  I'm no expert and will defer to the pros.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16.htm
For the 5.56-mm round, maximum penetration occurs at 200 meters. At ranges less then 25 meters, penetration is greatly reduced. At 10 meters, penetration by the M16 round is poor due to the tremendous stress placed on this high-speed round, which causes it to yaw upon striking a target. Stress causes the projectile to break up, and the resulting fragments are often too small to penetrate.


----------



## SeanNewman (16 May 2010)

Dennis,

Terminal wound ballistics is something people dedicate years of formal schooling to, so it's a bit much to cover here in depth.  http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

I have spent the vast majority of my time in the small arms world studying 5.56mm ammunition (in the CF we use primarily what we call the IVI C77), so I'm semi-qualified to give the Cole's Notes version (although no master).

Basically, the longer the barrel (within reason) the higher the velocity of the round when leaving the weapon. Within metres of the rifle, it begins slowing down due to wind resistance.

One of the great things about the 5.56x45 NATO round is that it is a relative screamer coming out of the C7/M16 barrel at approx 975m/sec (C8/M4 being less).  In fact, it is so fast that typically (but inconsistently) upon hitting someone it yaws, tumbles, and fragments.  This greatly increases lethality/wounding as instead of a small 5.56mm permanent wound channel piercing through a body, you get lots of bits slicing through flesh and organs that are also being stretched due to the temporary wound channel shock wave.

However, when the round gets under 875m/sec it will no longer reliably do this, which happens ~250m out from a C7 or ~150m out of a C8.  Beyond that, most 5.56mm rounds will hold their structural integrity and pierce unless they hit bone.

The thing that is strange to me about what has been made public (I don't have the whole story, obviously) is that from the other testimony it was from 1m away on a 45 degree angle downward.  While I don't have a PHd in ballistics, my assessment is that it would either fragment and leave nothing but bits not resembling a full expended round, or if it did manage to hold its integrity it would have dug into the ground.

I'm not saying that it would have been impossible to find with a metal detector, but Afghanistan has had centuries of bullets flying everywhere, and you'd have to know pretty much the exact spot it happened and still get lucky.

Not impossible, just impressive if those really are the bullets.


----------



## McG (16 May 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Does this make sense?


Spin stabalized projectiles require a short distance outside the barrel for the spin to bring yaw under control and, as a result of the larger yaw, the rounds have a much reduced ability for penetration over this distance.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 May 2010)

The newspaper articles did not mention ballistics so they probably don't have a complete bullet.  It also doesn't mention if the brass matches the rifle, a less exact science.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 May 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The newspaper articles did not mention ballistics so they probably don't have a complete bullet.  It also doesn't mention if the brass matches the rifle, a less exact science.



Actually, the casings can be matched very conclusively to the weapon that fired them.  Under a microscope, the tool markings (scratches) on the casing where the extractor hooked it, where the ejector kicked it and how the firing pin made it's mark on the primer can all be linked up with the specific weapon like a finger print.  However, if the weapon was used quite a bit after those specific marks become less conclusive over time.  The lans and grooves on the slugs can also be matched to the rifling's on the weapon, but fragmentation can be a big factor for that one.  
Not being a forensic ballistics expert, I would think that a slug that went through a human and into the ground would have some DNA on it.  Given the dry climate that the slugs were found, that potentially gives it a better chance to be preserved.


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2010)

Another point:  To find these (likely) buried rounds, they would have either had to use a metal detector of sifted through all the sand in some sort of massive excavation.

This insurgent had just been hit with a burst of fragmenting Apache 30mm which would have completely blanketed the area with kilograms upon kilograms of metal splinters.  

During courses I have been involved with sweeps for dropped magazines where someone realized they had dropped it in the last 100m 15 minutes ago and we were unable to find it.  

If they were not buried as per my assumption, we're being told that several months later (after the rain started falling in December) a couple specific rounds and casings were found on the surface.

Mmmmmkay.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 May 2010)

From a defence point of view, it would be interesting to know how many fragments of assorted rounds they sifted through to find the ones they presented to the court.  Without a postive ID, evidence of spent ammo in a battlefield must be circumstantial evidence of the weakest type.  Another question would be whether a possible inability to match the casings to the rifle was a factor of time or simply a mismatch.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 May 2010)

Really, unless there is some blood on the slugs the Captain can say "I put the rounds in the dirt beside him.  I wanted to seem like a bad ass, hardcore killah and made up the story so the lads would go oooo/aaaahhh".  Guilty of a weak personality, but not murder.  And that is if they can match them to his weapon.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 May 2010)

And now this surfaces from CBC News.....

May 21, 2010 News
Video released Friday from the court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau shows grainy footage of a wounded insurgent in the wake of a firefight in Afghanistan

Court Martial Video


----------



## bdave (21 May 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Actually, the casings can be matched very conclusively to the weapon that fired them.  Under a microscope, the tool markings (scratches) on the casing where the extractor hooked it, where the ejector kicked it and how the firing pin made it's mark on the primer can all be linked up with the specific weapon like a finger print.



I have read that this is actually somewhat of a myth.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I have read that this is actually somewhat of a myth.



References?


----------



## mariomike (21 May 2010)

"Breech markings:
Marks on the cartridge case can be matched to marks in the chamber and breech. For a number of reasons, Cartridge cases are often easier to identify than bullets. First, the parts of a firearm that produce marks on cartridge cases are less subject to long-term wear, and second, bullets are often severely deformed on impact, destroying much of the markings they acquire.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_fingerprinting#Breech_markings

"Cartridge Case Identification: 
Like bullets, cartridge cases can be identified as having been fired by a specific firearm.  As soon as cartridges are loaded into a firearm the potential for the transfer of unique tool marks exists.  However, the cartridge does not have to be fired for these marks to be transferred.  Simply loading a cartridge into a firearm can cause unique identifiable marks that can be later identified.":
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_CCID.htm

"Impressed Action Marks: 
Impressed action marks, with a few exceptions, are produced when a cartridge case is fired in a firearm.  The two most common impressed action marks are firing pin impressions and breech marks.  As mentioned at the end of the Striated Action Marks page, ejector marks can also be in the form of an impressed action mark.":
http://firearmsid.com/A_CCIDImpres.htm

"Striated Action Marks:
Striated action marks are common to cartridge cases that have passed through the action of an auto loading or repeating firearm.  Striated action marks can be produced on cartridge cases by contact with a number of different areas within the firearm.  Some of the more common striated action marks include chamber marks; shear marks, firing pin drag marks, extractor marks, and ejector marks.":
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_CCIDStria.htm


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I have read that this is actually somewhat of a myth.



Well don't tell the entire firearms department at the Center of Forensic Sciences.  You'll ruin their mythological efforts.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 May 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Well don't tell the entire firearms department at the Center of Forensic Sciences.  You'll ruin their mythological efforts.



 :cheers:  Damn, everything they taught me in college and at CFSIS is BS.


----------



## Loachman (24 May 2010)

Stumbled across while researching something else:

http://www.search.com/reference/Chindits



> Masters's force established Blackpool on May 8 and were almost immediately engaged in fierce fighting. Whereas White City had been deep in the Japanese rear, its defenders had had plenty of time to prepare their defences and its attackers had been a mixed bag of detachments from several formations, Blackpool was close to the Japanese northern front, and was attacked by two regiments from the Japanese 53rd Division, with heavy artillery support. Because the monsoon had broken and heavy rain made movement in the jungle very difficult, neither Calvert nor Brodie's British 14th Infantry Brigade could help Masters. Finally, Masters had to abandon Blackpool on May 24, because the men were too exhausted after 17 days of continual combat. _*19 Allied soldiers, who were so badly injured as to be beyond hope of recovery and could not be moved, were shot by the medical orderlies. * _


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 May 2010)

After reading more about this story I've changed my mind.  I hope the Captain is cleared of any wrong doing.

If I was in the dying Talibans shoes and had no hope of rescue or recovering I would hope that my enemy respected me enough to put me out of my misery and not leave me to suffer.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Stumbled across while researching something else:
> 
> http://www.search.com/reference/Chindits



In his wartime memoir, The Road Past Mandalay, Masters wrote that he personally shot the wounded, rather than order subordinates to murder them. Whooa. I misspoke. After googling The Road Past Mandalay, I came across several reviews which mention him ordering his troops to kill the wounded. My apologies to Loachman.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 May 2010)

Shitty to say, but it was indeed a kindness to the wounded to let them off easily.  The Japanese would have used them for bayonet practice as they did in Hong Kong.


----------



## mariomike (24 May 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Japanese would have used them for bayonet practice as they did in Hong Kong.



Or worse:
"In Fukuoka, a truck drove up to Army headquarters, collected B-29 crewmen who had been shot down over Japan, and drove them to a lonely field, where, one by one, a lieutenant chopped off their heads with his sword. 
They were not the first to die in this manner. The Japanese had beheaded dozens of airmen and used others for bayonet and archery practice. They'd locked them in animal cages and tied them to posts for passersby to torment. They'd burned them alive, buried them alive, dissected them alive, and cooked and eaten their body parts."
"The Last Raid" by Dan Ford.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B001AQI7XU/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=133140011&s=digital-text


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 May 2010)

There is, however, a difference between killing badly wounded soldiers you cannot care for or transport and who you have clear evidence that they will be killed by the approaching enemy if left behind (and that those soldiers knew this would likely be their fate in such a situation) and allegedly shooting a wounded man you are supposed to be the one trying to arrange medical for, regardless of the possible response time or outcome of that care.


----------



## SeanNewman (24 May 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> If I was in the dying Talibans shoes ...



That's the crux of the decision here, though.  A lot of people on this board (and perhaps Rob himself) have stated what they would wish to have happen to them if they were bleeding out in agony and obviously past saving that they would want a quick death.

However, there is no official rule or law that puts that mindset in writing, which means that there is no legal basis for that decision.

I might love speeding and have no problem if everyone else on the highway were doing 200 km/h, but me feeling that way does not change that there is a law against it.


----------



## ballz (24 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> That's the crux of the decision here, though.  A lot of people on this board (and perhaps Rob himself) have stated what they would wish to have happen to them if they were bleeding out in agony and obviously past saving that they would want a quick death.
> 
> However, there is no official rule or law that puts that mindset in writing, which means that there is no legal basis for that decision.
> 
> I might love speeding and have no problem if everyone else on the highway were doing 200 km/h, but me feeling that way does not change that there is a law against it.



But, if you were in favour of having no speed limits, you would probably hope that somebody getting charged with a speeding ticket gets off with it, whether by technicality, lack of evidence, what have you, no?

That is all Apollo Diomedes is saying, and I am in the same boat. While I realize by the letter of the law a mercy-kill is murder, I think the law is wrong, so I would prefer to see somebody get an acquittal on a technicality, lack of evidence, or any other random reason, than to be thrown in jail for something I believe was just (whether the written law says it was just or not).

And this is all if he even DID kill anybody, mercifully or not... So far the evidence against him seems to be lacking and weak at best.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 May 2010)

Rapists, child molesters, cold blooded murders get off ALL the time on stupid little technicalities. Our law continues to fail us when we see repeat sex offenders get out of jail earlier for "good behavior" then run off and rape and murder a kid. 
Or a repeat drunk driver get let out of jail somehow get their license back then wipe out a family. (my wifes father)

"The law isn't perfect but it's what we got"

I myself will not loose sleep if this guy "beats the system".


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 May 2010)

He would more than likely "beat the system" in several aspects including degree of guilt/sentencing in civil court, but he is in a military court, and the opposition political parties and the media will not stand for it. Another  chance to beat up SH. That's reality.


----------



## GAP (30 May 2010)

Soldier’s murder trial moves to Afghanistan
 By Andrew Duffy , Ottawa Citizen May 30, 2010
Article Link

The second-degree murder trial of a Canadian soldier will move to the scene of the alleged crime — Afghanistan — next month.

Testimony is scheduled to resume at Kandahar Airfield, where Afghan soldiers and interpreters are to give evidence about the events of Oct. 19, 2008.

Military prosecutors contend that, during an Afghan-led military operation that day in Helmand Province, Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa in Ontario fired two tracer rounds into the chest of a severely wounded, disarmed Taliban insurgent.

Semrau faces four charges, including second-degree murder, in connection with what has been described as a battlefield mercy killing. Semrau has pleaded not guilty to all counts.

His general court martial, which began two months ago, has been marked by repeated delays as lawyers argue over how the unusual case should proceed.

Military prosecutors recently concluded the “Canadian” portion of their case.

The court martial will now go into hiatus as the Office of the Chief Military Judge co-ordinates the court’s move to Afghanistan.

Since the judge, court reporter, prosecutors, defence lawyers and five-member jury are military personnel, they must all be qualified to perform first aid, fire a C-8 rifle and respond to a chemical or biological attack in order to travel to Kandahar Airfield.

In Afghanistan, the court martial is expected to hear from an Afghan interpreter, known as Max, who was with Semrau, and his fire team partner, Cpl. Steven Fournier, on the day of the alleged shooting.
More on link


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

I don't see how KAF is any different if they have the same staff hearing the case that they do in Quebec.

To get a feel for what Rob was really facing, they should do a road move from KAF to Maywand over the highest IED'd roads, then do a dismounted move from Maywand across the Helmand border to the sight of the alleged incident.

That would be the only way they he could get a fair trial because those deciding his fate could say their lives have been in similar danger.

I spent six months in KAF, and even taking 50+ rockets never felt like my life was in danger inside the wire.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

If I'm a jury member on Col Williams murder trial, I don't have to go to the house of the murders to get a feel for the facts of the case.  Why does a jury need to hike through Helmand?  Semrau either shot the guy or he didn't and his plea of not guilty indicates that he claims he did not put two rounds into someone that was _hors de combat_.  The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that.

The ANA soldiers probably have important information regarding the facts, and I know for a fact that the two soldiers mentioned in the recent MacLeans article as being present at the incident are still serving in 205 Corps.  I wonder if they are going to bring the ANA Coy Comd as well as the ANA soldier who advised the CF Chain-of-Command about the incident to testify.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that...



I disagree because a juror in the Col Williams case already knows what it's like to live in Canada, because that's essentially all the context required to know what mind set he was in.  Any average Canadian military member could be on his jury and be considered a peer.

However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet.  I'm not saying it changes the facts of the case but a juror should be a peer and someone wearing CFs in Quebec or KAFis not in my opinion someone who understands the context.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 May 2010)

I get what you are driving at Petamocto, but the court would suggest that it is a lack of emotional input that allows them to render "good" decisions.  Everyone likes to say "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" until they are being judged by 12.  We all know that armchair quarterbacking is most prevalent in all aspects of a job where things move quickly in the field.  This particular case is a tough one, since the element of critical threat appears to be minimized.  
The investigators went back to the scene.  That should be sufficient presentation of the facts.  In any case, the burden is still on the Crown.


----------



## armyvern (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I disagree because a juror in the Col Williams case already knows what it's like to live in Canada, because that's essentially all the context required to know what mind set he was in.  Any average Canadian military member could be on his jury and be considered a peer.
> 
> However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet.  I'm not saying it changes the facts of the case but a juror should be a peer and someone wearing CFs in Quebec or KAFis not in my opinion someone who understands the context.



If that's the standard, then we'll need to vacate all those CMs findings of guilt from panels against NCMs. Soldiers all, peers most certainly not.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, to be considered a peer of Capt Semrau, one should understand the mindset a soldier is in when far from everyday comforts and his life is in danger with missions and timelines to meet.



No, and that is not what the jury system implies when it states "jury of peers".  If that was the case, all of Col Williams jurors would need to be post-command Colonels.  I know of no legal precedence that requires courts to seek out juries composed of meth-heads, rape victims, or whomever else happens to be on trial.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ... If that was the case, all of Col Williams jurors would need to be post-command Colonels...



No they wouldn't because none of those factors are relevant to understanding what happened in that case.  He had a day job on a base and is accused of doing bad things after hours.  A gardener and a car salesman could be on that jury because they all know what it's like to live in Canada and have a social life after work.  You don't have to be a Colonel to live that sort of life.

With Semrau, it is fundamentally different because of the context.  It has nothing to do with rank but understanding the circumstances and the mindset of why he may choose to do what he is accused of.  As a Captain, I am not technically a peer of his in this case but a Sgt who was on that operation in the same area would be.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> With Semrau, it is fundamentally different because of the context.  It has nothing to do with rank but understanding the circumstances and the mindset of why he may choose to do what he is accused of.  As a Captain, I am not technically a peer of his in this case but a Private who was on that operation in the same area would be.



It is still not a principle upon which a jury is chosen.  To extrapolate you are saying that someone being tried whose case is constructed upon the fact that they were brought up in a violent and drug-addicted home could only be tried by a jury of others with similar experiences and backgrounds.  It is the defence's job to make the case understandable to the average citizen who might be chosen for a jury. That's why they bring in expert witnesses on forensic evidence or any other technical or societal factor, to ensure that the presented evidence can be assessed for its value to the case. To do otherwise would open the system to accusations of being constructed for the purpose of building juries of potential sympathizers.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

You can counter-post until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that nowhere in law or legal precedent does "having seen combat" put one into a special class of citizens.  Yours and Worthington's opinion is just that, opinion, and it is one that wouldn't hold up very long in a court of law.  I highly doubt that "the jury wasn't my peers" wouldn't be good enough grounds for a appeal either.

Infact, prosecutors could argue the same - someone who had been in combat would be predisposed to side with the defence and should be excluded from the jury.  I'd argue that was an equally extraneous argument. 

As was mentioned before, juries do not need special qualifications to understand what was going on - whether it be combat, policing or weather forcasting - they simply need to be able to hear and weigh the facts.


----------



## dapaterson (31 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If I'm a jury member on Col Williams murder trial, I don't have to go to the house of the murders to get a feel for the facts of the case.  Why does a jury need to hike through Helmand?  Semrau either shot the guy or he didn't and his plea of not guilty indicates that he claims he did not put two rounds into someone that was _hors de combat_.  The facts of this need to be looked at, and I don't see how sweating in some grapefield in Helmand is going to assist in that.



I suspect in part this is driven by the desire of the Crown or defence to have testimony from some Afghans - it's probably easier to move the court to Kandahar that it would be to get those witnesses passports and visas.


----------



## the 48th regulator (31 May 2010)

Seems to me that this has more to do with logistics, rather than qualifying the Jury;



> Testimony is scheduled to resume at Kandahar Airfield, where Afghan soldiers and interpreters are to give evidence about the events of Oct. 19, 2008.



It is probably easier, to move members of the trial to Kandahar Airfield, than to gather all the Afghan soldiers, and interpreters, sort through travel paperwork, and then fly them to Canada.

Other than that, if the Jury were to visit the Crime scene, this is done all the time.  Pictures, Videos, or actually Crime Scene visits by the Jury are not unusual.

Doesn't anyone watch CSI anymore, sheesh!

dileas

tess


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

Infanteer,

Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?

My original point was that going to KAF is no different than holding it in Quebec.


----------



## Brutus (31 May 2010)

Re:  'jury of his peers' point. 

A member of the CF does need to have served in A'stan in order to be capable of judging this man. First of all, as mentioned, what is in question is whether or not he commtted an offence. Further, every CF member must adhere to a certain code of ethics no matter where they are, and operational concerns do not mitigate these ethics. If it's wrong to do what he did, it doesn't matter where he was.

Wrong is wrong.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 May 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Re:  'jury of his peers' point.
> 
> A member of the CF does need to have served in A'stan in order to be capable of judging this man. First of all, as mentioned, what is in question is whether or not he commtted an offence. Further, *every CF member must adhere to a certain code of ethics no matter where they are, and operational concerns do not mitigate these ethics. If it's wrong to do what he did, it doesn't matter where he was*.
> 
> Wrong is wrong.



Ref the bold part.  Did you mean to say in your first sentence that a member of the CF does _not_ need to have served in Afghanistan to be capable of judging this man?  Otherwise, I find your statement contradictory.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 May 2010)

Perhaps the movement to KAF is to protect and preserve the life of the Afghan witnesses.


----------



## McG (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?


As already stated: for direct access to Afghan witnesses.


----------



## ballz (31 May 2010)

I think Captain Semrau's "mindset" is going to be rather irrelevant in this case. Unless they are going to try and prove he is not "criminally" responsible for his own actions (aka temporarily insane), being stuck between a rock and a hard place doesn't allow you to break the law.

So far, to me, the case comes down to two things:

1. Can they prove that the two rounds that were heard shot out of his rifle were actually shot into the body and, if so,
2. Was that body a living human being at the time or was it just a lifeless corpse?

WO Longaphie's testimony is huge. I thought I read that WO Longaphie was a med tech, but now I can't find it? Can anybody confirm that? If a 25 year veteran combat medic testified that he thought the insurgent was dead... and that video doesn't show much to the contrary...

Of course, the prosecution hasn't presented all of it's evidence yet so I shouldn't be counting chickens...


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Infanteer,
> 
> Back on track then, why bother going to KAF?
> 
> My original point was that going to KAF is no different than holding it in Quebec.



http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/18/a-soldiers-choice/

As this (well-written) article highlights, two Afghan soldiers, Shafiqullah and "Rolling John" were instrumental in this - as they both belong to the ANA and are involved in ongoing operations, it was essential to move the trial to a location where they could reasonably be questioned.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Post



Ack, thank you for that.  I had heard the "Afghan witness" thing bounced around the office but had not seen anything formal on it.

Appreciated for posting it (and to the others as well who did).


----------



## Gunner98 (31 May 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> WO Longaphie's testimony is huge. I thought I read that WO Longaphie was a med tech, but now I can't find it? Can anybody confirm that? If a 25 year veteran combat medic testified that he thought the insurgent was dead... and that video doesn't show much to the contrary...
> 
> Of course, the prosecution hasn't presented all of it's evidence yet so I shouldn't be counting chickens...



From National Post article:  http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2936407

The Apache had been called in when *Warrant Officer Longaphie, and the Afghan National Army soldiers he was mentoring*, came under fire during a sweep-and-clear operation in Helmand Province.

Warrant Officer Longaphie told the court martial that he assumed the downed Taliban fighter had been the one who had ambushed them. He didn't offer the insurgent first aid because he thought he was already dead.

"I came to a quick conclusion in that I didn't observe any movement and the ANA [Afghan National Army] didn't seem to have any concerns," Warrant Officer Longaphie testified. "My natural instinct was to say, 'This is a dead guy.' "

Ballz, 

I disagree once you put his testimony in context.  There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.  If he were a Med Tech he would not have been making a First Aid decision, he would be performing lifesaving treatment.  A Canadian WO (Med Tech or not) does not have the authority to declare someone as being dead, this is done by a doctor in a medical facility (or at least consultation with one) after all efforts are made to save their life.  A Med Tech does not ever make treat or not to treat decisions.


----------



## ballz (31 May 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Ballz,
> 
> I disagree once you put his testimony in context.  There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.  In the testimony it says the WO felt that First Aid was not appropriate.  If he were a Med Tech he would not have been making a First Aid decision, he would be performing lifesaving treatment.  A Canadian WO (Med Tech or not) does not have the authority to declare someone as being dead, this is done by a doctor in a medical facility (or at least consultation with one) after all efforts are made to save their life.  A Med Tech does not ever make treat or not to treat decisions.



Well, I admit I don't know anything about the job of a Med Tech of course, but wouldn't it be the Med Tech that declares somebody VSA and makes the decision that somebody else is a higher priority for treatment?

Of course, a "visual" is not enough to check for vital signs either... 

Or am I way oversimplifying a complicated thing?



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.



Could you clarify that. I don't know what "TO&E" means. Are you saying that WO Longaphie is probably not a Med Tech? That would obviously change the impact of his testimony. If he's not then I obviously take back what I said and implied about his testimony being the *key* testimony.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 May 2010)

He is not a Med Tech, he would not be taking an Advanced First Aid course at CFB Petawawa (see NP excerpt below), he would be a QL6B qualified Physician's Assistant.  

TO&E is table of organization and equipment, therefore the list of positions for  the unit deployment (in this case the OMLT's order of battle).  Yes, a Med Tech can declare someone VSA but he cannot declare someone dead (by "instinct" alone).  Dead men don't bleed heavily ergo that is one of the vital signs.  Since this individual was the only casualty spoken about, no one would have a higher priority. 

From the same National Post article:

The injured Taliban fighter that Captain Robert Semrau is accused of killing had one leg blown off, another foot severed and *was bleeding heavily from a wound in his torso*, a court martial heard yesterday...

Earlier yesterday, Warrant Officer Longaphie testified that he had been taught never to jeopardize the success of a mission by administering first aid on a battlefield.

He said the instructors *at his advanced first aid course* at CFB Petawawa stressed that in war "tactical realities" trumped all other concerns.

The instructors suggested, he said, that it was sometimes necessary to sacrifice the lives of injured combatants to ensure the success of a mission.

"I remember one of the opening statements was that the best way to administer first aid is to win the firefight," Warrant Officer Longaphie testified. 

From another NP article  http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2960392:

Capt. Semrau decided to respect the Afghan officer's request, Cpl. Fournier said, given the severity of *the man's injuries and his belief it would be unsafe to bring an ambulance or helicopter to the unsecured area*.


----------



## SeanNewman (1 Jun 2010)

Ballz,

TO&E stands for Table of Organization and Equipment, I believe.  It's like the OrBat.  

When a unit deploys, they can't just take whoever they want to Afghanistan.  There is a list of approved positions that need to be filled by certain trades and certain ranks, and when a tour is filled you plug people into the TO&E so to speak with position numbers.

That way, during a RIP, you will usually have a 1-for-1 exchange unless a TO&E change has been made from one roto to the other.


----------



## Brutus (1 Jun 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Ref the bold part.  Did you mean to say in your first sentence that a member of the CF does _not_ need to have served in Afghanistan to be capable of judging this man?  Otherwise, I find your statement contradictory.



It seems the discussion has moved on, but yes, I meant that a CF member does NOT need to have been to A'stan to judge.


----------



## BernDawg (4 Jun 2010)

So, I'm reading about another hot topic in the CF today and came across this paragraph -

Dozens of Canadian soldiers have faced court martial for misbehavior in Afghanistan. One Canadian officer was being prosecuted for killing a wounded Taliban (after being told by an Afghan soldier that the wounded Taliban had a bomb.) Over 2,000 Canadian military personnel are court martialed each year, out of a force of 62,000 active duty and 25,000 reserve personnel (about 25 per thousand military personnel each year). There are 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and none have been prosecuted for getting pregnant.

The entire article is here -
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100603.aspx

I wonder where this tid-bit of information about the bomb came from?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2010)

Methinks someone has confused the total number of proceedings (summary trial and court martial) with the number of court martials.  Just a minor typo, that...

(Edit because of my minor typos)


----------



## BernDawg (4 Jun 2010)

...which would explain the comment about the bomb too I guess...


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jun 2010)

If we had to conduct 2000 CMs in a year, that's all we would be doing.


----------



## BernDawg (4 Jun 2010)

And Court Reporter would be one of the largest trades in the CF not one of the smallest.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jun 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinkssomeone has confused the total number of proceedings (summary trial and court amrtial) with the number of court martials.  Just a minor typo, that...



'Ya think?!  :-\

Like always ... it's not as if they couldn't have simply used google for their fact-checking. Absolutely typical these days of them to not let facts stand in their way of a good story.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/index-eng.asp#surveysstats

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/index-eng.asp


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2010)

From the same article, again, totally out to lunch.



> Such weapons discharges in combat zones, or even peacetime, are common. Most of the time, the worst that happens is the offender gets a dirty look from an NCO, or a few sharp words. There is ridicule from other soldiers, which hurts the most. Usually, only repeat offenders receive any official punishment.



A dirty look from an NCO and a few sharp words :rofl:


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Jun 2010)

If an officer "gets away with" anything, that is the end of all discipline in that unit.

In fact, typically it goes the opposite way that even when a strong argument could be made for the officer being not guilty, he will still be found guilty in a ST environment just for optics' sake so nobody can have the perception that he has gotten away with anything.

My OC was on firing point 12 on a range, when nobody right of 8 heard the RSO say "this is a trial exposure" after "watch and shoot" (RSO was probably facing left to 1-6).  Targets came up, the OC fired a round, and everyone else from 8-11 later admitted they were just about to fire a round themselves when the RSO yelled "Stop!".

End result: Even though all common sense said that it was by no means negligent and in fact very intentional because the last words he heard were "watch and shoot", he was still charged and found guilty because to have an officer fire a round under any questionable circumstances whatsoever must be found guilty in order to ensure soldiers know there is no getting away with anything.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jun 2010)

I'd advise your OC to redress it. That is pure injustice which cannot be tolerated, NO MATTER what the rank is. 

I hope he appealed the verdict. 
Whoever found him guilty...should NOT be in command.

My two cents.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> I'd advise your OC to redress it...



I don't think his career took too much of a hit over it.   

This was several years ago, and he has since gone on to be the CO of arguably the most prestigious unit.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I don't think his career took too much of a hit over it.
> 
> This was several years ago, and he has since gone on to be the *CO of arguably the most prestigious unit.*


Standards at the Infantry School?  >

EDIT TO ADD:
Oh, sorry, you said prestigious.  Never mind!


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Jun 2010)

I would absolutely agree that your cell is prestigious, but I am not sure I would say that you are being granted unit-level command right now  :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I would absolutely agree that your cell is prestigious, but I am not sure I would say that you are being granted unit-level command right now  :-\


By "prestigious" you mean "anal-retentive", right?  But in my mind, I command divisions of troops across vast fields of battle.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2010)

The CM resumes in theatre tomorrow:


> The court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau — charged with second-degree murder in the 2008 shooting death of an unarmed Taliban fighter — is to reconvene Wednesday 11,000 kilometres away from where it began three months ago in Gatineau, Que.
> 
> In an unusual but not unprecedented move, the Canadian military justice system decided to fly the judge, five-man jury, court reporter, defendant, and defence and prosecution lawyers to Kandahar Airfield in order to hear evidence from Afghan witnesses.
> 
> ...


Am I the only one thinking the +1 month guess is pretty long?  I ask that not knowing how much evidence (or how complicated it might be) there is to be examined and cross-examined.  It'd be interesting to know who "guessed" such a range.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jun 2010)

The medal folks??


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jun 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The medal folks??



Wouldn't surprise me.   :


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2010)

Going to theatre on a TAV or SAV does not count for "medal" time.  They are not there as part of the op, therefore, they aren't eligible, as I understand the criteria.  So, no medal for these dudes.


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...So, no medal for these dudes.



...whole-lotta tax-free cash and incentive pay, though!

Plus they'll probably have to cycle through decompression for a couple days in "host nation" and a couple days in Cyprus for all their troubles though.   :


----------



## Jungle (15 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Going to theatre on a TAV or SAV does not count for "medal" time.  They are not there as part of the op, therefore, they aren't eligible, as I understand the criteria.  So, no medal for these dudes.



I know guys who went on 60-day TAVs and were awarded the medal.


----------



## McG (15 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Going to theatre on a TAV or SAV does not count for "medal" time.  They are not there as part of the op, therefore, they aren't eligible, as I understand the criteria.  So, no medal for these dudes.


I understood that to be true for SAV, but not the case for TAV.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jun 2010)

My first trip was as part of a long WIISK TAV.  We all got the medal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My first trip was as part of a long WIISK TAV.  We all got the medal.




WIISK? That's a new one for me ... but then most of what's happened in the past 15 years is new to me.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2010)

Must be the SAV that doesn't get counted, eg: when CLS comes to visit, etc.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Must be the SAV that doesn't get counted, eg: when CLS comes to visit, etc.



Not sure, but I know other folks from the Navy side who have gone there on TAV and received the medal.  It's true though we were not on the regular radar and did not get some of the goodies that the Roto folks did.  However we made up for it during the couple of BBQs that were held (NHL visit, July 1) when we did not appear on the muster sheet for beer.  We were able to get a second helping or so owing to the confusion on our status amongst the Roto folks.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2010)

Enough of the speculation.  I should have done this sooner.  As I once told candidates: you're only as good as your reference material:



> Visits and inspections do not constitute qualifying service. Specifically, visits for the purpose of leadership, familiarization, ceremonial, or morale by civilian or military VIPs as well as Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs), Staff Inspection Visits (SIVs), and specialist visits for the conduct of summary/criminal/administrative investigations, *courts martial,* Boards of Inquiry, trial evaluations, academic studies, surveys or other similar administrative activities are excluded from qualification.



Source


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jun 2010)

Booyah!  When in doubt, check the fine print.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jun 2010)

Hey!  This is the Internet!  No facts allowed.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2010)

You have it wrong.  It's no _fax_ allowed.  Sheesh!  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2010)

You three above must be ossifers......sheesh.  ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (17 Jun 2010)

Court martial of soldier to resume Saturday:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau, charged in the shooting death of an Afghan militant, has been adjourned to Saturday.

Today's proceedings at Kandahar Airfield dealt with procedural matters, which are the subject of a publication ban.

The first witness scheduled to testify is an interpreter nicknamed Max, who was at the scene of the alleged shooting.

Semrau has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the October 2008 fatal shooting of an injured insurgent in Helmand province, west of Kandahar.

The prosecution has said Max will testify that he heard two distinct shots and turned around in time to see Semrau firing the second shot, the barrel of his assault rifle pointed at the wounded man.

The defence has not put forth its case as it's not obliged to, according to court martial rules.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100617/national/semrau_court_martial

              (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Jun 2010)

Saturday???  You can't have anything at KAF on Saturday; it's Market Day!

It was the only thing that made my 221 days there any different and not like Groundhog Day.  In fact, I got so excited about Market Day I would count down to it, starting with Saturday night saying "...well, I'm still here but only seven more days until Market Day."


----------



## Jammer (17 Jun 2010)

What is this mystical  KAF you all speak of...?


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jun 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> What is this mystical  KAF you all speak of...?


:nana:
Now, now.  I've seen you there!  KAF-ite!  ;D


(Translation: "Pot, this is Kettle, over".  "Pot, send, over".  "Kettle, you're black, out".)


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Jun 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> What is this mystical  KAF you all speak of...?



KAF is where the HQ arranges the air support and gun support.  Feel free to fight the war without those if you want Mr Smartypants


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2010)

Capt. Semrau did 'good job' shooting insurgent, witness tells court martial
By: Tara Brautigam, The Canadian Press 19/06/2010
Article Link

An Afghan interpreter commended a Canadian soldier for allegedly shooting a wounded, unarmed Taliban militant to death after seeing smoke emanate from the barrel of his rifle, a court martial heard Saturday.

The interpreter — who testified under the pseudonym Max because his identity is protected by a publication ban — said Capt. Robert Semrau told him to "Stay back," moments before the injured insurgent was shot dead.

"I was happy because he was Taliban," Max said. "I told Capt. Rob, 'You did good job.' "

Max, who was working for the Canadian Forces, said he was on a relatively calm patrol along a cornfield on the evening of Oct. 19, 2008, with Canadian soldiers and the Afghan National Army when they came across a badly injured member of the Taliban.

A grainy cellphone video played for the court martial showed the man lying on the ground with his arm draped across the lower part of his face, a blanket over most of his body.

Max said the man had blood on his body and his eyes were shut.

Capt. Thomas Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, asked Max how he knew the insurgent was still alive.

"He was moving, sir," Max replied.

Shortly later, while he was standing about five to 10 metres away from Semrau, Max heard a single gunshot blast and saw the soldier's gun pointed at the head of the insurgent, the court martial was told.

"I saw the smoke out from his barrel," Max told a four-member panel inside a tent at Kandahar Airfield. But he later added he did not see the bullet enter the man's body.

Max said he was certain the insurgent was dead at that point, even though he didn't check his vital signs and avoided eye contact.

"I was afraid of him," he told Maj. Steve Turner, Semrau's lawyer.

Semrau, 36, is believed to be the first Canadian soldier charged with a battlefield murder. He has pleaded not guilty to four charges, including second-degree murder in the fatal shooting in Helmand province, west of Kandahar. No body was ever recovered.

At times, Max's blunt account of events contradicted past testimony.

He testified repeatedly that the only gunshot he heard that "very calm" day was the one fired at the insurgent. But the court martial has heard that Semrau's military team and fellow ANA soldiers encountered a series of ambushes while on a foot patrol and called in an Apache helicopter strike.

Max said a helicopter shot the insurgent, blowing one leg completely off and leaving the other mostly gone. He said the man also had a gaping wound in his stomach.
More on link


----------



## armyvern (19 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Capt. Semrau did 'good job' shooting insurgent, witness tells court martial
> By: Tara Brautigam, The Canadian Press 19/06/2010
> Article Link
> 
> ...



I fail to see how this is a contradiction ... it's a bleeping war zone. A couple of ambushes may indeed be considered by some to be a "calm day" on the battlefield.

 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I fail to see how this is a contradiction ... it's a bleeping war zone. A couple of ambushes may indeed be considered by some to be a "calm day" on the battlefield.
> 
> :



The contradiction is not whether it was a 'very calm' day, patrol wise, but whether the terp heard any other shots that day.


