# Canadian soldiers fatally shoot taxi driver



## ErorZ (15 Mar 2006)

"Canadian soldiers fatally shoot taxi driver
Last Updated Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:49:46 EST
CBC News

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan fatally shot a taxi driver who came within less than a metre of their patrol, military officials said on Wednesday.

    * INDEPTH: Afghanistan

Lt.-Col. Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force Afghanistan.

The shooting happened late Tuesday local time, about four kilometres from the Canadian base in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, said Capt. Julie Roberge.

Afghan police have launched an investigation.

The man, identified as Nasrat Ghali and believed to be in his mid-40s, was driving a three-wheeled motorized taxi known locally as a rickshaw. Canadian troops fired warning shots at him after he drove through an Afghan police checkpoint, coming within less than one metre from the Canadian vehicle, said Lt.-Col. Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force Afghanistan..

"Our rules do not allow any Afghans to come within a certain distance," Basinger said.

The taxi driver was treated by the Canadians at the scene, but later died in hospital.

There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time of the shooting.

Radio broadcasts warn locals not to drive too close to military patrols because of the threat of suicide attacks.

Basinger said Canadian troops have fired at roughly 10 Afghan vehicles in the past month.

Two Canadian soldiers were killed when their armoured vehicle crashed into a taxi on the outskirts of Kandahar on March 2. Cpl. Paul Davis and Master Cpl. Timothy Wilson died in the incident, which injured five other soldiers.

One day later, five more Canadians were injured when a suicide bomber drove a small truck into their convoy near Kandahar.

More than 2,200 Canadian soldiers are stationed in and around Kandahar as part of a multinational brigade under the command of Canadian Brig.-Gen David Fraser. "

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/15/afghanistan_taxi060315.html

Related Articles:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060315.w2afghanshot0315/BNStory/International/home


----------



## ErorZ (15 Mar 2006)

I just want to add I was at the PAffO news release, and the News media did a really good job documenting and releasing these articles... I was starting to have my doubts about media outlets and the different spins they put on things, but this brings back hope in them for me.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (15 Mar 2006)

ErorZ said:
			
		

> I just want to add I was at the PAffO news release, and the News media did a really good job documenting and releasing these articles... I was starting to have my doubts about media outlets and the different spins they put on things, but this brings back hope in them for me.



I was just watching the news release from CTV NN, and I thought they did a pretty good job in hammering the message that they did try warning shots, and that it was in response to past suicide attacks. Another tragic accident, but let's see what happens.


----------



## 043 (15 Mar 2006)

Outstanding!!!!!!!!!! Although there will be many people outraged that we shot and killed an innocent civilian! Mind you, the people who will be upset will have never left there province let alone there country.

Sounds like an excellent example of ROE.

And yes, RIP Taxi Driver.


----------



## JBP (15 Mar 2006)

I just hope it isn't viewed as another reason we "shouldn't be there" by the Canadian populace who already doesn't understand what's going on... It is an unfortunate incident but that's the way things are over there.... If they fired warning shots and he STILL came at them, what else were they suppose to do?!?! If I thought it was MY LAV or vehicle he was approaching, I would have done the exact same thing I bet. So would any of us. We want to come home, not in a box, and we don't want to see our buddies come home in one either... Eat or be eaten. 

RIP for the taxi driver but my god, why wouldn't he stop?!?!

 ???


----------



## Koenigsegg (15 Mar 2006)

Could it have just been a suicide?
There are warnings all over the place saying to stay from military vehicles.  Then there was the police checkpoint they ran, then he would not stop when he was being warned.
In my opinion it looks like the guy wanted to die.  Ignorance cannot be pleaded considering the situation.


----------



## 043 (15 Mar 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I was looking at the globe and mail and one of the comments about the shooting had this gem in it....
> 
> So, that Somali teenager torture murder thing was actually a zionist crusader conspiracy committed by the US?   :-X
> 
> Man, the CDN left has nothing on the American left!



I agree, there are idiots on both sides of the border!!!!!


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

SB.... an Ignoramus with a pen is a dangerous thing....... 

Has anyone gone to see what "pike" has to say on this one on her website?
x


----------



## Danjanou (15 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> ...Has anyone gone to see what "pike" has to say on this one on her website?
> x



please, I'm eating.

re the suicide by cop, that's theroy i never though of and a good possibility.


----------



## Kurhaus (15 Mar 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Could it have just been a suicide?
> There are warnings all over the place saying to stay from military vehicles.  Then there was the police checkpoint they ran, then he would not stop when he was being warned.
> In my opinion it looks like the guy wanted to die.  Ignorance cannot be pleaded considering the situation.



Here is my 2 cents or conspiracy theory if you prefer. 

Could have been the enemy testing our troops.  Seems kind of odd that he ran a check point, ignored all warnings and then drove close to the Cdn vehicle (within 1 m as one news report stated).  You never know but their tactics will evolve as ours do.  Best thing for the troops to do is follow their ROE's.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Mar 2006)

no conspiracy.  they baddies do test our abilites.  whether this is along those lines or not may prove impossible to detemine.


----------



## The Gues-|- (15 Mar 2006)

They know what our reaction would be... OMG Canadians killed a civilian! this is bad, we better start an inquiry.  

They know what they're doing.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Mar 2006)

Welcome to the reality of today's warfare. Its all about ROEs, daily INTSUMs, body language and quick thinking or judgement calls by professional soldiers.

For sake of arguement if he was VBIEDing, there would be Cdn KIAs, and everyone would be asking why did they NOT shoot.

As much as it is always unfortunate when civilian deaths occur, all he had to do was stop, and at the end of the day, has only himself to blame for his own death.

My opinion.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## GO!!! (15 Mar 2006)

I'll take a wait and see on this one.

The real test will be if the soldier that did the deed is commended or disciplined. 

