# No Charges in AFG Checkpoint-Shooting Death



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2006)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1979

News Release
CFNIS/SNEFC (Int’l) 2006-05 - July 7, 2006

OTTAWA - The military police investigation into the March 14 checkpoint-shooting death of a local Afghan man in Kandahar has determined that the Canadian Forces (CF) soldier involved acted lawfully and that no criminal or services charges will be laid.

The CF National Investigation Service (NIS), the military’s independent military police unit responsible for serious and sensitive matters, has completed a thorough investigation of the incident and found the use of force employed to be appropriate considering the circumstances, rules of engagement, and risks faced by Canadian soldiers at the time. 

The investigation was completed by the NIS detachment in Kandahar, in cooperation with the Afghan National Police and with assistance from Ottawa-based investigators. The results of the investigation will be shared with the chain of command to assist in its operational review of the incident.  

The NIS is an independent military police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and around the world.


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Jul 2006)

Good to hear. It sounds as though the soldier was doing his job...


----------



## geo (7 Jul 2006)

of course he was doing his job.....
but he's had this thing hanging over his head since then.... 4 months!!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2006)

What a fucking joke!  A waste of time and resources.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (7 Jul 2006)

Nice to hear the lads are doing a fine job.
The NIS, if they were in place to investigate serious and sensitive issues, you would think that this was serious and sensitive enough to complete in a timely manor ....lets say 7 to 10 days.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

How would you like to have something like this hanging over your head for four months!

I love it when the NIS guys say things like "we're just as good or better than our civilian counterparts"  :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Jul 2006)

Do we know for sure that the soldier wasn't "unofficially" informed of that decision weeks ago? Is it possible the official announcement wasn't made for so long for political or other reasons, and that the soldier has not been made to have this hang over his head?

Just curious.


----------



## 2 Cdo (8 Jul 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Do we know for sure that the soldier wasn't "unofficially" informed of that decision weeks ago? Is it possible the official announcement wasn't made for so long for political or other reasons, and that the soldier has not been made to have this hang over his head?
> 
> Just curious.



While that is possible, in all honesty I think the reality is that said troop had to wait this long for an answer! Our military judicial system is, at the best of times, an extremely slow and ponderous beast. I've personally had people charged for an ND, proper paperwork submitted, weapon is certified functional, guilty party has admitted to his mistake, and still waited almost 12 months for a simple orders parade. I understand making sure everything is conducted properly and professionally but this is ridiculous!

After all that all I have to say is good for the troop. I am so pleased that a soldier is not being fed to the "PC police" for following the ROE's and actually defending his fellow troops!


----------



## MikeM (8 Jul 2006)

Good on the troop, indeed sounds as though he was doing his job, damn shame to put someone through that kind of stress though and have that hang over his head for 4 months if that is the case.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I love it when the NIS guys say things like "we're just as good or better than our civilian counterparts"  :




Sorry, I must have missed that part. Where and when was that mentioned ??.

Cheers.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Sorry, I must have missed that part. Where and when was that mentioned ??.



Ohhhh, just about every time we ask them (AJAG,MPs,NIS) why investigations take so long to come to seemingly obvious conclusions.


----------



## FastEddy (8 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Ohhhh, just about every time we ask them (AJAG,MPs,NIS) why investigations take so long to come to seemingly obvious conclusions.




Then actually it wasn't part of a quote or statement.

I wonder who the real culprits are for the beautiful mess of S.O.P.s, Rules & Regs, Bureaucracy and Ad minisration in the last 46 years. (hint: DNDHQ) I do not think you'll find too many MP's or NIS involved in it or happy with them.

You've obviously forgot that the MP & NIS have to work with in those boundaries and procedures. And God forbid that they step one inch out of them, because its probally people like you that would start screaming blue murder.

Maybe you haven't noticed, the Civilian Justice System, painfully moves even slower.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Then actually it wasn't part of a quote or statement.
> 
> I wonder who the real culprits are for the beautiful mess of S.O.P.s, Rules & Regs, Bureaucracy and Ad minisration in the last 46 years. (hint: DNDHQ) I do not think you'll find too many MP's or NIS involved in it or happy with them.
> 
> ...



Wow, an MP who manages to point blame away from MP's. : Sorry to disagree, but MP's foot dragging IS ALSO part of the problem. Blaming NDHQ for all the problems in your field is like Gen Boyle blaming his subordinates for tricking him into signing something he hadn't read. 

I do agree that NDHQ is PART of the problem, but it isn't ALL of the problem. To try and say otherwise is deluding yourself.


----------



## garb811 (9 Jul 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Nice to hear the lads are doing a fine job.
> The NIS, if they were in place to investigate serious and sensitive issues, you would think that this was serious and sensitive enough to complete in a timely manor ....lets say 7 to 10 days.



You're absolutely right; they should have immediately rolled CSI: Kandahar and this whole thing would have been closed in 60 min.  All they had to do was ramp up the 3D computer modeling system to reconstruct the scene from the location of the empty casings in relation to the point of impact of the rounds on the vehicle and then overlay it on a surveillance satellite image to conclusively and miraculously prove that…oh, wait a second, the vehicle can’t be found?  Nor can the driver?  Oh…uh…well, I guess they’ll need to go to a two episode plot line for this one. (Globe and Mail story discussing the driver and vehicle.)