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Jun 2010)

While I was not there and I am in no position to say what the conditions were temp/humidity/light-wise, I can say that I (like most people on here) have put thousands of rounds through a C7 and have not seen smoke pouring out of the end of the barrel of one after a single round.

I have seen steam coming off of hot barrels (particularly MG barrels) in the rain, and I have seen weapons fired downward that blasted up a dust cloud, but never the old-western style "smoking gun" so to speak.


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Jun 2010)

Petamocto et al.

Like most of us here, I have not witnessed a C7 being fired from a foot or two away at the head of a prone, injured Taliban with both legs blown off shortly after watching him being pummeled by an Apache gun run?  I guess I would have to have been there and not sitting in my living room typing on a keyboard to understand the kind of 'calm' day that Max was experiencing! :-X


----------



## GAP (22 Jun 2010)

Insurgent was ’98 per cent dead,’ Afghan officer tells Semrau court martial 
Article Link

Bill Graveland Kandahar,

Afghansistan — The Canadian Press Published on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 9:32AM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 2:10PM EDT

An injured Taliban fighter who was allegedly executed by Captain Robert Semrau following a violent skirmish in Afghanistan in 2008 was so badly injured he was “98 per cent dead” when the final shots were fired, a veteran Afghan army officer told a court martial Tuesday.

Regardless of when or how the man died, the end result was a foregone conclusion, Captain Shafigullah — who, like many Afghans, goes by only one name — told the four-member panel that will decide Capt. Semrau's guilt or innocence on a charge of second-degree murder.

“I don't know if he was dead before or dead after (the shooting),” Capt. Shafigullah said through an interpreter. “There was no possibility for him to stay alive that day. He could die in five minutes, 10 minutes or a half-hour.”

The events leading up to the October 2008 incident began with a military operation in Taliban-infested Helmand province, which is just west of Kandahar, the province where the bulk of Canada's soldiers are stationed.

There were three units pushing through a region that was not under the Afghan government's control, Capt. Shafigullah recounted. The mission was to retake the area and flush out the enemy.

Afghan and Canadian forces suddenly found themselves in the midst of an ambush and began taking fire. Air support was called in, including a helicopter gunship that opened fire on the enemy's position. The Taliban fighter was blasted out of a tree.

“He was in serious condition,” Capt. Shafigullah said. “His legs were cut off, his belly torn off. He was hardly breathing. His body was not moving.”

“The intestines were coming out. From the middle down, everything was gone.”

Capt. Shafigullah ordered his men to prepare the man for death by covering him with a shawl and turning his face in the direction of Mecca, as is Islamic tradition.

As they prepared to leave, Capt. Semrau said he was going to go back to take some photos of the dying Taliban, he recalled.
More on link


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Jun 2010)

Not exactly sure how one can determine percentage of death.  Obviously it's not about the math and we understand what he means, but I think the medical world sees a person as alive or dead.  

Sometimes my newborn makes me feel 48% dead, though.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Sometimes my newborn makes me feel 48% dead, though.


"Hold on everyone, I'm just going to go take a picture of Petamocto.  You may not want to see this."







Now, in all seriousness, irrespective if a person was going to die in five seconds or five years, if you do anything to cause a person to die, I'm fairly confident that the law still considers you culpable.  I'm just glad I'm not on the jury, and I'm also glad that I didn't face the same situation that Capt Semrau did on that day back in 2008.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Jun 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...and I'm also glad that I didn't face the same situation that Capt Semrau did on that day back in 2008.



You and 33 million other Canadians.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You and 33 million other Canadians.


Exactly.  I mean, I'm not sure what I would have done in that situation.


----------



## kincanucks (22 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You and 33 million other Canadians.



Sorry but notwithstanding the members of the CF, 33 million other Canadians really don't give a rats ass one way or the other.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Jun 2010)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> ...33 million other Canadians really don't give a rats *** one way or the other.



Wha?  Relax, my friend.

Nobody was commenting on Rob or Afghanistan, just that nobody would want to be put in the same position he was in.


----------



## KnightShift (22 Jun 2010)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Sorry but notwithstanding the members of the CF, 33 million other Canadians really don't give a rats *** one way or the other.



This one does.


----------



## Redeye (23 Jun 2010)

That's exactly what makes this whole case so complicated - I was trying to reason out how I felt about it.  If I had been the one standing there, I don't know what I would have done - and if I had been the poor bastard about to meet my maker after being nearly vaporized by a gunship, I certainly would want someone - even my sworn enemy - to end the suffering I'd surely be enduring.

I haven't ever met the man but I don't think that if the allegation of what happened is true that it was done out of malice, but rather out of the sort of strange compassion that happens in war.  I can imagine the thought process that might have led to the decision and certainly cannot say I wouldn't have gone through the same train of thought myself.

The law, however, is fairly clear on the matter.  We don't have the right to make that decision.  That's why the jury is going to have such a hard time I think to resolve it - I think all of them will feel a strong pull to find something, some tinge of reasonable doubt that allows them to acquit.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Exactly.  I mean, I'm not sure what I would have done in that situation.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jul 2010)

6 July, 2010:

"Ethics of war emerge in Semrau military trial: OTTAWA – Thousands of Canadian soldiers have cycled through Kandahar over the years with orders to kill and capture Taliban insurgents, their mortal military enemy.":
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/832698--ethics-of-war-emerge-in-semrau-military-trial?bn=1


----------



## old medic (7 Jul 2010)

Cpt. Semrau to hear closing arguments on home soil
By ALTHIA RAJ
06 July 2010 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/07/06/14629036.html



> OTTAWA — A Canadian captain charged with murder on the battlefield is back from Afghanistan and will be in a military courtroom Wednesday to hear the closing arguments of his case.
> 
> Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, is accused of killing a wounded disarmed Taliban insurgent in October 2008.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2010)

A somewhat similar case in the US Army.


> Capt. Rogelio ''Roger'' Maynulet was found guilty of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum of 10 years in prison. Prosecutors had sought conviction on a more serious charge of assault with intent to commit murder, which carried a 20-year maximum. Maynulet, 30, of Chicago, stood at attention as Lt. Col. Laurence Mixon, the head of the six-member panel, read the verdict at the court-martial. The court was to reconvene later today to consider Maynulet's sentence.
> 
> Mixon did not give reasons for the ruling, which followed 2? hours of deliberations.
> 
> In closing arguments earlier today, prosecutor Maj. John Rothwell said that Maynulet ''played God'' when he shot the wounded driver.


He argued that Maynulet, who was trained in first aid, should not have relied on a medic who said the man was beyond saving and told him ''there's nothing I can do.'' 

''Those five words were enough to make a life and death decision, and he chose to end a life,'' Rothwell said. ''This combat-trained life saver prescribed two bullets. He didn't call his superiors for guidance, didn't consult with his medic.'' 

Maynulet said at this week's court-martial that he shot the man to ''put him out of his misery.'' His lawyers have argued that his actions were in line with the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. 

His defense attorney, Capt. Will Helixon, argued that conflicting testimony from neurosurgeons about whether the Iraqi was still alive at the time of the shooting required that Maynulet be acquitted. 

Maynulet's command was suspended May 25, but he has remained with the Wiesbaden-based unit.


----------



## wildman0101 (13 Jul 2010)

Re: Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan 
« Reply #351 on: June 22, 2010, 20:37:00 »Quote 
Quote from: kincanucks on June 22, 2010, 20:13:02
Sorry but notwithstanding the members of the CF, 33 million other Canadians really don't give a rats *** one way or the other.

I do also.
Scoty B


----------



## GAP (17 Jul 2010)

A Star biography of Capt. Semrau....

A soldier’s code of honour
Published On Sat Jul 17 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/836989--a-soldier-s-code-of-honour?bn=1
Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau

Even back when he was a boy in Moose Jaw, Sask., known simply as Robbie, Capt. Robert Semrau was guided by a code of honour.

First it was a deep-rooted Christian faith, instilled by his parents Jean and Don. Then it was his teenage devotion to ninjutsu, the martial art of the ninja.

That was followed by his rise through the ranks of two armies with their own strict legal and moral standards: first a stint with Britain’s famed Parachute Regiment, then as an officer at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa with the Royal Canadian Regiment’s 3rd battalion.

Along the way, Semrau, a 36-year-old married father of two girls, has literally carried the weak, provided guidance and support to many, and given offence to few.

Scores of people across the world have crossed paths with Semrau, and many have been permanently touched by his generosity. They were horrified to learn a year and a half ago on New Year’s Eve 2008 that the boy, man and soldier they knew had been charged with second-degree murder in the alleged mercy killing of an unarmed, mortally wounded Taliban fighter somewhere along a dusty path in Afghanistan’s Helmand province on Oct. 19, 2008.

“I saw the name, and his name is not a common name, so I said, ‘I might know that guy,’” recalled Tony Tardos.

“I read it and it turned out to be the guy I knew,” said Tardos, a Christian broadcaster from Nashville who bunked with Semrau for from September 1991 to March 1992 at the Bodenseehof Torchbearer Bible School in southern Germany.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2010)

It may not, rightly or wrongly, speak to specific facts of the case. However, I _think_ it is definitely a compelling testimony when speaking to the character of the accused and trying to figure his mindset at the time.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2010)

What is amazing is the Red Star posting something positive about _any_ soldier.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jul 2010)

I'm curious as to the rationale of the defense not presenting any evidence or calling witnesses. Is the intent to show that the charges are so far fetched they don't need to defend against them?


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Jul 2010)

Agreed that I don't understand the strategy either, but one must assume his defence lawyer knows two things more than us:

1.  The Law; and

2.  This case.

But yes, it's difficult to win a debate or an argument if you just sit there and let the other guy make all the points (right or wrong).

Perhaps he feels like he has an iron clad closing statement that will discount all of the prosecution's points (?).


----------



## ballz (17 Jul 2010)

IMHO, other than the defense picking apart witnesses and statements to suggest that they are not credible or false, there isn't really a "defense" to be given in this case. It's simply whether or not the prosecution's evidence is sufficient enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder occurred, since the defendant's moral judgement etc, are irrelevant.

Can the prosecution prove that Capt Semrau shot an already dying, but living person, and killed him?

To me it all comes down to the prosecution proving that the victim was still alive when he was shot, and that Semrau's gun shots were what killed him. Given that he was "98%" dead and all, I don't think the defense needs to say a whole lot. The evidence that the defense would bring up has already been brought up. That evidence is that the man was already dying or already dead. The fact that there is an "already dead" brings with it a very reasonable doubt IMO. So does the fact that he was "already dying," but to me that's not the last nail.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the defence doesn't even have to put forth a case.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> :brickwall:
> 
> Picturing you as an Assisting Officer (maybe...someday) -- and your subordinate getting the death sentence for a Sec. 129



Well apparently I'm not the only one that thinks so


----------



## bjr (17 Jul 2010)

I have watched enough court and read enough court reporting to know that speculating on the evidence based on what you've read in the papers is a good way to misunderstand the real facts and look like an ass. Still, this is a fascinating (although clearly tragic) case because of the lack of a body and the apparent lack of any medical evidence regarding death.

The wounded Taliban is described by the interpreter as alive because he was "moving" "shortly" before Semrau is alleged to have fired the two rounds. The Afghan army officer testified he was unsure if the insurgent was alive or dead before Semrau is alleged to have fired, and in any case, he appeared to have been perhaps "minutes" away from death.

One of the essential elements required to convict someone of murder is proof that he caused the death of another human being. His act does not need to be the sole contributing cause, or even the primary contributing cause. It merely needs to be a "significant" contributing cause of the death. On the facts as I understand them, if the insurgent was alive, Semrau's shots were certainly a significant contributing cause of the death. The shots may have only hastened death by a few minutes (or even seconds), but they were nonetheless a significant cause of death.

Still, one cannot murder someone who is already dead. A person can have the mental state necessary to commit murder (intent to cause death, or intent to cause bodily harm one knows is likely to cause death while reckless about whether death will ensue), but if they do not commit the guilty act (a voluntary unlawful act that is a significant contributing cause to the death of another person), they are not guilty of murder. The Crown must prove the guilty act beyond a reasonable doubt. So regardless of whether the insurgent was "probably" or "likely" alive at the time the shots were fired, unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the insurgent actually was alive, Semrau is not guilty of murder. Given the severe injuries described in the newspapers and at least one witness's uncertainty, I am not sure the Crown has proven its case on this point. On the other hand, if the evidence of the interpreter about movement shortly before the shots is believed, perhaps the Crown has proven its case. The exact evidence, and the credibility of the interpreter, becomes key.

To be guilty of attempted murder, Semrau must have committed an act that went beyond mere preparation to commit the offence (the guilty act), and Semrau must have intended to kill the dying man (the guilty state of mind). The dying man must also NOT have actually died from anything Semrau did. This would be the case if he died of his injures before Semrau fired the shots, with Semrau mistakenly believing he was still alive.

Having said all this, I have no idea what the witnesses actually said, and I'm clearly armchair lawyering, so take this for what it is worth. But if the jury returns a verdict of not guilty on the charge of murder but guilty on attempted murder, I think I can see a path to their conclusion.

Attempted murder carries no mandatory minimum penalty. In theory, Semrau could receive a suspended sentence (with a fine or a period of probation). Attempted murder carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. He would most likely be eligible for parole after seven years if he received a life sentence.  Second degree murder carries an automatic penalty of life in prison, with parole eligibility set by the sentencing judge at between ten and twenty-five years.

As for why you don't call evidence... well, here, Semrau would no doubt be cross-examined on why he apparently believed the insurgent was alive (otherwise why shoot him?). If Semrau's evidence was that he saw the insurgent still moving, this would not be very helpful to his case on the murder vs. attempted murder issue, would it? (Recall he is both a Christian and a soldier. His religious and moral obligations categorically rule out lying under oath, and taking the stand if you're going to admit you're guilty is not a great strategy. Insisting that the Crown prove its case without your evidence, on the other hand, is a perfectly legitimate and moral course of action.) As for other witnesses, probably everyone with information relevant to the case had already been called by the Crown.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jul 2010)

bjr said:
			
		

> I have watched enough court and read enough court reporting to know that speculating on the evidence based on what you've read in the papers is a good way to misunderstand the real facts and look like an ***.



Then you should also understand how the remainder of your post is speculation


----------



## SeanNewman (17 Jul 2010)

BJR,

Do not forget that we're not talking about a civilian court here.  If it were, it probably would have been thrown out in the opening seconds because of so many precedents on the gaping holes.

None of that matters in a military court martial.  Dismiss the mindset of the legal movies "beyond a reasonable doubt..." fallacy, too.  That is why he has charges stacked on him and not just murder; he doesn't have to be found guilty of murder to still take a hit.


----------



## KevinB (17 Jul 2010)

Be that as it may a member has the right to appeal the CM to the Federal Courts, and be reviewed by Judges with years of non-uniform judicial experience.

Look at the statistic of cases thrown out, certainly does not speak well for competance of the rulings from the CF legal system.


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Dismiss the mindset of the legal movies "beyond a reasonable doubt..." fallacy, too.


You need some presiding officer training.  Even in a summary trial, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> You need some presiding officer training.  Even in a summary trial, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.



I have taken part in dozens, and I'm actually quite the Matlock as an Assisting Officer.  You may be quoting the letter of the law, but the magic of the 129 is that it is all-encompassing.  Even with an ND for example, there could be all sorts of things that it happened other than the weapon malfunctioning that were contributing factors, but if one person is holding the weapon that's enough to make them responsible for it.

What I meant in this specific case is that they don't have to find him guilty for murder to still hammer him with the other charges.  They don't need a body, etc...all they have to do is believe a few witnesses to say he did something unethical and un-officer-like.


----------



## Gunner98 (18 Jul 2010)

I disagree, if the panel only believe a few witnesses then the other witnesses would present "reasonable doubt".  

The essential elements of the offence under section 129(2) NDA are:
a. the identity of the accused;
b. the date and place;
c. the conduct alleged in the particular of the charge really occurred; and
d. the prejudice to good order and discipline.

In order to prove the prejudice to good order and discipline under section 129(2) NDA, the prosecution has to adduce evidence:
a. on the nature and the existence of the regulation;
b. on the fact that each accused knew or ought to have known the
standard of conduct required; and
c. on the fact that the conduct of the accused amounted to a contravention
of the regulation, order or instruction published for the general
information and guidance of the Canadian Forces or any part thereof.

The Assisting Officer does not play a "Matlock" role, the last thing I want in Summary Trial over which I preside is a would-be barrack room lawyer.  Perhaps you should review the Assisting Officer's handbook before your next play date with justice


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Jul 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> ...The Assisting Officer does not play a "Matlock" role...



[Sigh].  Never mind.  Thank you for clarifying that for me, because I was wondering why I never got anywhere screaming "Did you or did you not order the code red" at the CO.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2010)

This morning's Winnipeg Sun tells me this case has gone the panel. 

This case should cause us all to pause and reflect on what actions we would take if confronted with a similar situation.


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have taken part in dozens, and I'm actually quite the Matlock as an Assisting Officer.  You may be quoting the letter of the law, but the magic of the 129 is that it is all-encompassing.


Sect 129 NDA may be very broad in its scope.  That does not change the fact that your previous statement was completely wrong:





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Dismiss the mindset of the legal movies "beyond a reasonable doubt..." fallacy, too.


To be convicted of 129, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the member's act or conduct was predjudicial to good order and discipline.

... of course, we all know that Capt Semrau was not charged with 129 (not even in the alternate), so this is all just academic.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...To be convicted of 129, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the member's act or conduct was predjudicial to good order and discipline...



But do you realize how vague that is?  By the letter of the law, all someone has to do is exhale and turn their eyes a certain way and someone can say they are not of positive conduct in terms of good order and discipline.

I have seen 129 applied to pretty much everything under the sun (granted, usually NDs) and I've yet to see someone "get off on a technicality" the way people always do in civilian court.

In fact, the perception is that it will almost always be better off for the accused to simply agree to the findings and take their slap on the wrist.  That's what I was joking about earlier with the "Matlock" comment, because nobody wants to see that.


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> But do you realize how vague that is?  By the letter of the law, all someone has to do is exhale and turn their eyes a certain way and someone can say they are not of positive conduct in terms of good order and discipline.


It is not that simple.  You will learn that when you get to the point of being a charge layer or sitting on the other side of the table.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have seen 129 applied to pretty much everything under the sun (granted, usually NDs) and I've yet to see someone "get off on a technicality" ...


I have never seen anyone "get off on a technicality" either.  I have seen not guilty findings where the evidence did not support the charge beyond a reasonable doubt (even in a few cases of NDs).  

I find it interesting that I've called you out on something and rather than accept your error, you are are fighting other arguments on the periphery.  Is it your hope others will not notice you were completely wrong here:





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Dismiss the mindset of the legal movies "beyond a reasonable doubt..." fallacy...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that I've called you out on something and rather than accept your error, you are are fighting other arguments on the periphery.  Is it your hope others will not notice you were completely wrong here:



*Modus operandi * (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as "method of operating".[1] The term is used to describe someone's habits or manner of working, their method of operating or functioning.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> ....I find it interesting that I've called you out on something and rather than accept your error...



I find it interesting that you would use the words "I called you out..." as if this were somehow an improv rap showdown on the movie 8 Mile.

I have already granted you several posts ago that by the letter of the law you are correct.  If you missed that then I'm sorry, but if you need to see it again:  You are correct on that part.

The technicality part is what I am referring to though, in terms of the difference in the way we do business.  If I worded that incorrectly then I apologize for it.  But I genuinely feel like ithe charge does not need to be "iron clad" / "nailed shut" like it does on the other side of the street.

What I mean is that on civie street, you would have to prove that someone was on step 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.  Where as from what I have seen in our world, if a soldier was seen on step 1 and 2 but is now on 5, it is generally understood that he must have come through steps 3 and 4.  Understood that metaphor is basic but I don't want to quote exact cases here.

Quote: "*Modus operandi * (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as "method of operating".[1] The term is used to describe someone's habits or manner of working, their method of operating or functioning."

RecceGuy,

That's pretty funny, because I could dig up 10+ examples of my previous posts where I have admitted I was wrong and apologized.  I wonder if you could do the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that you would use the words "I called you out..." as if this were somehow an improv rap showdown on the movie 8 Mile.
> 
> I have already granted you several posts ago that by the letter of the law you are correct.  If you missed that then I'm sorry, but if you need to see it again:  You are correct on that part.
> 
> ...



I know its been asked, infered, etc. You also may have answered it, but, if so,  I missed it.

However, I have to ask outright to get an answer.

Have you ever taken the Presiding Officer Certification Training?


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2010)

That you cannot discuss this in proper terms is going to make this discussion near impossible.  I suspect you are suggesting that summary trials are allowed to give greater weight to circumstantial evidence (evidence where requires one to infer something from it).  You should be aware (especially as a good assisting officer) that a ST does not follow the same rules of evidence as a CM.

You might want to be careful, whatever the conclusion you've come to, that your statements really are accurate of a CM as it now appears you are applying conclusions from ST observations to CM procedings without actually understanding the law - and we are talking about law so "to the letter" is the way it is.


----------



## SeanNewman (18 Jul 2010)

All,

Understood from the previous comments that you'd rather I not continue on this thread so I will accept your advice.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> All,
> 
> Understood from the previous comments that you'd rather I not continue on this thread so I will accept your advice.
> 
> Cheers.



How about answering my question first?


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2010)

Just some results from the Court Martial calendar; interesting.
_______________________
 17 Feb 09 Lt Hernandez CFB Wainwright, Building 626, Denwood, AB 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, assault (s. 266 CCC).
Charge 2: S. 97 NDA, drunkenness.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $1000.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_______________________

13 Mar 09 PO1 Bradt Asticou Centre, Block 2600, 241 Cité-des-Jeunes Boulevard, Gatineau, QC 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 112(a) NDA, used a vehicle of the Canadian Forces for an unauthorized purpose.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, breach of public trust by public officer (s. 122 CCC).
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 4): S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act.
Charge 4 (alternate to charge 3): S. 130 NDA, breach of public trust by public officer (s. 122 CCC).
Charge 5 (alternate to charge 6): S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act.
Charge 6 (alternate to charge 5): S. 130 NDA, breach of public trust by public officer (s. 122 CCC).
Charge 7: S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 3: A stay of proceedings. Charges 2, 4: Guilty. Charges 5, 6, 7: *Not guilty*.
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $3000.
__________________________ 
18 Mar 09 Ex-MCpl Floyd Valcartier Garrison, Building 534, l'Académie, Courcelette, QC 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 90 NDA, absent without permission.
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reduction in rank to the rank of private.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
__________________________

28 Mar 09 Ex-OS Ellis CFB Esquimalt, Building 30-N, 2nd floor, Victoria, BC 
Charges and results Charges 1, 2: S. 130  NDA, trafficking (s. 5(1) CDSA).
Charges 3, 4: S. 129(2) NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of nine months.
__________________________

31 Mar 09 MWO (retired) Pelletier CFB Wainwright, Building 626, Denwood, AB 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 114 NDA, stealing when entrusted, by reason of his employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129  NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charges 3, 4: S. 112 NDA, used a vehicle of the Canadian Forces for unauthorized purposes.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charges 2, 3, 4: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $3000.
__________________________

6 Apr 09 MCpl Bolter CFB Edmonton, Building 179, Rhine Road, Edmonton, AB 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 90  NDA, absented himself without leave.
Charge 2: S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charge 3: S. 129 NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Detention for a period of 14 days.
_________________________

10 Apr 09 Lt(N) Price 6080 Young Street, 5th floor, Suite 506, Halifax, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, theft over $5000  (s. 334 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 114 NDA, stealing when entrusted, by reason of his employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charge 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reduction in rank to the rank of sub-lieutenant, a severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2500.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_________________________

16 Apr 09 Cpl Richard CFB Gagetown, Building F1, Oromocto, NB 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A fine in the amount of $200.
_________________________

16 Apr 09 Pte Wilkins CFB Shilo, Building C-106, Portsmouth Road, Shilo, MB 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography  (s. 163.1(4)(b) CCC).
Charge 2: S. 130 NDA, accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1)(b) CCC).
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Not guilty.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_________________________

29 Apr 09 Cpl Venator CFB Gagetown, Building F1, Oromocto, NB 
Charges and results Charges 1, 2, 3: S. 130 NDA, trafficking (ss. 5(1) CDSA).
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3: Guilty of the lesser and included offence of possession.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine in the amount of $1000. The carrying into effect of the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_________________________

8 May 09 Ex-Pte Desrosiers Garrison Valcartier, Building 534, the Academy, Courcelette, QC 
Charges and results Charges 1, 11, 12: S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 2: S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charges 3, 4, 13, 20, 22: S. 130 NDA, failure to comply with a probation order of a court (s. 733.1 CCC).
Charge 5 (alternate to charge 6): S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charge 6 (alternate to charge 5): S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act.
Charge 7 (alternate to charge 8): S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charge 8 (alternate to charge 7): S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act.
Charge 9 (alternate to charge 10): S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charge 10 (alternate to charge 9): S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act .
Charges 14, 23, 24: S. 90 NDA, absented himself without leave.
Charge 15 (alternate to charge 16): S. 101.1 NDA, failed to comply with a condition imposed under division 3.
Charge 16 (alternate to charge 15): S. 101.1 NDA, failed to comply with a condition imposed under division 3.
Charge 17 (alternate to charge 18): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
Charge 18 (alternate to charge 17): S. 129  NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 19: S. 130 NDA, mischief (s. 430(1)(d) CCC).
Charge 21: S. 116(a) NDA, wilfully damaged public property.
Charge 25: S. 101 NDA, failed to comply with a condition imposed under division 3.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22: Withdrawn. Charges 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The carrying into effect of the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended.
This one is close to being the highest volume of charges I've seen in a single proceeding against one individual ... wow.
_______________________

11 May 09 Sgt Finstad 2321 Hansleman Avenue, Saskatoon, SK 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129  NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 3: S. 125 NDA, wilfully made a false entry in a document made by her that was required for official purposes.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 3: Withdrawn. Charge 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A fine in the amount of $200.
_________________________

11 May 09 WO Tourville 713 Beauport Communication Regiment, 535 Ste-Anne Boulevard, Room 100, Québec, QC 
Charges and results Charges 1, 2: S. 130 NDA, a fraud on the government  (s. 121(1)(c) CCC).
Charge 3: S. 130 NDA, a fraud under $5000 (s. 380(1)(b)(ii) CCC).
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2000.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
________________________

14 May 09 Sgt Swaby The Lieutenant-Colonel George Taylor Denison lll Armoury, 1 Yukon Lane, Toronto, ON 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 75h) NDA, when acting as sentry, slept.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 4): S. 75h) NDA, when acting as sentry, slept.
Charge 4 (alternate to charge 3): S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
Charge 5 (alternate to charge 6): S. 75h) NDA, when acting as sentry, slept.
Charge 6 (alternate to charge 5): S. 129 NDA, neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: *Not guilty.* 
_________________________

26 May 09 A/SLt Ward CFB Esquimalt, Building 30-N, 2nd floor, Victoria, BC 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, made a false statement in writing  (s. 362(1)(c) CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, forgery (s. 367 CCC).
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, uttering a forged document  (s. 368 CCC).
FINDINGS: Charge 1: Guilty. Charges 2, 3: A stay of proceedings.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $1500.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
________________________

9 Jun 09 Ex-MCpl Dickson 4 Wing Cold Lake, Wing Theatre, Building 674, Cold Lake, AB 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, fraud (s. 380(1) CCC).
Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: S. 117(f) NDA, an act of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in sections 73 to 128 of the National Defence Act.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charge 2: Guilty. Charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: Withdrawn.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of 21 days, a reduction in rank to the rank of private and a fine in the amount of $8000. The carrying into effect of the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
______________________________


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2010)

Part two (II):

_________________

10 Jun 09 Pte Bridger CFB Petawawa, Building L-106, Petawawa, ON 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, public mischief  (s. 140 CCC).
Charge 2: S. 96(a) NDA, knowingly made a false accusation against a non-commissioned member.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Detention for a period of 30 days. The carrying into effect of the sentence of detention has been suspended.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_____________________________

12 Jun 09 Pte Sterread The Lieutenant-Colonel George Taylor Denison lll Armoury, 1 Yukon Lane, Toronto, ON 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, uttering threats  (s. 264.1 CCC).
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $500.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
____________________________

19 Jun 09 Pte Weir CFB Edmonton, Building 175, Rhine Road, Edmonton, AB 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, sexual assault  (s. 271 CCC).
FINDING: Charge 1: Not guilty.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
____________________________

23 Jun 09 Cpl McGinnis-Armstrong Camp Aldershot, Building 209, Digby Avenue, Aldershot, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 97 NDA, drunkenness.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 3): S. 130 NDA, assaulting a peace officer  (s. 270 CCC).
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 2): S. 86 NDA, quarrelled with a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Charge 4 (alternate to charge 5): S. 130 NDA, mischief (s. 430 CCC).
Charge 5 (alternate to charge 4): S. 116(a) NDA, wilfully damaged public property.
Charge 6 (alternate to charge 7): S. 130 NDA, mischief (s. 430 CCC).
Charge 7 (alternate to charge 6): S. 116(a) NDA, wilfully damaged public property.
Charge 8 (alternate to charge 9): S. 130 NDA, mischief (s. 430 CCC).
Charge 9 (alternate to charge 8): S. 116(b) NDA, wilfully damaged property belonging to another person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Charge 10: S. 130 NDA, mischief (s. 430 CCC).
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Guilty. Charge 3: A stay of proceedings. Charges 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: Withdrawn.
SENTENCE: Detention for a period of seven days.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
________________________

26 Jul 09 Cpl Harris CFB Gagetown, Building F1, Oromocto, NB 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2) : S. 130 NDA, assault  (s. 266 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1) : S. 86 NDA, fought with a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
Charge 3: S. 86 NDA, used provoking speeches toward a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline, tending to cause a quarrel.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charge 2: Guilty. Charge 3: Withdrawn.
SENTENCE: A fine in the amount of $200 and confinement to barracks for a period of five days.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
___________________________

27 Jul 09 Cpl Clark Mewata Armoury, 810 - 11th Street S.W., Calgary, AB 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, operating while impaired  (s. 253(1)(a) CCC).
Charge 2: S. 130 NDA, dangerous operation  (s. 249(1)(a) CCC).
Charge 3: S. 97 NDA, drunkenness.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Withdrawn. Charge 3: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2000.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
____________________________

29 Jul 09 Pte Blanchard CFB Edmonton, Building 404, Edmonton, AB 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 90 NDA, absented himself without leave.
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Detention for a period of five days and a fine in the amount of $1500.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
____________________________

6 Aug 09 Pte Nieuwendorp CFB Esquimalt, Building 30-N, 2nd floor, Victoria, BC 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, uttering threats  (s. 264.1(1) CCC).
FINDING: Charge 1: Not guilty.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
____________________________

11 Aug 09 Cpl Lumb ASU/CFB Petawawa, Building L-106, Room 8, 48 Nicklin Parade Square, Petawawa, ON 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, trafficking  (ss. 5(1) CDSA).
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of four months.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_________________________

18 Aug 09 Cpl Wells CFB Borden, Building 51, 501 Cambrai Road, Borden, ON 
Charge 1: S. 129  NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDING: Charge 1: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2000.
_________________________

26 Aug 09 OS Welsh 6080 Young Street, 5th floor, suite 506, Halifax, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 97 NDA, drunkenness.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 3): S. 130 NDA, assault (s. 266 CCC).
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 2): S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.

FINDINGS: Charge 1: Withdrawn. Charge 2 (alternate to charge 3): A stay of proceedings. Charge 3 (alternate to charge 2): Guilty. 
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2500.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
________________________

4 Sep 09 Sgt McLaren Land Force Atlantic Area Training Centre, Detachment Aldershot, Building 216, Kentville, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 88 NDA, deserted.
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 90 NDA, absented himself without leave.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charge 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reduction in rank to the rank of corporal.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
___________________________

18 Sep 09 Cpl Strong CFB Trenton, Building 22, 74 Polaris Avenue, Trenton, ON 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 3): S. 130 NDA, careless use of a firearm (s. 86(1) CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 3): S. 83 NDA, disobeyed a lawful command of a superior officer.
Charge 3 (alternate to charges 1, 2): S. 129 NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 3: Not guilty.
__________________________

22 Sep 09 Ex-WO Deschamps The Sherbrooke Hussars Armoury, 315 William, Sherbrooke, QC 
Charges and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, sexual assault (s. 271 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 3): S. 130 NDA, indecent acts (s. 173(1)(a) CCC).
Charge 3 (alternate to charge 2): S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.
Charges 4, 5: S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2, 4: Withdrawn. Charges 3, 5: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $4000.
________________________________

22 Sep 09 Pte Cross 17 Wing, Building 61, Winnipeg, MB 
Charge and results Charge 1: S. 130 NDA, sexual assault  (s. 271 CCC).
FINDING: Charge 1: Not guilty.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
________________________________

30 Sep 09 Cpl Wilcox Sydney Garrison, Sydney, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, manslaughter while using, carrying or handling a firearm (s. 236(a) CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, criminal negligence causing death by using, possessing, carrying or handling a firearm (s. 220(a) CCC).
Charge 3: S. 124 NDA, negligently performed a military duty imposed on him.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charges 2, 3: Guilty.
SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of four years and dismissal from Her Majesty's service.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
_____________________________

5 Oct 09 Pte Seifi Moss Park Armoury, 130 Queen Street East, Toronto, ON 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, sexual assault (s. 271 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charges 1, 2: Proceedings terminated.
__________________________

6 Oct 09 OS Durante 6080 Young Street, 5th floor, suite 506, Halifax, NS 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, assault causing bodily harm  (s. 267 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 86 NDA, fought with a person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: A stay of proceedings. Charge 2: Guilty.
SENTENCE: A severe reprimand and a fine in the amount of $2000.
(Note the lack of S. 129 - that 'all-encompassing' charge)
______________________________

9 Oct 09 Ex-Pte Seifi Moss Park Armoury, 130 Queen Street East, Toronto, ON 
Charges and results Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, sexual assault (s. 271 CCC).
Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 129 NDA, an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
FINDINGS: Charge 1: Guilty of the lesser and included offence of assault. Charge 2: Not guilty.
SENTENCE: A reprimand and a fine in the amount of $500.
______________________________

Copied directly over from the Court Martial results website. Yellow bits are mine. It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of serious charges laid above where the member was NOT charged with that supposedly 'all-encompassing & always found guilty' S. 129. There's also a whole bunch where the finding on an S. 129 was NOT GUILTY. That should pretty much show the unworthiness of any argument that it is the "be all to end all charge" and that one can not wiggle out of it if they find themselves charged with it.

*Can the myths about S. 129 cease now??*


----------



## kratz (18 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> *SNIP*
> 
> Copied directly over from the Court Martial results website. Yellow bits are mine. It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of serious charges laid above where the member was NOT charged with that supposedly 'all-encompassing & always found guilty' S. 129. There's also a whole bunch where the finding on an S. 129 was NOT GUILTY. That should pretty much show the unworthiness of any argument that it is the "be all to end all charge" and that one can not wiggle out of it if they find themselves charged with it.
> 
> *Can the myths about S. 129 cease now??*



Your point was well made. 

Generally speaking, people tend to abbreviate what they know is correct and new people hearing the abbreviated version take that as accurate. This is word of mouth modification is one of the ways incorrect information is passed along.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> .....I could dig up *10+ examples* of my previous posts where I have admitted *I was wrong*.......


You're being way too modest.




			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Understood from the previous comments that *you'd rather I not continue*  on this thread so I will accept your advice.


Good start.

Since you draw that sentiment quite routinely, perhaps you should just stop posting in *all* threads where it's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

(aka - *stay in your lane*) You'd think you'd tire of seeing that


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

Jury deliberating fate of Canadian soldier charged with battlefield murder:
 link 
GATINEAU, Que. -- The fate of Capt. Robert Semrau is in the hands of four military officers who must decide whether he is guilty of killing in cold blood a severely wounded Taliban fighter.

The four-member jury retired to consider its verdict Saturday after Judge Jean-Guy Perron delivered four hours of final instructions in Semrau's court martial, which was held in Gatineau.

Deliberations continued Sunday and were set to resume on Monday.

Semrau, 36, of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa in Ontario, faces four charges, including second-degree murder, for allegedly firing two tracer bullets into the wounded insurgent on Oct. 19, 2008. 

He is the first Canadian soldier to face a trial over allegations of a battlefield murder and has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## bick (19 Jul 2010)

NOT GUILTY.........awesome


----------



## Dog Walker (19 Jul 2010)

Verdict just in.

Not guilty of second degree murder.

Guilty on lesser charges.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Jul 2010)

*Semrau acquitted of murder in battlefield death*
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100719/semrau-court-martial-verdict-100719/



> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> Date: Monday Jul. 19, 2010 2:11 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Ammo (19 Jul 2010)

GATINEAU — Capt. Robert Semrau has been found guilty of disgraceful conduct in connection with the battlefield death of severely wounded Taliban fighter.