I think he should get a pat on the back for doing his job well, but unfortunately, I don't run the CF!


----------



## GAP (15 Mar 2006)

Even at 2-3 feet from vehicle...it's too close. Soldier did good and he walked away. You cannot hesitate, but you can live with the consequences. For those who have never been in a similar situation...think back to the last time you had a near car collision or an accident and how afterwards you were able to review it and take it apart piece by piece. Everything happened in seconds, but you retain ALL the images in your mind...this is no different.


----------



## teltech (15 Mar 2006)

We did ROE training today; We were given about 10 MINUTES per scenario to DISCUSS the appropriate responses. I reminded the people in my group that the soldiers in the scenarios may have had 1/10th of a SECOND to REACT. Shook a few cobwebs from a couple of lads.
Hopefully the verdict will continue to give everyone else the confidence to do their job, and not have to worry about seeing the JAG after every patrol. After our training, we were reminded that no Canadian soldier has ever been charged for following their ROE's, and given the details released, I don't think this incident will end any different.

Kudos to the soldier - chin up, head high, and carry on.
As for the taxi driver, RIP, but you WERE warned. To his family, my condolances - hard life in a hard country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2006)

Life is hard.................................................it's even harder when your stupid.


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2006)

not stupid.....
the lad came from the " In sha-allah " Kabul / Kandahar school of driving.


----------



## The Gues-|- (15 Mar 2006)

Teltech said:
			
		

> We did ROE training today; We were given about 10 MINUTES per scenario to DISCUSS the appropriate responses. I reminded the people in my group that the soldiers in the scenarios may have had 1/10th of a SECOND to REACT. Shook a few cobwebs from a couple of lads.
> Hopefully the verdict will continue to give everyone else the confidence to do their job, and not have to worry about seeing the JAG after every patrol. After our training, we were reminded that no Canadian soldier has ever been charged for following their ROE's, and given the details released, I don't think this incident will end any different.
> 
> Kudos to the soldier - chin up, head high, and carry on.


seconded



			
				Teltech said:
			
		

> As for the taxi driver, RIP, but you WERE warned. To his family, my condolances - hard life in a hard country.


The person killed was the passenger, but yea... stupid.


----------



## teltech (15 Mar 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> The person killed was the passenger, but yea... stupid.


Oh.. okay, I went by the article at the beginning of the thread. Either way...


----------



## casing (16 Mar 2006)

Pretty sure I saw on the news that the unfortunate civie was a passenger in the taxi.  That being the case, I would say it rules out the possibility of "suicide by cop".  We'll likely never know the actual situation within the taxi, but I find it interesting enough to note--but not at all surprised by it--that the Canucks are blamed by the family (taken from the reaction of a family member complaining that the Canadians just "threw him to the side of the road and left"), rather than the taxi driver.

In any case, while it was an unfortunate incident, I fully support the troops following their ROEs.


----------



## GK .Dundas (16 Mar 2006)

It has to be noted that most drivers over there are convinced the laws of physics do'nt apply to them..... much less traffic laws.
 To the young troop :Well done son,soldier on.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2006)

Pike has a web page?

I bet thats a fun place.


----------



## westie47 (16 Mar 2006)

The problem with the Afghans is that they are generally dense!!! We would wave at them to slow down or stop, then hold our rifles out or point them at them.  Sometimes it took more.  They just drive right at you.  The funy thing is that they are staring right at you the whole time!!!! You can be waving like mad and they don't respond.  Serves the guy right as far as I am concerned.


----------



## The Gues-|- (16 Mar 2006)

That must be frustrating.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

If they haven't figured it out by now I doubt they every will.


----------



## MikeM (16 Mar 2006)

Good on the soldier, definetly worth a few pints for what he did.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (16 Mar 2006)

I heard prob the best comment on this issue on the radio from Edmonton this morning.  This is in regard to the Afgans maybe rising up against our troops because of this issue.

If the people are pissed and going to rise up against the Canadians then why did they not rise up against the Taliban and then we would not have to be there in the first place.

Now that makes sense. Do you think the are dense or just don't care?

I feel bad for the guy who's actions are now being questioned.  But i guess that is the Canadian way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

Family of man shot by Cdn. troops wants $30,000

CTV.ca News Staff

The family of a man fatally shot by Canadian troops in Afghanistan wants $30,000 in compensation, and is disputing the version of events offered by the military on the shooting.

According to Maj. Scott Lundy, the driver of a taxi ran an Afghan police checkpoint just outside Kandahar late Tuesday.

"That led to several shots being fired directly at the vehicle in an effort to disable it," Lundy told CTV Newsnet from Kandahar on Wednesday.

"... Despite repeated warnings by our crew in our vehicles, (the cab) approached to within two feet of one of our vehicles," said Lt.-Col Derek Basinger of Task Force Afghanistan.

However, CTV's Ellen Pinchuk, reporting from Kandahar, said the son of the victim was in the car, and claims there was no checkpoint, and no signals were given to tell the vehicle to stop.

"He claims that the Canadians simply opened fire and that his father was killed by one of the two shots that were fired," Pinchuk told CTV Newsnet on Thursday.

Grieving relatives attended a funeral for the shooting victim in Kandahar Thursday.

The independent Canadian Forces National Investigation Service and the Afghan police are looking into Tuesday's incident. 

The soldier who fired the shots has been temporarily relieved of duty -- a normal procedure.

On patrol

Canadian troops have been forced to fire warning shots near approaching vehicles 10 times in the last several months.

They are on guard for suicide bombers, who have targeted Canadian military vehicles in Afghanistan several times. The most recent incident on March 3 injured one soldier.

Meanwhile, Taliban leader Mullah Omar claimed in a statement Thursday that a large number of Afghans were signing up as suicide bombers to target foreign and Afghan troops.

"This year, with the beginning of summer, Afghan soil will turn red for the crusaders and their puppets and the occupiers will face an unpredictable wave of Afghan resistance," said the statement.

It predicted 2006 will be "the year of success and victory for Muslims."

The statement was telephoned first to Associated Press reporters in Kandahar and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, and subsequently emailed from an unidentified sender.

Previous statements attributed to Omar have also warned of increased attacks.

Violence usually escalates in Afghanistan at the start of summer, as snow melts in the mountains, where insurgents are hiding out.

There are more than 2,200 Canadian troops stationed in Kandahar. They are led by Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser, who took command of a multinational brigade in the Kandahar region at the end of February.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Mar 2006)

westie47 said:
			
		

> The problem with the Afghans is that they are generally dense!!! We would wave at them to slow down or stop, then hold our rifles out or point them at them.  Sometimes it took more.  They just drive right at you.  The funy thing is that they are staring right at you the whole time!!!! You can be waving like mad and they don't respond.  Serves the guy right as far as I am concerned.



+1

We had a guy clip a Gwagon trailer in our convoy one day, he was looking right at us as he merged from the median into the side of the trailer, and it was the second vehicle in the convoy that he hit, not the first!!  :

The aviation community calls it "controlled flight into terrain"...


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2006)

Or the dumbass that ran into me in his brand new Infinty SUV (he had 50cent that waste of skin rap crap playing on his stereo)
 I think his scrapped my bumper paint while it stove in his side  ;D

the road and the principles of driving an automobile are about 100years ahead of their thought processes in my experience...

My somewhat compassionate side says:
It is unfortunate when you have to open fire on a suspect vehicle that turns out in hindsight to just have been an idiot.

My cynical side says:
 "DARWINISM"...


----------



## Koenigsegg (16 Mar 2006)

In all of the articles I have read on this incident, they all say that there were no passengers, or there was no reference to a passenger...  I am slightly confused as you people are saying that it was a passenger that died.

However, They could very well be taking a page out of Giap's war book.  They could be trying show the Canadian public exactly what they don't want to see.  In Vietnam, Giap used the Tet Offensive to show the US public the Military losing its grip on Vietnam by having a ton of cities and towns over run.  However, most of those places were taken back in an encredibly short period of time, but the damage had already been done.  The public saw a lit bit of a skewed sense of the war, and turned even more against the conflict and the government.

I suppose only time will tell what comes of this incident.


----------



## geo (16 Mar 2006)

koenigsegg... passenger in taxi is the one who bought it.
our Medics did give aid... he didn't make it.

This is not a Giap move to confuse the population.... at least not this time.


----------



## S McKee (16 Mar 2006)

Unfortunately these shoot or don't shoot situations are going to happen, sometimes innocence people will be killed. I heard some negative comments about the fact that this soldier is being investigated. Welcome to the age of accountability... we are technically not at war with anyone, so technically any killing done by our forces can't be chalked up to an "Act of War". We are nation building and helping a foreign government enforce peace. For the record I agree that the soldier had every justification to shoot, and I'm sure he will be cleared. However even though we have aggressive ROE doesn't mean we won't be questioned on our actions, and we shouldn't  be insulted or upset when we are. Just like the policeman who shoots someone while on duty an investigation must be conducted. We're just like the world's biggest police force, only the bad guys have RPGs and machineguns.


----------



## armyrules (18 Mar 2006)

Yes I feel bad for the taxi driver. But when he was told to stop he should've stopped. I heard on the radio that over there it is posted on the local radio station to stay away form the convoys  like how much info do these people need? I also heard that it was a warning shot that killed the civvie. I might be wrong but they guys were just doing their job.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> our Medics did give aid... he didn't make it.



Hindsight being 20/20... the only one on scene that night who may have screwed up was the medic. A gun shot wound to the chest, regardless of how bad you think it is, is always serious. 

Scoop and run. 

The only saviour for the medic is that reports say ANP/others took the casualty off scene right away. If that is the case, there was nothing more the medic could do, and its all good.

Investigations are not always looking for blame. They will also seee if the ROE procedures were correct, and how, if need be, they should be adjusted.


----------



## geo (18 Mar 2006)

Correct armymedic - Investigators frequently point out policy / SOP errors that need to be sharpened a little bit - in face of local situations and adjusting to the locals adjusting to us.

WRT to the cas - yup, the Medic did do a handover to the local authorities. There was nothing more for the medic to do - xcept get into the way of the local caregivers AND stand around for the local population to vent their spleen.

The sentry did his job
The medic did his job

time to move on and "soldier on"

Chimo!


----------



## Franko (18 Mar 2006)

Just to echo a few points already brought up.....

During the road moves between Kabul and Kandahar I _almost_ employed the ROE due to the threat level / INTSUM given....twice.

In one instance (they were pretty much the exact same) a vehicle was in the area we were in, described in the INTSUM to a tee, raced up behind our LAV. 

I informed the RSM and began the employment of the ROE...hand gestures etc.

Only when I took aim at the car with the C9 and take the safety off did the driver clue in and hit the brakes...his eyes were as big as a melmak plate.

I was milli-seconds away from putting rounds into his hood....and a second from putting them into him.

As the RSM said after it all...better trialled by 12 than carried by 6.

I'm sure the soldier involved will carry on knowing he could have done nothing different. He did his job plain and simple...and to the letter.

His patrol made it back to the wire safe and sound...some, unfortunately, haven't.

As for the medic...he did a handover to the local authorities, his hands are clean as well.




The bigger question should be....why did the local run the check point to begin with?

As for Pike and her site....who cares what she thinks. She'd probably have the soldier up on warcrimes    :

Regards


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> As for Pike and her site....who cares what she thinks. She'd probably have the soldier up on warcrimes    :



Franko:

By trying the soldier in the court of public opinion she can pronounce us all guilty.


----------



## geo (18 Mar 2006)

guilty?