Semrau has been found not guilty Monday of the more serious charges of second-degree murder and attempted murder. He was also found not guilty of failing to perform a military duty.


The court was to reconvene at 3 p.m. to discuss sentencing. 

More here http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Jury+reaches+verdict+Semrau+murder+trial/3296141/story.html




Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Jury+reaches+verdict+Semrau+murder+trial/3296141/story.html#ixzz0u9az6Ybe


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2010)

Good to hear.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2010)

A bit more from the Canadian Press:


> An unprecedented court martial has found Canadian Forces Capt. Robert Semrau not guilty of murder in a battlefield shooting in Afghanistan.
> 
> He was convicted on the lesser military charge of disgraceful conduct.
> 
> The five-member court panel, the equivalent of a military jury, spent two and a half days considering the case against the 36-year-old officer ....



Still a serious charge, but here's hoping life for all concerned can go on soon.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2010)

YES! YES! YES! YES!..... saw it on the news at 1500 hrs.   Frankly I did not have faith in the system, I am relieved that I was wrong .


----------



## Pencil Tech (19 Jul 2010)

That is good news. I hope the sentencing is lenient.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> *Can the myths about S. 129 cease now??*



My father's military life ended 65 years ago and he could quote the relevant section of the day.  I assume he ran into it more than once because he always managed to end up as a private.  Mind you in those days only guilty people were charged.  As they said "March the guilty b*****d in."  There is a difference.  In civilian court, being not guilty of the offence means walking away.  Military courts do have a catch-all and in your examples it is applied fairly frequently.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Jul 2010)

July 19, 2010 
Semrau acquitted of murder 
By CBC News
CBC News 
Capt. Robert Semrau has been found guilty by a military panel of disgraceful conduct but not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of a wounded Afghan insurgent. 
Capt. Robert Semrau has been found guilty by a military panel of disgraceful conduct but not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of a wounded Afghan insurgent. 

The disgraceful conduct charge carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Semrau has not yet been sentenced.

The four-member panel in Gatineau, Que., handed down the decision Monday. It came after three days of deliberations in the court martial of the Canadian Forces captain charged in a battlefield death in Afghanistan. 

Semrau, 36, was accused of firing two rounds from his rifle into a dying Taliban fighter in Helmand province of Afghanistan in October 2008. 

A question from the jury about evidence kept lawyers arguing for hours, preventing a verdict on the weekend.

Semrau never testified, but an Afghan army captain, who was on the patrol with Semrau, testified the Taliban fighter was "98 per cent dead" when he was found. 

Semrau was charged with four offences, including second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for 10 years; attempt to commit murder using a firearm and negligently performing a military duty imposed on him. He was found not guilty of the latter two charges. 

Now based at CFB Petawawa, the married father of two young children grew up in Moose Jaw, Sask.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/19/semrau-court-martial.html


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

From the Gazette:
Hickey announced a guilty verdict on the charge of disgraceful conduct, a charge laid under the National Defence Act.

The court was to reconvene later in the afternoon to consider Semrau's sentence in the case. Semrau faces a maximum of five years of incarceration, but the judge could impose a lesser penalty, including Semrau's dismissal from the Canadian Forces.  link 

          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

From a legal POV, how can he possibly be convicted of disgraceful conduct if he was found not guilty of the actual acts (murder, attempted murder and negligent performance of duty) the acts for which, presumably, the disgraceful conduct conviction refer to?


----------



## HavokFour (19 Jul 2010)

Well I for one an glad he didn't get a life sentence.

I admit I didn't have much faith in the system.


----------



## Gunner98 (19 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> From a legal POV, how can he possibly be convicted of disgraceful conduct if he was found not guilty of the actual acts (murder, attempted murder and negligent performance of duty) the acts for which, presumably, the disgraceful conduct conviction refer to?



Simple, if the panel may have decided that there was doubt about the living status of the casualty and decided he was likely dead or near death. Shooting rounds into the body could easily be considered - disgraceful conduct, as it covers a wide range of actions.

“93. Every person who behaves in a cruel or disgraceful manner is guilty of an offence and on
conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.”


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Well I for one an glad he didn't get a life sentence.


To be clear, we still don't know what his sentence will be for disgraceful conduct, so it's not done quite yet.

This summary so far from the CF:


> A military panel comprised of four Canadian Forces (CF) members has found Captain Robert Semrau guilty of disgraceful conduct in the shooting death of a wounded insurgent that occurred in Afghanistan in October 2008.
> 
> In summary, the military panel reached the following verdict:
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (19 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> From a legal POV, how can he possibly be convicted of disgraceful conduct if he was found not guilty of the actual acts (murder, attempted murder and negligent performance of duty) the acts for which, presumably, the disgraceful conduct conviction refer to?



I suspect (my personal opinion, not a legal one) he was found not guilty because they could not prove without a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder, or that his actions were those that "a group of reasonable persons in the same situation would have done".

As for dishonourable conduct, to harm a prisoner or to shoot a corpse on the battlefield could be considered such...

just my  :2c:


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Simple, if the panel may have decided that there was doubt about the living status of the casualty and decided he was likely dead or near death. Shooting rounds into the body could easily be considered - disgraceful conduct, as it covers a wide range of actions.
> 
> “93. Every person who behaves in a cruel or disgraceful manner is guilty of an offence and on
> conviction is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.”


It's a bit like Schroedinger's Cat, isn't it? If he pumped rounds into a living body it was murder or attempted murder; if he was shooting a dead body, it's committing an indignity to a corpse. Neither crime of which he was convicted of. Hence my confusion about how he could be convicted of an act for which he was not convicted.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> It's a bit like Schroedinger's Cat, isn't it? If he pumped rounds into a living body it was murder or attempted murder; if he was shooting a dead body, it's committing an indignity to a corpse. Neither crime of which he was convicted of. Hence my confusion about how he could be convicted of an act for which he was not convicted.



Yes, it is like Schroedinger's Cat,_ without the facts of the case_, we can only surmise if the cat is dead or alive.


----------



## HavokFour (19 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To be clear, we still don't know what his sentence will be for disgraceful conduct, so it's not done quite yet.
> 
> This summary so far from the CF:



Well in that case I'm going to brace myself for the worst. 

I think I'll get a head start and write my angry letters to whom it may concern now.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Jul 2010)

The CBC National news at 1700 local interviewed their journalist on the Semrau trail results.
After reporting the results form today she said sentencing is still up in the air as the entire credibility of such court martials is under review.?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Jul 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The CBC National news at 1700 local interviewed their journalist on the Semrau trail results.
> After reporting the results form today she said sentencing is still up in the air as the entire credibility of such court martials is under review.?



Under review by whom?  I am not sure the civilian catch and release system would work in the military.


----------



## Dog Walker (19 Jul 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Under review by whom?  I am not sure the civilian catch and release system would work in the military.



I think that CBC said where is a pending Charter challenge to the court martial system.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

The entire credibility ?
DND Introduces Amendments To The National Defence Act 
OTTAWA - The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, tabled a bill in Parliament today that introduces significant amendments to the National Defence Act . The amendments contained in Bill C-41, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, reflect recommendations made in the 2003 report by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, as well as by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in their May 2009 report, Equal Justice: Reforming Canada’s System of Courts Martial .

This bill is the Government’s legislative response to the Lamer Report recommendations. Two similar bills, C-7 in 2006 and C-45 in 2008, were introduced by the Government but did not advance beyond First Reading.

“In acting upon the recommendations in the Lamer Report and the Senate Committee’s Report, we are continuing to ensure that the military justice system is effective, fair and transparent. This bill is part of an ongoing process to ensure that the military justice system remains one in which Canadians can have trust and confidence,” said Minister MacKay. “The amendments will also improve the efficiency of the grievance system and the military police complaints process.”

“This legislation further enhances the effectiveness of the military justice system in serving the operational needs of the Canadian Forces,” said Brigadier-General Blaise Cathcart, Judge Advocate General.

The amendments tabled today will:

* further enhance the independence of military judges;
* enhance the flexibility of the court martial system by establishing a reserve military judges panel;
* expand the pool of Canadian Forces members eligible to serve on a court martial panel;
* provide for additional sentencing options, including absolute discharges, intermittent
* entences and restitution orders;
* improve the efficiency of the grievance and military police complaints processes; and
* establish the position of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal in legislation and specify the Provost Marshal’s responsibilities.

The Lamer Report was the first independent review of the provisions and operation of Bill C-25, which amended the National Defence Act in 1998. The Senate Committee’s report made a number of recommendations relating to the military justice system.

          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## SeanNewman (19 Jul 2010)

I am holding to my word of not posting about military law, but as per the MND's statement, anything done to improve the grievance system would be a step in the right direction.

It is simply cripplingly ineffective now, to the point where some members wait over a year with a black financial cloud hanging over their heads before they can get an answer/decision on something they're entitled to.


----------



## McG (19 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> The entire credibility ?
> DND Introduces Amendments To The National Defence Act


The NDA is regularly amended on a regular review cycle.  This would have nothing to do with calling into question the credibility of Courts Martial or the Military Justice System.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

From the article;
 "Semrau faces a maximum of five years of incarceration, but the judge could impose a lesser penalty, including Semrau's dismissal from the Canadian Forces." 

Is dismissal considered a lesser penalty ?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jul 2010)

Yes.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes.



Is that because he would automatically get the boot after doing "pen work" for five years ?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2010)

NDA s139 ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5/FullText.html ):



> Scale of punishments
> 139. (1) The following punishments may be imposed in respect of service offences and each of those punishments is a punishment less than every punishment preceding it:
> (a) imprisonment for life;
> (b) imprisonment for two years or more;
> ...


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Is that because he would automatically get the boot after doing "pen work" for five years ?



In the absence of the death penalty, taking away a citizen's liberty through confinement is the most powerful sanction that a state can impose. Taking away someone's job falls below that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jul 2010)

Captain Semrau is acquitted of the main charge but found guilty and lesser charges is BS. This was more a political trial than a criminal one. The prosecution was never going to get a conviction on the main charge. This is similar to the Haditha case where an officer was acquitted on the main charge but was convicted of making a false statement about an event that never happened. Talk about Orwellian. Bottom line Semrau wont go to prison but his military career is over.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> In the absence of the death penalty, taking away a citizen's liberty through confinement is the most powerful sanction that a state can impose. Taking away someone's job falls below that.



I know. But there are other such lesser punishments as listed in the above scale. 
I always thought that you got the boot after doing 2 years or more in jail.
And from what I read in that scale, he could be rewarded a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jul 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Captain Semrau is acquitted of the main charge but found guilty and lesser charges is BS. This was more a political trial than a criminal one. The prosecution was never going to get a conviction on the main charge. This is similar to the Haditha case where an officer was acquitted on the main charge but was convicted of making a false statement about an event that never happened. Talk about Orwellian. Bottom line Semrau wont go to prison but his military career is over.



You know it was over as soon as the charges were laid....


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I know. But there are other such lesser punishments as listed in the above scale.
> I always thought that you got the boot after doing 2 years or more in jail.
> And from what I read in that scale, he could be rewarded a slap on the wrist.



Sorta. Courts martial only have the power to sentence an offender to terms of up to two years less a day at Club Ed. He goes into the federal system if he gets federal time. Here's hoping he doesn't.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Captain Semrau is acquitted of the main charge but found guilty and lesser charges is BS. This was more a political trial than a criminal one. The prosecution was never going to get a conviction on the main charge. This is similar to the Haditha case where an officer was acquitted on the main charge but was convicted of making a false statement about an event that never happened. Talk about Orwellian. Bottom line Semrau wont go to prison but his military career is over.



I could not agree more.  IMO this trial smells more of political optics and pandering to the PC'ness ingrained in parts of today's society.  Thus, why I did not trust the system and was shocked and pleased of the acquittal but disappointed to see a conviction on the lessor charge.  I hate to see the "Rat" even win this much of what I am sure is satisfaction.


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I hate to see the "Rat" even win this much of what I am sure is satisfaction.



Who's the Rat? Someone who should have lied under oath?


----------



## McG (19 Jul 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I hate to see the "Rat" even win this much of what I am sure is satisfaction.





			
				40below said:
			
		

> Who's the Rat? Someone who should have lied under oath?


:stop:

There will be no fighting about "guy was a rat" or "would have been a cover-up" or any of that nonesense.  This thread has been down that path before, and those who want to relive it can go back at re-read the olds posts, but we will not be dragging this thread back down that very heated path again.

Cheers,
The Staff.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> Sorta. Courts martial only have the power to sentence an offender to terms of up to two years less a day at Club Ed.


Exactly
So, he could get less than that.
"going on charge" seemed to and somehow always seems to be justified by
 "against the good order and discipline..etc". 
So........Is the lesser charge related to or somehow weighed by the gravity of the alledged charges
of which he was found not guilty? Thus somehow eyeing the high end of punishment (dismissal) or
for that matter (imprisonment). Or more toward the extreme low end..... reprimand......fine, or less?


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Exactly
> So, he could get less than that.
> "going on charge" seemed to and somehow always seems to be justified by
> "against the good order and discipline..etc".
> ...



I dunno. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a JAG, but I have spent a lot of time in court and he could get off with just a fine and/or reprimand. Given that he wasn't convicted of the principle charges, the judge has a lot of leeway when it comes to sentence. I'm really watching this with interest. And remember his lawyers had already filed a pre-trial objecting to court-martial jurisdiction:

# Decision relating to an application under s. 191 of the National Defence Act  and article 112.03 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces in relation to a violation of ss. 7 and 11d) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms seeking an order to amend paragraph 10 of this court martial administrative instruction issued by the court martial administrator on 17 December 2009 with regard to the dress of court martial participants, 25 January 2010 (PDF Version, 34.1 KB)
# Decision respecting an application pursuant to s. 191 of the National Defence Act and article 112.03 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces that the court lacks jurisdiction becuase the trial was convened to take place at a location other than where the alleged offence occurred, 27 January 2010 (PDF Version, 53.9 KB)
# Decision respecting an application that the general court martial is not an independent and impartial tribunal made under ss. 7 and 11d) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, 28 January 2010 (PDF Version, 111.0 KB)
# Decision further to an application alleging a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, 1 February 2010 (PDF Version, 105.0 KB)
# Decision respecting an application that the selection process for the members of the general court martial and the composition of the panel contravenes the rights of the accused under s. 7 and s. 11(d) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, 10 February 2010 (PDF Version, 67.7 KB)
# Reasons for decision relating to an application pursuant to s. 191 of the National Defence Act and article 112.03 and 112.05(5)(e) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces that the ss. 139 to 149.2 and 195 of the National Defence Act violate ss. 7, 11(d), and 12 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, 5 February 2010 (PDF Version, 27.8 KB)

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010/semrau-ra-eng.asp


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jul 2010)

Both the prosecution and the defence will make representations about the crime he has been found guilty of, both will make recommenations as to sentencing, together with any relevant precedents, for the judge to consider.

And the judge will craft a sentence.  If it includes a custodial element, the defence may request that he be released pending appeal (that is, not go directly to jail) and rather be kept free until the CMAC (Court Martial Appeal Court) renders a decision.

I suspect the prosecution will push for jail; the defence for a severe reprimand (or similar); whichever side wins out, there will be an appeal to the CMAC.

Or, unlikely, the defence and prosecution will come to an agreement and submit a joint reocmmendation, that the judge is not 100% obliged to follow, but would only go against under very rare circumstances.


Besides, the defence raised numerous procedural grounds in advance of trial (mostly rejected by the judge); any of those can give rise to an appeal as well.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2010)

I question for those who've spent more time in/around the CF Military Justice System than I have... Can the not guilty finding on the charges be reversed if he went to CMAC for the guilty finding? Or is the court's decision on that matter final, unless the Prosecution appeals the decision (if they have the power to do so)?


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Both the prosecution and the defence will make representations about the crime he has been found guilty of, both will make recommenations as to sentencing, together with any relevant precedents, for the judge to consider.
> 
> And the judge will craft a sentence.  If it includes a custodial element, the defence may request that he be released pending appeal (that is, not go directly to jail) and rather be kept free until the CMAC (Court Martial Appeal Court) renders a decision.
> 
> ...


I claim no inside knowledge of this case, but you're absolutely, positively gonna see a joint sentencing recommendation on this one. I'd bet a truckload of beer on it.


----------



## 40below (19 Jul 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I question for those who've spent more time in/around the CF Military Justice System than I have... Can the not guilty finding on the charges be reversed if he went to CMAC for the guilty finding? Or is the court's decision on that matter final, unless the Prosecution appeals the decision (if they have the power to do so)?



Well, yeah. Both the prosecution and defence can appeal to CMAC, but only on the facts presented in court. It acts as a military Court of Appeals. No court decision is ever final unless it's the Supremes that issues it.


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> It's a bit like Schroedinger's Cat, isn't it? If he pumped rounds into a living body it was murder or attempted murder; if he was shooting a dead body, it's committing an indignity to a corpse.



I challenge you to finding that one in the NDA.  In the CCC yes (Indignity to a Dead Body [182(b)], but he was not in Canada at the time of the offence.  The evidence states that he not only pumped the rounds but then told several people he had done it, would do it again and did not regret it.  Sounds like disgraceful conduct under the NDA.

This is a difference between review and appeal.

As for Review for Courts Martial:

QR&O 116.04 – REVIEW AUTHORITY – COURTS MARTIAL

Subsections 249(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:

“249. (1) The review authority in respect of findings of guilty made and punishments imposed by courts martial is the Governor in Council.
(2) The review of a finding of guilty made and any punishment imposed by a court martial must be on application of the person found guilty or the Chief of the Defence Staff.”

The powers of the Governor in Council to quash a finding of guilty, substitute a new finding for any finding of guilty and alter the sentence of a court martial, which are set out in Part III, Division 11 of the National Defence Act, draw their origins from the Crown Prerogative. These powers are discretionary and may be used to grant exceptional remedies under exceptional circumstances.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jul 2010)

If you thought this was just a Canadian incident, think again. This from Australia off the much trusted www.news.com.au ... 

Canada, the whole world is watching.

Personally, I am pleased with the verdict in regards to the 'M' charge. I am however disappointed with the other verdict, and I only hope the good CAPT will get the mininum, and take discharge from the CF, and get on with his life. I wish him much success with his future endeavours in whichever profession he chooses.

I view him as a victim of political correctness gone mad.  

I also noted the treatment of the wounded TB by the ANA, as the ANA spat on, kicked and abused him. This is the first I had heard of this.

Shared IAW the usual...  http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/canadian-acquitted-of-taliban-murder/story-e6frfku0-1225894406301


Canadian acquitted of Taliban murder 

From correspondents in Ottawa From: AFP July 20, 2010 9:33AM Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these? 

A MILITARY panel has acquitted a Canadian officer of murder over the death an unarmed and badly wounded insurgent in Afghanistan but sentenced him to up to five years in jail for "disgraceful conduct" for what the soldier described as a mercy killing. 

But neither Canadian, nor international law recognises mercy killings.

Captain Robert Semrau, 36, was today in Canada found not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder or negligent performance of military duty, despite the four-member military panel concluding he had indeed shot and killed an unarmed Taliban fighter.

The lesser disgraceful conduct charge carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

The Canadian National Defence Department said Semrau's sentence would be determined at a later date.

The drama unfolded on October 19, 2008, as Canadian soldiers faced an increasingly tough insurgency as they defended key positions in the region.


Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Semrau was mentoring Afghan soldiers under a NATO program.

Following several clashes, British and Afghan troops along with their Canadian mentors came across two "presumed" Taliban fighters: one dead, the other was too severely wounded for treatment on site.

According to prosecutors, the wounded man was "insulted, spat upon and kicked" by Afghan soldiers in Semrau's company.

His rifle, ammo and vest were taken and the patrol moved on, deciding to leave his fate "in Allah's hands".

Semrau, and a Canadian private under his command and an Afghan interpreter codenamed Max soon returned to photograph the two insurgents, after deciding they could be "high value targets".

They found the wounded man still breathing, prosecutors said.

The private snapped two pictures of the wounded man as Semrau stood guard.

Semrau then told Max and the private to "head back" as they "should not have to see this", prosecutor Captain Thomas Fitzgerald had said in earlier proceedings.

The pair walked a short distance "when they heard two distinct shots," he added.

The private "whirled around thinking he'd been caught in another ambush", his gun ready. He saw the victim was "no longer moving".

Semrau is alleged to have told the private under his command "that he couldn't live with himself if he had left a wounded human being and nobody should be made to suffer like that".

Later that day, Semrau was overhead saying that he fired the shots that killed the insurgent and that "anyone would do the same for any other human being in that situation. He is still a human being and should not suffer like that".


----------



## captloadie (20 Jul 2010)

I'm having a problem understanding some of the sentiments by posters on this subject. People seem upset that he didn't get off scott free. The way I see it, he either did end the TB's suffering, which I'm fine with calling a mercy killing. I'm not even against it, but I know the law says its wrong, and breaking the law means some sort of punishment. 

The other option is the TB was already dead, in which case he did, as per the evidence, fire rounds into the corpse, which could be construed as desecrating a body, which is also against the law, and requires that he be punished.

From all I have heard, and the support he has received here, he is an intelligent, decent human being. I think he understands there were going to be consequences, and unless the punishment is grossly unjust, he will accept it and go on with his life.


----------



## McG (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> It's a bit like Schroedinger's Cat, isn't it? If he pumped rounds into a living body it was murder or attempted murder; if he was shooting a dead body, it's committing an indignity to a corpse. Neither crime of which he was convicted of. Hence my confusion about how he could be convicted of an act for which he was not convicted.


Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to anything.  I do not believe the particulars of this charge are published anywhere readily accessable, so we really do not know what was proven "in that he did ...."  

Without knowing the particulars of the charge under s. 93, we really have nothing to form solid opinions on.



			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I challenge you to finding that one in the NDA.  In the CCC yes (Indignity to a Dead Body [182(b)], but he was not in Canada at the time of the offence.  The evidence states that he not only pumped the rounds but then told several people he had done it, would do it again and did not regret it.  Sounds like disgraceful conduct under the NDA.


CCC offences can be charged under section 130 of the NDA.  Perhaps the prosecution should have laid such a s. 130 charge as an alternate to the first and second charges.  However (as stated above), the s.93 charge was not an alternate to the first two charges.  He was not found guilty of the third charge by way of just not meeting the threshold of either the other two charges.


----------



## 40below (20 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to anything.  I do not believe the particulars of this charge are published anywhere readily accessable, so we really do not know what was proven "in that he did ...."



Yeah, well this was an open trial and the jury made its decision based _solely_ on the facts entered as evidence at that well-reported trial, so we pretty much should know at this point on what facts he was convicted. Star Chambers and silent convictions have no place in the legal system.


----------



## armyvern (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> Yeah, well this was an open trial and the jury made its decision based _solely_ on the facts entered as evidence at that well-reported trial, so we pretty much should know at this point on what facts he was convicted. Star Chambers and silent convictions have no place in the legal system.



Did you even understand the context of his statement? It isn't "published anywhere readily accessible" as to why they convicted him & what the particulars of *that* charge were. "Star Chambers and silent convictions."  :

Needless to say ... there was testimony to the fact that he fired 2 rounds into either a live person or a dead body. Apparently, the preponderance of the evidence given at CM did not support a finding of Guilty to murder or attempted murder. That testimony however of firing the two rounds, could indeed have been the preponderance of the evidence enough to convict on the disgraceful conduct (the conduct which occured when he fired two rounds into that body).

I was happy with the outcome. I was expecting worse given the LOAC that we are all subject to.


----------



## 40below (20 Jul 2010)

Thanks for that input, Vern, but "Preponderance of evidence" means absolutely *nothing* in a criminal trial. That's the sort of 'evidence' that gets thrown out in the pretrials or causes hasty voir dires if a lawyer is stupid enough to try and introduce it. You're confusing it with civil lawsuits. 

The standard in criminal trials, and I encourage you to look this up to clear your thinking, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."


----------



## Ammo (20 Jul 2010)

Murder acquittal doesn’t go far enough: Worthington
Good comments in the today's Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/07/19/14760511.html


----------



## observor 69 (20 Jul 2010)

Excellent article Ammo thanks for the link.
Which leads me to ask can anyone describe what would be the correct scenario that the Capt. should have carried out?
Is it not correct that he had radioed for instructions and was told to try and help the injured TB. Any path of action that I can see still ends up with the TB dead even if of natural causes.
Seems very analogous to a Doctor in a hospital being constrained by law from committing euthanasia on a dying patient but rather forced to watch the patient suffer a lingering painful death.


----------



## armyvern (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> Thanks for that input, Vern, but "Preponderance of evidence" means absolutely *nothing* in a criminal trial. That's the sort of 'evidence' that gets thrown out in the pretrials or causes hasty voir dires if a lawyer is stupid enough to try and introduce it. You're confusing it with civil lawsuits.
> 
> The standard in criminal trials, and I encourage you to look this up to clear your thinking, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."



Suggest that you read up on Military Law ... even Semrau's lawyer used the term in it's proper context within our Law. Google it.


----------



## McG (20 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> The standard in criminal trials, and I encourage you to look this up to clear your thinking, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."


This is the same standard for courts martial.


----------



## Ammo (22 Jul 2010)

Semrau breaks silence - Ready to return to Afghan war, officer says in exclusive interview
By PETER WORTHINGTON, Toronto Sun

As he uneasily awaits sentencing for “disgraceful behaviour” in the shooting death of a wounded Taliban insurgent in Afghanistan, 2008, Capt. Robert Semrau has for the first time expressed his feelings on the case.

In an e-mail, he clearly hopes he can continue to serve his country in the army, and is both surprised and grateful for the support he’s received from all parts of Canada — and certainly from both serving and retired soldiers everywhere.

Although found “not guilty” of murdering the critically wounded Taliban fighter who ambushed the patrol he was mentoring, Semrau knows the court martial judge, Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, will determine his fate on Monday, in Gatineau, Que., when he imposes a sentence that could be five years in jail, or one that will enable him to continue soldiering.

As for the Afghanistan mission, Semrau is positive: “I’ve always maintained that if called upon, I’d go back in a heartbeat! And not just to stay out of jail. That’s the job, that’s what I’ve signed up for, and if the country calls, off I go.” 

More here http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/07/21/14784436.html


----------



## cn (22 Jul 2010)

I'm glad to see that Capt. Semrau would still go back to Afghanistan, even after all this mess.  It speaks volumes to his commitment as a soldier and personally, I think it would be a shame if he was forced out.   :yellow:


----------



## Ammo (26 Jul 2010)

Semrau sentencing Monday
OTTAWA - A soldier who shot a dying Afghan on the battlefield will find out Monday whether he'll spend five years in prison.

Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, who shot a severely injured Afghan in what's been described as a mercy killing, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct last week. The maximum sentence under the National Defence Act is five years in prison.

The military panel who heard the case found him not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his military duty.

Before the sentencing begins, military judge Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron will rule on a defence request to consider Criminal Code sentencing options for Semrau, who has two kids with his wife Amelie. Those provisions, like house arrest, don't exist under the National Defence Act.

Alain Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, says he doesn't expect prison time.

Pellerin, who retired as a colonel after 36 years in the army, said he expects either a reprimand or dishonourable discharge for Semrau. He says the judge has been to Afghanistan and seen what it's like on the ground.

³In a war situation like that, the situation is not all either black or white. There is an element of grey in between. The fact they threw out the murder case I think means there was very much an element of doubt,² he said.

Pellerin served in the infantry ­ the backbone of the fighting force ­ and says he's watching the decision closely because of its implications for frontline soldiers.

More: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/25/14822246.html


----------



## Ammo (26 Jul 2010)

Semrau's defence loses argument

GATINEAU, Que. — Capt. Robert Semrau's defence was handed a blow Monday when a military judge ruled softer sentencing provisions included in the Criminal Code but not in the National Defence Act, such as house arrest, are not a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Semrau, 36, is the Canadian captain who was found not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his military duty last week for shooting a wounded and disarmed Afghan insurgent in October 2008.

But four fellow members of the Canadian Forces who acted as a jury of his peers found him guilty of disgraceful conduct for shooting the suspected Taliban in the chest, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. He could also be booted from the Canadian Forces.

Judge Jean-Guy Perron said there was no parallel to draw because no Canadian civilian could face similar charges in a civilian courtroom.

Semrau’s defence lawyers had argued the absence of numerous alternatives to incarceration forces military judges to issue “harsh” provisions and unduly emphasizes imprisonment.

But Perron dismissed the argument because he says incarceration is only one option available to the judge issuing a sentence.

Semrau's sentencing hearing begins Monday with testimony from one prosecution witness and three defence witnesses.

The father of two arrived in a Gatineau military courtroom accompanied by his wife, Amelie, his brother, Bill, and his parents.


----------



## McG (26 Jul 2010)

> *Semrau's defence loses argument*
> By ALTHIA RAJ, QMI Agency
> Updated: July 26, 2010 10:43am
> 
> ...


http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/26/14828736.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2010)

From QMI/Sun Media:


> Capt. Robert Semrau’s boss wants to see him severely punished for shooting a wounded and unarmed Taliban insurgent, the chief of staff of land operation told a judge presiding over Semrau's sentencing hearing Monday.
> 
> “The conduct is completely unacceptable and runs counter to what we are trying to accomplish on the ground,” said Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson, the prosecution’s first witness, who said he represented the chain of command.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jul 2010)

Wow, thanks for the support boss, way to leave a guy twisting in the breeze.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2010)

*" who said he represented the chain of command."*

In other words, I've been told what to say and I don't have the parts to disagree...................

[the above is my 'take' on his words and has no basis in fact except my gut]


----------



## Sig_Des (26 Jul 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *" who said he represented the chain of command."*
> 
> In other words, I've been told what to say and I don't have the parts to disagree...................
> 
> [the above is my 'take' on his words and has no basis in fact except my gut]



Either that, or, "this is the official answer, and I am answering for everyone from Capt Semrau's Company Commander up to me."


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Jul 2010)

I find it odd that they would call out the heavy artillery for a default charge.  Perhaps the opinions of the company and battalion commanders were not so pleasing to the prosecution.  Just a guess.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wow, thanks for the support boss, way to leave a guy twisting in the breeze.



Sounds like a bad case of CYA....


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jul 2010)

Yeah, you just know senior officers are getting trampled in the stampede to put some distance between them and Capt Semrau.  That's the REAL disgraceful conduct in this whole thing.


----------



## Ammo (26 Jul 2010)

Private testifies that Semrau was an ‘amazing’ leader

GATINEAU—Capt. Robert Semrau was an “amazing” leader who repeatedly risked his life for his soldiers, a Canadian army private, who served with him in Afghanistan, testified Monday at a court martial.

The testimony from Private Joseph Villeneuve rounded out the contradiction of a senior soldier convicted of disgraceful conduct for shooting a severely wounded unarmed Afghan insurgent.

Villeneuve described to the court martial how Semrau administered first aid to Afghan National Army soldiers as mortar rained down.

Villeneuve was called as a character witness at Semrau's sentencing hearing.

“From my experience he is a great leader, a great man,” he said, adding that he owed his life to Semrau.

Earlier Brigadier-General Denis Thompson told the hearing that Semrau deserves to be thrown out of the Canadian military so as to send other soldiers the message they can't take the law into their own hands.

Thompson, former Task Force Afghanistan commander, said Semrau’s conduct was “completely unacceptable” because he shot the Taliban fighter rather than administer first aid.

I was under the impression that the prosecution could prove that Semrau actually shot the taliban???

More here http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/840212--private-testifies-that-semrau-was-an-amazing-leader


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jul 2010)

It is as it always has been.  There are a few people willing to do hard, dark things and there are the quail hearted that will point and make poo poo noises and frowny faces.  Not because they really feel it was wrong, but because they hate that they couldn't do it themselves due to fear of consequences and personal impact.  And since they know they could never be a peer to people with that much bravery, they chose to slink down with the other toadies who only demand uniform spinelessness as the price of membership.  
Was the captain going to get whacked with something once this came out?  Absolutely.  No twists and turns for that one.  But anyone acting like they are all personally shocked and indignant needs to check themselves in the mirror really hard.  Perhaps a generous serving of "get over yourself" is in order?  
And if anyone cares, everyone I've spoken to amongst the non-military citizenry all support Capt. Semrau for doing the right thing.  

But sometimes the right thing to do is not going to be a good thing.


----------



## Occam (26 Jul 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yeah, you just know senior officers are getting trampled in the stampede to pu some distance between them and Capt Semrau.  That's the REAL disgraceful conduct in this whole thing.



Reading the comments on the CBC story has renewed my faith in humanity.  Overwhelming support of Capt Semrau, and some not-so-nice things to say about BGen Thompson.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jul 2010)

*"The trial heard also evidence that Semrau told fellow officers after the shooting that he simply wanted to put a wounded and dying enemy fighter out of his misery"
*

Mr. Semrau,
If I had a job to offer you that required someone with the courage and humanity to do the right thing even though it may be considered the wrong thing I would be knocking on your door right now.


Toadies need not apply...................


----------



## McG (26 Jul 2010)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Either that, or, "this is the official answer, and I am answering for everyone from Capt Semrau's Company Commander up to me."


I suspect that is the message intended.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Perhaps the opinions of the company and battalion commanders were not so pleasing to the prosecution.


If that's the case, the defence would always have the option to call them as character references.


----------



## 40below (26 Jul 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yeah, you just know senior officers are getting trampled in the stampede to put some distance between them and Capt Semrau.  That's the REAL disgraceful conduct in this whole thing.



How many milpoints can I award a single post?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Jul 2010)

So no sentence today, or is it going late?


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jul 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> How many milpoints can I award a single post?



300, or at least that's how much I can do.


----------



## downhillslide (26 Jul 2010)

Not a big poster here what so ever but every once in a while we see the time and place. Too many people have gotten wrapped around the good guy bad guy thing, as well as mercy killing. Think moral dilemma, Semrau had one. He could have done or ordered what we are trained to do. he did not and for that he is to be punished. He may be an honorable man to some but he neglected his duty. He will be given some mercy but he must and will be punished. You and I can only watch and pray he might be given the chance to redeem himself in the future. My simple 29 yrs and :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect that is the message intended.
> If that's the case, the defence would always have the option to call them as character references.


I wonder if we will, indeed, end up hearing from them....


----------



## greentoblue (26 Jul 2010)

It seems the CO of 3 RCR didn't get the message of the headshed:

"His commanding officer, Lt.-Col. Kevin Cameron of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ont., said he would have no reservations about accepting Semrau back into his unit."

It will be interesting to see if there will be any blowback to LCol Cameron's career after a statement that goes against the message the CoC is sending out.

I am also wondering if Gen Thompson's statements are even permissible because he references Capt Semrau as shooting the enemy as a statement of fact when my reading of the verdict was that the prosecution could not prove that he did in fact shoot the talib?  How can you condemn a man for an illegal killing when it was proved there was one?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/07/26/14828631.html


----------



## BernDawg (26 Jul 2010)

A little more here.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Semrau+risked+life+treat+wounded+Afghan+soldiers/3323759/story.html

GATINEAU, Que. — One month after he shot an unarmed Taliban insurgent, Capt. Robert Semrau risked his life to treat Afghan soldiers wounded during a deadly mortar attack in the Panjwaii District, his court martial heard Monday.


Pte. Joseph Villeneuve said Semrau saved his life during the mortar bombardment of an embattled Afghan National Army outpost in Mushan.


Identifying the telltale sound of an incoming mortar, Semrau told Villeneuve to pull a wounded Afghan soldier behind a nearby Ford Ranger truck. The mortar round landed a moment later where the soldiers had been standing.


"He saved my life right there," Villeneuve told Semrau's sentencing hearing.


Semrau then ran outside to assist other wounded Afghan soldiers, despite the continuing mortar fire.


"He was completely calm, level-headed, telling us what to do," Villeneuve said of Semrau. One Afghan soldier was killed and six were injured in the bombardment.


Semrau was the senior Canadian officer on scene at the time of the attack.


"He was always about the troops, making sure the troops were safe," Villeneuve said, adding later: "From my experience, he's a great leader and a great man."


That assessment was largely shared by two officers with whom Semrau worked during his five-year career in the Canadian military. They painted him Monday as a courageous and dedicated soldier.


Both Maj. Cayle Oberwarth, who fought alongside Semrau in Afghanistan, and Lt.-Col. Kevin Cameron, commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment to which Semrau is attached, said they would be willing to serve with him again should the judge return him to service.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Semrau+risked+life+treat+wounded+Afghan+soldiers/3323759/story.html#ixzz0uqAC14uM


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jul 2010)

Our Generals are really making us proud aren't they.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> So no sentence today, or is it going late?



Today was arguments from the prosecution and defence on sentence (not sure if they have finished).  Once they are done, the judge will leave to consider sentencing, base don the arguemnts and precedents cited by both.