Aye.... guilty of doing our coutry's bidding and saving lives

Guilty as charged!

Chimo!


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Guilty as charged!



+1!

Got room in your cell for another old warhorse, Geo?  ;D


----------



## geo (18 Mar 2006)

do you snore?


----------



## 043 (19 Mar 2006)

Just what is this website that Pike has?


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

go back to the 1st page of this thread.
while it's reference has been deleted from her response
it still appears in one of the members "critiques".
(I don't want to give her the free advertising)


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (19 Mar 2006)

I read a couple books recently about Iraq, called _One Bullet Away _ and _Generation Kill_ (both mostly about a Marine platoon's experiences in the early days of Iraq). I don't know if anyone here has read them or how valid they are. But the books claim that whenever the Marines in Iraq would give warning shots at a checkpoint to approaching vehicles it would just panic the civvy drivers and they'd try to run the checkpoint.

It seemed interesting that something similar may have happened in this incident. It seems to be a trend. Some kind of cultural thing going on? It seems to defy all common sense. As I recall, the Marines in these books ended up improvising other ways of warning the locals earlier, before warning shots were needed, (they stole a local Arabic stop sign and used it in front of checkpoints for example). No matter what though I think this kind of thing will happen a lot in this kind of war. You don't know who the enemy is. You've got to protect yourself either way.

It sounds like the guys in this incident did everything they should have done. As far I'm concerned, if it happened the way it was reported, they've got nothing to be ashamed of. But I've never been there so I don't know what I'm talking about. Just giving my support. Maybe one day.


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Mar 2006)

I'm curious now as to why we are pulling a soldier off duty because he fired his rifle in a war zone! ??? If this was any other war we would run out of fighting troops really quick! Stupid idea!


----------



## GO!!! (19 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I'm curious now as to why we are pulling a soldier off duty because he fired his rifle in a war zone! ??? If this was any other war we would run out of fighting troops really quick! Stupid idea!



As my father once told me, "it is pretty hard to get any work done when you are covering your a$$ with both hands"

Are all the gunners on an M777 taken "off duty" when they fire a round? Of course not.

My problem, like 2 Cdo, is that this soldier has been removed from his sect and platoon, and placed on "other" duties. This is also a "normal" procedure for stress cases, those accused of committing crimes and, IMHO, is done to improve the "optics", and has nothing to do with accountability.


----------



## 043 (19 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I'm curious now as to why we are pulling a soldier off duty because he fired his rifle in a war zone! ??? If this was any other war we would run out of fighting troops really quick! Stupid idea!



Funny you should ask, I asked the same thing of an MP during my ILQ course. One of the scenarios was that a patrol came upon a local raping a woman, one of the Patrol members shot and killed the rapist. Us army guys said that yes, there would be an investigation however we would not take his weapon away nor would we finish the patrol early. The MP and the airforce guys were aghast! How could you let this guy keep his weapon, he has just killed someone!!!!

Different scenario but I think it paints a picture. There are people in the Military who don't realize that we are at war and think that dowtown Kandahar is the same as CFB Trenton.

Chimo!


----------



## Franko (19 Mar 2006)

Just goes to show the ignorance of other elements in the forces.

Mind you most of the public is the same way    :

Regards


----------



## JBP (19 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Or the dumbass that ran into me in his brand new Infinty SUV (he had 50cent that waste of skin rap crap playing on his stereo)
> I think his scrapped my bumper paint while it stove in his side  ;D
> 
> the road and the principles of driving an automobile are about 100years ahead of their thought processes in my experience...
> ...




My god Kevin, couldn't have put it better if my life depended on it. That's exactly what I was thinking! Bang on, I second that motion!!!!

Joe


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2006)

Real smart.

So what happens the next time a soldier is standing somewhere and a car passes a roadblock and heads right towards him and his unsuspecting platoon.

Soldier takes a split second and thinks to himself fuck do i really want to shoot this guy? Last time buddy did that they took him out of the section and platoon and made it look like he fucked up. Now he's depressed and shit, maybe I can just...

BOOM.


Giving soldiers in a war zone, threatend by suicide bombers a big reason to second guess their actions is a GREAT idea.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

Ghost..... 
it'll still be his training kicking in. He has ROEs to apply, mates to defend, a job to do.
if you followed the ROEs then there's nothing to be worried about.
The ROEs might be wrong - the muckety mucks can change em and let us know what they want done.... in the meantime - the ROEs stand and theyr'e quite clear.

Chimo!


----------



## S McKee (19 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> Funny you should ask, I asked the same thing of an MP during my ILQ course. One of the scenarios was that a patrol came upon a local raping a woman, one of the Patrol members shot and killed the rapist. Us army guys said that yes, there would be an investigation however we would not take his weapon away nor would we finish the patrol early. The MP and the airforce guys were aghast! How could you let this guy keep his weapon, he has just killed someone!!!!
> 
> Different scenario but I think it paints a picture. There are people in the Military who don't realize that we are at war and think that dowtown Kandahar is the same as CFB Trenton.
> 
> Chimo!



We are not at war with anyone, and I'm curious why this Act of War keeps being brought up as a catch all, it simply is not true. Yes we're in a country where the threat level is extremely high, and we have the right to defend ourselves, however in certain cases we must justify this use of force, in other words we must be accountable. Each situation in Afghanistan where there is a death will have to be examined and rest or fall on it's own merits. IMO this soldier will be cleared. However, we are in a particularly dicey situation you can't shoot the locals (particularly if they were not armed) and not expect the military to conduct some sort of inquiry. We must appear balanced, fair and accountable for our actions if we are to win their trust. Your comparison of an MP shooting a "rapist" in "while on patrol" to this situation is like comparing apples and oranges and is irrelevant. In Canada the member's weapon would be taken from him and he would be re-assigned to other duties for two reasons first the weapon would have to be tested forensically it was used in a killing there would be an inquiry/investigation, the weapon is evidence; and secondly the member would be re-assigned pending the results of the investigation and to ensure the member is given adequate counselling (believe it or not, most normal people would be affected by taking the life of another). Finally there are 100 MPs in Afghanistan right now and from the correspondence that I've received from my colleagues they are quite aware that they are not in CFB Trenton.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Mar 2006)

I disagree.  We are at war.  A war on terror as gay and overused as it is.  Its not as if they "did" a village.  You also failed to address those firing the M777's had they killed someone in a fire mission.  Will they pull someone off the mountain who killed some in a fire fight?  Did they take the wpn's away from those that killed the Afghani that tried to kill Capt Greene?  If you say this guy wasn't armed your wrong.  First he is armed with a vehicle that can cause damage on its own and it is ideal for delivering VIED.  We all agree that he will most likely be cleared, a lot of us don't believe he should need to be cleared.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Mar 2006)

Taking him off duty temporarily is no big deal, in fact I would suggest it is the proper procedure in order to provide a complete debrief  so that, in the same situation, he would still react the same way as he did.

Much better than putting him right back in the same possible situation while he is wondering how the investigation is going.......


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

agree with ya, going back out & second guessing himself isn't doing anyone any good.... but: don't keep him out too long AND for god's sake - don't keep him in the dark!

Soldier on!

Chimo!


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Mar 2006)

Jumper, maybe you're not at war but the enemy sure is. If you dont change your mindset you may be the next casualty. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but thats how I feel.


----------



## S McKee (19 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> I disagree.  We are at war.  A war on terror as gay and overused as it is.  Its not as if they "did" a village.  You also failed to address those firing the M777's had they killed someone in a fire mission.  Will they pull someone off the mountain who killed some in a fire fight?  Did they take the wpn's away from those that killed the Afghani that tried to kill Capt Greene?  If you say this guy wasn't armed your wrong.  First he is armed with a vehicle that can cause damage on its own and it is ideal for delivering VIED.  We all agree that he will most likely be cleared, a lot of us don't believe he should need to be cleared.



You failed to see my point: In the case where the artillery fired their M777s there was a justifiable need to defend ourselves, there was a clear threat and it was engaged, same with the Capt Greene incident. These are cases where the insurgents initiated the contact. In the taxi driver scenario this did not happen, there was a "perceived" threat, the threat in this instance turned out to be no threat at all, the individual was not armed. Therefore, in the cases of accidental or mistaken deaths there must be an investigation. As it harsh as it seems (for the member, and I can only imagine what he is going through) this has to be done. There are elements in our society that will raise a great hue and cry if we start to rack up a number of civilian casualties. i.e the government doesn't want another Somalia. Again the Canadian Government, to my knowledge, has not declared war on anyone. We are nation building. I am not insensitive to the raw emotion that this incident has produced and I agree that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


----------



## Pte_Martin (19 Mar 2006)

The guy ran through a road block, ignored signals and waring shots from the Canadians and got to one meter of the patrol, It was the right thing to do. Are we supposed to sit back and wait to see if he does something IE blows up his car,  or take action and prevent more deaths?


----------



## S McKee (19 Mar 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> The guy ran through a road block, ignored signals and waring shots from the Canadians and got to one meter of the patrol, It was the right thing to do. Are we supposed to sit back and wait to see if he does something IE blows up his car,  or take action and prevent more deaths?



The family has a different version of events, so how do we determine what happened and who is right?


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

Infantry.... Afghanistan is their country - not ours.... they don't think or behave the way we do............
as one of my frineds once put it: 
Welcome to Afghanistan, please turn your clocks back one millenium.

Oh yeah.... the guy who got shot was a passenger in the TAXI, he was not at the control of the vehicle. This poor fella paid the ultimate price for the Taxi driver's reckless abandon.


----------



## The Gues-|- (19 Mar 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> The family has a different version of events, so how do we determine what happened and who is right?



 That's probably why there is an investigation.  Occurrence analysis and feedback. fact from fiction, process of elimination with lies, misinterpretations and logic.  I don't know how much effort is put into solving these types of accidents in such atmospheres, but it can be figured out.  
  I hope the soldier doesn't hesitate when faced with the same situation in the future! 

All the best!


----------



## GO!!! (19 Mar 2006)

Jumper,

We are at war. Whether you choose to admit it or not. 

Let's not forget that the Korean War was a "Police Action" being fought between "advisors" and "volunteers", until the casualties picked up.

A vehicle is a weapon - I fail to see why you deny this. Locals are shot at frequently to dissuade exactly this type of behaviour. What if that taxi had contained 4 122mm rounds? It is the same as me pointing a toy gun at the civvie police, and them shooting me. No one would hold it against the cop for a second. It would be completely immaterial. You drive next to us, you die, full stop. Don't try to justify a good soldier being punished for doing his job to improve the optics. 

The soldier in question did his job within the existing ROE. That means he gets a nice note to file, and carries on. That family would say just about anything to get the compensation they want, and can hardly be considered "objective". I feel bad for them, but as they say,               "_In sha'allah_"


----------



## S McKee (20 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Jumper,
> 
> We are at war. Whether you choose to admit it or not.
> 
> ...