Regardless of his decision, I suspect the sentence will be appealed.  (to say nothing of the multiple preliminary motions by the defence, any one of which may give rise to an appeal to the CMAC).  

This is not an easy case, and crafting an appropriate sentence will take time.


----------



## SocialyDistorted (27 Jul 2010)

I've been hearing buzz that a few hundred people are writing letters to Peter Mackay and Michaelle Jean

Will that have any bearing whatsoever on the case (as in can they step in) or is it just a waste-o-paper


----------



## captloadie (27 Jul 2010)

Like on civvy street, the judicial system cannot be influenced by outside forces at this point. After the sentence, then maybe political pressure could have an affect on an appeal, or possibly on Corrections Canada (who would administer Capt Semrau's sentence if it were more than 2 years).

Unlike in the USA, I don't think any of our elected officials, nor the GG, have the power to pardon people outright.


----------



## Ammo (27 Jul 2010)

Prosecutors want jail for Semrau 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/07/27/14840701.html

GATINEAU, Que. - Military prosecutors asked the court Tuesday to dismiss Capt. Robert Semrau with disgrace from the Canadian Forces and send him to jail for two years less a day. 

Prosecutors said Semrau should be made an example of and the court should punish him without any consideration of public opinion. 

Semrau was found guilty of disgraceful conduct last week for shooting an unarmed and wounded Afghan insurgent in October 2008. 

But four fellow officers, who acted as a jury of his peers, found him not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his duties. 

Prosecutor Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee told the judge presiding over Semrau's sentencing hearing that the primary focus of his punishment should be deterrence. 

"Not because he or she deserves it," but because it would be intended to stop others from doing the same activity, he said.  
  

Leveillee said Semrau acted in a "potentially dangerous" way by shooting the wounded insurgent. 

Semrau would have known he was breaking the military's code of conduct and basic principles of international law that say wounded enemies unable to defend themselves should be treated humanely, the prosecutor said. 

"Humanly does not mean accelerating the death of a person," Leveillee said, it means collecting and caring for that person. 

Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide, he said, noting Semrau's victim didn't ask to die. 

Semrau's actions were especially egregious because he was acting as a mentor to the Afghan National Army and was expected to be a role model, Leveillee said. 

"All it takes is an incident like this one to bring back memories of Somalia," Leveilee said.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jul 2010)

The "victim" asked to die the second he picked up a rifle and pointed it at anything not sporting antlers.  Fuckin' lawyers.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2010)

Ammo said:
			
		

> Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide, he said, noting Semrau's victim didn't ask to die.



He wasn't in Canada.  He was in Afghanistan, and we all know that they don't have the same laws as we do.  Yes, as a member of the CF he must while deployed remember that he falls not only under Canadian law, the laws of the land he is in and International Laws, but to state that Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide is pretty much absurd in this case.



			
				Ammo said:
			
		

> "All it takes is an incident like this one to bring back memories of Somalia," Leveilee said.



Right!  Here we go again.  Let's demonize the CF one more time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Right!  Here we go again.  Let's demonize the CF one more time.


Made even more "helpful" coming out of the mouth of a CF officer...    :


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jul 2010)

> Prosecutor Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee told the judge presiding over Semrau's sentencing hearing that the primary focus of his punishment should be deterrence.
> 
> "Not because he or she deserves it," but because it would be intended to stop others from doing the same activity, he said.



To those Presiding Officer familiars or qualified pers here, what is the standard of punishment under the NDA? Is it rehabilitation, incapacitation, condemnation , or as the prosecutor alludes, detterence?

Just wondering as to this statement, not a fan of the wording. Any punishment should be deserved. If not deserved, there should be no punishment.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2010)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> To those Presiding Officer familiars or qualified pers here, what is the standard of punishment under the NDA? Is it rehabilitation, incapacitation, condemnation , or as the prosecutor alludes, detterence?
> 
> Just wondering as to this statement, not a fan of the wording. Any punishment should be deserved. If not deserved, there should be no punishment.



True.  Looks like Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee is only succeeding in sticking both feet in his mouth.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2010)

You are taking his comments out of context.

The Prosecution is stating that this sort of behaviour must be condemned by the institution to avoid the instituion being tarred with that brush again - in essence, he is stating that the act denunciation is proof that he CF has changed and evolved since then.


The Defence arguments will be interesting.  I suspect they will argue two sides: first, they will propose a sentence of their own - a forfeiture of seniority, perhaps, as that is the highest punishment without loss of rank or imprisonment - and hence a "stronger" message of denunciation than a reprimand or severe reprimand; second, they will attack the prosecution's request for dismissal with disgrace and a custodial sentence and request that any custodial sentence be suspended.


I'm certain that the defence has already drafted a request for release pending appeal in the event of a custodial sentence.  This case will end up before the Court Martial Appeal Court as a minimum, however it turns out.


Beadwindow:  All  of the above.  The objectives of sentencing are:

a.  General deterrence;
b.  Specific deterrence;
c.  Rehabilitation and reform; and
d.  Retribution.



> 4. General deterrence is based on the concept that legal sanction against an offender will discourage potential offenders. General deterrence is often given particular weight when offences involve violence, or when there is a prevalence of a specific offence in a community. Specific deterrence has the goal of dissuading the offender from re-offending. Rehabilitation is emphasized in relation to an offender who has demonstrated a reasonable probability that the offender can become a law abiding member of society. Retribution will be highlighted to demonstrate society’s aversion towards morally reprehensible conduct. Retribution is linked to denunciation as a sentencing objective.
> 
> 5. None of these sentencing goals should be considered on their own. For example, denunciation, while a legitimate goal of sentencing, can only be assessed having regard to the circumstances of the case and the offender. When assessing the weight given to the goal of denunciation consideration should also be given to the effect it might have on the rehabilitation of the offender.
> 
> 6. A basic principle in sentencing is that a punishment imposed must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence. This helps ensure that the public, including members of the CF, can be satisfied that the offender deserves the punishment, and feels confident in the fairness and rationality of the system. Punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender. A person causing intentional harm should be punished more severely than someone causing harm unintentionally.




The manual for the presiding officer course is (DWAN link) at http://jag.mil.ca/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf


----------



## Danjanou (27 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Made even more "helpful" coming out of the mouth of a CF officer...    :



He's not the only one. I noticed Tony Keene ( Capt G&SF/PAFFO) commenting on the CBC website, and joining the "stone the unclean one" mob mentality there. :


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2010)

More from the POCT book on sentencing - points the judge will have to consider:



> 13. When an accused is found guilty the presiding officer shall receive any evidence concerning the appropriate sentence to be imposed, including aggravating and mitigating factors. The factors which should be considered when considering sentence include:
> 
> a. the deterrent effect of the sentence on the offender and other members, bearing in mind that one of the purposes of summary proceedings is the maintenance of military discipline at both the individual and unit level;
> 
> ...




Chapter 14 is the guide to sentencing.

Internet link:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jul 2010)

learn something everyday. Thanks for posting that, dapaterson


----------



## Ammo (27 Jul 2010)

Capt. Semrau should stay in the military, defence argues

GATINEAU—Rather than being jailed for shooting an unarmed, severely wounded Afghan insurgent Capt. Robert Semrau should have his rank reduced and receive a severe reprimand, his military lawyer said Tuesday.

Speaking to his client’s court martial sentencing hearing, Major Steve Turner said the 36-year-old Semrau is far too good a soldier to go to jail and be drummed out of the service as recommended by the prosecution.

“The character of Capt. Semrau is important,” Turner argued.

“It is a serious offence but he has significantly good character,” he said of Semrau, who was found guilty of disgraceful conduct.

Turner cautioned that the sentence should not be overly tough to appease the military brass but should take into mind the message it would send to the rank and file.

Turner argued that the shooting was a military matter that required a military sentencing.

“This sends a military message to the military community this won't be tolerated,” he told the hearing.

Earlier today Lieutenant-Colonel Mario Leveillee argued Semrau should be dismissed from the Canadian Armed Forces with disgrace and sentenced to prison for two years less a day, a military prosecutor urged a court martial Tuesday.

More... http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/840611--capt-semrau-should-stay-in-the-military-defence-argues?bn=1


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2010)

This from the _Toronto Star_:


> Capt. Robert Semrau won't find out his fate until Sept. 8.
> 
> Military Judge Jean-Guy Perron said Tuesday it will take him that long to sort through the arguments and evidence offered by defence and proseution on appropriate sentencing.
> 
> ...



- edited to add following -
Or maybe September 9, if you believe a Tweet from a Canadian Press reporter and another from QMI/Sun Media reporter:


> althiaraj: Capt. Robert #Semrau will be sentenced on Sept 9. Judge had set Sept 8 but just pushed it back a day. #cdnpoli


----------



## GAP (27 Jul 2010)

Hmmmm....sounds like his block leave is due....


----------



## KevinB (27 Jul 2010)

This trial is making me ill.

 Okay, the good Capt. did something that he should not have done, but in all honestly most of us I think would have done the same thing.

 I mean, leaving a wounded combatant to die, is that the sort of thing we should be doing?

Maybe so is the message I have gotten from the prosecution.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jul 2010)

September 8th?

Give me a break.


----------



## Thompson_JM (27 Jul 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> This trial is making me ill.
> 
> Okay, the good Capt. did something that he should not have done, but in all honestly most of us I think would have done the same thing.
> 
> ...




+1


This is all sorts or Retarded.....  I'm loosing the little faith I have left in the Higher levels of DND at this point....


----------



## downhillslide (27 Jul 2010)

Tommy said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> 
> This is all sorts or Retarded.....  I'm loosing the little faith I have left in the Higher levels of DND at this point....




The only thing to do when confronted with an injured combatant is to administer or have administered first aid. Putting the guy out of his misery is not the way to go. Lots of factors will guide your decision and the most important being The Law of Armed Conflict. and all its statutes.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2010)

I suspect the judge is not working around leave plans.  Rather, he'll be spending weeks reviewing case law looking for anything remotely similar.  Reviewing the precedents cited by both lawyers in their presentations.  Reviewing the transcript t oensure his memroy is fresh and he is certain of the details.

I'd much rather see a judge take his time to reflect and arrive at a just sentence to meet the four considerations as opposed to a judge rattling of a sentence witout thought.


----------



## 57Chevy (27 Jul 2010)

downhillslide said:
			
		

> The only thing to do when confronted with an injured combatant is to administer or have administered first aid. Putting the guy out of his misery is not the way to go. Lots of factors will guide your decision and the most important being The Law of Armed Conflict. and all its statutes.



I am most inclined to agree. I have heard somewhere and always figured that an injured soldier is a greater logistical burden than a dead one.


----------



## bick (27 Jul 2010)

DOWNHILLSLIDE, "The only thing to do when confronted with an injured combatant is to administer or have administered first aid. Putting the guy out of his misery is not the way to go. Lots of factors will guide your decision and the most important being The Law of Armed Conflict. and all its statutes."

Great, you passed your OPME on Mil Law.

I only hope the TB would do the same to me if they found me in similar condition, but I doubt it.  You would hope the same too, but somehow I doubt you've ever been "outside the wire."

I hope Capt Semrau gets a modest sentence.  As for the member of his team that felt the need to turn on his boss, well, I guess you know.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Jul 2010)

bick said:
			
		

> DOWNHILLSLIDE, "The only thing to do when confronted with an injured combatant is to administer or have administered first aid. Putting the guy out of his misery is not the way to go. Lots of factors will guide your decision and the most important being The Law of Armed Conflict. and all its statutes."
> 
> Great, you passed your OPME on Mil Law.
> 
> ...



What does inside our outside of the wire have to do with compassion, and understanding the rules of war??  You lost me there.

Let's please not go down that route, and keep this thread in context

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## Gunner98 (27 Jul 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect the judge is not working around leave plans.  Rather, he'll be spending weeks reviewing case law looking for anything remotely similar.  Reviewing the precedents cited by both lawyers in their presentations.  Reviewing the transcript to ensure his memory is fresh and he is certain of the details.
> 
> I'd much rather see a judge take his time to reflect and arrive at a just sentence to meet the four considerations as opposed to a judge rattling of a sentence without thought.



Fixed a few typos for your dap - hopefully the judge is crossing his ts and dotting his is.  

Or perhaps the judge wants to give the Capt one last summer with his family on military pay before locking him away for a while.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jul 2010)

Thanks for the catches.

I don't think the judge has made up his mind - this is a case without precedent in Canada.  He'll be breaking new ground, and knows that whatever he decides there will be an appeal, so even if he comes out with a custodial sentence Capt Semrau will be out until the CMAC rules.


Were I a betting man, I'd bet that we'll see a sentence of imprisonment for two years less a day that is suspended.  That would be in between the proposals of the defence and prosecution; it would mean Capt Semrau could continue serving (assuming he keeps his nose clean for that two year period), but would be a greater punishment than the defence request, and would be more or less in line with the prosecution, only lacking the dismissal with disgrace.

The hierarchy of punishments puts two years less a day just below dismissal with disgrace, so such a punishment would preempt an appeal by the prosecution; keeping Capt Semrau out of jail and not demoted might also keep the defence from appealing.


The particulars of the case are such that specific deterrence, rehab and reform are secondary considerations - the main issues the sentence must address are general deterrence ("No one else should do this") and retribution "You should not have done this").  A suspended custodial sentence would largely address those concerns - there has been no evidence presented about other similar incidents, so general deterrence is of lesser importance, so the only remaining consideration is retribution (I prefer the term condemnation).  A suspended sentence of incarceration addresses that, and leaves both sides unwilling to appeal - the prosecution, since it could be reduced on appeal, and the defence because it is suspended and does not include dismissal.


There is still the question of what (if any) administrative action may be taken following the trial, but that is a whole other can of worms.


----------



## cn (28 Jul 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Or perhaps the judge wants to give the Capt one last summer with his family on military pay before locking him away for a while.



I sincerely hope that is not the case.   :yellow:


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jul 2010)

VERY well thought out options.  :nod:

However...





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is still the question of what ...............


You're thinking of options from a purely legal and precedent perspective. 

Sadly, the recurring issue seems to be, "what will the media commentators' say" -- which, of course, drives what the military hierarchy says (if one believes the prosecutor's closing statement).

Offering up rational scales of punishment here is fine, but how will those who promulgate the CBC "viewers' comments" blogs (which seems overwhelmingly to drive elected officials' thinking) view a suspended Club Ed [2 years minus 1 day] sentence?


----------



## captloadie (28 Jul 2010)

Is a suspended sentence really much of a general deterrence? Especially if this is all that he receives? I may sound like a someone commenting on the CBC site now, but saying to the rank and file that "This is wrong, don't do it, or you might go to jail if you can't keep out of trouble for 2 years less a day?" isn't really going to stop someone else _who would do it in the first place_  from doing it.

As for actual punishment, a demotion to LT with a severe reprimand on his record ends his career. It does allow him to tread water until he reaches his twenty for a pension and then fade away quietly. A suspended sentence _could_ have little impact in the long term, as long as no career ending administrative action is taken.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jul 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Is a suspended sentence really much of a general deterrence? Especially if this is all that he receives? I may sound like a someone commenting on the CBC site now, but saying to the rank and file that "This is wrong, don't do it, or you might go to jail if you can't keep out of trouble for 2 years less a day?" isn't really going to stop someone else _who would do it in the first place_  from doing it.



You have hit the nail on the head.  It is the same argument against Capital Punishment for example.  In that regardless of the law and punishment most murders will be committed in spite of.  Those individuals who would lean towards the good Capt's actions would do so anyways.  Some would have rendered first aid and some others like myself would have walked on and left the bastard alone.  So whatever punishment is metted out on the day whether to sacrifice him on the altar of political correctness or to make an example or perhaps a statement will have no bearing on my attitude what so ever were I to be faced with the dilemma.


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2010)

> *A wise and sensible verdict;
> Jury walked a thin line between the law and real life in the Semrau shooting case*
> Catherine Ford
> Montreal Gazette
> ...


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2010)

I think Catherine Ford's article is a steaming pile.


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2010)

> *A soldier's code and the law*
> Times Colonist
> Victoria, BC
> 28 July 2010
> ...


----------



## McG (30 Jul 2010)

> *Semrau verdict exposes tragically flawed law*
> Dan Gardner
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 30 July 2010
> ...


----------



## armyvern (30 Jul 2010)

> That much makes legal sense. But if the court martial found, as a matter of fact, that Semrau shot the prisoner with intent to kill, but the prisoner may or may not have died of his existing wounds, it would certainly be attempted murder. And yet Semrau was acquitted of precisely that charge. Why? That would be the correct conclusion if the court felt there was reasonable doubt that he shot the prisoner. But if that were the case, there would be no grounds for convicting him of "behaving in a disgraceful manner."



Maybe it's just me, but for starters, to find someone guilty of:

"Murder" <--- one must be proven to have caused the death of a live person; and

"Attempted Murder" <---- one must be proven to have attempted to cause the death of a live person.

So, with testimony given that the guy had 5 minutes earlier been "98% dead" casting reasonable doubt upon whether or not the enemy Taliban was actually alive (ie: there were no "facts" presented by the prosecution to prove "life" at the moment of the shots) when the admitted-to shots occured ...

One simply can not "murder" or "attempt to murder" an already-dead person. One must be proven "live" by facts for that to be the case. _That_ makes legal sense.

However, shooting a dead body could indeed be seen as a disgraceful act. _That_ makes legal sense too.

Ergo, the verdict seems to make sense to me.  Sigh.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Jul 2010)

But how can you be sure he wasn't still clinging onto life?
I agree entirely with the article.  

I have family members who work as nurses in ICU and Emerg; and yes it is the harsh reality the medical profession often  faces.
And that is why it is recommended that families have completed "power of attorney for personal care" documents.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> But how can you be sure he wasn't still clinging onto life?
> I agree entirely with the article.



You can't, nor can you be sure he wasn't already dead........................therefore there is no 100% proof either way. This isn't civil court or some kangaroo human rights court where balance of probability can ruin someones life, this is the real thing, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. [or to that effect]

Bad guys walk with a whole lot more "proof" than this case had.......................


----------



## KevinB (30 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but for starters, to find someone guilty of:
> 
> "Murder" <--- one must be proven to have caused the death of a live person; and
> 
> ...



Crap.

The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
 IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.

IMHO when whoever ordered the good Capt's patrol to bash on and leave a wounded combatant to die, left the Capt no choice.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jul 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Crap.
> 
> The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
> IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.
> ...



There was plenty of testimony as to his having shot him. Essentially, there was no question that the two shots were fired. There was, however, plenty of testimony that the guy was almost dead, that some thought he was already dead, and that he was 98% dead 5 minutes before the good Capt was seen standing over him with smoke eminating from the end of his weapon. 5 minutes later when the shots were fired, perhaps the guy was indeed 100% dead already.

In my mind, the "reasonable doubt" is as to whether or not the guy was dead when those shots occured.

It was already explained earlier in this thread as to why an "indignity to a human body" etc would fall into the disgraceful conduct category that it did during this Court Martial.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jul 2010)

How do you think 'CF members leave wounded to die' would play out in the media, any bets that the Capt would have been CM'd for that one...


----------



## armyvern (30 Jul 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> How do you think 'CF members leave wounded to die' would play out in the media, any bets that the Capt would have been CM'd for that one...



I'm with you, believe me.

I've got a DNR order on my files. I know were it me lying there slowly bleeding out, in pain and tortuously dying while staring up to look at my enemy in the face ... what I'd be wanting them to do. It wouldn't be for them to let me suffer even one minute longer when they could do nothing to save me anyway. I think that one minute would be torture in itself.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

The state of the TB lying there is much like Schrödinger's Cat.  It cannot be proven that he was alive, and neither can it be proven that he was dead.  He was, legally, in a "superposition" between living and dead, as far as the law was concerned.  

The law also knew that Capt Semrau didn't know the state of the TB.  They failed to bring into evidence anything that would suggest that he believed the TB to be alive.  

So, back to Schrödinger's TB.  They could not convict murder or attempted murder, because the TB wasn't alive, as far as they know.  They could not convict (nor did they raise a charge of) doing an indignity to a human body, because the TB wasn't dead, as far as they know.  Again, Schrödinger's TB was in a superposition.  All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.  A charge of murder could not be proven, nor a charge of causing an indignity to a body.  Ergo, disgraceful conduct.

That's my take on it.


----------



## Haggis (31 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.



Shooting an undead Taliban is not the same as shooting a living Taliban.

(You can't tell me that you didn't see this coming...)


----------



## medicineman (31 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The state of the TB lying there is much like Schrödinger's Cat.



Have you been watching too much "Big Bang Theory" again? 

MM


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Have you been watching too much "Big Bang Theory" again?
> 
> MM


LOL, no.  Just finally found a way to use that Schrödinger Cat thought experiment in a real-life situation.  I think that in this case, it applies.


----------



## medicineman (31 Jul 2010)

True enough...another thought about this whole sordid affair - does anyone think that other allied military legal commands are looking at this case as some sort of precedent?  I wonder if US, British, French Armies have tried soldiers for similar actions or is our military/government still out of touch with the realities of warfare even after almost 10 years of this.  Something to put out there - and if I missed this in one of the previous gazillion posts here, apologies in advance.

MM


----------



## McG (31 Jul 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> One simply can not "murder" or "attempt to murder" an already-dead person. One must be proven "live" by facts for that to be the case. _That_ makes legal sense.
> 
> ...





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Crap.
> 
> The same rational would be that they then had to prove he shot a dead body.
> IIRC there are specific charges that deal with that too.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> They could not convict murder or attempted murder, because the TB wasn't alive, as far as they know.  They could not convict (nor did they raise a charge of) doing an indignity to a human body, because the TB wasn't dead, as far as they know.  Again, Schrödinger's TB was in a superposition.  All they know is that he shot a dead or undead TB.  A charge of murder could not be proven, nor a charge of causing an indignity to a body.  Ergo, disgraceful conduct.


No.

As stated previously, Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to either charge #1 (murder) or charge #2 (attempted murder).  As nobody has yet been able to post the particulars of the charge, this whole analysis of the verdict is based on assumptions which (I suspect) are most likely unrelated.

If charge #3 really did come back to the Schrödinger's cat argument, then it should have been laid in the alternate to both the first two charges.  In fact, there would have been four charges in alternate to each other:[list type=decimal]
[*]Second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Attempting to commit murder with a firearm - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 239(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Offered any indignity to a dead human body - contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 182(b) of the Criminal Code;
[*]Charge of Behaving in a disgraceful manner – contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act; [/list]

This did not happen.  So (Again, I suspect), if someone were to dig-up the particulares of the charge we would most likely find that charge #3 is about some other element of what Capt Semrau did that day (or in the days following but relating back to the incident).


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Aug 2010)

Good points.  I hadn't followed this trial closely, and that was deliberate.  I know Capt Semrau, and consider him a friend.  So, I stayed close to him, but distanced myself from the trial.  So, I applied after-thought to the whole thing.  Anyway, from the transcripts:


> whereas the fourth charge alleges that the accused failed to comply with the code of conduct for Canadian Forces personnel *in that he failed to collect a wounded male person and provide him with the treatment required by his condition as it was his duty to do so*.



So, disgraceful conduct in that he failed to collect that wounded male person, etc.


----------



## armyvern (1 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> As stated previously, Charge #3, of Behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to Section 93 of the National Defence Act, was not laid in the alternate to either charge #1 (murder) or charge #2 (attempted murder).  As nobody has yet been able to post the particulars of the charge, this whole analysis of the verdict is based on assumptions which (I suspect) are most likely unrelated.
> 
> ...



Charge 1 (Murder) and Charge 2 (Attempted Murder) were alternate charges to each other.  Can one have more than one alternate laid to each number (ie: charge 3)? I do suspect that charge 4 was in relation to not providing first aid/medical. 

His charge sheet is here.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Aug 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> True enough...another thought about this whole sordid affair - does anyone think that other allied military legal commands are looking at this case as some sort of precedent?  I wonder if US, British, French Armies have tried soldiers for similar actions or is our military/government still out of touch with the realities of warfare even after almost 10 years of this.  Something to put out there - and if I missed this in one of the previous gazillion posts here, apologies in advance.
> 
> MM



If I remember correctly during the Falklands War there was a case where a British (Argentine??) soldier was wounded and in extreme agony and there was no way to evacuate him, so one of the Brits shot him to put him out of his misery. 

I also know of case in Texas where an older couple driving down the road were involved in a serious car accident. The wife was able to get out, but not her husband. The car caught on fire and rather then allow her husband to burn to death she shot him. As far as I know she wasn't charged.


----------



## medicineman (1 Aug 2010)

I remember the one about the Brit medic - an Argentine airman from Goose Green was torched by napalm, the medical Sgt shot him with his 9mm.  Incidentally, he was a PoW.  I guess what I'm looking for is if anyone was ever charged for that - even though there doesn't seem to be much case law here as precedent, you'd think that similar cases, albeit from other militaries, could be used as examples pro or con.  

MM


----------



## owa (1 Aug 2010)

I've been really interested in this case, and the "lessons learned" aspect of it.

From everything I have read, and maybe it isn't all factual, Semrau was an excellent member of the CF and had a very good career.  He was well respected and wasn't the type of guy to do something if he didn't believe it to be morally right.  It is really too bad he can't go back and correct his supposed mistake.  It's just sad that something like this is ruining his career.  Maybe you think what he did was wrong, maybe you think it was right, but at the end of the day his intentions were in the right place.

It just sucks to see someone lose so much because he believed so deeply in his own actions -- believing that they were pure and just.


----------



## the 48th regulator (1 Aug 2010)

Also remember the Anna Pou Case from Hurcane Katrina.

Dr. Anna Pou, and 2 nurses were investigated after high levels of Morphine were found in bodies recovered from the Morgue.  There were rumours that the health staff had discussed Euthanasia for the patience who would not be able to survive the isolation.  After several months, the grand jury concluded its work by declining to indict any of the suspects on any of the charges.

dileas

tess


----------



## medicineman (1 Aug 2010)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Also remember the Anna Pou Case from Hurcane Katrina.
> 
> Dr. Anna Pou, and 2 nurses were investigated after high levels of Morphine were found in bodies recovered from the Morgue.  There were rumours that the health staff had discussed Euthanasia for the patience who would not be able to survive the isolation.  After several months, the grand jury concluded its work by declining to indict any of the suspects on any of the charges.



...and it would seem that none were charged by the State OR disciplined by their respective Colleges for disgraceful conduct.  I could actually see this case overlapping into the medical branch soon - are we going to be Monday Morning QB'd by the judidciary for medical decisions in battle under mass cal conditions now too?  

Better stop now before I get a visit from someone pay grades above us all...

MM


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Charge 1 (Murder) and Charge 2 (Attempted Murder) were alternate charges to each other.


Yes but, to be relevant, the Schrödinger's cat argument also requires that Charge 3 was laid in the alternate to the first two.  Becuase it was not laid in the alternate it was possible that Semrau could have been convicted of charge 3 and either of 1 or 2.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can one have more than one alternate laid to each number (ie: charge 3)?


Yes.  See OS Hornell's charge sheet for example.  You will note that charges 4, 5, and 6 were all in the alternate to eachother:  http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/hornell.pdf


----------



## KevinB (1 Aug 2010)

I posted earlier on a US Army decision to shoot a wounded Iraqi - found guilty.

  So now we see that the Capt is alledged to have been charged with Disgraceful Conduct for carrying out his patrol and not stopping to give aid.

This verdict worries me as any combat commander is now going to be in a potential CM stop for continuing their mission if a wounded enemy exists somewhere on the Battlefield.  


Furthermore I had understood he was ordered to carry on with his patrol and not evac the wounded?
  
Its a lose-lose situation for all told IMHO


----------



## medicineman (1 Aug 2010)

Thanks Kevin...missed that one.  Sarcastic statement self-edited.

MM


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Anyway, from the transcripts:


Following your link, I find:


> The particu-lars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT,


Given this information, I would have imagined that thrid charge should have been in the alternate to meet the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(h) - all three are for the exact same act but the third charge simply removes the factor of specific intent.  It would appear, based on the described particulars of the third charge, that court would have had to believe the Taliban was still alive at the time he was shot.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Following your link, I find:Given this information, I would have imagined that thrid charge should have been in the alternate to meet the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11(h) - all three are for the exact same act but the third charge simply removes the factor of specific intent.  It would appear, based on the described particulars of the third charge, that court would have had to believe the Taliban was still alive at the time he was shot.



Sound like both sides should appeal.  Maybe no-one should appeal.  To reach its conclusion the panel had to agree that the Taliban was alive and the shooting, while disgraceful, was not murder.  Does the government want that to stand as precedent?  Alternatively, in this case, shooting a dead Taliban does not satisfy the criteria the prosecution set up as disgraceful conduct.  Unless there is a deal, see you in round 2 next year.


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> To reach its conclusion the panel had to agree that the Taliban was alive and the shooting, while disgraceful, was not murder.


No.  On charge 3, the panel only had to agree the Taliban was alive and the shooting was disgraceful.  The verdict of not guilty on the charge 1 does not mean the panel agreed the incident was not murder, it means they did not agree beyond reasonable doubt that it was.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Alternatively, in this case, shooting a dead Taliban does not satisfy the criteria the prosecution set up as disgraceful conduct.


You seem to be doing an odd play on words.  If the Taliban were dead, that would appear not to have met the particulars of Charge 3 (as described in the previous link).  That does not mean the prosecution is suggesting that it would not be disgraceful to shoot an already dead enemy.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  On charge 3, the panel only had to agree the Taliban was alive and the shooting was disgraceful.  The verdict of not guilty on the charge 1 does not mean the panel agreed the incident was not murder, it means they did not agree beyond reasonable doubt that it was.
> You seem to be doing an odd play on words.  If the Taliban were dead, that would appear not to have met the particulars of Charge 3 (as described in the previous link).  That does not mean the prosecution is suggesting that it would not be disgraceful to shoot an already dead enemy.



The test of reasonable doubt should not decrease for a lesser charge based on identical facts although it usually does.

The specific charge of disgraceful conduct put before the court by the prosecution was essentially for murder.  He may very well have scratched himself on the parade square but that is not the specific charge nor is shooting a dead enemy.  There is ample case law to suggest that a person who has died is not a person under the law.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Aug 2010)

I revert back to the cat.  Charge 4 (disgraceful conduct) asserts that Capt Semrau acted disgracefully in that he failed to render first aid, when it was his duty to do so.  That's it, that's all.  The state of the TB is irrelevant, because the charge asserts that it was up to him to find out.  That's all.


----------



## armyvern (2 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I revert back to the cat.  Charge 4 (disgraceful conduct) asserts that Capt Semrau acted disgracefully in that he failed to render first aid, when it was his duty to do so.  That's it, that's all.  The state of the TB is irrelevant, because the charge asserts that it was up to him to find out.  That's all.



Wrong number. He was convicted on Charge 3. It was charge 4 that had the particulars relating to failing to provide first aid and for which he was found not guilty.

The particulars of Charge 3 (guilty) are: 



> The particulars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT





> Charge 1 (alternate to charge 2): S. 130 NDA, second degree murder (s. 235(1) CCC).
> Charge 2 (alternate to charge 1): S. 130 NDA, attempt to commit murder using a firearm (s. 239(1)(a.1) CCC).
> Charge 3: S. 93 NDA, behaved in a disgraceful manner.
> Charge 4: S. 124 NDA, negligently performed a military duty imposed on him.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wrong number. He was convicted on Charge 3. It was charge 4 that had the particulars relating to failing to provide first aid and for which he was found not guilty.


D'oh.  


Missed that.  Thanks.


----------



## armyvern (2 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> D'oh.



Step back from the donuts ... & do not strangle the cat just yet.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Aug 2010)

:rofl:
Actually, I got my info from the one thing I posted earlier:



> The particu-lars of the third charge allege that the accused did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team, OMLT, whereas the fourth charge alleges that the accused failed to comply with the code of conduct for Canadian Forces personnel in that he failed to collect a wounded male person and provide him with the treatment required by his condition as it was his duty to do so.



And I mistakenly thought that the disgraceful conduct was the fourth, not the third charge.


----------



## captloadie (2 Aug 2010)

If we go with Vern's assertion that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired two shots into the TB, the question we should ask is _why_ did he fire into the TB? If the TB were already deceased, then what is the purpose. Going away from the legal requirements, or our moral thoughts on the subject of mercy killing, I think common sense dictates we admit that the TB was either alive, or believed to be alive by Capt Semrau when he pulled the trigger.


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The test of reasonable doubt should not decrease for a lesser charge based on identical facts although it usually does.


The requirement to be certain beyond reasonable doubt is the same for all charges in the military justice system.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The specific charge of disgraceful conduct put before the court by the prosecution was essentially for murder.


No.  Murder includes a specific intent element, and it must be shown the person died.


----------



## SeanNewman (3 Aug 2010)

There were some very unfortunate posts on here last week about BGen Thompson.  Lots of talk about the CoC letting everyone down and WOG leaders hanging soldiers out to dry, etc.

While I won't comment on this case, I will certainly come to the defence of BGen Thompson:

1.  One of the most liked and respected COs that 3 RCR has ever had;
2.  One of the most liked and respected 2 CMBG Comds Petawawa has ever had;
3.  Hand picked during the heavy fighting days of 06-07 to lead the mission in Afghanistan (to take over in 08);
4.  Led from the front while in command in Kandahar.  Regularly led the way for logistic patrols to follow him (meaning he would get hit with a mine/IED/ambush first);
5.  Incredibly loved by the families of the fallen because he personally took the time to* hand write* a letter to every next of kin.  Not a singed Microsoft Word form letter generated with a couple names and dates changed like their other 10 letters; he hand-wrote every single one.

I have been an NCM myself and I know how sometimes officers get lumped into "them", but regardless of what your position is on this trial or what BGen Thompson said, that man is a soldier's soldier and a leader's leader.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Aug 2010)

Wow.  Spit or swallow?  
That was just sad.   :-\

As for leading from the front, how is a general out doing a spider drill ever a good idea?  Yeah, the troopies go "ooooo, ahhhh".  And when he gets killed, how much milage do the Taliban get from such a massive victory?  How many lives are that much more endangered at an emboldened enemy with incredibly high morale?


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Aug 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Wow.  Spit or swallow?  That was just sad.   :-\



The old me would have responded to that harshly.  The new and improved me who has taken the advice of others will shake it off.

I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.


----------



## Scott (4 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.



Like Menard, eh?

Just sayin'...


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.



A review of our Military History has many examples of men who have risen higher in command, and would prove your statement wrong.


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A review of our Military History has many examples of men who have risen higher in command, and would prove your statement wrong.



It could be argued that nobody is infallible at any rank, that's for sure.

I didn't say they knew more about ethics or moral conduct, but that they had more leadership experience.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I guess we'll just have to assume that someone who has been a CO, Bde Comd, and Comd TFK knows more about leadership than we do.



Being a CO, Bde Comd etc does not give anyone a greater insight into leadership than anyone else. As for leadership experience, yes maybe they do. Maybe not good experience, but experience none the less.


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Aug 2010)

I agree with all of your points.  Granted: Being a high rank doesn't make you a perfect leader.

Now that that's out of the way and [/tangent], the core of my statement isn't about the flank arguments of rank or leadership, but that BGen Thompson is one of the best leaders you could ever hope for, and it was very unfortunate that some people pulled the Keyboard Frontal on him.

I've said my piece on this, and now I'll back away from the discussion.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Aug 2010)

We have a new (and from my point of view greatly improved) breed of general officer from when I was serving. Sure, there are exceptions on both sides of the scale, but sometimes senior officers, even generals have to take risks. Like anything, it can be over done and go horribly wrong like Sir Issac Brock at Queenston Heights. It is a refreshing change from the teaching when I was a junior officer that if an officer used his personal weapon, he was not doing his job. And that became more and more an article of faith, the higher in rank one went.

Back to leadership, I have seen great, inspirational leaders and frigging menaces, and that has nothing to do with their rank. Having worked with BGen Thompson, then a captain, on my last posting before retirement, I am not surpised (a) that he would take risks to make a point with his troops, and (b) that he would take a stand that would attract flak, if he thought it was the necessary thing to do.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> .... It is a refreshing change from the teaching when I was a junior officer that if an officer used his personal weapon, he was not doing his job. And that became more and more an article of faith, the higher in rank one went ....


Ah, the concept of "my platoon/company/battalion is my weapon" - I age myself saying I remember that, too (and still appreciating officers who would lead, when needed, from the front).


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Aug 2010)

Military justice system was not fair to Semrau


The Ottawa Citizen August 4, 2010 
  
Re: Semrau verdict exposes flawed law, July 29. 

I agree with columnist Dan Gardner's comment. Although Capt. Robert Semrau was cleared of charges of murder for shooting a severely wounded Taliban soldier in Afghanistan, he was convicted of disgraceful conduct. I would go farther than Gardner. The Canadian Forces judicial system fails to provide justice to its members. 

Contrary to what some in the media have stated, Semrau was not tried by a "jury of his peers." The four members of the panel selected by the military failed to include anyone who ever had been in combat, and three were senior in rank to him. In addition, the military selected a lieutenant colonel as the prosecutor, but left the defence to a major. The chain of command then sent a brigadier-general, Denis Thompson, to attempt to influence the decision of the judge, a lieutenant-colonel, concerning the sentence. Thompson stated: "I don't think we have any other option but to release him from the service." 

If the chain of command believes that Semrau must be released from the military, then the Chief of the Defence Staff should have had the moral courage to deliver that message personally rather than send a senior staff officer as his errand boy. 

Semrau's sentencing has less to do with justice than with maintaining the reputation of Canada's military and particularly of its senior officers. Thompson, again speaking for the chain of command, claimed that Semrau's conduct undermined the Canadian-led counter-insurgency campaign in Kandahar, which depends upon winning over the local population. 

The sole issue should be whether justice is served. Brigadier-General Thompson asked the judge for a sentence which would be harsh enough to send a message to members of the Forces. A harsh sentence will ensure that the message is "Don't trust the system" because fairness and justice will take second place to other considerations. 

Bill Beswetherick, 

Seeley's Bay 

Major (retired)

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Somnia/3356390/story.html#ixzz0vj2N289T


----------



## pbi (5 Aug 2010)

IMHO, Mr Beswetherick's letter is ill-informed nonsense. In particular:



> The Canadian Forces judicial system fails to provide justice to its members.



Really? Based on what? How many summary trials/courts martial has Mr B. participated in? Has he compared how our military judicial system works compared with what happens on civvy street? My guess is the overwhelming majority of our offences get handled swiftly and fairly in comparison to "downtown".



> The four members of the panel selected by the military failed to include anyone who ever had been in combat, and three were senior in rank to him



What do either of these have to do with anything? Since when do members of a CM need to have shared experiences with the accused? On that basis, it might become quite difficult to conduct CMs. I would like to see convincing evidence that the rank of those sitting as members of a CM has anything to do with the nature of the verdicts they pass. I think what Mr B would liked to have seen was a CM loaded with people who would have been prejudiced in favour of the accused.




> In addition, the military selected a lieutenant colonel as the prosecutor, but left the defence to a major.



Again, an irrelevancy. What possible difference could the lawyers' ranks make? It's about their experience and skill, not their rank. 



> The chain of command then sent a brigadier-general, Denis Thompson, to attempt to influence the decision of the judge, a lieutenant-colonel, concerning the sentence. Thompson stated: "I don't think we have any other option but to release him from the service."



The chain of command  didn't "send" anybody. CMs don't work that way in Canada. The calling of witnesses is not a chain of command decision, for obvious reasons. They're summoned by the court. In my experience, the Officer of the Court makes sure they are present, although this may have changed) Again, Mr B misses the point that the purpose of calling ANY witness in ANY trial is to influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Otherwise, why would you bother with witnesses?



> Thompson stated: "I don't think we have any other option but to release him from the service."



His assessment as an experienced senior officer, which he was no doubt requested to provide by the court. I doubt he just piped up and offered it. Like the opinion of any witness, the court can consider it or dismiss it, subject to the presiding judge's instructions.



> If the chain of command believes that Semrau must be released from the military, then the Chief of the Defence Staff should have had the moral courage to deliver that message personally rather than send a senior staff officer as his errand boy.



Oh, good idea. On this principle, perhaps the CDS should attend every summary trial and court martial in the entire CF so that all present get it from the horse's mouth and not from those nasty flunky COs, Formation Commanders, and members of CMs. Another indication that Mr B doesn't really have much functional idea how things work.



> Semrau's sentencing has less to do with justice than with maintaining the reputation of Canada's military and particularly of its senior officers.



Well, this is a completely unfounded and silly statement (the CM system is by intent separate from the chain of command, and its decisions subject to review by the Court Martials Appeal process), but let's consider it for a second. Actually, a big part of the purpose of having a military discipline system IS to maintain the reputation of the military. That's why we have offences like "Conduct Prejudicial", etc. An undisciplined military very quickly gets a bad reputation, as it should. And, by extension, the reputation of a military attaches itself to the leadership (senior officers). So, that much is true, I guess. But, I fail to see exactly how trying this Capt for shooting a wounded enemy, with all of its attendant publicity and controversy, can be seen as a conspiracy to maintain the image of various senior officers. Wouldn't the reverse be true, as this offence happened on their watch? 



> Brigadier-General Thompson asked the judge for a sentence which would be harsh enough to send a message to members of the Forces.



OH? Was he the President of the CM? The Prosecutor? Did BGen Thompson actually "ask for a sentence", or did he offer his opinion/recommendation when requested to do so?




> A harsh sentence will ensure that the message is "Don't trust the system" because fairness and justice will take second place to other considerations.



Garbage. The accused's case was subject to very broad scrutiny almost as soon as the story broke. For whatever his reasons were at the moment, Capt Semrau made a decision for which, as a good officer, he must reasonably have known he would eventually have to face the consequences. You may not like that, and you may feel that only those on the scene have a right to judge, and that a "code of silence" would have been the better way to handle this. (That worked well in Somalia, right?) The point is that, based on the evidence, the court didn't agree. The sentence, like all military sentences, was most definitely intended to send a message: remember that it is a Code of Service *Discipline* we are talking about here: it is intended to send exemplary messages The message here is "Follow the LOAC: don't shoot the helpless wounded, even if they are the enemy". 

Cheers


----------



## armyvern (5 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> What do either of these have to do with anything? Since when do members of a CM need to have shared experiences with the accused? On that basis, it might become quite difficult to conduct CMs. I would like to see convincing evidence that the rank of those sitting as members of a CM has anything to do with the nature of the verdicts they pass. I think what Mr B would liked to have seen was a CM loaded with people who would have been prejudiced in favour of the accused.



Perhaps Mr Beswetherick can point me out to any precedent setting case "even in  the civilian" jurisdiction where a jury panel hearing arguements for and against a WASP, english speaking, smoking male accused of armed robbery (for example) was made up of, apparently, his only "peers" <--- fellow WASP english speaking and smoking males who have prior experience (thus 'expertize') with armed robbery. Yeah right. His argument is invalid and is not even applied as he seems to think it should be in the world of civilian trials.


----------



## pbi (5 Aug 2010)

> His argument is invalid and is not even applied as he seems to think it should be in the world of civilian trials.



Exactly. My guess is that Mr B got out quite a while ago, and even when he was in the CF, wasn't very well informed on how things worked. Unfortunately, his nonsense letter got published in a major journal, with the added "credibility" that his (former) rank probably gives in the eyes of many readers.  And, I'm pretty sure, the CF won't challenge it: we're often not very good at that. (and we probably don't want to look like big mean military bullies stifling free speech to protect our own shoddy reputations)



Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2010)

If I'm not mistaken Maj. (Ret'd) Bestwetherick was (maybe still is) a _columnist_ or 'correspondent' of some sort for Scott Taylor's _Esprit de Corps_ magazine. I think he was a CELE (Signals?) officer who retired (early) more than 25 years ago - I'm not sure why I think that but he is stuck, somewhere, in my rusty, old, creaky mental _rolodex_.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Exactly. My guess is that Mr B got out quite a while ago, and even when he was in the CF, wasn't very well informed on how things worked. Unfortunately, his nonsense letter got published in a major journal, with the added "credibility" that his (former) rank probably gives in the eyes of many readers.  And, I'm pretty sure, the CF won't challenge it: we're often not very good at that. (and we probably don't want to look like big mean military bullies stifling free speech to protect our own shoddy reputations)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers



I agree with this assessment, especially the last sentence.

Any organization, be it the CF, CBSA, or even the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority have an extremely difficult time defending themselves in the media. 
If the allegations made against the organization are false it's perceived that there is a "coverup" or exactly what you said...we're bullying people into shutting up.


----------



## armyvern (5 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken Maj. (Ret'd) Bestwetherick was (maybe still is) a _columnist_ or 'correspondent' of some sort for Scott Taylor's _Esprit de Corps_ magazine. I think he was a CELE (Signals?) officer who retired (early) more than 25 years ago - I'm not sure why I think that but he is stuck, somewhere, in my rusty, old, creaky mental _rolodex_.



Well, that got me googling ...

Nothing but this so far:

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mr-sm/nr-cp/2005/1803-eng.asp


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

After reading Vern's link and the article, Mr.B should have quite the sharp axe. Why he is even writing such garbage is a mystery.


----------



## armyvern (5 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> After reading Vern's link and the article, Mr.B should have quite the sharp axe. Why he is even writing such garbage is a mystery.



A google of "Bill Bestwetherick Esprit de Corps" reveals that Edward's rolodex is up-to-date, working and quite on-track.


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

Then I guess the Scott Taylor school of journalism is alive and kicking still.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Aug 2010)

And more, this time from Major "Reg" Redknap. I know Reg personally. He is a Korean veteran who was a gun position officer in 216 Battery, 81st Field Regiment RCA (later M Battery, 4 RCHA) and generally a good guy. For the Royals, his troop fired something like 425 rounds per gun in support of 3 RCR during the Chinese attack on their position in June 1953. Reg has been retired for years and years, and has spent a lot of time as a volunteer guide at the Canadian War Museum. He, at least, argues for leniency, but does not rant about the military justice system. His letter is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act.


*A terrible dilemma*

The Ottawa Citizen August 5, 2010 
  
Re: Semrau risked life to treat injured Afghans, July 27. 

The statement by Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson condemning the action of Capt. Robert Semrau sounded like a bureaucrat not a soldier -- although he claimed to be speaking for the "Canadian Forces chain of command." 

It is my perception that the vast majority of serving and retired military personnel, from the senior to the most junior levels, are sympathetic towards the captain and understand the terrible dilemma that faced him. 

The warrant officer who was on Semrau's team got it right. He saw nothing and heard nothing. 

I was a junior officer in the Korean War. If an incident such as the one that befell Capt. Semrau had occurred, it would never have seen the light of day. 

If the court decides it must punish Semrau, make the sentence a light one such as a reprimand and/or a loss of seniority. Do not ruin the career and life of a brave and competent young officer. 

D.J. Redknap, 

Ottawa 

Major (retired)

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Aug 2010)

> Do not ruin the career and life of a brave and competent young officer.



See, I think that ship has already sailed.  Albeit, the captain did what he thought was the best thing in the situation, I think we can all agree that once this thing got pulled out into the daylight everyone knew he'd get jackhammered for it.  Would he still be an excellent officer in the future?  Of course he would.  Would retaining him in the CF cause countless other members to go on mercy killing sprees?  Of course not.  Would it set a precedent that if you do decide to whack a guy in the field, the worst you are looking at is getting punted?  I doubt it.  
But pull the trigger he did, and even if future consequences were not in his mind at the time, surely it is obvious now.  IMO, the real punishment will be to everyone in the CF who won't get to work with him after the bureaucracy punts him for the sake of decorum.  He will move along and be tremendously successful in the private world.


----------



## pbi (5 Aug 2010)

Strikes me that this case is probably just about the most controversial and divisive thing that has happened to us since the disbandment of the Airborne Regiment. What the argument reveals (IMHO) is that there are a considerable number of people, both in and out of uniform, who think that what happened should not be viewed as a crime, and that whoever witnesses an act like this would do us all a favour by just keeping quiet.  Lots of different arguments are being advanced in different places in the various media, ranging from "it was the most humane thing to do" to "there is no law in war". Underlying some of these arguments seems to be the belief that only those directly involved in an incident have the right to judge the participants, and if they did judge they would most likely vote "not guilty". We also hear that it's "the bureaucrats" or "the system" or "the brass" that want to carry out punishment, and that real soldiers would of course just let the whole thing blow over: "it would never see the light of day". It's a very powerful argument, because it goes to where we live and feel as soldiers. Maybe lots of us could imagine we would do the same thing, or maybe we've heard the anecdotes from the South African War, or the two World Wars, or Korea that suggest this kind of thing (or worse) has happened in our Army before. If people believe that otherwise honourable soldiers could have done something like this, then maybe we should say "it just happens". Maybe we should just suck it up.

So, I guess I'd have to ask four (somewhat rhetorical) questions:

-if this had been a wounded Canadian soldier, would it have been acceptable to shoot him? Perhaps, if he was about to fall into the hand of an enemy who was known to torture their PWs, could it have been OK?;

-if you came upon a serious car accident in the far reaches of a wilderness road, and medical help for a badly injured and possibly dying person might be a long time away, would it be OK to kill them to stop their suffering? Or is that argument misplaced on the battlefield?; 

-at what point do we as soldiers make the decision to report what may be a serious criminal offense? When does it stop being about "protecting" a good officer or NCO that everybody likes and respects, and become a duty to uphold the law? Haven't we been there once before?; and, finally

-Is it really true that "there is no law in war but winning?" How  much do things like LOAC, the Geneva Convention, ROE, etc. really matter? Are they just stupid window dressing to what is essentially just the same old unrestrained savagery, foolishly imposed upon us by weak-kneed do-gooders and lawyers? Why bother teaching all that rubbish if we are not only not going to enforce it, but some are willing to make dark, thinly-veiled suggestions about "rats" and "squealers" who should just keep their mouths shut if they know what's good for them?


Capt Semrau probably was an excellent officer (I don't know, I only met him once, very briefly). He probably had what he thought were the best of intentions that day: he might even have wanted the same thing for himself if he were lying there injured. Lots of us on this website might. But, the point is, he broke the law that he was sworn to obey, and broke it in a way that we just cannot ignore if we want to even pretend to subscribe to code of moral conduct in war.  And for that, regardless of how unpopular it might be, he was held to account. Once his act became known, there was no legitimate choice but to deal with it.

Cheers


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> -if you came upon a serious car accident in the far reaches of a wilderness road, and medical help for a badly injured and possibly dying person might be a long time away, would it be OK to kill them to stop their suffering? Or is that argument misplaced on the battlefield?;
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers



This happened to three of us on the Number 1 Highway just west of Winnipeg. I can remember the vehicles were on fire. We got one out of a burning vehicle. The other vehicle was fully involved. 
The flames reached a good 10-15 feet in the air and we could hear explosions. Two people were alive, trapped inside and my two guys that went there could not get them out. 
That couple burned to death. They tell me that they screamed, but I didn't hear it as I was busy with the other casualty (who died en rte to hospital). He had a broken left femur, a flailed chest etc.

Shoot them? That never entered my head.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Capt Semrau probably was an excellent officer (I don't know, I only met him once, very briefly). He probably had what he thought were the best of intentions that day: he might even have wanted the same thing for himself if he were lying there injured. Lots of us on this website might. But, the point is, he broke the law that he was sworn to obey, and broke it in a way that we just cannot ignore if we want to even pretend to subscribe to code of moral conduct in war.  And for that, regardless of how unpopular it might be, he was held to account. Once his act became known, there was no legitimate choice but to deal with it.
> Cheers


Very well said.  I personally do know Capt Semrau, and I consider him a close friend.  Your post, sir, was bang on.  All of it.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2010)

pbi notes earlier that this is likely the most controversial and divisive thing to happen to the CF since the disbandment of the CAR.  Perhaps the issue extends even beyond the CF as a societal challenge, Canadian...Western...global even?  There are some who feel that Captain Semrau's actions were not callous, uncaring or inhumane, but rather understanding even sympathetic to  the condition of the dying fighter and that he took such actions, whether as part of an unspoken warriors' pact or recognition that the fighter's severe condition made any chance of recovery most unlikely, to end the fighter's suffering.  That which someone believes to be right/justifiable actions vs. law and/or society's accepted conduct?  Consider how the case of Robert Latimer and his daughter Tracy, tore at Canadian society.  Arguments abounded over whether Tracy was suffering or not, could live to old age or not, however, Robert took the life of his daughter believing that it was what he had to do.   Even while most critics of Robert Latimer acknowledge that his actions were borne of anguish, albeit misguided (for some immoral), they understood at least the logic that he presented in defence of the necessity of his actions.  

This is the dissonance that many feel when considering the case when someone takes actions that they themselves perceive to be morally correct, notwithstanding the potential legal and/or societal judgment of their actions.  Robert Latimer was found legally guilty of Second Degree Murder.  Captain Semrau was found by Courts Martial to have acted disgracefully.  Actions, no matter what they were, were taken.  There is no doubt that individuals must be held accountable for actions that are determined within the legal construct of our (Canadian/Western/global) society to have been unlawful/inappropriate.  What is difficult is when one considers, even if only slightly, that there was any understandable element as to why someone may have taken the actions they did.  While there may not be acceptance of the actions, the discussion and consideration of why actions are or are not acceptable within contemporary society is worthy of continued effort.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Aug 2010)

Yes, the Moral Highground we presently occupy.  While I agree it is desirable to hold this patch of turf, I do hope that we don't die on it should we be over run some day by someone who does not share our ideals.  Your thoughts PBI are well put and thought provoking to say the least.   At the end of the day however, we all will act in a manner we see fit regardless of the concequences and will face judgement either by ourselves or by others.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Aug 2010)

My opinion is that second guessing policemen who make split second decisions in a violent confrontation is an unfair mistake as is second guessing individual reactions in war.  You take a reasonably ordinary cross-section of citizens,  throw them in a situation where they kill and see their friends killed, and then hold them to a standard expected back home.  War is not normal nor is the expectation of normal human reactions.

I don't see a serious problem with the time honoured Canadian tradition of discouraging such activity while overlooking it when it happens.  I have heard a post-Korea, pre-Afghanistan story along similar lines.  Are are now imposing on our soldiers the obligation to risk their lives to save a wounded enemy?  It appears so.  Tell that one to mom and dad back home.

I wonder whether the West isn't reaching a tipping point where it can never win another war because the standards we impose on our military are such that we can't.  We have tried to take the brutality out of war.  Brutality saved the world in WWII, reference the killing of millions of enemy civilians.  We attacked the enemy on all fronts available.  Does the Taliban really fear NATO?  I doubt it.  They know victory is inevitable and it is only a matter of time until Karzai and his cronies catch the last plane out of Kabul with suitcases of our money.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

pbi - well summed up.

When I hear people suggesting we should pick and choose which laws we follow, maybe I'm naive, but this exchange from "A Man for All Seasons" comes to mind:


> _William Roper:_ So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
> 
> _Sir Thomas More:_ Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> pbi - well summed up.
> 
> When I hear people suggesting we should pick and choose which laws we follow, maybe I'm naive, but this exchange from "A Man for All Seasons comes to mind:



At the time you quote, execution was the likely outcome of theft.  Today you blame it on toilet training and get probation, if.


----------



## Haggis (5 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't see a serious problem with the time honoured Canadian tradition of discouraging such activity while overlooking it when it happens.  *I have heard a post-Korea, pre-Afghanistan story along similar lines*.



Of Canadian origin?  Really?  Please, do tell!



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Are are now imposing on our soldiers the obligation to risk their lives to save a wounded enemy?  It appears so.


  We are obligated by law and convention to tend to wounded and injured enemy as we do to our own. Nothing new there.  However, no commander in his right mind would risk a Canadian life to save a wounded enemy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> At the time you quote, execution was the likely outcome of theft.  Today you blame it on toilet training and get probation, if.


Arguing sentencing practices is kinda different from arguing whether laws should be enforced or followed.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Aug 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Of Canadian origin?  Really?  Please, do tell!



Yes. Really. No.  

In all liklihood it was before you were born but there is no statute of limitations on such things and you must simply disbelieve me.  Cyprus!  Simply a second hand rumour that in afterthought I shouldn't have mentioned and I apologize to everyone.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Yes. Really. No.
> 
> In all liklihood it was before you were born but there is no statute of limitations on such things and you must simply disbelieve me.  Cyprus!  Simply a second hand rumour that in afterthought I shouldn't have mentioned and I apologize to everyone.



Check my profile.  I've been on this rock - and in uniform - a long time.  Therefore I choose to disbelieve you.  Half-baked innuendo and rumour mongering aren't erased by your apology.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Aug 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Half-baked innuendo and rumour mongering aren't erased by your apology.



You were 13 at the time.  My apology wasn't an admission concerning facts.    My apology was employing weasel words in an effort to deflect the topic.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> My apology wasn't an admission concerning facts.



Your "second hand rumour" hardly qualifies as a fact.  If you want to beat this up some more, we can go to PM's.  No need to derail this further with unsubstantiated heresay from 1973.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Aug 2010)

What would happen if the captain resigned from the CF before the sentence was handed down?  Or is that even possible at this point?


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Aug 2010)

Z-cop, No he can not resign to get out of offences committed while serving.

Denis Ruhl, 

Second hand info on a supposed cyprus killing? Sure buds. I see your a former 2LT, a really expirienced former soldier huh? I suppose you got lots to back up this rumour/second hand info? 

Sorry pal, I don't buy it at all.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Aug 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Z-cop, No he can not resign to get out of offences committed while serving.



Not exactly precedent but it worked for most involved with My Lai, and they murdered hundreds of un-wounded people.


----------



## KevinB (6 Aug 2010)

Interesting comment about My Lai 4, however 2Lt William Calley had been ordered (illegal order, but ordered none the less), to 'procesute the village' by his Company Commander (Capt Medina).
  He got convicted - and got three years house arrest.

However I think Capt Semrau is of much higher character than Calley, and the My Lai issue is not germane to this issue.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Aug 2010)

*Edit*


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Aug 2010)

My Lai is irrelevant for a few reasons, most of which you have covered.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2010)

Even if Capt Semrau had been released prior to charges being laid, he would have then been tried as "ex-Capt Semrau" as the offences were alleged to have occurred while he was subject to the NDA.


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> No, My Lai is not a parallel to the Semrau trial, but it is very significant for the question asked about whether or not he could dodge the charges by releasing.
> 
> A whole whack of people were untouchable because they had done their year and got out before the investigation was ready to lay any charges.
> 
> ...



Does the Inf Sch staff often cite wikipages in the same breath as their course packages?  Thankfully Canadians cannot dodge things (or become untouchables) in the same manner as Americans whether that it is military tribunals or drafts.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Aug 2010)

ST,

As per any topic, Wiki is to be taken with a grain of salt.  Typically it is not the page itself where the "truth" will be found, but the links at the bottom where the sources are to provide the full context.

JS,

It's not My Lai that is being quoted for the actions so much as the fact that in that case soldiers who released were never tried for their actions while in uniform, which differs from this case as mentioned because it would just be ex-Capt Semrau on trial.


----------



## Scott (6 Aug 2010)

Right, we've about covered the My Lai thing and wiki.

Back on track please

Staff


----------



## Danjanou (6 Aug 2010)

Ok A couple of quick mod points and ground rules to reiterate Scott's post above:

1-	At present there are 46,600+ views or hits on this thread
2-	A Google search on this topic puts the army.ca thread at number 2 right after a TorStar article
3-	We all know this place attracts a lot of high profile lurkers including many of the MSM. Especially on topics such as this.

Good arguments and debate on the topic at hand are encouraged, however let's think before we hit post. The My Lai reference has been explained by the one who posted it as a limited reference to a specific incident that happened 40 odd years ago and in relation to who some individuals escaped possible legal action because their enlistments ran out, and as noted has no bearing or relevance to this specific case.

Some elements lurking out there may, and I stress may take this out of context to further their own means. The last thing we all need is to see a headline somewhere saying "CF members compare Afghanistan to Vietnam War Atrocities on their own Forum." Not saying that can or would ever happen, but let's not even allow the possibility.

Thank you

milnet.ca Staff


----------



## winnipegoo7 (7 Aug 2010)

This was in todays Chronicle Herald in Halifax.   I was wondering if members were allowed to make comments like this to the press?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1195607.html

"Captain a disgrace
I was shocked when I read Pat Blais’s Aug. 2 letter on Capt. Robert Semrau.

Disgrace? Yes, this whole incident is a disgrace, to the Canadian military and to all of us who serve our country. Capt. Semrau is a disgrace to Canada and to the uniform we wear.

The insurgent was badly injured and from reading all the news information, they were fatal wounds; he would have died if not within minutes, then hours. There was no need for Capt. Semrau to take matters into his own hands. This was not compassion to a "human being," as the letter writer put it. No one has the right to act as God.

We had a dear friend pass away recently during this war, and I can tell you the impact of this war will be long-lasting, well after all our troops are home safe and sound.

As far as Capt. Semrau goes, he is a disgrace and he should be penalized to the absolute maximum. No one, including a military captain, is God!

I am very proud of my fellow soldiers, naval personnel and airmen/women serving this country, and wish them a safe return home.

*Cpl.* Charla Dorrington, Dartmouth"

[My emphasis on the rank]


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2010)

Jim Seggie's post on the highway fire is an enervating answer to pbi's questions.

I sit on the fence and thank God I wasn't in either of those situations.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2010)

This was in todays Ottawa Citizen Opinion pages.  

LINK



> Ghosts of Somalia
> 
> 
> By Gary Younghusband, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Aug 2010)

> The only disgrace is what has been done to him by the military.



So, what's the inference here? That it should have been swept under the rug? And the writer has the audacity to speak of "ghosts of Somalia"? Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed.  The only honorable course of action has been to let the military justice system work this through, as it has been doing. And in doing so, if some procedure or result leaves itself open to appeal, challenge and change, so be it. Those are also part of a balanced and fair judicial system.

How, exactly, would we have been treated in the press if the chain of command had "decided" this wasn't worth prosecuting, and then bits and pieces of the story leaked? You want to talk about "ghosts of Somalia"?



> I'm sure the majority of combat arms personnel feel this way.



To the writer - Don't presume to speak for me or anyone else in uniform, on this or any other matter.  The suggestion that you presume that you can is nothing but arrogance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2010)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> I was wondering if members were allowed to make comments like this to the press?....


I'm guessing it's not impossible that shortly, the writer will be getting a chat of some sort from an element of the Cpl's chain of command.


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's not impossible that shortly, the writer will be getting a chat of some sort from an element of the Cpl's chain of command.



Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".


----------



## The Anti-Royal (8 Aug 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".



If I were in Cpl Dorrington's chain of command, our one-way discussion would consist of a review of CF policies on the ability of serving members to offer personal opinion in the media, while representing themselves as serving members.  That's it - that's all.  Whether her opinion is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant.

The philosophical aspects of the Semrau issue should be discussed around the water cooler or, even better, as the central topic of a commander's hour on Army ethics.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".


If I had to bet a loonie, though, given the potential for people WAY higher in the food chain probably bringing this to the attention of said chain of command, I'd go with Anti-Royal's version:


			
				The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> .... our one-way discussion would consist of a review of CF policies on the ability of serving members to offer personal opinion in the media, while representing themselves as serving members ....


----------



## Haggis (8 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If I had to bet a loonie, though, given the potential for people WAY higher in the food chain probably bringing this to the attention of said chain of command, I'd go with Anti-Royal's version:


Agreed. However, the potential is there for an opposite reaction.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Aug 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, what's the inference here? That it should have been swept under the rug? And the writer has the audacity to speak of "ghosts of Somalia"? Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed.
> 
> How, exactly, would we have been treated in the press if the chain of command had "decided" this wasn't worth prosecuting, and then bits and pieces of the story leaked? You want to talk about "ghosts of Somalia"?



Have you reported every crime of which you have knowledge to authorities?  I doubt it.  Maybe you have and are very very lonely.  Hundreds of people probably heard rumours of the action and successfully ignored them.  As rumours are pervasive and endless they can be ignored, moreso if the consequences are distasteful.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Have you reported every crime of which you have knowledge to authorities?  I doubt it.  Maybe you have and are very very lonely.  Hundreds of people probably heard rumours of the action and successfully ignored them.  As rumours are pervasive and endless they can be ignored, moreso if the consequences are distasteful.



When evidence suggests that "the rumour is based upon an actual incident", then it's a whole other ballgame. That's what we have rules, investigations and the NDA for. It's been quite awhile since you've served; we are long over the coverup era. And, that's a very good thing.

Someone being very very lonely ( :) has absolutely zero to do with that.


----------



## Gunner98 (8 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> When evidence suggests that "the rumour is based upon an actual incident", then it's a whole other ballgame. That's what we have rules, investigations and the NDA for. It's been quite awhile since you've served; we are long over the coverup era. And, that's a very good thing.
> 
> Someone being very very lonely ( :) has absolutely zero to do with that.



By the way DR, isn't one of the pillars we support through the mission there is to help them understand responsibility as in responsible government?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Aug 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> By the way DR, isn't one of the pillars we support through the mission there is to help them understand responsibility as in responsible government?



Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory.  Beating up our own doesn't help accomplish that.  The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.

Responsible government?  Once NATO is gone the guy with the biggest stick will rule.  The guy with a big stick and a grey beard.  Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Aug 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed.



True, but each of us decides ultimately which laws they choose to obey.  And should they decide to go against the grain, they take the chance on your second point.  In my old trade, we said " we don't get the boys in s**t, they get themselves in s**t.  No matter how many or what kind of rules you have over you it's always up to you if you want to follow them or not.  At your peril.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.



This is something I said to our Terps, although I was not speaking of the seventh century ideals.  I said that the only people in Afghanistan who can make it a peacefully place with security and prosperity for all is the people of Afghanistan.  If they are not willing to make changes there is not a damn thing that anyone will do to effect change.  I explained more or less about Northern Ireland and how the ordinary folks got fed up with the troubles from both ends of the spectrum, said enough is enough and made change happen.   Of course, getting a tribalistic society amid the pressures to find unity enough for lasting change will be nigh on impossible I think.


----------



## medicineman (8 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory.



I'd have to say they've gotten used to wars without victory that have us stuck in the middle with pretty blue targets on our melons that go on forever - most of the people that were around when we were actually winning wars are either dead or getting on in years.  BTW - once we were entrenched in alot of those places, we were generally ignored by the public, even when guys were being sent home wounded or dead.

MM


----------



## pbi (9 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory.  Beating up our own doesn't help accomplish that.  The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.
> 
> Responsible government?  Once NATO is gone the guy with the biggest stick will rule.  The guy with a big stick and a grey beard.  Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.



Dennis Ruhl: Why is holding people accountable for their actions as leaders "beating up our own"? What would you prefer? The good old "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" approach? I served through the Somalia period (and for a good few years before that) and I have no desire to ever, ever see our military sink to that level again. Perhaps if we'd had a bit stronger culture of accountability in those days (at various levels of command), we might have avoided what happened, or at least dealt with it in a more effective manner. Trying to hide things like this will not work, and will only make the end result much worse when things are finally revealed.



> The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.



I'm not following here very well. (Age, no doubt...) What exactly do you mean by this? And how, in the circumstances that exist in Afghanistan (as opposed to WWII or Korea), would you define "victory" ? And, anyway, what is the logical connection between that and the issue of being held accountable under military law?

Cheers


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't see a serious problem with the time honoured Canadian tradition of discouraging such activity while overlooking it when it happens.


Overlooking an activity when it happens is condoning the activity.  Once the precedent is set that a "discouraged" activity will be overlooked, the message is sent that the activity is not really discouraged but is actually acceptable.

That is not effective means to the ends of maintaining discipline, unless you believe it effective to enforce regulations through "stop or I shall stay stop again."

In any case ...


> Military courts martial do not sacrifice fairness
> Re: Military justice system was not fair to Semrau,
> The Ottawa Citizen
> Letters
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Aug 2010)

PBI, I agree in that we don't want to see the systemic problems that were evident in the Somalia era come back to  the CF.  I believe we are past that now and this mentality has been cut out.   I was in 1CMBG at the time and yes, there were some bad apples around in those days.  They were dealt with and I hope this problem has been resolved in the prevailing years.

But while both incidents are bad, I think they are not related other than both the men who came into contact with our personnel were prisoners.  Once you touch them, and take control of them, they are prisoners and yes you are legally bound to treat them accordingly.  But other than that they are not related due to the fact of what went on and the reasoning or lack thereof behind these acts.  MCpl Matchee and Capt Semrau are polar opposites in mentality and intentions.  Capt Semrau although convicted of a crime, is not in my opinion a lowlife as the other one is.  His intentions were, despite the end result not meant to be cruel and cause suffering.  I believe it is a disservice to lump them both in together.  I also hope we will not tear ourselves apart either.


----------



## pbi (9 Aug 2010)

Jollyjacktar: 



> They were dealt with and I hope this problem has been resolved in the prevailing years.



I hope so too, very much. The problem is that we can't just rest on our laurels about the fact that we've made a huge effort to fix things since those days. Any institution, including (especially...) an army, runs a very high risk of going bad if it isn't subject to regular scrutiny and accountability., both internally and from without. Once we set the standard of what we expect, we haven't got much choice but to go on enforcing it, or risk a backward slide.




> I believe it is a disservice to lump them both in together.



As do I. I certainly never meant to suggest that Capt Semrau's actions were motivated by the same things that may have motivated those who committed war crimes in our past history (including Somalia), or those who tried to cover them up. If I appeared to suggest that, then I must apologize.

What I did mean, and what I would not apologize for, is that the danger to the Army (and to all of us who serve in it) is very much the same now as it was then. The danger is caused when people (at any rank level) begin to think that they aren't accountable to a higher authority for what they do while they are in a theatre of operations. Capt Semrau himself may not have believed that; he may have understood quite clearly that he would be called to answer for what he did, but decided to do it anyway. 

That is quite a different mentality than the one I am worried about, the one that seems to suggest that he should never have been held to account in the first place, or that it "just didn't matter", or it a conspiracy by "the brass", or (most disturbing) the thinly veiled inferences that any soldiers who report these acts are somehow worse than those who committ them. This kind of thinking, sometimes dressed up as the "wisdom" of "old soldiers", or as a somehow heroic and mystical code that only a few "true warriors" can understand, is the thing that worries me. It is attractive and has a nice "rebel" ring to it, as very bad ideas often do.

Cheers


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Aug 2010)

Not having attended the CM, read the transcripts, reports, results of investigations or knowing either the Capt or his Cpl personally as some do here, I do not therefore have all the facts and can only go on what I have had access to.

Perhaps it is as a result of my former vocation, but I always look at motive and mens rea (guilty mind) in a case such as this.  My questions are as ff: For the Cpl.  1. what was his motivation for coming forward with his information.  Was it because he felt that a crime had been committed and should be answered for.  Or was it as had been suggested as revenge for the Capt not wanting him to be on the team as he was not meeting the expectations of the Capt.  Why did it take him two months to come forward.  If someone reports a crime because it is a crime and seeks justice that is one thing,  if you add in revenge as the prime motivation they might then be seen to be some form of a rat in some quarters.

2.  As for the Capt.  There was no body recovered, no evidence that the Talib was in fact actually injured or killed by rifle fire or evidence that the Talib was even alive at the time of this alleged shooting.   Therefore how was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Capt actually shot into the body of this Talib.  He did not give evidence in his defense IIRC, so unless I missed something with the information I have I personally am not satisfied that a crime did in fact happen as alleged.  Yes, he WAS convicted of a crime, but did he just not shoot beside the body and make it look from a distance that he shot this person?  If there are others out there like myself that do not have the full story and wonder just what the hell really happened that might lead to some folks feeling he should not have been held accountable or had been abused by the system.  The sentence when it comes down will I fear only add fuel to the fires of both sides of this case.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Dennis Ruhl: Why is holding people accountable for their actions as leaders "beating up our own"? What would you prefer? The good old "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" approach? I served through the Somalia period (and for a good few years before that) and I have no desire to ever, ever see our military sink to that level again. Perhaps if we'd had a bit stronger culture of accountability in those days (at various levels of command), we might have avoided what happened, or at least dealt with it in a more effective manner. Trying to hide things like this will not work, and will only make the end result much worse when things are finally revealed.
> 
> I'm not following here very well. (Age, no doubt...) What exactly do you mean by this? And how, in the circumstances that exist in Afghanistan (as opposed to WWII or Korea), would you define "victory" ? And, anyway, what is the logical connection between that and the issue of being held accountable under military law?
> 
> Cheers



I don't think Canadian soldiers should be beating teenage thieves to death but  I don't like second guessing actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained.  I took a couple courses at Petawawa way back, met a few Airborne and had one as an instructor.  Some of those guys were caricatures of soldiers, and I thought that to be a good thing.  The guilty were punished but unfortunately amid massive budget cuts, the Somali incident provided the impetus to disband the regiment.

By my Atiila the Hun/Mother Theresa flip-flop I meant that if you want soldiers, send soldiers. If you want social workers, send social workers.  Soldiers do soldier things and micromanaging their battlefield actions  has no positive outcome.  As to what constutes victory in Afghanistan, how am I to know?  The politians don't know, nor do I think the generals.  I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties. A laudable goal?  Tell me.


----------



## pbi (9 Aug 2010)

> Why did it take him two months to come forward.



Only he knows for sure, but perhaps he was wrestling with a combination of fear and uncertainty? After all, there aren't very many of us who can just pop up and accuse a superior, particularly a well-liked and respected superior, of a serious crime, are there?



> they might then be seen to be some form of a rat in some quarters.