I not denying that the vehicle could be weapon, however what I am questioning is the attitude that we can shoot first and ask questions later, and believe as you say, that all that needs to be done is put "a nice note to file" and let's go for coffee.  Remember Somalia? That's not how our society in this day and age does business (welcome to the 21st century). As I said before, I feel the soldier will be cleared. I think he was justified, however this does not negate the fact that given the circumstances and the unfortunate outcome, this has to be investigated. Whether the family is objective or not is irrelevant, the important issue is, WE have to be seen as objective, both in the eyes of the Afghanis and the Canadian public. If we start to inflict too much collateral damage we will lose public support for the mission. Remember Canadians love their "peacekeepers" and if we fall too far from the chocolate bar and blankie role that our public loves to see us do, game over. I hate it as much as anyone else but that's the reality of the situation. Comparing Korea and Afghanistan? Two different missions two different centuries.  Please point me to the legislation that was passed in Parliament wherein we declared war on anybody. At best we could say we are partners in the "war on terrorism" however that's a pretty broad and ambiguous term with no real parameters. I mean we're still debating whether prisoners taken in this "war" are detainees or POWs and if they are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention right? To my knowledge this soldier hasn't been punished for anything, just re-assigned pending the results of investigation - perfectly normal.


----------



## monika (20 Mar 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I mean we're still debating whether prisoners taken in this "war" are detainees or POWs and if they are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention right?



Wouldn't this be a moot point from the CAD perspective? I heard the Minister of Defence say this afternoon that any prisoners would be handed over to the Afghanis since it is their country, their laws, w ehave no detention facilities there, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## S McKee (20 Mar 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> Wouldn't this be a moot point from the CAD perspective? I heard the Minister of Defence say this afternoon that any prisoners would be handed over to the Afghanis since it is their country, their laws, w ehave no detention facilities there, blah, blah, blah.



Thanks I hadn't heard that. More fodder for the we're at war/we're nation building argument.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

:

I am with GO!!! and several others -- he applied the appropriate ROE - too fucking bad the guy was an idiot.
  Th eissue with the passenger is that vehicle here (Afghanistan) are a mix of LEFT and RIGHT hand drive 
- so while the soldier may have beleive he was shooting at the driver, he shot the passenger.

Second guessing BS is crap -- the issue is the moment of time that the individual is force to act.  This investigation is BULLSHIT.


Oh BTW for all the people happy the CF hands the people over to the Afghani police -- they are some pretty fuckign barbaric savages -- they really do beleive that pulling itmes off your body (finger nails, finger etc.) can get results...   OEF (which TF Orion is under) is a COMBAT mission -- wake up enjoy your morning coffee...


----------



## S McKee (20 Mar 2006)

I guess winning "hearts and minds" is not your bag.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

Well!  Now the brother of the fellow killed is saying that a good compensation paid his family by the Canadian Government, is to allow them immigration to Canada and free education for his six sons.


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well!  Now the brother of the fellow killed is saying that a good compensation paid his family by the Canadian Government, is to allow them immigration to Canada and free education for his six sons.



 :rofl:

Well you can't blame him for trying...


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I guess winning "hearts and minds" is not your bag.



 :

I guess actively pursue an enemy is not yours, or taking proper defensive measure as approved by ROE either...


IF you have an issue with the ROE - write your MP (that would be Member of Parliament, not your trade Jumper).  Your treating this issue like it was a shooting in downtown Ottawa.


----------



## 043 (20 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I guess actively pursue an enemy is not yours, or taking proper defensive measure as approved by ROE either...
> 
> ...



Exactly like my previous post!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the chuckle Kevin!


----------



## DG-41 (20 Mar 2006)

> Well!  Now the brother of the fellow killed is saying that a good compensation paid his family by the Canadian Government, is to allow them immigration to Canada and free education for his six sons.



Well, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to this view:

1) From all accounts, the soldier involved correctly applied his ROE and did what he needed to do. (The investigation will confirm/deny this, but I'm working under an assumption of professional competence here and so will assume correct use of ROE)

2) That means (assuming this first assumption holds) that the soldier is absolved of personal responsibility, but he is still an agent of the Government of Canada - and while acting (lawfully) as that agent, he took the life of what appears to be an innocent civilian.

3) While not censurable - sometimes shit happens - it is regrettable. Nobody wants that civilian dead.

4) The taxi driver bears some responsibility here, but realistically, he probably doesn't have any resources to tap into, and the taxi driver is not currently engaged in a campaign for the hearts and minds of the local population.

5) There is an ancient tradition of "wereguild"; the paying of money, services, or other goods to offset a loss of life; especially a wrongful one. The precedent is as old as time.

6) So it isn't unreasonable for the Government of Canada to make some gesture towards the family. We used to pay German farmers for manoeuvre damage to fields, after all.

7) And allowing immigration (meaning the sons will become Canadian citizens) and educating them seems like a good compromise. The cost is cheap, the PR value is immense, and it's better and more noble than a plain old cash payout.

8) And I'll even offer up the possibility that one or more sons, now educated and Canadian citizens, might even sign up for the CF. If the mission runs that long... this might actually wind up being an "investment".

So I don't see the idea as crazy at all.

DG


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

While RecceDG makes some good points, I am of the opinion that letting the relatives of someone Canada killed, even if killed by accident, into the country is a bad idea... if it were me, I might harbour a bit of a grudge against my new home..


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2006)

Of course they might Khadr on us...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

maybe the relatives can come here and send back their money to there "friendsand family" in A Stan.


----------



## S McKee (20 Mar 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I guess actively pursue an enemy is not yours, or taking proper defensive measure as approved by ROE either...
> 
> ...



Whoa there Kevin, got that out of your system little fella, good. No need to be nasty. First, it will be an MP investigation (not Member of Parliament, so YOU don't get confused) that will clear this fellow. Secondly, I'm not sure how you scored on reading comprehension in school, however if you bothered to read all of my posts and not just pick out the bits that pi$$ed you off, you would discover that I agree that the guy did the right thing, however the public will expect us to be accountable for the force we use. And if your upset that this incident is being investigated then my friend, the sky is not blue in your world. I don't have a problem with the ROEs either but remember "unlimited liability" it's a fact of life nowadays everything we do in Afghanistan will be scrutinized by the public and press. Because we have aggressive ROE and are in engaged in combat operations doesn't mean that we have carte blanche to do what ever we want. If you can't grasp that concept it's a good thing that your not in anymore. Don't get mad at me, that's the way things are, I don't make the shitte up. Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?