No doubt some people do see the Cpl as a "rat": that is exactly what I was referring to. If we create an environment in which peope are afraid to report what they reasonably believe is wrongdoing, where does that leave us?



> The sentence when it comes down will I fear only add fuel to the fires of both sides of this case.



I'm pretty sure there won't be a sentence that will please everybody. It will be seen in various quarters as too lenient or too harsh. But I'm actually not all that worried about the sentence, or even if he stays in the Army. What I'm worried about is that everybody remembers that we are supposed to be ruled by law and accountable to it. And that when we choose to break it (as any one of us can, at any time: nobody holds a gun to our heads...), we understand that we will be called to answer for it.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (9 Aug 2010)

> I don't think Canadian soldiers should be beating teenage thieves to death but  I don't like second guessing actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained.



Ok....so why bother having any of the rules and regulations (LOAC, ROE, Geneva Convention, QR&O), etc that are intended to influence those same  "...actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained...". Didn't events in Somalia occur under the pressure and tensions and frustration of operations in a harsh and hostile place? So how come we can agree that THAT behaviour can be judged, but other behaviour can't be? If we can't "second guess" people who were involved in a particular incident, how can military discipline be enforced during operations?



> the Somali incident provided the impetus to disband the regiment



Right, it did. And I never want to see that kind of thing happen again. Particularly not by cultivating a mentality that says we cxan ignore violations, or somehow rationalize them away.




> Soldiers do soldier things and micromanaging their battlefield actions  has no positive outcome



Yes, soldiers do those things. And throughout history (not just the last decade) those "soldier things" have included a very wide range of activities. Soldiers whose skill repertoire is limited  to killing and smashing things might be good for a war of annihilation, or desperate fight for national survival, but not for all the things in between that actually occupy most  armies' operational time.  I don't see how enforcing  a reasonable standard of accountability and discipline from soldiers is the same as "micromanaging their battlefield actions". On the contrary, I'd suggest that a basic requirement for successful mission command (generally accepted as the opposite of micromanagement)  is the ability to trust in the discipline and professionalism of your soldiers.



> I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.



Based on what?

Cheers


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Aug 2010)

Quote
I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties. 


Based on what?


I've been running a bit off topic but  -  based on the fact that our side has been there for 8 years and the situation has become more critical than ever, it is becoming increasingly obvious who is in charge of the situation.  Did anyone actually ponder the "out" when they did the "in" other than circling a date on the calendar?


----------



## Teflon (9 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Quote
> I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.
> 
> 
> ...



Not a bit off topic, that has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not having attended the CM, read the transcripts, reports, results of investigations or knowing either the Capt *or his Cpl *  personally as some do here, I do not therefore have all the facts and can only go on what I have had access to.
> 
> Perhaps it is as a result of my former vocation, but I always look at motive and mens rea (guilty mind) in a case such as this.  My questions are as ff: For the Cpl.  1. what was his motivation for coming forward with his information.   Was it because he felt that a crime had been committed and should be answered for.  Or was it as had been suggested as revenge for the Capt not wanting him to be on the team as he was not meeting the expectations of the Capt.  Why did it take him two months to come forward.  If someone reports a crime because it is a crime and seeks justice that is one thing,  if you add in revenge as the prime motivation they might then be seen to be some form of a rat in some quarters.
> ...



Fuck this gets tiring.

The testimony was:



> *Afghan medic accused Semrau of killing*
> Last Updated: Friday, March 26, 2010 | 12:46 PM ET Comments89Recommend35.
> 
> Five words of broken English *from an Afghan army medic * — "Capt. Rob boom, boom Taliban" — led to second-degree murder charges against Capt. Robert Semrau, his court martial heard Friday.
> ...



Before anyone starts branding anyone as a rat, perhaps they should "read the transcripts, reports, results of investigations...". Despite testimony, the crap and gossip still perpetuates.

Enough already. Each and every troop who was questionned as part of the investigation and gave their statements did their jobs as they were required to do IAW mil law - honourably too, I'll add.


----------



## Franko (9 Aug 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Quote
> I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Teflon said:
			
		

> Not a bit off topic, _*that has nothing to do with this topic*_.



I concur.

Back on topic please.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2010)

Somehow folks managed to steer this away from the stab job that Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson gave Capt. Semrau and that little bit of rattery is still sticking in my craw.

From all accounts the Capt. had a fine career until this incident, he has been publicly convicted, with nothing hidden and he will need to pay some kind of price, but I find those of you who willfully agree with Gen. Thompson like a pack of Pavilion dogs that he must be removed from the Forces rather sad. 

Of course you won't mind explaining to his kids how they can't afford to own a house anymore, or go to college, or even a vacation just because, in your haste to jump into bed with a backstabbing chain of command, you must carry on the nod.

He  MAYBE he screwed up this one time, let him finish his time in one of the thousands of fall-down-officer jobs that exist in the system. [he might even manage to put some integrity into some of those folks].

I'm certainly not asking for a "Labbe" job.......oh, thats right, he had "good" friends.  :[ some of you are even on this site]

My 2 cents.............................


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Aug 2010)

Nice one, Bruce.  Nail, head, hit.


----------



## pbi (10 Aug 2010)

> Of course you won't mind explaining to his kids how they can't afford to own a house anymore, or go to college, or even a vacation just because, in your haste to jump into bed with a backstabbing chain of command, you must carry on the nod.



Unless you know all the players in the chain of command in question (I don't), that broad condemnation seems a bit stiff.  I haven't read the transcripts, so I have to confess that I don't know in what context Gen Thompson made his statement, what the complete text of it was, or what the judge instructed the members to do about it (or about any other witness statement), but isn't it possible that he, and the rest of the CofC, actually disapproved of what they believed Semrau had done? (Based on what they knew?) Would Gen' Thompson's expression then be "backstabbing" or stating what he truly believed ? If leaders can't accept a certain type of illegal behaviour, then shouldn't they say so? I do know one or two of the people involved in the process, and an epithet like "backstabber" isn't even remotely fair or close. These people were not rubbing their hands in bloodthirsty glee, then or now. They will also live with the results of this trial.

Just about every soldier we sentence to punishment, or compulsorily release, is going to suffer in some way. In some cases his family will also suffer. We have to look these soldiers in the face when we enact punishments or administrative actions against them. Does that mean we do nothing, or automatically give lenient punishment, so that nobody calls us "backstabbers"? 

Capt Semrau is not an intellectual abstraction, nor a figure in a morality play, nor a cardboard cut out. He is a real man, with a family and people who love and respect him, and will continue to do so no matter how this ends.  Nothing changes any of that. Capt Semrau made a decision to act in a certain way, probably based on what he thought was right at the moment. There but for the grace of God go half of the people on this board: any one of us could have made the same decision, rightly or wrongly. But all of us, especially any of us in any position of authority, would have to expect to be judged by the system we agreed to be a part of. And, in the end, possibly found guilty and punished in some way. I don't understand how we can operate a modern military in a democratic country on any other basis.


----------



## Occam (10 Aug 2010)

According to the media, the statement that was attributed to BGen Thompson was this:

_“It’s such a blow to the credibility of the institution that I don’t think we have any other option but to relieve him from service” _ 

I'll admit that I don't know what constraints (if any) there are supposed to be on the testimony given by witnesses for the prosecution during the sentencing phase.  That said, I'm not certain that the CoC is supposed to be making suggestions as to punishment.  Isn't the punishment supposed to be an issue dealt with by the military judge?

If the CoC wants to release him, that's fine - but their wishes (and that's all they are) should translate into administrative action, and not encroach on disciplinary action which is the role of the CM.  Isn't that the reason why CMs are dealt with by military judges and not by the CoC?


----------



## KevinB (10 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Capt Semrau made a decision to act in a certain way, probably based on what he thought was right at the moment. There but for the grace of God go half of the people on this board: any one of us could have made the same decision, rightly or wrongly. But all of us, especially any of us in any position of authority, would have to expect to be judged by the system we agreed to be a part of. And, in the end, possibly found guilty and punished in some way. I don't understand how we can operate a modern military in a democratic country on any other basis.



AMEN

 While I disagree the logic of the verdict based on the small excerpts of the CM I have seen released in the media, I do not in anyway believe that soldiers, contractors or anyone should not be accountable for their actions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> (Based on what they knew?)



Bullshit......................while being a witness for the prosecution he/they shouldn't be speaking "based on what they knew", he/they should be speaking based on the EVIDENCE brought forth at the trial, otherwise its hearsay and certainly not admissible.

..and from everything I've read he states that he is speaking for the chain of command. If I truly believed what I was saying I would state that it's my opinion also and if I didn't believe it and I was just being a pull-string caricature for th......................naw, no need, it would never happen.


EDIT; for KevinB, and I have also stated that a price must be paid, all I am upset about is the job his boss did on him. With all the Gen's. floating around they had to send the one whom this incident left a stain on his tour command?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> According to the media, the statement that was attributed to BGen Thompson was this:
> 
> _“It’s such a blow to the credibility of the institution that I don’t think we have any other option but to relieve him from service” _
> 
> ...



Witnesses called in sentencing are not bound by prior testimony, though they are bound by the findings of the court.  Judges make sentences based on the recommendations of the prosecution and defence, taking into account the testimony both during the trial and during the sentencing phase.  But it is ultimately the judge's sentnce - he integrates the information provided by the prosecution and the defence and that was given in testimony and crafts a sentence to meet the aims of discipline - and his statement to the court will explain how and why he reached his conclusions, what factors weighed heavilly, lightly, and which were ignored.

In sentencing, there is more leeway for testimony.  Opinions can be solicited - indeed, the defence asked the opinion of the CO of 3 RCR, LCol Cameron.  Other evidence can be introduced as to the character of the accused or other information relevant in deterining the sentence.

There is a significant difference between an administrative dismissal from the CF and a disciplinary dismissal.  That is likely why BGen Thompson came out recommending that the military judge impose a sentence including dismissal. 

BGen Thompson was sent to the CM because he fills the position of the Chief of Operations for the Land Staff.  As such, the day to day operations of the Army are under his purview (of course, CLS rides over top).  Thus, he was the logical general to send to this CM.  Who else could have been sent?  BGen Patch, of ADM(Mat)?  LGen Davis, from Brussels?  MGen Bertrand, as Chief of Programme?  VAdm Rouleau, as the VCDS?  This case deals with an Army officer, engaged in land operations, and the prosecution sought out an Army general serving in the Army to testify.  That's a limited pool - CLS, ACLS, COS Ops, COS Strat, Comd LFDTS, 4x LFA Comds.  The only ones in the direct chain of command would be Comd LFCA, COS Ops and CLS.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> BGen Thompson was sent to the CM because he fills the position of the Chief of Operations for the Land Staff.  As such, the day to day operations of the Army are under his purview (of course, CLS rides over top).  Thus, he was the logical general to send to this CM.  Who else could have been sent?  BGen Patch, of ADM(Mat)?  LGen Davis, from Brussels?  MGen Bertrand, as Chief of Programme?  VAdm Rouleau, as the VCDS?  This case deals with an Army officer, engaged in land operations, and the prosecution sought out an Army general serving in the Army to testify.  That's a limited pool - CLS, ACLS, COS Ops, COS Strat, Comd LFDTS, 4x LFA Comds.  The only ones in the direct chain of command would be Comd LFCA, COS Ops and CLS.


Given that the offense was comitted when the member was deployed on foreign operations, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have a member of the chain of command from CEFCOM?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2010)

I don't know who set the witness list.  But CEFCOM tends to take a very narrow view of their role - once a solider is handed back to the force generator, CEFCOM`s involvement is greatly reduced.


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Aug 2010)

DAP,

BGen Thompson was more than likely sent because *he was Comd TFK when it happened*.  

Bruce,

Just because someone defends the integrity and character od BGen Thompson does not mean they are hanging Rob out to dry.

I know both of them, and like most I likely wouldn't want to be in either of their shoes because both ethical challenges will bring people against you who disagree (see my signature block).

It is very easy to be critical of leadership, because a lot of people don't understand how heavy the burden can be.  What would you rather BGen Thompson do?  Look the other way?  Sweep it under the rug?  That hasn't exactly done the CF a lot of good in the past.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Aug 2010)

I don't get why people are taking such a black and white view on this thing.  It is ridiculous to say that the captain shouldn't have been disciplined and that it never should have made it into the light once it came up (even if it shouldn't have) and it is equally ridiculous to say that he is such a blight on the military as so that his name should never be uttered and he should be cast out from the CF with maximum disgrace.  
The man made a hard decision, based on (IMO) a very brutal but compassionate stance.  There is a convergence here of what is right and what is lawful and I think there are an infinite number of opinions as to both and how they intersect.  
Again, my opinion, the question should be "is the CF better with or without Captain Semrau"?  In the scheme of things, I believe the answer to that is "No, it would not be better without him".  Everyone from the get-go knew the murder/attempt murder were non-starters.  Those were to make a big flash/bang for the public and politicians.  The only charges that could stick are the ultra interpretive military infractions.  Has he been punished?  Yeah, I'd say so.  Will a year in Club Ed make him a better person/serve any purpose?  I don't think so.  Will ejecting him and losing his skill set/ability/leadership in any way shape or form help the CF?  I wouldn't appear so.  
I'm willing to bet there are plenty of units out there that would be thrilled to have a skilled and honourable leader like Captain Semrau as their RSS.  If he's too soiled and icky for the ivory ranks, send him down to the dirty Mo.  We're all about the end result.


----------



## Brutus (10 Aug 2010)

Although I personally disagree with BGen Thompson's assessment, I am not in his position, and it is not within my purview to definitively state whether the good Captain is suitable for continued employment in the CF. I believe he was 'in his lane' when making those comments as it IS within his purview. Essentially, I can disagree with his assessment, but I don't believe one can argue his professional authority or credibility on the issue itself.

Although I can sympathize with the Captain's situation, and logically follow his decision making process (although I was not there, don't know him, etc.), I don't believe it is right to fully exonerate him due to the blatant illegality of the act he was accused of. You could argue that the Law does not account for the extraordinary circumstance he found himself in, but the solution is not to willingly violate the law. The cost to the Cf of outright exonerating the man would be, IMHO, potentially catastrophic. As we are held to a very high level of discipline, to excuse a significant breach of discipline in such a public way would provide some justification for other soldiers to act in a way that is contrary to our ethos, laws, and culture. 

This is a classic moral dilemma - condemn him and you condemn a man who by all accounts acted out of pure and humane motivations. Exonerate him and you encourage unacceptable behaviour from others who will use this ruling as justification for their dishonourable conduct.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> DAP,
> 
> BGen Thompson was more than likely sent because *he was Comd TFK when it happened*.



Numerous media reports stated



> Brig.-Gen. Thompson told Capt. Semrau's hearing...he was speaking for the Canadian Forces chain of command in making his recommendation.
> 
> Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/Semrau+should+discharged+General/3325965/story.html#ixzz0wETnJetG



Thus, BGen Thompson was speaking on behalf of the chain of command, and not as former commander TFK.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I don't know who set the witness list.  But CEFCOM tends to take a very narrow view of their role - once a solider is handed back to the force generator, CEFCOM`s involvement is greatly reduced.


[tangent]
Hence why CEFCOM ought to be disbanded.  After all, it wasn't an "army" operation.  In fact, I cannot think of one "army" operation, and why they would need a chief of operations, since all the "army" does is train (generate) and employ forces.  (CANADACOMD in Canada, and CEFCOM overseas).
[/tangent]


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Thus, BGen Thompson was speaking on behalf of the chain of command, and not as former commander TFK.



How is it that Comd TFK is not speaking on behalf of his chain of command while on operations?

Capt Coy Mentor --> Maj Bn Mentor --> CO OMLT -->Comd TFK.

No, he's not the CDS or Comd CEFCOM, but he was essentially the guy at the top of all pers in Kandahar (incl US forces).


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Thus, BGen Thompson was speaking on behalf of the chain of command, and not as former commander TFK.


Arguably, given his current & former jobs, BGen Thompson was in the unique position of being able to represent Capt Semrau's CoC for the time of the incident and also for the present.bb


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Arguably, given his current & former jobs, BGen Thompson was in the unique position of being able to *represent Capt Semrau's CoC for the time of the incident* and also for the present.bb



Yea, and, IMO,  there's more than a little odor about that.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Aug 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea, and, IMO,  there's more than a little odor about that.


I'm not sure I agree, Bruce, and here's why.
BGen Thompson was brought in for his opinion to represent the good Captain's chain of command _after_ he was convicted.  If the good Captain were convicted of something that were universally viewed as heinous, say blowing up a bus load of nuns, orphans and the Swedish Bikini Team, I'm certain that nobody would have blinked an eye that the Chain of Command were brought in, after the fact, to discuss how the Chain of Command views the whole thing.  
As stated, BGen Thompson has the unique position of being both in the member's current chain of command, as well as being the Theatre Commander when the incident occured.  
Had the chain of command not be solicited for its opinion, then I would offer that there were a bit of odour.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2010)

This case is a good reason for not wanting to be the judge in this case. It has been established that Captain Semrau is both an admirable human being and a fine officer. He also stands convicted of disgraceful conduct, regardless of his motivation. 

So, what does the judge do? He seems to be in an unique case without a lot of precedent to guide him. Does he hammer Semrau to send a message that the law must be obeyed, no ifs, ands or buts? It hardly seems fair, but may be the best solution. Does he deliver a relatively light sentence because of the circumstances and because of Semrau's character and record? If so he might just set a precedent to guide a judge, who at sometime in future may be called upon to exercise the same lenience to a jerk for something akin to Semrau's crime. While it pains me to say it, the best course may be the first course. In my heart I hope it is not, but my head tells me otherwise.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ........... If so he might just set a precedent to guide a judge, who at sometime in future may be called upon to exercise the same lenience to a jerk for something akin to Semrau's crime.




I think you may have over thought that, and I would hope that a person's "character" would preclude a judge being "lenient to a jerk" at some future time.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This case is a good reason for not wanting to be the judge in this case. It has been established that Captain Semrau is both an admirable human being and a fine officer. He also stands convicted of disgraceful conduct, regardless of his motivation.
> 
> So, what does the judge do? He seems to be in an unique case without a lot of precedent to guide him. Does he hammer Semrau to send a message that the law must be obeyed, no ifs, ands or buts? It hardly seems fair, but may be the best solution. Does he deliver a relatively light sentence because of the circumstances and because of Semrau's character and record? If so he might just set a precedent to guide a judge, who at sometime in future may be called upon to exercise the same lenience to a jerk for something akin to Semrau's crime. While it pains me to say it, the best course may be the first course. In my heart I hope it is not, but my head tells me otherwise.



The PO will consider all mitigating circumstances when arriving at a sentence; inclusive of character, motivation, circumstances etc.

I'm quite sure, that given the mitigating circumstances in this case - that a PO would not arrive at the same sentence for this CF Officer when compared to a CF Officer who - for an example - shoots an unarmed, uninjured, insurgent 'just for shits & giggles,' but who is convicted of same charge.


----------



## Occam (11 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree, Bruce, and here's why.
> BGen Thompson was brought in for his opinion to represent the good Captain's chain of command _after_ he was convicted.  If the good Captain were convicted of something that were universally viewed as heinous, say blowing up a bus load of nuns, orphans and the Swedish Bikini Team, I'm certain that nobody would have blinked an eye that the Chain of Command were brought in, after the fact, to discuss how the Chain of Command views the whole thing.
> As stated, BGen Thompson has the unique position of being both in the member's current chain of command, as well as being the Theatre Commander when the incident occured.
> Had the chain of command not be solicited for its opinion, then I would offer that there were a bit of odour.



The chain of command can offer its opinion as to the heinousness of the crime, without venturing into recommendations as to punishment, no?  

It still strikes me as odd that BGen Thompson would be allowed to stray into the area of the chain of command's sentencing recommendations.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> The chain of command can offer its opinion as to the heinousness of the crime, without venturing into recommendations as to punishment, no?
> 
> It still strikes me as odd that BGen Thompson would be allowed to stray into the area of the chain of command's sentencing recommendations.



I`m pretty sure that in every CM transcript that I`ve read, both the prosecution and the defense have offered sentencing recommendations and both sides have called in pers to testify as to the requirement for sentencing and it`s mitigating (defense) and aggravating (prosecution) circumstances.

Same thing happens in civil trials.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Aug 2010)

I`ll just delete what I just typed and say "Vern - Ditto."

BGen Thompson mde recommendations for sentence because he was asked for them.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Aug 2010)

I still think the disgraceful part has to do with acting without remorse (telling lots of people about it and how he would do it again) with an overt contravention of LOC.


----------



## kratz (13 Aug 2010)

423 words were published as front page news, the majority of them (344 words) had nothing to do with the reason Col Pearson was on the Island. You literally have to read between the lines to read those 79 words explaining why the Col was on the Island.

from The Guardian today.



> Army colonel steers clear of conviction against soldier
> Published on August 13th, 2010
> Jim Day
> 
> ...


----------



## Franko (13 Aug 2010)

Slow news day on PEI and a second rate reporter was hunting for a story where there was none...so he instigated one.

Nice.         :

Regards


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Aug 2010)

Mike is one very smart guy, who intellectually, could handle any reporter, let alone a second rate one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2010)

According to a Sun Media reporter's Twitter feed posting:


> Capt. Robert #semrau sentencing postponed until Sept 21. It was skeded for tomorrow.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Sep 2010)

Semrau sentencing delayed
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 8, 2010 | 2:56 PM ET CBC News 
The sentencing of Capt. Robert Semrau, a Canadian soldier found guilty of disgraceful conduct in the death of a wounded insurgent in Afghanistan, has been postponed until Sept. 21.

Capt. Robert Semrau is now scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 21 for disgraceful conduct in the death of a wounded insurgent in Afghanistan's Helmand province in 2008. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)Military Judge Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron has informed the parties involved that he couldn't reconvene the court martial on Sept. 9 as scheduled because of medical reasons, a Canadian Forces spokesman said Tuesday.

Semrau, 36, was accused of firing two rounds from his rifle at a dying Taliban fighter in Helmand province of Afghanistan in October 2008.

In July, he was acquitted of three more serious charges, including second-degree murder, attempting to commit murder with a firearm and negligent performance of a military duty.

The trial heard evidence that Semrau told fellow officers after the shooting that he simply wanted to put a wounded and dying enemy fighter out of his misery.

Semrau never testified, but an Afghan army captain who was on the patrol with Semrau testified the Taliban fighter was "98 per cent dead" when he was found.

Now based at CFB Petawawa, Semrau, a married father of two young children, grew up in Moose Jaw, Sask.

The charge of behaving in a disgraceful manner carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/08/semrau-court-martial.html#ixzz0yy3fPWiu


----------



## owa (9 Sep 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Slow news day on PEI and a second rate reporter was hunting for a story where there was none...so he instigated one.
> 
> Nice.         :
> 
> Regards



The Guardian is one of the biggest jokes of a newspaper ever.  As a point of reference, when I worked there (don't worry, not as a writer in any capacity haha), they intentionally wrote it at a junior high level.  Of course, that speaks wonders of the literacy rates here on the Island...  But that's a whole different issue.  :-\


----------



## aesop081 (9 Sep 2010)

owa said:
			
		

> Of course, that speaks wonders of the literacy rates here on the Island...  But that's a whole different issue.  :-\



Oddly enough, low literacy rates were in the news tonight. Coincidence ?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/08/adult-literacy-report.html


----------



## owa (9 Sep 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, low literacy rates were in the news tonight. Coincidence ?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/08/adult-literacy-report.html



I didn't notice that today.  Interesting read, thanks for the link.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2010)

....according to Postmedia News:


> Capt. Robert Semrau’s sentencing has been postponed for a second time.  Semrau, 36, an infantry officer with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, was scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 21 for shooting a severely wounded Taliban insurgent on an Afghan battlefield.  But the military announced Monday that his sentencing will be postponed to Oct. 5 at the request of defence counsel.  Earlier this month, the judge in the case, Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, postponed the sentencing due to a medical condition ....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Sep 2010)

They probably have him doing somebodies staff work and since he is doing too good of a job with it, he can't be spared to leave.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2010)

Via CBC.ca:


> Capt. Robert Semrau, a Canadian soldier convicted of disgraceful conduct for shooting a wounded Afghan insurgent in 2008, will learn his fate on Tuesday.
> 
> A military judge will hand down a sentence on Semrau in Gatineau, Que.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2010)

This from CBC.ca:


> Capt. Robert Semrau, a Canadian soldier convicted of disgraceful conduct for shooting a wounded Afghan insurgent in 2008, has been kicked out of the military but will not go to jail.



This from Postmedia News/Vancouver Sun:


> Capt. Robert Semrau escaped a jail sentence Tuesday for shooting a severely wounded insurgent on an Afghan battlefield, an act that the military judge said was "shockingly unacceptable behaviour" that offends military values and training.
> 
> But he was dismissed from the Canadian military and demoted to the rank of second lieutenant.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2010)

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end....amply displayed today....


----------



## Redeye (5 Oct 2010)

Here's CBC's story: (with usual disclaimer of Fair Use)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/05/captain-robert-semrau-sentencing-afghanistan.html

Capt. Robert Semrau, a Canadian soldier convicted of disgraceful conduct for shooting a wounded Afghan insurgent in 2008, has been kicked out of the military but will not go to jail.

As part of his punishment, Semrau's rank will also be reduced to second lieutenant.

Semrau was accused of firing two rounds from his rifle into a dying Taliban fighter in Helmand province of Afghanistan in October 2008.

A military panel acquitted Semrau on July 19 of murder and attempted murder, over what some have called a mercy killing on the battlefield. 

The 36-year-old captain held a spotless military record until the battlefield incident. The case has raised difficult questions for the military about the conduct of its soldiers and the fog of war.

Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, the judge who handed down the sentence in Gatineau, Que., on Tuesday, chastised Semrau for his actions.

"Shooting a wounded and unarmed person is disgraceful because it is so fundamentally contrary to our values and training that it is shockingly unacceptable," Perron said, adding that "every Canadian soldier is an ambassador of Canadian values."

"Your actions may have been motivated by a sense that you were doing the right thing. Nonetheless you committed a serious breach of discipline," the judge said.

"How can we expect our soldiers to follow the rules of war if their officers do not?" Perron said.

For his conviction on disgraceful conduct, Semrau faced a maximum of five years in prison and a dishonourable discharge. Prosecutors sought a prison sentence of two years less a day and dismissal with disgrace from the Canadian Forces, while Semrau's lawyer had argued for a reduction in rank and a severe reprimand.

Semrau's family and supporters argued it was unfair that he faced prosecution in a courtroom for decisions made on the battlefield.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall probably the best possible outcome for him, no prison time so he can get on with his life.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2010)

This, from the Ottawa Citizen's Andrew Duffy:


> Capt. David Hodson, a military lawyer, says Semrau is very disappointed at being forced out of the military. An appeal is possible, he said


----------



## KingofKeys (5 Oct 2010)

I got a question. Why did Semrau get kicked out from the Canadian Forces  AND receive a reduction in rank? What role does the reduction in rank play here? Isn't this equivalent to a permanent suspension of your driving license, along with a reduction of licensing privilege to learner's permit? Can someone enlighten/satisfy my curiosity here?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, the judge who handed down the sentence in Gatineau, Que., on Tuesday, chastised Semrau for his actions.
> 
> "Shooting a wounded and unarmed person is disgraceful because it is so fundamentally contrary to our values and training that it is shockingly unacceptable," Perron said, adding that "every Canadian soldier is an ambassador of Canadian values."



Because watching someone suffer is a Canadian value.

I'm glad atleast that _Captain_ Semrau escaped jail time.


----------



## kincanucks (5 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Because watching someone suffer is a Canadian value.
> 
> I'm glad atleast that _Captain_ Semrau escaped jail time.



No it is not, but providing aid and comfort to a wounded enemy is.  In my opinion justice was served.  A sad end to a sad chapter in Canadian military history.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Oct 2010)

I'll admit I have not been following this story THAT closely but it was my understanding that the Canadians attached with the ANA company were basically deep in Taliban territory. The ANA company was moving forward and staying behind with the wounded dying Taliban soldier would  most likely have resulted the Canadians being killed by the Taliban at worst and at best, captured and paraded all over the news.  
Staying with the dying man wasn't really an option, nor would it really endear them with the ANA company they were mentoring.


Talking about justice, Karla Humulka is free with a degree from Queens University and is living in the Bahamas somewhere  ???


----------



## bdave (5 Oct 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end....amply displayed today....



I Agree.



			
				KingofKeys said:
			
		

> I got a question. Why did Semrau get kicked out from the Canadian Forces  AND receive a reduction in rank? What role does the reduction in rank play here? Isn't this equivalent to a permanent suspension of your driving license, along with a reduction of licensing privilege to learner's permit? Can someone enlighten/satisfy my curiosity here?



Probably symbolic. Taking away the prestige of being a Captain by demoting him to 2nd LT; which is basically the lowest comissioned officer rank.


----------



## Brutus (5 Oct 2010)

KingofKeys said:
			
		

> I got a question. Why did Semrau get kicked out from the Canadian Forces  AND receive a reduction in rank? What role does the reduction in rank play here? Isn't this equivalent to a permanent suspension of your driving license, along with a reduction of licensing privilege to learner's permit? Can someone enlighten/satisfy my curiosity here?



Severance? Just a thought. Also, it's symbolic.


----------



## Redeye (5 Oct 2010)

Wouldn't his release category prevent him from being able to re-enrol, though?  Presumably he'd be released under category 1(a), you'd think that'd be a showstopper at re-enrolment?  QR&Os Vol 1, Chapter 6.01(3) would say so - "3) Except during an emergency, a person upon whom a punishment of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service has been carried out and not subsequently set aside shall not be enrolled in the Canadian Forces."



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> While you've stated that your opinion is completely uninformed, the media may ignore that fact when citing you as an as an example of how _those army people_ think it's OK to shoot wounded combatants.
> 
> What Semrau did has been judged legally wrong, and he is paying the penalty awarded by the court. I suspect that he will carry this burden forever.
> 
> ...


----------



## JesseWZ (5 Oct 2010)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101005/semrau-sentencing-101005/

In the article above, it says that he was given dismissal without disgrace, meaning he can still apply for the public service. 

"Perron said Semrau would be dismissed from the military without disgrace, meaning that he could work for the Crown or the government in future. He did not order Semrau to serve any jail time."


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2010)

I think there was some confusion because of an initial Canadian Press headline saying he was dismissed "in disgrace" - CP has corrected that.


----------



## dogger1936 (5 Oct 2010)

Right or wrong I'm glad Capt Semrau can finally put TF 03-08 behind him hopefully for good. All the best to him and his family, it had to be rough on everyone.

best of luck.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Oct 2010)

OK so 2nd Lt. Semrau enters a Recruiting centre and says he wants to join as an Infantry officer.
What are his realistic chances of the military taking the political risk on enrolling him?
Or should Mr.Semreau be looking at a civy job? Again would he be able to get a  public service job?
I don't think he will get much satisfaction if his lawyer tries the appeal route.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2010)

Technically, as his was not a "Dishonourable" Release, he should stand the same chances as any other "re enrollee".  However, you will also remember that there is a serious freeze on Recruiting.   :-\


----------



## bdave (5 Oct 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> OK so 2nd Lt. Semrau enters a Recruiting centre and says he wants to join as an Infantry officer.
> What are his realistic chances of the military taking the political risk on enrolling him?
> Or should Mr.Semreau be looking at a civy job? Again would he be able to get a  public service job?
> I don't think he will get much satisfaction if his lawyer tries the appeal route.



If they keep it low key that he re-enrolled, then the CF would benefit tremendously from it.
If the public/media is aware that he has been reinstated as a member of the CF, then there would probably be back lash.
He'll probably lay low for a year or two, with a civvy job, until this all blows over and then apply.
That's what I'd do anyway.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (5 Oct 2010)

I think the media would blow up if he got re-enrolled. 

Not that I don't think he shouldn't get back in. In fact, I would hope he would be allowed back in.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Oct 2010)

I suspect......that any speculation on media or government reaction to his re-enrolling may be a tad premature


----------



## observor 69 (5 Oct 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> OK so 2nd Lt. Semrau enters a Recruiting centre and says he wants to join as an Infantry officer.
> What are his realistic chances of the military taking the political risk on enrolling him?
> Or should Mr.Semreau be looking at a civy job? Again would he be able to get a  public service job?
> I don't think he will get much satisfaction if his lawyer tries the appeal route.



Yes ....guess I was just thinking out loud.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Oct 2010)

Punishment handed down, life should go on in a fair world.  But this one isn't.  The good Captain will be treated like kryptonite dipped in toxic waste and rolled in depleted uranium dust.  The fallout over his personal life will long outlast the severity of the crime, or the punishment.  Damn shame.


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 Oct 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Punishment handed down, life should go on in a fair world.  But this one isn't.  The good Captain will be treated like kryptonite dipped in toxic waste and rolled in depleted uranium dust.  The fallout over his personal life will long outlast the severity of the crime, or the punishment.  Damn shame.



+1

From everything good and bad I've heard, I would work with the Good Captain any day of the week.

for what it's worth in my eyes his integrity counts for a lot... He never tried to cover up what he did. And he felt he acted honorably... I can respect that.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Oct 2010)

Cleaned.

Proudnewfoundlanders's tangent is here, at least until I or another staff member decide it can go to the trash.


Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is offered without comment:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/semraus-sentence-criticized-for-ambiguous-message/article1743222/


> Semrau’s sentence criticized for ‘ambiguous’ message
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...



Opinions, from a wide range of sources, continue to vary.


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Oct 2010)

quote from article
"But Capt. Semrau’s sentence angers rank-and-file soldiers and supporters, who argue he should not have been forced to stand trial for decisions made in a combat zone."

What ?????


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Oct 2010)

Joe Warmington's view.    I do agree with one thing and that's this would not have made it past the first 5 minutes in a real court.


http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/10/05/15594531.html
News Columnists / Joe Warmington


Last Updated: October 5, 2010 8:04pm


Capt. Robert Semrau should get a medal and then be sent back to Afghanistan to kill as many of those Taliban bastards as possible.

Or did Canada suddenly forget it’s in a war with those murderous scumbags who have savagely killed 152 of our soldiers?

What kind of country throws a trained killer under the bus for killing the very enemy that slayed so many of our people? The Taliban, who don’t have such strict guidelines to adhere to when blowing up Canadians, must be laughing in their caves.

Semrau was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a bizarre, second-guessing case and booted from the military but the real disgrace is that he was ever charged in the first place. There was never a body located which means this should have been thrown out at first court date.

But they were hellbent to nail him and still are despite the fact he was acquitted of murder. How can someone be disgraceful when they are found not guilty of the alleged disgrace?
Meanwhile, if this country is not going to back our soldiers up 100% in war is it really worth it to let one more young person be killed in Afghanistan?

Why stay one more day? Why would our troops risk their lives knowing someone can pull out the guidelines on them, giving the Taliban the benefit of the doubt?
We don’t want our warriors worrying about a court martial when confronting this vicious enemy. But that’s what this firing of Semrau accomplishes.

“You have made a decision that will cast a shadow on you for the rest of your life,” Military Judge Jean-Guy Perron told Semrau in announcing the 36-year-old is being expelled from the military.

So much easier to judge rules of engagement decisions behind that safe bench. It’s not quite the same work environment in Afghanistan.
Perron also said “the shooting ... was fundamentally contrary to our values” when he knows very well that Semrau was not convicted of shooting anybody.

Why is military defence lawyer Maj. Steve Turner standing for this? Afraid of the consequences of going against the brass? Civilian defence counsels like Eddie Greenspan, John Rosen or Marie Henin would have had Semrau out of this in 10 minutes.

Meanwhile everybody knows you can’t apply logic in comfy Ottawa to leading a team of Afghan soldiers into a lethal war zone. If the military wasn’t so worried about what the politically-correct coward-crowd thinks, it would give Semrau the same second chance that everybody else who goes through our legal system seems to get.

No Canadian who put his life on the line for this country should be discarded in this way and I ask the always fair Chief of Defence Gen. Walter J. Natynczyk to ensure fairness is administered here because he knows complicated things happen every day in Afghanistan.

This was in the heat of battle and as they wonder if this could ever happen to them, you better believe your troops are watching. And so are the Taliban who get the message: “You can kill us but if we want to kill you, we better call Judge Jean-Guy Perron first to make sure it’s okay.”

Now that they are done throwing the book at one of our boys for doing the job they sent him in to do, perhaps this short-on-combat experience military judge can go over in Semrau’s place to a deadly hell hole where the stupid rule book does not apply in dealing with people who would take an axe to your head.


----------



## Redeye (6 Oct 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> quote from article
> "But Capt. Semrau’s sentence angers rank-and-file soldiers and supporters, who argue he should not have been forced to stand trial for decisions made in a combat zone."
> 
> What ?????



If I've ever seen any issue that "rank-and-file" types don't really agree on, it's this - many a Mess argument has been the result of discussions of this, and generally at the end of the day I think most people realize that the matter couldn't be ignored.


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Oct 2010)

Although great for mess discussion, the Law of Armed Conflict is taught, published, enforced and clear:

435. WOUNDED, SICK AND SHIPWRECKED
1. All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to whichever party they belong, shall be respected and protected and shall not be attacked.

G l Art 12 (1); Gll Art 12 (1); AP l Arts 10 (1) & 41 (1) & (2) (c); AP ll Art 7 (1)

2. The “wounded” and “sick” mean persons, whether military or civilian who, because of trauma,
disease or other physical or mental disorder or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care. The
wounded and sick are protected so long as they refrain from any act of hostility.

http://www.cfd-cdf.forces.gc.ca/websites/Resources/dgfda/Pubs/CF%20Joint%20Doctrine%20Publications/CF%20Joint%20Doctrine%20-%20B-GJ-005-104%20FP-021%20-%20LOAC%20-%20EN%20(13%20Aug%2001).pdf


----------



## Redeye (6 Oct 2010)

That's my stance on the matter - moral ambiguity and the reality that I cannot say I wouldn't have felt it right to do the same thing were I in his shoes, LOAC is absolutely, unequivocably clear.  They could offer no assistance but he had no right to fire the shots he did - the argument centres on whether that, in the aggregate, was the "right thing to do" from a compassionate/ethical/moral stance.

I think the sentence, which I'm sure was a struggle to determine, serves justice reasonably well.  It makes the legal position of the CF clear and hopefully acts as a reasonable deterrent - but I'm sure this conversation will go on for a very long time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

No body was found.
What happened to no victim no crime?


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Oct 2010)

I guess the real issue for me all along has been why medical care (although impossible to save his life in this case) was decided or 'ordered' not to be provided - since it is clear that it would fall under respect.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> No body was found.
> What happened to no victim no crime?



Don't even start that bull crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Oct 2010)

Going back to what I said earlier on in the thread........



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Exactly
> So, he could get less than that.
> "going on charge" seemed to and somehow always seems to be justified by
> "against the good order and discipline..etc".
> ...



I find that the punishment shows a fine example of compassion by the board due to the fact that he  was convicted of disgraceful conduct under the National Defence Act.
It could have turned out worse.


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2010)

KingofKeys said:
			
		

> I got a question. Why did Semrau get kicked out from the Canadian Forces  AND receive a reduction in rank? What role does the reduction in rank play here?


It takes away a status.  Rank on release is often still referenced for status when one is out - consider all the former military personnel that use thier rank on release to leverage credibility in the media or other circles.

In fact, to be technically correct, the news media should no longer be refering to "Capt Semrau" as the man they wish to identify is "2Lt Semrau" (and will remain such for the handfull of days he has left to serve in uniform).  That is fairly significant rebuke despite having negligable actual career impact.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Punishment handed down, life should go on in a fair world.  But this one isn't.  The good Captain will be treated like kryptonite dipped in toxic waste and rolled in depleted uranium dust.  The fallout over his personal life will long outlast the severity of the crime, or the punishment.  Damn shame.


I suspect there will be groups of people who will pre-judge him as either hero or villain.  I suspect (and hope), the majority of people will be prepared to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.  I also suspect that, once all court procedings are permanently behind him, the book offers will be coming out of the woodwork.


----------



## GR66 (6 Oct 2010)

I am neither a CF Member or a legal expert so take or leave this outside opinion as you wish.

What Capt. Semrau did was contrary to the letter of the law.  Nothing that I've heard on this incident leads me to believe that he in any way acted out of hatred or malice in his actions but rather out of human compassion.  You may feel free to disagree with his decision but I haven't seen anyone make a serious argument about his apparent intent (my conjecture only never having actually spoken to any of the individuals involved).

The law is in place for an important reason.  We set high standards for our society to set ourselves apart from those we oppose.  Combat may be the most difficult place to enforce those high standards and it is not without potential risk that we do so.  However, meeting those standards when it is truly difficult to do so is the true test of our society.  It's easy to do the right thing when doing so comes at no risk.  On occasion both our society as a whole as well as individuals within that society will have a price to pay for meeting (or at least attempting to meet) those standards.  In this case it can be argued that Capt. Semrau has paid this price on our behalf.

I personally feel that the court has struck a fairly reasonable balance between showing that our high standards really count (by publicly punishing Capt. Semrau and clearly stating to all that his behaviour in unacceptable) while not imposing overly harsh punishment (jail time, etc.) on an individual that did not act out of malice.

It may be a case where nobody ends up truly satisfied with the result (either too harsh or too lenient) but maybe that in itself is a sign that the right balance has been found.

Glenn


----------



## pbi (6 Oct 2010)

> But Capt. Semrau’s sentence angers rank-and-file soldiers and supporters, who argue he should not have been forced to stand trial for decisions made in a combat zone.



Really? So on what basis would we maintain discipline in a force engaged in combat operations? Why bother having ROE, or Laws of Armed Conflict, or the Geneva Convention, or QR&Os? If the purpose of having military discipline is to make a force ready for combat, and to ensure its effectiveness once it enters combat, then why would we not enforce that discipline when we're actually in combat? What (if anything...) would distinguish us from an armed rabble or a gang of Taleban?

This is a very tragic story. At least one life (perhaps more if we consider his family...) has been badly smashed. There is divisiveness within the Army as people argue for or against. A very good and otherwise honourable young man made a bad decision. He broke the law, albeit with what he probably thought were the best of intentions.  He answered for it, under the same system that as a commissioned officer he voluntarily swore to obey, uphold and enforce, just as I'm sure he knew that he would have to. He did not go to prison, thankfully, but the message is sent. To let this act, or even the perception of the act, go unpunished would have made a mockery of having any laws, any rules or any codes of conduct at all.

What scares me in all this is not that an officer was punished for making a decision. Thousands of officers will go on making thousands of decisions, some good, some bad, but all accountable if our system really works. What scares me is some people who apparently think that the real message is "...just don't get caught". Because the corollary of that line of thinking is "..just keep your mouth shut, especially if you're a junior rank..." I thought that our Army had learnt this lesson once already, years ago, in a very painful, drawn-out and damaging way. One of the things that sad period revealed is that we had developed a very unhealthy tolerance of serious wrong doing and indiscipline in some parts of the Army, including amongst officers. Do you want to go through all that again? Because that's where we go if we start just ignoring this kind of act.

To those who say "..this kind of thing always happens, so why bother...?", I say that murder, rape, and all sorts of other bad things happen all the time. Does that mean we stop having laws, or stop trying to do something about those acts?

Cheers

Edit to fix quote


----------



## TimBit (6 Oct 2010)

> What scares me in all this is not that an officer was punished for making a decision. Thousands of officers will go on making thousands of decisions, some good, some bad, but all accountable if our system really works. What scares me is some people who apparently think that the real message is "...just don't get caught". Because the corollary of that line of thinking is "..just keep your mouth shut, especially if you're a junior rank..." I thought that our Army had learnt this lesson once already, years ago, in a very painful, drawn-out and damaging way. One of the things that sad period revealed is that we had developed a very unhealthy tolerance of serious wrong doing and indiscipline in some parts of the Army, including amongst officers. Do you want to go through all that again? Because that's where we go if we start just ignoring this kind of act.
> 
> To those who say "..this kind of thing always happens, so why bother...?", I say that murder, rape, and all sorts of other bad things happen all the time. Does that mean we stop having laws, or stop trying to do something about those acts?



Hear hear!


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Don't even start that bull crap.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body





> However, the possibility of the supposed victim turning up alive remains. In 2003, Leonard Fraser, having allegedly confessed to the murder of teenager Natasha Ryan, was on trial for this, and other murders, when she reappeared after having been missing for four years.[10]


----------



## Redeye (6 Oct 2010)

pbi nailed it, really.  We have to be able to credibly hold ourselves to a higher standard, and the law is there to ensure that those who do not are held accountable.  It was noted in the sentencing that no precedence could be found amongst our allies for this sort of situation, and it certainly isn't one that has an easy, unambiguous, universally satisfying answer.  It is clear the Semrau acted without malice, and I would hypothesize with a sense of great compassion, and that he realized that he had make a difficult decision.  The trial transcript, as I recall, stated that he ordered the rest of his team out of the area saying something to the effect of "you shouldn't have to see this".  He accepted responsibility to some degree, though he did not make any effort to explain himself.  I don't begrudge him that, it is his right, and was probably a legally prudent decision.

I suspect that the discussions about this case will go on for a long time, and will definitely be a case study in military ethics and the application of the Laws of Armed Conflict.  It strikes me that a reasonable balance was struck in that while the convicted's career in the military is over, his life goes on, he can return to his family, and he can carry on.  I suspect that should he seek employment there will be many sympathetic to his circumstances who will seek to help him.  I don't see why he might not apply again, the sentence has left that door open.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

Great post PBI.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Oct 2010)

excellent post PBI +1


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2010)

PBI hit the nail on the head - like it or not, if we don't fight by the rules, how different are we from the bad guys?


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I guess the real issue for me all along has been why medical care (although impossible to save his life in this case) was decided or 'ordered' not to be provided - since it is clear that it would fall under respect.



BINGO!

SO who ordered the Capt not to admin first aid or try for a MedEvac?

 I would like to see that route followed a little more closely, since effectively that order is just as guilty (if not more) than (then) Capt. Semrau's actions as they potentially led to his decision to fire the alledged shots into the dead/nodead taliban


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> BINGO!
> 
> SO who ordered the Capt not to admin first aid or try for a MedEvac?
> 
> I would like to see that route followed a little more closely, since effectively that order is just as guilty (if not more) than (then) Capt. Semrau's actions as they potentially led to his decision to fire the alledged shots into the dead/nodead taliban



If I remember correctly it was an ANA led patrol....therefore it was an ANA decision...


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> However, the possibility of the supposed victim turning up alive remains. In 2003, Leonard Fraser, having allegedly confessed to the murder of teenager Natasha Ryan, was on trial for this, and other murders, when she reappeared after having been missing for four years.[10]



You are comparing this to the Natasha Ryan case?? The case of the 14 year old Australian girl who shacked up with her much older boyfriend after running away (while a serial killer was on the loose at that)?? Whose boyfriend, with her agreement while stashed away with him, then provided input to the police that led them to believe that she was last seen in the serial killers company? Natasha Ryan & her boyfriend of the time set this up to seem as if Leonard Fraser had killed her. It was planned and premeditated this way --- so that she could remain with her BF forever without further family interferance. They got busted during his trial when his house was raided and she was found cowering in the BFs closet.

*NOT* comparable.

There was testimony during 2Lt Semarau's trial as to the shooting occuring. Witnesses if you will. There was also testimony as to the Officer himself having made statements after the act as to it's having been a "mercy killing". What you are insinuating is that there was no evidence that anyone even "existed" to be shot ... that was not the case as was shown by the sworn testimony.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2010)

Vern I would argue that with him being found not guilty of murder you can in fact infere that he DID NOT shoot anyone. I have and will always believe that by being found not guilty of murder and yet then continuing to punish him with a sentence for Disgraceful conduct was in fact scape goating him.

All the evidence presented was hersay third party "I hard evidence" hence why he could not be found guilty beyond doubt of actually shooting the insurgent hence why he was found not guilty. I know you wont like my interpretations but there it is. Had they had photos or a body or a plethora of other evidence that Capt Semrau had in fact done what he was accused of I would be right there with you on supporting his punishments. 

As it is I personally view this as a "Look at us we might of done something wrong so we better look tough on it!" and sadly Capt Semrau is the whipping boy.

EDIT: I should also add that the issue of dead or not dead factored into the argument for not guilty of murder but I contest regardless of why he was found not guily he was so my original argument stands in my eyes.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Vern I would argue that with him being found not guilty of murder you can in fact infere that he DID NOT shoot anyone. I have and will always believe that by being found not guilty of murder and yet then continuing to punish him with a sentence for Disgraceful conduct was in fact scape goating him.
> 
> All the evidence presented was hersay third party "I hard evidence" hence why he could not be found guilty beyond doubt of actually shooting the insurgent hence why he was found not guilty. I know you wont like my interpretations but there it is. Had they had photos or a body or a plethora of other evidence that Capt Semrau had in fact done what he was accused of I would be right there with you on supporting his punishments.
> 
> ...



I'd agree that he was found not guilty. Not because they didn't prove he didn't fire two shots at a "non-existant body" which is what is being inferred earlier ...

But that, they didn't prove he fired two shots, in malice, at a live body.

There was testimony that a Taliban fighter was indeed wounded and on the ground. He existed.

Any inferrance that a crime must not have occured because no body existed is way off base. There was testimony to the fact the guy existed. But, if you don't buy their testimony under oath --- that simply means *they* must all have lied when they testified he existed.

See the difference?


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

Vern, I'm not comparing the case. I'm pointing out that no body = "murdered victim" can show up alive.

Was Capt Semrau found guilty of murder? No.

Like Bulletmagnet said, scape goating.


Vern out of curiosity, what do you think the ANA's reaction would have been if the 2 (4?)Canadians said Hey, stop, this man you think is "98% dead" is no longer a combatant and we ARE going to provide first aid and call in a medivac for him whether you like it or not, company commander.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2010)

Not arguing the existence of the person, simply that without proper evidence to suggest he inded fired the 2 shots IE: first hand witnesses of which there was none that came forward and said "Yes I saw him do it on this date at this time" and they could only provide "I heard to shots after he told us he would take care of it" means to me that who knows what happened perhaps and this is poor fanatsy mind you the dead/non dead body did not reach for a weapong thus making him a threat again.

My reasoning is that when not found guilty of a crime and then presuing a lesser charge for a crime he has been found not guitly of is making the Sir a whipping boy


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Vern out of curiosity, what do you think the ANA's reaction would have been if the 2 (4?)Canadians said Hey, stop, this man you think is "98% dead" is no longer a combatant and we ARE going to provide first aid and call in a medivac for him whether you like it or not, company commander.




They would have said NOTHING trust me, happy about it no, done anything to stop it? No they would not have.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Vern, I'm not comparing the case. I'm pointing out that no body = "murdered victim" can show up alive.
> 
> Was Capt Semrau found guilty of murder? No.
> 
> ...



I haven't made a single comment as to whether or not I feel he should have been found guilty, or about his punishment. So, I'm not going there for your curiosities sake either.

In the case you cited, the "victim (aged 14)" & her older boyfriend FRAMED a serial killer for her murder. She was even "last" seen with this serial killer - true, by various witness'. They then used 'that' to explain her disappearance and the SK (whose victim profile matched the GFs profile) ended up charged with her murder as well. Meanwhile, the BF went with that and supported that theory with the police all the while knowing she was shacked up in his house.

The police bought this story, but a slip-up occured during the trial testimony and the boyfriends house was searched and there she was found. The SK was not convicted of her murder as the crime did not happen. The GF & her boyfriend were charged.

But, to suggest that because there is no body automaticly = no crime occured ... is not correct and is not comparable.

2Lt Semrau's trial consisted of testimony as to shots being fired. As to the Taliban's existance. As to his statements of it being a "mercy killing". Testimony as to his statement itself may be hersay, but it was testified to under oath. Testimony as to "he fired two shots while I was there" is not heresay, nor is testimony that they, personally, saw a Taliban on the ground. If you want to infer that the Taliban did not exist, then when are you going to start screaming for all those who testified otherwise to be charged with conspiracy and lying under oath? There's no question the guy existed ... at least in my mind; I just can't see a whole bunch of professional Canadian soldiers lying about that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> They would have said NOTHING trust me, happy about it no, done anything to stop it? No they would not have.



The ANA company commander would have took orders the Canadians and went into an all around defense and waited for a medivac to remove the Taliban?


Vern maybe it was a bad example.  One of my biggest issues I guess is people saying the law is the law is the law. I see a difference between killing your neighbour who you hit with a car to put out of his misery and being embedded with the ANA in Taliban country and performing a mercy killing on someone who is pretty much beyond hope.   At first I was saying he broke the law, tough crap.  The more I thought about it the more it scared me because I realized what kind of decision I would make in that situation. Again I feel there is a huge difference between how the law effects someone at home in safe Canada and someone in his situation taking everything into consideration.

The law doesn't agree with me though so my opinion is moot.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Vern maybe it was a bad example.  One of my biggest issues I guess is people saying the law is the law is the law. I see a difference between killing your neighbour who you hit with a car to put out of his misery and being embedded with the ANA in Taliban country and performing a mercy killing on someone who is pretty much beyond hope.   At first I was saying he broke the law, tough crap.  The more I thought about it the more it scared me because I realized what kind of decision I would make in that situation. Again I feel there is a huge difference between how the law effects someone at home in safe Canada and someone in his situation taking everything into consideration.
> 
> The law doesn't agree with me though so my opinion is moot.



I agree with this. I believe, and know, that the law is the law. I also believe that 2Lt Semrau is able to sleep soundly at night. 

It is, as they say, a moral dilemma. Mercy killing is also widely debated within Canadian society amongst others. Opinions are vast and cover the full spectrum. Some believe it is just and acceptable ... and others vehemently disagree. 

The debate on that will come in our society ... it will grow. On par with assisted suicide - some will agree & others not. Only when I, myself, am in the same position in the same circumstances will I finally be certain as to what I would do. Until then, it's speculation for me.


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ... I would argue that with him being found not guilty of murder you can in fact infere that he DID NOT shoot anyone.


Actually, you cannot make that inference simply from the not guilty finding on murder.  There are many more elements to a murder charge than simply did person X cause bullets to pass through person Y.  Further, as you would be well aware, there are many living members of the CF who demonstrate through every breath they take that one can be shot (or worse) and live to tell of it.  However, one could also get more clear proof of the fault in your inference by taking the time to read this thread and many of the direct quotes from the trial judge during sentencing.  Yes, he did in fact mention that the shootings happened (and, therefore, were proven beyond reasonable doubt).



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> All the evidence presented was hersay ...


Actually, there was testimony from people that were directly present at the time of the incident and who described their own observations.  That is not hearsay.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2010)

I have read the thread thank you...

I have with my own eyes seen what someone can live through and the smallest thing that they cannot but as was brought up in the trial we are not medical professional so who am I to say anything about the insurgents condition neither were those who were there dead/alive I don;t know nor will I comment.

As for my inference if he shot the insurgent he would be guilty of murder cut and dry. They did not have the proper evidence to prove he in fact shot the insurgent at all. That is why he was found not guilty.  The evidence provided was never eye witness to the actual event only supposition as to what truly occurred. None those who testified could say that Capt Semrau for certain fire the shots they heard not that if he did they were aimed into the insurgent. 

I respect you disagree with me and that CF law disagrees with me in that it was used to persue the lesser charge. Regardless I have my opinion about how this turned out and I now have my opinion about what would happen to me should I find myself on the receiving end the CF looking for an out.


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I have read the thread thank you...


Then you know the judge specifically stated “the shooting ... was fundamentally contrary to our values” and that the particulars of the third charge (the charge of which he was convicted) specifically allege that the Semrau did shoot an unarmed and wounded male person while acting as the commander C/S 72A OMLT.  This act was proven beyond reasonable doubt - that is the only reason he could have been found guilty.



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> ... if he shot the insurgent he would be guilty of murder cut and dry.


You are either over-simplifying the meaning of "murder" to the point of misrepresentation, or demonstrating that you do not understand all that is implied.   To steal a famous analogy - John Hinckley, Jr did shoot Ronald Reagan, but he did not murder Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (6 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are either over-simplifying the meaning of "murder" to the point of misrepresentation, or demonstrating that you do not understand all that is implied.   To steal a famous analogy - John Hinckley, Jr did shoot Ronald Reagan, but he did not murder Ronald Reagan.



I dont get it....you just provided quotes that re-inforce the hypothesis that Cpt/2Lt Semreau did or did not commit Murder.....

(John hinkley?)

Last I heard, Fmr POTUS /Reagan was not Murdered....

confusing...yeah?

I was totally on your 6 MCG...but the last bit really confused me regarding your opinion....
(maybe I'm cRACKEd out, or not readibg right). 8)


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2010)

Regan was not murdered but he was shot.  I reference this incident as it illustrates that a person can unlawfully shoot another person without the end result being murder.  This is in contrast to Bulletmagnet's firm conclusion that "if he shot the insurgent he would be guilty of murder cut and dry."  For it to be murder, there are other elements that must exist and that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, BulletMagnet is wrong in declaring that a not guilty verdict on the murder charge is proof that the shots never happened.  This faulty premise was the fundamental pillar of BulletMagnet's theory that 2Lt Semrau was a scapegoat (for what, I am not sure), and so I would suggest his whole theory is questionable.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2010)

And my point MCG

Is that they never proved he shot the man at all what they proved was that he said he would take care of it and then other heard 2 shots. For there the judge suppossed he shot the insurgent but they could not prove he caused the fatal shots to the insurgent.

My logic is simple If they cannot prove he shot the insurgent, which they did not they only proved he fired 2 rounds (inconclusively in my opinion) then he commited no crime. The CF had a PA nightmare when this came to light and again IN MY OPINION had to find him guilty of something to Cover their ass which they did.


----------



## HavokFour (7 Oct 2010)

What's done is done, could have turned out worse.

Good to hear that he wont be doing time.


----------



## McG (7 Oct 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> And my point MCG Is that they never proved he shot the man ...
> 
> My logic is simple If they cannot prove he shot the insurgent, ...


They did prove it.  It had to have been proven because that was the specifics of the charge.

It is possible that you were not convinced by the information that was communicated second hand by the media based on a selection of what was actually presented to the court.  Despite that, the jury (which was present through the trial and privy to all the evidence presented) was convinced beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Oct 2010)

My thoughts, for the few pennies they're worth:

In my opinion there are two critical dilemma's that need to be examined (there's a third, but I'll leave that to later). The first dilemma was a moral one – could Semrau face himself in the future with greater ease if he left the Taliban to die on his own, or would it ease his own mind to assist the Taliban over that inevitable divide?

We need to set aside the argument of “was he dead/was he not dead” at the moment those shots were fired.  If the Taliban wasn't dead, why were the shots fired at all? The fact that second degree murder wasn't proved only established that there was no proof that the Taliban was alive at the time the shots were fired, this does not remove the detail that if the Taliban was known to be dead there was no reason to fire at all. For the purpose of discussion, let us assume the shots were fired because it was believed that action relieved him of pain before an inevitable death, because that has been used repeatedly to emphasize Semrau as a moral man deserving to be absolved of his alleged sins.

Regardless of the Taliban's actual state at the time of the shots being fired, it appears that Semrau chose the option he was more willing to live with, i.e., humane euthanasia rather than leaving a badly wounded man to die, a presumably unavoidable outcome. But he would also have known that this was also choosing an illegal act over a legal one.

Much has been made of Semrau taking that “humane” choice as “proof” of the moral and upstanding officer he has been consistently described to be, and of which there appears to be no dissenting opinions regarding his career to that point. So, in simplistic terms we are asked to believe that “the moral man made the humanitarian choice.”

The second dilemma is presented as a legalistic one – do you choose to not charge an allegedly moral man, for what is characterized as a humane act, for violating law even when the act may be clearly illegal if proven to be as alleged?; or do you let the legal system take its course to establish grounds to believe  a chargeable action occurred, meet the requirement to prove it in court, and accept the ruling of guilt or innocence in a legal framework?

Much of the discussion, here and in the media has focused on the first dilemma (Semrau's moral choice) and attempted to say that the second dilemma (the military chain of command's legal choice) should have, somehow, taken the first path of not charging him on the grounds of his moral choice. 

The problem, which we see confused  in reporting of the Semrau case, is that the two described dilemmas are not co-dependent. Semrau's character is not an influencing factor in the chain of command's responsibility to act on allegations of wrong-doing. The chain of command responsibility to pursue the truth, and act upon it if it warrants legal action, even if only to ensure that names be cleared, would neither be greater nor less if Semrau had been less well thought of by those who now and have worked with him. 

Semrau made a choice, and as he decided which choice of action he took would rest better in his heart, he would have known the possible outcome if the facts came to light, in full or in part, as they did. 

When the alleged facts of the incident came to the attention of his chain of command, those officers had no choice. Their only course of action was to do what they did.  There was no “higher moral ground” for them to claim and tacitly or openly approve of the alleged action. They were committed by their own responsibilities to the Law of Armed Conflict, and to the expectations placed on Canadian service members to follow up those rumours and accept where that path led. The fact that that path might lead to the court martial of a good officer, highly respected by those who knew him by published accounts, was not a factor that could let them choose not to do their duty.

Much has been made of Semrau's “humanitarianism” but that is not the question placed before the court, nor it is the “crime” for which he was punished. The “crime” is the alleged firing of those shots, the state of the Taliban, how close he was to death, isn't the central issue. That whether the Taliban was dead or alive at the time the shots were fired may have been the point on which he has been acquitted of his more serious charges, but that does not diminish the fact that he chose to fire those rounds, allegedly to relieve suffering even if that was not proven in court, it appears to be openly accepted as the case in point of Semrau as the “moral man.”

The court's responsibility to rule on his guilt or innocence is based on the legality of that choice – not on whether an accused has an entitlement to absolution because he is alleged to be a moral man. His commendable character may influence severity of punishment, but not degree of guilt for proven charges.

And that third dilemma, it was also Semrau's. As a moral man, described as one taking the ethically tough choice, the “humanitarian” choice contravening law – why did he not admit to it at the time and accept the consequences of his actions immediately? He chose to leave the details unreported, waiting until rumours and hints accumulated to the point that the chain of command needed to at least clear the air, leading to the investigative actions that led to the current court martial. 

If some of those reporting in the media, or posting in subsequent comments, wish to emphasize Semrau's mortality and character, why do they not ask why he did not stand up and report his actions at the time they occurred?

Where is the line between committing an illegal act, ostensibly one of mercy, and being defended on the grounds of your personal moral framework, and failing to stand up for your actions at that moment of moral crisis, instead waiting until the chain of command was forced to collect and collate allegations of wrongdoing? Surely choosing to fire those rounds was a tougher choice than choosing to leave exposure of the incident, if it ever arose, to the work of rumour and innuendo. 

I would be more impressed if he had stood up that same day, admitted his actions, and then fought the case fully from a personal bastion of morality and the humanitarian choice. Perhaps he would have done so even after the court martial was set into motion, but as we know legal defences are built by lawyers, and they seldom include admission and defence on personal principles rather than forcing the prosecution to work with an incomplete picture to prove guilt, and hoping for the best.

I believe myself to be a moral man, and I can respect Semrau's alleged choice of humanitarian despatch over leaving a man to a lingering and inevitable death (assuming those are the true facts of the event). It was undoubtedly a tough choice to make and carry out. I will make no claims to how I might have acted under similar circumstances, because I cannot comprehend the intensity of the dilemma he must have contemplated. To say I would act one way or another would be facile armchair quarterbacking and meaningless in light of the fact that he actually had to face that choice.

At the same time I cannot but uphold the responsibility of his chain of command to act upon the information they had, to determine if there was grounds for further action, and to take those actions as they have evolved. All of those senior officers would remember days when obfuscation was the order of the day (chain of command responsibilities regarding the Canadian Airborne Regiment?), when failing to take responsibility was headline news (Gen Boyle (CDS) – claiming the fault of “lack of moral fibre and integrity” among his staff, Aug 1996). Regardless of what they thought of Semrau as a man (moral or otherwise as they knew him), of Semrau's alleged actions (yet to be determined), or of the possible outcomes of investigations and court martial – they knew that not acting upon it would be a greater wrong, potentially causing great harm to the Canadian Forces as an institution. Without a shred of doubt, if the chain of command had taken the course promoted by so many and not charging Semrau, and then alleged facts had leaked, the collective invective over the suspicion that a murder had been buried and tacitly approved would ensure equally, or even more virulent, attacks on the morality of the Canadian Forces command structure.  Those senior officers would have seen, during their careers, the results of such decisions being avoided and attempts to bury evidence of wrong-doing (where, oh where, is the Somalia War Diary?). They too had a tough moral choice, and they decided on maintaining the strength of the institution, to do otherwise would have been a failure, of command and of personal morality.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Oct 2010)

MCG

I cannot in good conscious continue on with this discourse. It would become unprofessional or I should say would be unprofessional of me to express the opinions I have about this trial and verdict.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Oct 2010)

Since we did not hear from Robert Semrau at the trial we have not heard the rest of the story.  That too me is a mystery - which I am sure was based on legal advice.  (Could we 'handle the truth' from his viewpoint?) Will it be in a book, a Fifth Estate Documentary or a MacLean's article - that remains to be seen and heard.  We have only heard what others say that he said at the time and afterwards.  Does he sleep more soundly since the trial is over or less so?  Would an appeal just drag it out longer?

The inevitably of the Taliban's death is not unlike Robert Latimer's and others' similar modern day dilemmas - which have divided the public (as Vern and others have stated).  The fact that this was on a foreign battlefield - does that change the principles - not for me.  I have not yet read the sentencing transcript (if it has been released - anyone?), just what the media has reported.  The precedents referenced by the Judge would be interesting.  Did BGen Thompson's statements foreshadow the judge's sentence - thereby making it a minimum acceptable to the chain of command?

Edit - to correct spelling and add info in ()


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Oct 2010)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Since we did not hear from Robert Semrau at the trial we have not heard the rest of the story.  That too me is a mystery - which I am sure was based on legal advice.  (Could we 'handle the truth' from his viewpoint?) Will it be in a book, a Fifth Estate Documentary or a MacLean's article - that remains to be seen and heard.  We have only heard what others say that he said at the time and afterwards.  Does he sleep more soundly since the trial is over or less so?  Would an appeal just drag it out longer?
> 
> The inevitably of the Taliban's death is not unlike Robert Latimer's and others' similar modern day dilemmas - which have divided the public (as Vern and others have stated).  The fact that this was on a foreign battlefield - does that change the principles - not for me.  I have not yet read the sentencing transcript (if it has been released - anyone?), just what the media has reported.  The precedents referenced by the Judge would be interesting.  Did BGen Thompson's statements foreshadow the judge's sentence - thereby making it a minimum acceptable to the chain of command?
> 
> Edit - to correct spelling and add info in ()



Here is the webpage relating to the Semrau court martial: http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010-eng.asp

Nothing on the CM findings.


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2010)

Mike O'Leary: good post. This isn't a simple, cut-and-dried issue. It raises confusing and emotional questions about what is moral, what is ethical and what is legal, and about how far our actions as soldiers are answerable to the law. If the suffering and losses suffered by Capt Semrau are to mean anything for us, then we definitely need to make sure that this story is not forgotten, but studied in future by all leaders as a reminder of the challenges that combat poses. Maybe right now is too soon, but just as we now study the Somalia issues, as an Army we can't forget this story either.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (7 Oct 2010)

Michael, an extremely well thought out post, and it sums up just about everything that has been running through my brain housing group when I think of the incident.

Well done!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Oct 2010)

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/06/15609216.html

Tories should reinstate Semrau: experts

By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: October 6, 2010 8:05pm

OTTAWA — Some military experts are urging the Conservative government to overturn a court martial decision and reinstate former captain Robert Semrau in the Canadian Forces.
A military judge booted Semrau, 36, from the army and demoted him to second lieutenant Tuesday after a court martial found him guilty of disgraceful conduct for shooting a wounded Afghan insurgent.

The prosecution suggested Semrau had shot his unnamed victim as a mercy killing to relieve him of his suffering.
Semrau’s lawyers may appeal the verdict, but some believe he stands a better chance if he asks Defence Minister Peter MacKay to convince his cabinet colleagues to reverse the decision.

Warfare expert John Thompson said he’s “cautiously hopeful” the Conservatives will step in.
“A politician can listen to common sense and he can listen to public opinion — that’s part of the job,” he said.

Retired Col. Alain-Michel Pellerin of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute said he thinks MacKay should intervene.
“If the purpose of the court martial was to send a message to the troops that actions such as the one Semrau was involved in was not tolerated, then the message got through to the troops. At the end of the day, it wasn’t required to send a second message by kicking him out of the forces,” he said.

The department of national defence said it is only aware of one case in the last 25 years where cabinet reviewed a court martial decision, and in that case, cabinet chose not to intervene.
MacKay’s spokesman Jay Paxton said it would be “inappropriate for the minister to provide comment” because the parties might appeal.

The National Defence Act allows Semrau to appeal directly to MacKay without first going through the court martial.
Others believe Semrau would be better off forgetting about serving in the Forces again.
“He wouldn’t have a very attractive (military) career in front of him,” said Ret’d Maj.-Gen. Terry Liston.

Ret’d Maj.-Gen Lewis MacKenzie suggested Semrau would have a brighter future outside the Forces where “the majority of the population” has a great deal of sympathy and support for him.
“I think the Canadian public and businesses will look very favourably upon him if he wants to pursue another career,” MacKenzie said. “There is a real danger in appealing (in court) because ... for the charge that was made against him, the sentence was extremely modest,” he said.


----------



## TimBit (7 Oct 2010)

Note that Bruce`s post comes from the Toronto Sun... just a note 

Michael, excellent post.

To me, the issue is one of morality versus law. Then Capt Semrau made the decision that was moral but illegal - I speak in such affirmative words because I accept the findings of the court. Even if I had disagreed with them, which I don`t, not accepting the findings would be quite ridiculous unless one had more evidence as to what happened, in which case you should have stepped up to the plate and testify. One who didn`t must therefore accept the findings.

While 2Lt Semrau`s case is unique, it is not unique that one is confronted to a morality/legality dilemma. Euthanasia comes to my mind. So does triage in a hospital ER room: say a drunkard hit some little girl with his car. The girl will likely die, but the man can be saved. The code of conduct of doctors says the medical team should save the drunkard, because they have a chance. Not the moral choice, but the legal one. In the military context, other situations come to mind: taking out an airliner that`s been hijacked even though, from the pilot's standpoint, there would be no immediate danger (arguably a fictional scenario...for now). I could go on and on like that, but the bottom line is that, as a professional organization dealing with extreme cases of live-or-die morality, we have adopted a code of conduct to police our actions. 

Now that code of conduct, and our ethics code, prescribe respect for a person`s dignity. If those shots were fired while the Taleb was alive, then it breaks the code; if he were dead, it also breaks the code as this would unnecessary abuse of the remains. In either case, he did not uphold the code. As a leader, how could he then have enforced the code?

Whether or not he killed the Taleb, he broke our code of conduct and is no longer fit to lead other in upholding that code through our military duties. As such, his punishment is fitting in that it underlines 1. the tarnished moral integrity of his leadership and 2. the loss of trust that the CoC had bestowed upon him to lead troops into battle, in accordance with Canadian Laws.

As many have said here, I am sure the 2Lt Semrau will sleep easy at night knowing he MIGHT have made the moral choice. But I believe being a leader, either as an NCO or an Officer, involves making the lawful choice, not the moral one, as distasteful as that might sometimes be. Otherwise, we are no longer obeying our civilian masters in Parliament and are just loose cannons (literally) on the battlefield.

My  :2c:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Oct 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Note that Bruce`s post comes from the Toronto Sun... just a note
> 
> Michael, excellent post.
> 
> ...



The problem, as I see it, is that you are trying impose civilian laws and civilian views of morality unto the battlefield. And it doesn't work. On the battlefield there may be occasions where all those nice laws and rules are going to be thrown-out with the bath water. 

For example, you are a member of a small fighting patrol that carries out a raid against an enemy position deep in enemy territory. In a situation like this taking prisoners is not practical. You don't have enough men to watch them and taking them back would slow you down. You can't leave them behind because they might get loose and shot you in the back or if rescued, can provide info on patrol size, weapons carried and direction you departed in. In fact, in the mid-70's when I was with the 3 PPCLI when we were training for fighting patrols we would do the old SMEAC thing and when it came to prisoners the order, depending on type of fighting patrol, them orders may be "No prisoners." Other times, in the case of a snatch patrol, the mission was exactly the opposite - to take prisoners. Now you can say this is only training, but remember, we fight the way we train. Do we still train like that, I don't know, but it would be interesting to hear the views of present serving members and or recently retired.

Let me give another actual example from the failed American raid in Mogadishu, Somalia (aka Blackhawk Down). One of the American soldiers described a situation where he was under fire from a Somalia gunman who was hiding behind a woman. The woman was jumping around and the gunmen would jump out and fire a burst and then jump back behind the women. Finally, the only choice of the American had was to shoot the woman, and then shoot the gunman. According to the rules the American is guilty of murder, but what choice did he have? Wait and may be get a lucky shot at the gunman, but on the other hand he could get shot by the gunman. Difficult choice but I know if I was in that situation I would probably have done the same thing.

Now, you can say that these examples are different from the situation that Semrau found himself in, and you are right. The reason I mention them is to show that on the battlefield is not black and white like LCol Jesson or idiots like Drapeau or Scott Taylor would have us believe. In fact, there will be grey areas where our nice rules of morality do not apply.

Just my nickels worth.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2010)

TimBit you mentioned two names....now two more kittens have died....or maybe three.