----------



## DG-41 (20 Mar 2006)

> I am of the opinion that letting the relatives of someone Canada killed, even if killed by accident, into the country is a bad idea... if it were me, I might harbour a bit of a grudge against my new home..



That's not how the concept of "wereguild" works.

We here in the West are spoiled rotten by our super-high life expectancies and insanely effective medical care. We, as a society, value individual lives much higher than we have at any point in the past.

Go back a couple of hundred years, and death was a lot more common - and being more common, people had much more sensible attitudes towards it. Or.. maybe "sensible" is the wrong word... but death as a whole was seen as a whole lot less tragic, as it was all around you. Of *course* a bunch of mothers would die in childbirth. Of *course* a certain percentage of people would die from minor infections of cuts and bruises. Of *course* people would occasionally starve to death; it was normal and natural.

And the current life expectancy in Afghanistan is 46-47 years. Canadian life expectancy is almost double that.

I think you'll find that people's attitudes towards death in Afghanistan are entirely more pragmatic than they are here in Canada. Pay the wereguild, problem solved.



> Pr value?  so is this what CDN citizenship has come to?



Like it or not, in the modern world, PR is a WEAPON. You can have the strongest, most capable army in the world, but let one dead soldier being dragged behind a pickup truck get shown on TV, and that army may well pack up and leave.

Everything we do MUST MUST MUST be evaluated with an eye towards PR. It's as much a part of the battlefield as beans and bullets.

But it helps - a lot - that in this instance, "good PR" isn't at odds with operational necessities or common sense. We, the people of Canada, though the lawful actions of our lawful agent, took the life of an innocent civilian. Do we not owe his relatives some sort of compensation? Does not accepting his progeny into our welcoming bosom, and educating them to Western standards, and incorporating them into our society seem a fair trade?

By the current numbers, bringing those kids into Canada will DOUBLE their lifespan. Isn't that a good thing to do?

DG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

"By the current numbers, bringing those kids into Canada will DOUBLE their lifespan. Isn't that a good thing to do?"

It all depends on the attitudes and feelings of those kids.  I think we can agree that things have changed and just because you pay the bounty doesn't necessarily mean anything just like having the chief vouch for your security at a Shura (sp) doesn't mean jack shit anymore despite what their culture said in the past.


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that people's attitudes towards death in Afghanistan are entirely more pragmatic than they are here in Canada. Pay the wereguild, problem solved.



My faith in using Afghan customs to predict their behaviour ended when someone sunk an axe into a friend's head... seeing how I just returned from a tour with CIMIC I think I have a decent feel for people's attitudes...


----------



## S McKee (20 Mar 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> My faith in using Afghan customs to predict their behaviour ended when someone sunk an axe into a friend's head... seeing how I just returned from a tour with CIMIC I think I have a decent feel for people's attitudes...



Welcome back Mike!  How did the locals view our presence there?


----------



## DG-41 (20 Mar 2006)

> It all depends on the attitudes and feelings of those kids.



Agreed. It's all well and good to make predictions based on cultural and historical tendencies, and those predictions, taken on a broad sense over a long period of time and with large numbers of people, may well prove accurate. But those predictions are much less good act predicting the responses of individuals.

But I have to expect that being taken out of the asshole of the universe and being incorporated into Canadian society is going to be seen as a net positive by all involved.

What gives me particular hope in this case is that they aren't just asking for money. That makes me think that more thought is being put into it.



> I think we can agree that things have changed and just because you pay the bounty doesn't necessarily mean anything just like having the chief vouch for your security at a Shura (sp) doesn't mean jack crap anymore despite what their culture said in the past.



Same deal - cultural predictions cannot accurately predict the actions of individuals.

And I CERTAINLY hope that you - and others - aren't trying to claim that just because one individual did something horrible that we are now absolved of the need to do good....

DG


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

I spent my tour in Kabul, so these are just my observations from that area...

For the most part people seemed to understand that we were not there to rule or conquer them, but to help stabilize and develop the country. I have no doubt that seeing genuine progress being made in their standard of living goes a long way to improve their opinion of the foreigners opperating on their soil, be they ISAF/OEF, UN agencies, IO's, GO's, or NGO's. Most people on the street smiled and waved at us, many I spoke with expressed their gratitude that we would travel so far from our homeland in order to help them...

That being said I wouldn't expect much favour from the family of someone we killed, particularly from adolescent males, even if we paid out the blood money... regardless of what cultural traditions may suggest...


----------



## Koenigsegg (20 Mar 2006)

Quotes from Jumper:  “We are not at war with anyone, and I'm curious why this Act of War keeps being brought up as a catch all, it simply is not true.”
“Again the Canadian Government, to my knowledge, has not declared war on anyone”

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 2
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 

there is of course much more, however...

I don't see it as Canada declaring war. A NATO member had been attacked by a group of people who tend to make their home a certain country.  Those people are also harboured by the closest thing to a federal government that country has.  If one nation of NATO is attacked, all the other members must contribute what they can to the efforts that are taking place.  I dont truly think Canada had to declare war, as we are part of NATO, NATO decides that for us, more or less.
The US was attacked by an identifiable group who made camp in A-stan.  The Taliban harboured this group.  The US wanted to take action, eliminate the threat and remove the Taliban from power.  As they did this, we were required, as an able nation to assist in whatever way we could.

Even if it is not a "war", that does not mean anything.  If you apply the word war to something, the rules change.  Like genocide, if a nation aknowledges genocide, they are obligated to do something about it, so they tend to use the words "Ethnic Cleansing". How do you think they helped themselves stay out of Darfur for so long?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Mar 2006)

I am not going to pass judgement on a soldier in a combat situation, he did what he had to do under the hardest of conditions I don't even care if he made a mistake as long as he had no malicious intent thats life in the war zone.