----------



## Danjanou (8 Oct 2010)

Three, We need to add "Warfare expert John Thompson"  :rofl: to the list right after I finish pruging my breakfast. :

end tangent/rant


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The problem, as I see it, is that you are trying impose civilian laws and civilian views of morality unto the battlefield. And it doesn't work. On the battlefield there may be occasions where all those nice laws and rules are going to be thrown-out with the bath water.



 :nod:


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Oct 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The problem, as I see it, is that you are trying impose civilian laws and civilian views of morality unto the battlefield. And it doesn't work. On the battlefield there may be occasions where all those nice laws and rules are going to be thrown-out with the bath water.



This is an over-generalization. If you think there are cases where "all those nice laws" will be thrown out, would you excuse rape or looting, just because it takes place "on the battlefield"? Are you prepared to identify exactly what laws you think should be excused and under what conditions?  In my opinion, comparing the Semrau case to any situation where actions are taken that can be shown to be essential to mission execution and security is to present a red herring argument.


----------



## ballz (8 Oct 2010)

Personally, I symphasize with Semrau because I believe assisted-suicide is okay and he was stuck between a rock and a boulder in facing his own moral beliefs vs the beliefs of the nation that he has to represent and uphold.

And as much as I would like that the law had some exception for assisted-suicide, it doesn't. So, to me, Capt Semrau killing a man when he knew he was not supposed to is no different than being legally ordered to kill somebody and not following through on that order because you'll throw your guts up with guilt afterwards.

I haven't been put in either situation of course, but in both scenarios, personal feelings must be put aside for professional reasons...

Would like to know if I'm right out of 'er or not. Cheers.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> In fact, there will be grey areas where our nice rules of morality do not apply.
> 
> Just my nickels worth.


Agreed; however, firing two rounds into an unarmed enemy still contravenes the Laws of Armed Conflict.  This is black and white legally.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This is an over-generalization. If you think there are cases where "all those nice laws" will be thrown out, would you excuse rape or looting, just because it takes place "on the battlefield"? Are you prepared to identify exactly what laws you think should be excused and under what conditions?  In my opinion, comparing the Semrau case to any situation where actions are taken that can be shown to be essential to mission execution and security is to present a red herring argument.



May be it is an over-generalization and no I would not excuse rape or looting. You say that the examples I gave would be excused because they are essential to mission execution and security. Thats not the impression I'm getting from some of the postings here in this thread. Its diffidently not the feeling I get from comments by LCol Jesson, Drapeau, Taylor, et al. According to them there are no exceptions, the rules are written in stone and you shall not deviate from them no matter what and there are no exceptions. Mission security be damned.

Again, its just my impression.


----------



## TimBit (8 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Agreed; however, firing two rounds into an unarmed enemy still contravenes the Laws of Armed Conflict.  This is black and white legally.



And, as a corollary, our code of conduct, which is the reason why, again, he was dismissed.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Oct 2010)

As Michael O'Leary noted earlier, there are both legal aspects and there are ethical aspects to the events.  

Retired AF Guy, the legal issue here is that the Canadian Code of Service Discipline clearly states that members of the CF are bound also by the Criminal Code of Canada, anywhere they may operate - worldwide.  So while there are arguments for differentiating between civilian and military ethics, there cannot be for applicability (or not) of civilian and/or military law...it is necessarily by today's CSD an "and".

Timbits raised some interesting points, and as I continue to mull this issue over in my mind as to whether justice was done or not, or was too harsh or not, I too though of some situations that could pose, in light of the 'letter of the law' (of Armed Conflict):

a) A sniper's first shot disables a combatant at range to a degree that the combatant appears not to IMMEDIATELY pose a threat.  Does the sniper take a second shot to despatch the target, or does he/she check fire as now the target appears to be, at least in the short-term, '_hors de combat_'?

b) Similar situation to that of 2Lt Semrau, but the Canadian soldier with the ANA considers giving the combatant a shot (or more) of morphine from his (or say a nearby TCCC-trained/kitted Cdn soldier).  What if enough morphine was given (without highly-trained med knowledge) knowing there might be high possibility of overdosing the injured combatant?  Could heavy dosage, knowing its potential fatality, be considered any better than shooting, given use of morphine as either a painkiller, or potential or deliberate fatal action? Should only a single dose be given to the injured fighter?  Might such an action at least be able to be portrayed as "assisting/rendering medical aid" even if some might consider doing it to essentially euthanize the mortally-wounded fighter?   

This isn't meant to propose "what could he have done" for this case in particular, but note, as have others, some situations that pose a challenge to the ethical and legal conduct of our soldiers operating abroad.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Oct 2010)

> May be it is an over-generalization and no I would not excuse rape or looting.



So you agree there are limits on your statement that "all those nice laws" should be thrown out on the battlefield. That's good, I wouldn't want to see some journalist twisting it to say _"member Retired AF Guy on a popular military message board stated that he thinks soldiers should not be bound by law in operations."_



> You say that the examples I gave would be excused because they are essential to mission execution and security. Thats not the impression I'm getting from some of the postings here in this thread.



I didn't say they would be excused, but that was the reasoning given when you took that training.



> Its diffidently not the feeling I get from comments by LCol Jesson, Drapeau, Taylor, et al. According to them there are no exceptions, the rules are written in stone and you shall not deviate from them no matter what and there are no exceptions. Mission security be damned.
> 
> Again, its just my impression.



Attention seeking pundits aside, there may well be exceptions, but we need to be prepared to show exactly what those are an under what conditions they may occur, and be prepared to defend those cases within the structure of the judicial systems (military and civil) on a case by case basis as needed. Sweeping generalizations contribute nothing, either here or in media sound-bites by the self-professed "experts."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Oct 2010)

My mistake in using _all._  My bad.


----------



## TimBit (8 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As Michael O'Leary noted earlier, there are both legal aspects and there are ethical aspects to the events.
> 
> Retired AF Guy, the legal issue here is that the Canadian Code of Service Discipline clearly states that members of the CF are bound also by the Criminal Code of Canada, anywhere they may operate - worldwide.  So while there are arguments for differentiating between civilian and military ethics, there cannot be for applicability (or not) of civilian and/or military law...it is necessarily by today's CSD an "and".
> 
> ...



Good post. I have thought about that morphine scenario and wondered, what would have happened if the shot Taleb had been taken back to field hospital, and assessed by medical staff as a lost cause, and proceeded subsequently to give him a higher than required dose of morphine to alleviate his suffering. I think in that case, the outcome would have been extremely different because of 1. the professional medical opinion and 2. the detachment from combat, i.e. no doubt that this could possibly be perceived  as vengeance or needless violence.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2010)

G2G, is there a problem with question a..?  The enemy combattant is at a distance when engaged and has the audacity not to expire outright.  Hit him again or not..... why not?  He has not come under the tender care of following forces and changed his status to POW.  At what distance does one become subject to the requirement of muckling onto the enemy and forcing his submisson and surrender.  Is it when you can lay hands on him?  Have him obey and understand verbal commands to cease and desist?  I have seen plenty of video where targets have been re-engaged when they did not fall down as desired.

As much as some would like and the law trumpets, reality is not black and white.  That is what the courts are for should it come to that.  To quote Dickens partially "the law is an ass, an idiot"  There is plenty of grey out there for all, and plenty more who would sit in judgement of any and all decisions made of the moment.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2010)

I disagree on the very liberal use of the word "grey" when it comes to the law.  Laws are very clear, and I get it that one's own perception can cloud that clarity.  But that is irrelevant.  The law is the law.  One's own perception or opinion about laws are irrelevant.

Without going down roads of "what if..." this and "what if..." that, in _this_ case, one person subject to the Criminal Code of Canada and the National Defence Act, shot an unarmed person, contrary to section _blah blah_ of whatever.  This was proven in a court of law.  As such, former Capt Semrau was sentenced.  

Case Closed.  And clear as a bell.



Now, the moral issue is one left best debated in the Philosopher's lounge, complete with smoking jacket, brandy and pipes (opium is not mandatory).  And this moral issue of what happened that day in Afghanistan will be subject to debate for years to come, I assume.


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The problem, as I see it, is that you are trying impose civilian laws and civilian views of morality unto the battlefield.


In this case, application of civilian laws was a mechanism for enforcing the standards of the Laws of Armed Conflict.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Let me give another actual example from the failed American raid in Mogadishu, Somalia (aka Blackhawk Down). One of the American soldiers described a situation where he was under fire from a Somalia gunman who was hiding behind a woman. The woman was jumping around and the gunmen would jump out and fire a burst and then jump back behind the women. Finally, the only choice of the American had was to shoot the woman, and then shoot the gunman. According to the rules the American is guilty of murder, ...


Actually, LoAC does allow consideration of military neccesity.  The soldier in your example would not be guilty of anything (baring the existence other information not presented within your description).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, LoAC does allow consideration of military neccesity.



So if Mr. Semrau had been able to show that, had the wounded combatant been left behind and, if found still alive, could possibly pass info that then could possibly cause potential causalities to the coalition, could that then pass a justification test?


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Oct 2010)

JJT, I'm not saying that if I was a sniper, I can say definatively whether I would take the second shot, or not, but rather the considerations we must think of.  Just to be clear, a combatant who is injured badly enough so as to no longer be capable of fighting (in Geneva Convention-speak _'hors de combat'_) does not have to be waving a white flag or to have actively given visual indication of his desire to surrender.  It was meant as an example of a 'partially-completed' action that then puts one in an uncertain position. It doesn't matter at what distance you are from the enemy, if you can see well enough his condition/intentions, that's what you must act upon.  If he clearly is unable to fight and is rolling around aimlessly with no other weapon systems in sight, then he's _hors de combat_.  If he is wounded, but is slowly crawling to grab another weapon or more rounds, he's still in the fight.  Yes, I would say there are a few examples where someone was pretty visibly _hors de combat_ and was still engaged further (an AH gunship HUD tapes from a few years ago comes to mind)....per the LOAC, a situation such as this shouldn't have happened I would say.

MCG, yes, 'military necessity', and as well, 'proportionality' -- but in that example, I would think of the soldier attacking the enemy's center of mass when he was hopping outwards, with the potential of hitting the woman collaterally, albeit trying one's best to avoid hitting her at all.  I have a hard time with deliberately 'dropping' the woman so one would then have a clear shot at the enemy.

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So if Mr. Semrau had been able to show that, had the wounded combatant been left behind and, *if* found still alive, *could possibly* pass info that then *could possibly* cause *potential* causalities to the coalition, could that then pass a justification test?


All the "if" and "could possibly" and "potential" are getting in the way of your hypothetical defence having a hypothetical chance at legitimacy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2010)

Isn't that what  consideration is?


----------



## Brutus (8 Oct 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So if Mr. Semrau had been able to show that, had the wounded combatant been left behind and, if found still alive, could possibly pass info that then could possibly cause potential causalities to the coalition, could that then pass a justification test?



I think the threat would have to be more imminent and certain than what you proposed (ie - the wounded man still being armed and attempting to carry on the fight) in order to really justify, legally, his killing.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2010)

Techno, no matter how you cut it life and reality is grey.  Unless you are perhaps trying to beat the laws of physics or you are a Vulcan or loans officer.  

Laws as written are B&W, yes.   For the times the adults feel that a breach has been made, as I said the courts are there to deal with the offender.  As was explained to be in college where I studied law enforcement, there are several million different laws  on the books under the varied layers of Canadian society.  Federal, Provincial,  Municipal etc etc.  You can expect to break some of them on a daily basis.  Some by choice of omission and some by ignorance.  And if you do so, and get caught, you can expect to be called to answer to it.  They also said the law is a fool's bible and a wise man's guide.  Meaning sometimes black and white blend into grey in the application of such.  The choice is up to the individual on how far they want to obey at the end of the day.  The consequences of these choices can be far reaching, and why we are discussing this topic to begin with.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2010)

I maintain that laws are black and white.  It is up to the courts to determine the situation of the alleged incident in question to determine if a crime has been committed.  They "unmuddy" the waters, as it were, to try to determine if the very clear specifics of the element of a crime have been met.  That is my point.


In this case, it was proven that former Capt Semrau fired two rounds at an unarmed, wounded enemy.  Nothing further is relevant.  That is my point.  "What ifs?" do nothing but throw deliberate mud back onto a clear situation.


Morals are different, and I shall only discuss those in the philosophers lounge.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2010)

Not discussing morals.  Only giving my POV from having been previously involved the the LE business, and grey my friend does indeed live in that world like it or not.  We agree more than we disagree on the end result however.  Won't comment on this particular case result, period.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2010)

There are laws in books which are what we are talking about.  But after those laws in books go to court and get challenged, they generate case law, which doesn't really apply here, but none the less, case law is more powerful than the actual laws in the books.  Even more so, there is common law, which isn't written anywhere and is just mentioned sometimes in case law.  Good times!

2Lt Semrau got binned because for most people out of and some people in the military that is what "looked" like the right thing to do.  Does anyone think that optics isn't a powerful master?

In the long run, we lost a solid leader because it was the easy thing to do and the next time someone decides they need to mercy kill someone on the battle field they will do a better job of not getting caught.  Nothing was really accomplished here.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 2Lt Semrau got binned because for most people out of and some people in the military that is what "looked" like the right thing to do.  Does anyone think that optics isn't a powerful master?


I disagree vehemently.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> In the long run, we lost a solid leader because it was the easy thing to do and the next time someone decides they need to mercy kill someone on the battle field they will do a better job of not getting caught.  Nothing was really accomplished here.


Again, I disagree vehemently.  We did not lose a solid leader.  "Solid Leaders" do not shoot at unarmed, wounded people, enemy or not.  And I say this calling Rob Semrau a friend.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2010)

Technoviking, I agree with you. I have been in the uncomfortable place myself of having to turn in or reccomend charges be laid agaisnt people who were friends. It sucks but we must up hold integrity.

I personally beleive that 2Lt Semrau acted morally but still broke the law as it stands. We must take the right actions or we lose our credibility.

Here is a situation. (I know here we go with the "What ifs") If we are in a fire base, your manning a key weapon to the operation and without, the company attack WILL fail. During the attack, off to the flank, you see one of friends injured very badly. You know that you might save him by going to him but the company attack would fail, right? Tough decision and I hope to never be in that situation.

You need to stand your ground and uphold the orders given to you. There are situations where acting morally may contravene orders but we must support he mission. 

2Lt Semrau failed to hold his legal ground in this case (Do NOT shoot an enemy wounded soldier). 

Now if the orders are clearly unlawfull, thats a different story...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Again, I disagree vehemently.  We did not lose a solid leader.  "Solid Leaders" do not shoot at unarmed, wounded people, enemy or not.  And I say this calling Rob Semrau a friend.



We'll agree to disagree.  And I imagine we have different definitions as to what constitutes "leadership".


----------



## TimBit (9 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We'll agree to disagree.  And I imagine we have different definitions as to what constitutes "leadership".



But leadership without context is pointless. A CEO is a leader... so can be an academic. A military leader, however, is a member of a professional military, belonging to a nation-state, and therefore must exercise his/her leadership within the context of the law. Otherwise you are an irregular or a mercenary.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> But leadership without context is pointless. A CEO is a leader... so can be an academic. A military leader, however, is a member of a professional military, belonging to a nation-state, and therefore must exercise his/her leadership within the context of the law. Otherwise you are an irregular or a mercenary.



Oh, there is a context to my personal definition, but it seems there are not that many people who "get" it.  And of the ones who do "get" it, there are those who still choose to tow a different line.  My definition is scarier and holds more risk for both myself and my organization(s).  However, in my experience the risk is worth it for the sake of the team and to be true to what I hold dear.  And it isn't a wonton or ill conceived thing either.  

That being said, I'll not get into the weeds on this.  Bottom line IMO, _if_ 2Lt Semrau _did_ put those shots into that dying combatant he had to know somewhere in his mind that at such time as it came to light he would get jackhammered.  Knowing that and doing it anyway because it was the _right_ thing to do, IMO, is a type of leadership.  

It just happens that it isn't the type of leadership our CF will tolerate.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Oct 2010)

Zipperhead_cop,

I think you pointed it out exactly. It was a solid call but one the CF can not tolerate. I just pray that us and our comrades in arms never have to face such a difficult morale dilema again. It really is catch 22. Do the morally right thing and suffer the legal consequences or do the legally right thing and perhaps suffer the moral consequences (Its obvious 2Lt Semrau has a conscious).


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Isn't that what  consideration is?


LoAC does allow consideration of military necessity.  However, if one wants the argue a defence of military necessity, that person will need to show there was a necessity and not maybe a possibility of a necessity.  



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Oh, there is a context to my personal definition, but it seems there are not that many people who "get" it.  And of the ones who do "get" it, there are those who still choose to tow a different line.  My definition is scarier and holds more risk for both myself and my organization(s).  However, in my experience the risk is worth it for the sake of the team and to be true to what I hold dear.  And it isn't a wonton or ill conceived thing either.


Is this going back to your earlier position that a "team player" is someone who will cover-up his fire team partner's gross misconduct even at grave risk to the larger Canadian Forces?  Now a "leader" is someone who will take on-duty action that is perfectly contrary to the clearly understood directions and expectations of the Canadian Forces (also the Canadian public & LoAC for that matter), and then quietly hopes the matter goes unnoticed?  It is those sorts of "leaders" and "team players" that, if allowed to flourish, will bring us into another Somalia incident.

I don't know former Capt Semrau.  He may be an absolutely great guy and a usually above average leader.  However, he did not demonstrate leadership through what he did that day and the subsequent hope that the incident would stay quietly unnoticed.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Oct 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> LoAC does allow consideration of military necessity.  However, if one wants the argue a defence of military necessity, that person will need to show there was a necessity and not maybe a possibility of a necessity.
> Is this going back to your earlier position that a "team player" is someone who will cover-up his fire team partner's gross misconduct even at grave risk to the larger Canadian Forces?  Now a "leader" is someone who will take on-duty action that is perfectly contrary to the clearly understood directions and expectations of the Canadian Forces (also the Canadian public & LoAC for that matter), and then quietly hopes the matter goes unnoticed?  It is those sorts of "leaders" and "team players" that, if allowed to flourish, will bring us into another Somalia incident.
> 
> I don't know former Capt Semrau.  He may be an absolutely great guy and a usually above average leader.  However, he did not demonstrate leadership through what he did that day and the subsequent hope that the incident would stay quietly unnoticed.




I am not a fan of doing the whole   type of post, however, MCG you have nailed my complete feeling with regards to what a Leader should be, with your post.

+300

dileas

tess


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2010)

Speaking generally, 

If your father/mother/son/daughter was on their death bed dying, in pain, suffering their last minutes of life and you in your heart (with a dose of common sense) knew they weren't going to make it and they asked you to end their pain and suffering, would you?

Or if they couldn't speak but you knew they had minutes to live in pain and you had a chance to unplug them and let them go quickly you would still insist on keeping them going to suffer those last minutes while help might come so they could most likely die en route to the hospital?

Semrau is guilty of compassion and not letting the chain of command know what he did. Is that worthy of kicking him out of the forces? I'll say no, others of course say yes.




> Now a "leader" is someone who will take on-duty action that is perfectly contrary to the clearly understood directions and expectations of the Canadian Forces (also the Canadian public & LoAC for that matter), and then quietly hopes the matter goes unnoticed?  It is those sorts of "leaders" and "team players" that, if allowed to flourish, will bring us into another Somalia incident.



Like our Generals who are having affairs while deployed and sent home, shuffled around and keep their ridiculous pay and rank?  Semrau's actions while more severe were based off compassion and honour, what are our generals basing theirs off of?  :


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Speaking generally,
> 
> If your father/mother/son/daughter was on their death bed dying, in pain, suffering their last minutes of life and you in your heart (with a dose of common sense) knew they weren't going to make it and they asked you to end their pain and suffering, would you?
> 
> ...



So what are your thoughts on the former Master Corporal Matchee's leadership decision to dispatch an intruder, of the camp he was stationed in?  He was a leader in a very difficult assignment, had troops look up to him (to the point where they did the deed with him) yet we vilified Matchee for his deeds....

We, as citizens of a Canada, are bound by laws period.  Yet as a leader, Semrau felt he was the law.  We judge the fellow based on what the media has told us.  

Maybe Semrau never intended it to be a "mercy" double tap.  Maybe he intended it to be a hearts and mind campaign.....One to the heart, and one to the mind....

I think this war has thrown our military thinking askew....too many people are sitting on their pedestals and figuring because they have served this mission, that they are much more righteous than every one else..

Stop sanctifying Semrau.  He Phucked up; Period.  Just because our mission allows soldier to end the life of the enemy, does not allow us to pick and choose the word of the law of the land we defend, to suit us.

dileas

tess


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Oct 2010)

Don't compare the actions of Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau. End story. Completely different scenarios and situations. Not to mention very different personalities.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Don't compare the actions of Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau. End story. Completely different scenarios and situations. Not to mention very different personalities.



Are they?  Based on what? As I said to you, privately, shall we also exonerate Russel Williams deeds based on his exemplary military leadership?

Semrau has never testified, or spoken in his own words, of his action that day.  We Judge this man based on media excerpts, yet he is such a saintly example of leadership.

As I said in that post, be wary of sanctifying this man.  His duty was to follow the law of Canada, and he didn't.  In my opinion, there is no room for people like him, otherwise I would say that Russel Williams deeds should be canceled by his exemplary leadership.

dileas

tess


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Oct 2010)

48th, 
you are not reading me loud and clear
1. 2Lt Semrau SHOULD and most definately be charged and convicted for actions. They were unlawfull.
2. As far as most of us can tell, he acted on moral grounds for the dying enemy (Have you ever had to put down a dying pet or have you seen Crimson tide when the sub deputy commander is forced to kill 2 people to save his submarine?) Sometimes acting morally is just plain old damn tough to do (and not always legal)
3. Clayton Matchee tortured and beat a prisoner to death. That is far different than what Semrau did
4. As I have said in previous thread. he chose to act morally (when it conflicted with ROE/LOAC) and he is being punished.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

All, please, let's keep the discussion as objective as possible, relating the generally understood proceeding of events and the outcome of 2Lt Semrau's court martial and sentencing.  It's understood that there will be differences in perspective amongst members here, but discussion, while emotionally impacted, should remain professional and not become a personalized opinion/counter-opinion devolution.  

Another thread has been created (link here), wherein those who wish to do so can discuss the wider issues of legal/moral divergence as it relates to CF/military operations in contemporary operating environments.

Thanks for your cooperation.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## armyvern (10 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Like our Generals who are having affairs while deployed and sent home, shuffled around and keep their ridiculous pay and rank?  Semrau's actions while more severe were based off compassion and honour, what are our generals basing theirs off of?  :



Didn't 2Lt Semrau also get to keep his pay and rank (probably while being shuffled around/not performing his regular duties) until his Court Martial and sentencing occured?

As far as I know, the General's CM has not even begun yet. Shouldn't the General have the benefit of keeping his pay and rank like Semrau did too until his own CM and possible sentencing occurs??

I don't understand your comparison or why you suggest that a general should be treated worse (differently) than a Captain ... especially before that General has been tried or convicted of the alleged offense. Both the former-Captain and the General broke military law ... they are both being treated the same.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Didn't 2Lt Semrau also get to keep his pay and rank (probably while being shuffled around/not performing his regular duties) until his Court Martial and sentencing occured?
> 
> As far as I know, the General's CM has not even begun yet. Shouldn't the General have the benefit of keeping his pay and rank like Semrau did too until his own CM and possible sentencing occurs??
> 
> I don't understand your comparison or why you suggest that a general should be treated worse (differently) than a Captain ... especially before that General has been tried or convicted of the alleged offense. Both the former-Captain and the General broke military law ... they are both being treated the same.



You're totally right!  I was arguing more about the "leadership" angle but I'll save further explination for Good2Golf's tangent thread when I get a chance.


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2010)

I still want to know the Name and Rank of the CF "Leader" that told Capt Semrau to abandon the Taliban without care.

  I mean if we are kicking now 2Lt. Semrau out, should be at least not follow the chain of command to the heart of potentially unlawful and immoral orders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I still want to know the Name and Rank of the CF "Leader" that told Capt Semrau to abandon the Taliban without care.
> 
> I mean if we are kicking now 2Lt. Semrau out, should be at least not follow the chain of command to the heart of potentially unlawful and immoral orders.



He was given an order to leave the Taliban as is?


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 48th,
> you are not reading me loud and clear


Oh you are loud, however not clear Rick.  Let me explain why.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 1. 2Lt Semrau SHOULD and most definately be charged and convicted for actions. They were unlawfull.


Bingo



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 2. As far as most of us can tell, he acted on moral grounds for the dying enemy (Have you ever had to put down a dying pet or have you seen Crimson tide when the sub deputy commander is forced to kill 2 people to save his submarine?) Sometimes acting morally is just plain old damn tough to do (and not always legal)


_As far as most of us can tell_  Should actually read as far as most of us really really hope it was that way.  You want to believe in your heart that Semrau acted in a just and noble manner.  We want to believe that the great leader Semrau, was in the right, and everyone else was wrong for forcing him to kill a hurt man.  The truth is, we do not know what actually took place.  Semrau has never spoken, and when he does, truthfully we will never know what went through his mind.  Was it out of mercy?  Was it out of Anger, frustration, Joy?  We will never know, however, there is a law in place where we should not have to second guess.  He broke that law.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 3. Clayton Matchee tortured and beat a prisoner to death. That is far different than what Semrau did


Why?  He thought he was doing the right thing, by teaching the kid a lesson, and sending a message to all others that they must never infiltrate the camp.  This would aid in defending him and his buddies.

You see how things can be sent askew, with regards to feelings?  That is why there are laws in place.  Thou shall not kill.  And just because our Government sends you to war, does not give you the card Blanche to kill people based on what you feel is right.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 4. As I have said in previous thread. he chose to act morally (when it conflicted with ROE/LOAC) and he is being punished.



And as I said in this post, and in past you wish and hope he acted morally.  And even if he did, that still breaks the law of the land.  As a great leader, he should have put that above all else, in trying times .

I shall say no more in this thread, and carry on the morale debate either via PM or the other thread that was created.

dileas

tess


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

Posts related to overall legal/ethical issues moved to the new ethical/legal thread.
*
Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2010)

Didn't see this already posted, but here's the PDF of the sentencing report.

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010/doc/2010cm4010-eng.pdf

One interesting thing I found is that the judge used American Military court martial results as part of his rationale behind the sentencing.... shouldn't he only be looking at Canadian cases and precedent?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Didn't see this already posted, but here's the PDF of the sentencing report.
> 
> http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010/doc/2010cm4010-eng.pdf
> 
> One interesting thing I found is that the judge used American Military court martial results as part of his rationale behind the sentencing.... shouldn't he only be looking at Canadian cases and precedent?




Thank you for that. I fully understand LCol Pdrron's reasoning; his opinions are clear and cogent and, obviously, well and fairly grounded in fact and law.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> One interesting thing I found is that the judge used American Military court martial results as part of his rationale behind the sentencing.... shouldn't he only be looking at Canadian cases and precedent?


No.  As I understand things, any similar laws and sets of laws can be used as precedent.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No.  As I understand things, any similar laws and sets of laws can be used as precedent.



Agree.  Similar findings from other militaries is part of the body of customary law, the less formal portion of International Laws that, in concert with Conventions, Agreements, etc..., on the whole form the body of the Law of Armed Conflict.

Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69 (10 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I still want to know the Name and Rank of the CF "Leader" that told Capt Semrau to abandon the Taliban without care.
> 
> I mean if we are kicking now 2Lt. Semrau out, should be at least not follow the chain of command to the heart of potentially unlawful and immoral orders.



I too would like to know more detail on the chain of events. I think there was some reference in the past to Semrau speaking to his chain of command.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Oct 2010)

I could be speaking out of my hat, but I seem to recall that his OMLT was working with an Afghan company and he asked the company commander to request medical evacuation. The Afghan officer refused and the sub-unit prepared to move on, leaving the mortally wounded man to his fate.

Let me do some looking, but this information came out very early in the process.

Edit: Still looking, however there were reports that Afghan soldiers mistreated the insurgent for several minutes prior ro abandoning him.


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I could be speaking out of my hat, but I seem to recall that his OMLT was working with an Afghan company and he asked the company commander to request medical evacuation. The Afghan officer refused and the sub-unit prepared to move on, leaving the mortally wounded man to his fate.
> 
> Let me do some looking, but this information came out very early in the process.
> 
> Edit: Still looking, however there were reports that Afghan soldiers mistreated the insurgent for several minutes prior ro abandoning him.



That information WAS in the early reports by the media, then just seemed to disappear...


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2010)

Major Steve Nolan was Capt. Semrau's OC, and depending upon report either told the Capt to leave him, or to MedEvac him...


----------



## Gunner98 (10 Oct 2010)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/semrau-admitted-it-was-me-court-martial-hears/article1549965/

Cpl. Fournier had already told the court martial that a captain with the ANA had ordered that the insurgent not be treated and be left behind. The man was covered in a blanket but his eyes were fluttering, he was groaning and would occasionally role from his side to his back, then return, Cpl. Fournier testified.

Even after hearing the shots and seeing Capt.Semrau poised over the insurgent, Cpl. Fournier said he still didn't quite grasp what had taken place.

As they walked away from the body, he testified, Capt.Semrau made it perfectly clear. Cpl. Fournier testified that Capt.Semrau told him that he “felt it was necessary.”

“He felt it was the humane thing to do, he couldn't live with himself if he left an injured insurgent, an injured human, behind,” and then described the act as a “mercy killing.”

From http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/21/mercy-or-murder-or-neither/

Semrau’s lawyer spent the day trying to exploit other potential holes in the government’s case. He suggested that because the OMLT members were attached to an Afghan company—and not in charge of it—they had no authority to overrule a local commander’s decision (including a decision to not offer medical treatment to a dying man). Court has already heard that one ANA commander saw the injured insurgent, declared that his fate was “in Allah’s hands,” and ordered his troops to keep moving.


----------



## Redeye (12 Oct 2010)

Where precedents are not available in a judge's own country, it isn't uncommon for them to look at jurisprudence of others as a reference, though they aren't bound to the concept of stare decisis when doing so (which means you hold to what the precedent says), at least that's my amateurish memory of law classes.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Didn't see this already posted, but here's the PDF of the sentencing report.
> 
> http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010/doc/2010cm4010-eng.pdf
> 
> One interesting thing I found is that the judge used American Military court martial results as part of his rationale behind the sentencing.... shouldn't he only be looking at Canadian cases and precedent?


----------



## GAP (1 Jan 2011)

No appeal for soldier convicted of shooting wounded Taliban fighter
 By Andrew Duffy, Postmedia News January 1, 2011
Article Link

OTTAWA — The Canadian military will not appeal the sentence handed to former captain Robert Semrau in his unprecedented court martial.

Semrau, 36, was demoted and dismissed from the military in September after being convicted of disgraceful conduct for shooting a severely wounded Taliban fighter on an Afghan battlefield.

The military tribunal heard evidence suggesting the incident was an act of mercy intended to end the dying man’s suffering.

Military prosecutors had asked for a two-year jail tern, but the judge in the case, Lt.-Col. Jean-Guy Perron, rejected that recommendation and imposed a more lenient sentence.

The appellate counsel at the Canadian Military Prosecutions Service, Maj. Steven Richards, recently confirmed that the appeal period in the case has expired.

The military, he said, did not appeal Semrau’s acquittal on more serious charges — second-degree murder and attempted murder — or his sentence.

Semrau’s legal team also did not file a notice of appeal.

It means Semrau, a married father of two young children, will be able to move on with his life as a civilian two years after being the first Canadian officer arrested for a battlefield shooting.
More on link


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2011)

Which leds me to believe it may have been more of a joint submission that we thought, or neither side was happy with the result, but not unhappy enough to risk it being altered dramatically against their side on appeal.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jan 2011)

At least he will be able to get on with whichever direction his life will take him without the fear of being run through the mill by the system once more.  Best of luck to him in the future.


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> No appeal for soldier convicted of shooting wounded Taliban fighter
> By Andrew Duffy, Postmedia News January 1, 2011
> Article Link
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine... I could be wrong but he was not convicted of shooting anybody, severly wounded or dead, no? That's why the murder charge did not stand?

This article makes it sound like he's guilty of murder.


----------



## Gunner98 (3 Jan 2011)

From the sentencing transcript:
http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/dec/2010/doc/2010cm4010-eng.pdf

[4] You were found guilty of behaving in a disgraceful manner contrary to section 93 of the Code of Service Discipline, which is in the National Defence Act (NDA). The Code of Service Discipline promotes the need for good order, discipline, and high morale. The Criminal Code does not contain an offence similar to the one found at section 93 of the National Defence Act. The prosecution had to prove each of the essential elements of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt before the panel could find you guilty of this offence. The elements of that offence are:
a. your identity as the alleged offender;
b. the date and place of the commission of the offence;
c. that you had shot an unarmed and wounded unnamed male person while acting as the Commander of call sign 72A Operational Mentoring Liaison Team;
d. that such act constitutes disgraceful behaviour; and
e. your blameworthy state of mind at the time of the commission of the offence.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jan 2011)

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/24/no-longer-reporting-for-duty/

*No longer reporting for duty*

Dismissed by the Canadian Forces, Robert Semrau begins the next stage of life—as a civilian
by Michael Friscolanti on Monday, January 24, 2011 9:20am - 0 Comments

His trial made headlines around the world—and sparked a fierce debate about mercy killing in a combat zone—but Robert Semrau’s final day in uniform passed without any publicity at all. He arrived at CFB Petawawa on Jan. 13, enjoyed a farewell lunch with fellow officers, and after many hugs and handshakes, left the base for the last time. As a civilian. “He certainly didn’t leave under a cloud of shame,” one soldier told Maclean’s. “Everyone wished him the best, and told him how tough it was to see him go.”

For Semrau and his family, tough doesn’t even begin to describe the past three years. In the summer of 2008, the Moose Jaw, Sask., native deployed to Kandahar as a respected infantry captain assigned to mentor Afghan troops as they hunted for Taliban. By December, he was on a plane back home, accused of putting a gravely injured insurgent out of his misery with two bullets to the chest.

Never before had a Canadian soldier been charged with battlefield murder, and when his court martial finally began in March 2010, Semrau was staring at a possible sentence of life behind bars. But his lawyers—knowing full well that compassion is not a legal excuse for murder—never conceded that their client committed a mercy kill. In fact, the defence offered no alternative version of events. They simply attacked the credibility of every Crown witness, hoping to plant the seeds of reasonable doubt.


The strategy worked, to an extent. In July, the jury found Semrau guilty of only one count: disgraceful conduct. The panel believed that he shot the unidentified enemy fighter, but with no corpse and no forensic evidence, they weren’t completely convinced that the man actually died. Semrau’s final punishment? Demotion to second lieutenant and dismissal from the Forces.

Justice Jean-Guy Perron handed down his sentence in October, but it took more than three months to process the paperwork. So Semrau—who, to this day, has never spoken publicly about his case—continued reporting for duty. “Obviously, it was a difficult situation, but he had a ton of support internally,” says Bill Semrau, his older brother. “He’s happy to finally have all this behind him. It’s time to move on to the next step.”

That next step, if all goes well, will be a career in the private security sector. “It’s unfortunate that Rob can’t continue to serve in the Canadian military, which is the life he loved,” Bill says. “But we are confident that he’ll be able to find something else, somewhere that will value his skills and what he can offer.”

Sadly, Semrau could have offered quite a lot later this summer, when Canadian troops pull out of Kandahar and begin training Afghan soldiers and police officers in Kabul. During his sentencing hearing, Maj. Cayle Obermayer, who fought with Semrau in Afghanistan, testified that he was “the best mentor he had worked with.” (Another infantryman, Pte. Joseph Villeneuve, recalled how Semrau saved his life during a deadly mortar attack in the volatile Panjwaii district.)

A dozen other soldiers wrote letters of support to the judge, praising Semrau’s “tremendous courage and moral fibre.” Recently released by the Department of National Defence, they paint a very clear picture of the kind of officer the army just lost. “I have always joked with friends that I would ‘follow Rob through the gates of hell,’ ” wrote one captain from the Royal Canadian Regiment. “Despite his recent conviction, I would absolutely still follow him into the ﬁeld and strongly believe that all that know him would do the same.”

_Maclean’s is part of the  Canadian Business Network _


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Jan 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> By December, he was on a plane back home, accused of putting a gravely injured insurgent out of his misery with two bullets to the chest.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


This article must be an editorial, no?  "Putting an insurgent out of his misery" and such adjectives as "Sadly".  I know Rob, and consider him a friend; however, he erred, and he's paying his dues.  Had he not acted disgracefully that day, he'd still be serving.

PS: I know the Major as well, and though yes he is of German Descent, his name isn't "Obermayer", it's "Oberwarth".  As seen on that documentary about 3 RCR's deployment overseas.


----------