  I would like to swing the discussion away from second guessing the troops to a detailed talk about warning shots. This incident appears to be a good example on which to open up a discussion on an issue that has been bothering me for years. The issue is this: A warning shot is fine if a person knows it is a warning shot. Problem is we as soldiers know well what a round sounds like going past us thus a shot fired at us would definitely be a warning. The same does not hold true for a civilian, a shot from a weapon does not have the same sound at the "shot at" end as at the firing end thus only a trained soldier would be able to under stand the BZZZ snap and clunk. From the inside of a car you would not hear the clunk so just a faint Bzzz snap. So my question is how valid is a warning shot when the civy we are warning does not know we are firing at him? I guess muzzle flash would be one but with such small flash and the driver may not be looking at the muzzle. Are we failing in our approach to warning shots is there a better way? 
This is not intended as a challenge to our soldier in the incident.


----------



## COBRA-6 (20 Mar 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I would like to swing the discussion away from second guessing the troops to a detailed talk about warning shots. This incident appears to be a good example on which to open up a discussion on an issue that has been bothering me for years. The issue is this: A warning shot is fine if a person knows it is a warning shot. Problem is we as soldiers know well what a round sounds like going past us thus a shot fired at us would definitely be a warning. The same does not hold true for a civilian, I shot from a weapon does not have the same same sound at the shot at end as at the firing end thus only a trained soldier would be able to under stand the BZZZ snap and clunk. From the inside of a car you would not hear the clunk so just a faint Bzzz snap. So my question is how valid is a warning shot when the civy we are warning does not know we are firing at him? I guess muzzle flash would be one but with such small flash and the driver may not be looking at the muzzle. Are we failing in our approach to warning shots is there a better way?
> This is not intended as a challenge to our soldier in the incident.



Maybe a shotgun with first round being beanbag/shot, second round slug would be better?? Just an idea I had driving around Kabul... maybe flashbangs would help as well?


----------



## GO!!! (20 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> 7) And allowing immigration (meaning the sons will become Canadian citizens) and educating them seems like a good compromise. The cost is cheap, the PR value is immense, and it's better and more noble than a plain old cash payout.



Riiiiight.

And next week they will be throwing babies under the wheels of a LAV and demanding a plane ticket and an education. In case you have'nt noticed, life is cheap in Afghanistan, and a free ticket to Canada is a tempting prize. That is a foolish precedent to set. We paid compensation to Shidane Arone's father (even though he said his son deserved to die for stealing) we can pay this guys family too, if only to bring closure to the issue, and not admit guilt, because there is none.

We (the canadian public) should not have to suffer the costs and presence of a hostile family simply because their brother/uncle's taxi driver was dumb.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

Those people have been in war for years and ought to know what round sounds like close to them.  These people KNOW not to go near any western convoy period.  We've been over there long enough.
Everyone has the right to defends one's life and the life of their mates and if that means that force is escalated from 0 to kill shot then so be it.


----------



## Trinity (20 Mar 2006)

Are the Americans giving compensation for any Afghans they kill?

I doubt it.

And why are we?

Thats life in a war zone.  Darwinism comes at a hefty price over there.  

BTW.. who ever got upset about calling it a war.. well
they are handing out campaign medals, not just fuzzy little UN ones
so that shows the severity of the situation!!!


----------



## Trinity (21 Mar 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> So, please if you make an accusation, please back it up with fact!  There is enough garbage on the internet with adding to it.



Last time i checked, when I end a statement with a question mark, its not a FACTUAL statement.

I said do they? and then I doubt it?

Thank you for the information that says they do pay.  It helps greatly in the discussion because
we it sheds light into whether Canada should be doing the same.


----------



## DG-41 (21 Mar 2006)

> I would like to swing the discussion away from second guessing the troops to a detailed talk about warning shots. This incident appears to be a good example on which to open up a discussion on an issue that has been bothering me for years.



You're not alone on this; I've had the same misgivings for an equally long time.

But while related, it is a separate subject. New thread?

DG


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2006)

Warning Shot's -- IIRC the JAG's deemed it unauthorized use of deadly force.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Mar 2006)

Seriously Kev, an unlawful use of deadly force, when did this come down?

If you don't want to post feel free to PM it...

I don't want to second guess the AJAG on this but from the facts that have filtered down the grapevine, it seemed to us to be perfectly in line with the ROE's that I have seen for the on going Roto


----------



## beach_bum (21 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Riiiiight.
> 
> And next week they will be throwing babies under the wheels of a LAV and demanding a plane ticket and an education. In case you have'nt noticed, life is cheap in Afghanistan, and a free ticket to Canada is a tempting prize. That is a foolish precedent to set. We paid compensation to Shidane Arone's father (even though he said his son deserved to die for stealing) we can pay this guys family too, if only to bring closure to the issue, and not admit guilt, because there is none.



This was exactly what I was thinking.  As well, it's not just a ticket and an education.  What skills do they have to be able to support themselves?  Are we going to pay for their housing, food etc as well.  Medical bills?  Where does it end?


----------



## COBRA-6 (21 Mar 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I don't want to second guess the AJAG on this but from the facts that have filtered down the grapevine, it seemed to us to be perfectly in line with the ROE's that I have seen for the on going Roto



JAGs are not always "in touch" with the realities outside the wire...


----------



## geo (21 Mar 2006)

From what I read in today's papers the CF or some of our delegates participated in the funeral, delivered a letter of "appology" and provided a goat... said goat being worth aprox 100$US.

The oldest son suggested the immigration & education as wards of the state
he also suggested 30000$ which is a couple of lifetime's worth of wages......

I believe that our representatives are looking at what is reasonnable and haggling on a final amount... they do not want to set a precedent that could encourage others to look at "suicide by proxy" as an alternative.


----------