While I agree that four months may seem excessive for what seems to be a pretty straightforward case, it is absolutely imperative to talk to the taxi driver as he is the only one who can say what he saw and/or heard prior to the shots being fired.  Ironically this individual could have strengthened the case for the shooter making the right call but at this point, baring him coming out of the woodwork to "shed new light on a flawed investigation", we're never going to know what it is he saw and heard prior to doing what he did.  Not being on the ground I have no idea if four months is a reasonable amount of time to try to find the guy to talk to but I do believe that every reasonable and logical step to locate the guy needed to be taken to preserve the integrity of the investigative process and minimize the risk that the investigation and report would be discredited as being too hasty to draw a conclusion which favoured our guy.  My guess is *IF* the driver had been available to interview this would have been wrapped up much faster, since he wasn't, it wasn't.

Having said that, keep in mind that I'm just an MP apologist so don't let a few facts get in the way of your regularly scheduled MP bashing...game back on.  :


----------



## Big Red (9 Jul 2006)

Here's an idea, take statements from all the soldiers involved, if the stories jive give them the benefit of the doubt, tell em "Good Job" and close the investigation.  

Only in Canada does shit like warning shots and dead suspect VBIED's make the news.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jul 2006)

+1 to Red.

How many witnesses were there who speak english, wear our country's uniform and saw the whole darn thing?

MP: "I need a written statement from every man in the Platoon, Warrant"

WO: "You heard the man, write!"

If you are saying that the testimony of the driver (who was the target) is pivotal to an investigation like this, why? You don't think he might bear some sort of malice towards the coalition for trying to kill him?

Why is the word of soldiers untrustworthy without the word of Afghan cabbies to back it up?


----------



## garb811 (9 Jul 2006)

Red:  I agree and with any luck we are now at a point where these issues are being dealt with in an appropriate manner with regard to requirements and triggers for an investigation.  Unfortunately with this one someone deemed an investigation was required (Because of the differing opinion of the family as to what occurred and a looming claim against the crown?) and one was initiated.

GO:  Nobody is saying anything about the word of soldiers being untrustworthy.  But as you pointed out whereas the cabbie might bear some malice towards the coalition, it can equally be said that soldier's statements *may* be biased towards supporting the shooter and his split second decision which quite possibly (probably?) saved their lives.  Without interviewing the cabbie the "why" of the investigation is never going to be fully known as it was his actions which directly led to the shots being fired so the investigation is, by definition, incomplete.  I know it may seem irrelevant in a situation like this but from the investigative perspective you want to talk to the key people involved to fully develop the scenario, understand why things occurred in the manner they did and present a report which details all of the relevant facts which support the conclusions the investigator has reached, not just the ones which reinforce “our” side of the story.  This also makes it difficult for the press to scream “cover-up!” if they don’t like the outcome.  

At the end of the day the system worked, albeit slower than most would have liked, and the soldier's interpretation of the situation and subsequent reaction have been vindicated.  Hopefully giving added confidence to the guys on the ground as they go about their duties.

Edit:  Spelling


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

Would there not be a factor of including the Afghans in the investigations to lay to rest any future claims of cover up???


----------



## Dissident (9 Jul 2006)

The perspective from an non badged reservist:

Whenever I had to do something to antagonize troops, it was never from personal initiative. Directives and orders usually came from a much higher level, be it RSM or unit commander, wanting something done. It is often an unsatisfying duty that we have to carry professionally, but rarely with enthusiasm.

Four months seems like a long time, especially since we are not privy to all the details. However, what about a 2 year legal nightmare, including court martial, inquiries and negative media attention? How long would that have felt? That could very well be the result, if an investigation was rushed or botched.

The shadow of the Somalia investigation still hangs over the MP branch. It's legacy is still alive.


----------



## FastEddy (10 Jul 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Wow, an MP who manages to point blame away from MP's. : Sorry to disagree, but MP's foot dragging IS ALSO part of the problem. Blaming NDHQ for all the problems in your field is like Gen Boyle blaming his subordinates for tricking him into signing something he hadn't read.
> 
> I do agree that NDHQ is PART of the problem, but it isn't ALL of the problem. To try and say otherwise is deluding yourself.




There is no blame in this case, regarding the time duration of it.

As far as foot dragging, its probally the last thing any LEO wants to see or happen. However we are hamstrung with the Justice System and the previously mentioned factors. How you can say that the ordinary Military Policemen/Women or Investigators have contributed to them,  only illustrates your lack of knowledge and understanding in the matter.

But in a case of Apples vs Oranges, Recruitment & Enlistment can take up to a year or more, And a year  teaching you your left foot from your right, then God knows how long in PAT.
                                           
Four months on a Investigation resulting in the Death of Friendlies or Foreign Nationals seems like  a wiz bang fast forward.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Four months on a Investigation resulting in the Death of Friendlies or Foreign Nationals seems like  a wiz bang fast forward.



 :   Sorry that is then what is 100% fucked up with the CF MP branch.

ANYONE who gives credence to a story by a local about coalition actions is a MORON.  I've seen some chnage their stories 3-4 times trying to make it look like we where at fault.


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jul 2006)

> There is no blame in this case, regarding the time duration of it.
> 
> As far as foot dragging, its probally the last thing any LEO wants to see or happen. However we are hamstrung with the Justice System and the previously mentioned factors. How you can say that the ordinary Military Policemen/Women or Investigators have contributed to them,  only illustrates your lack of knowledge and understanding in the matter.
> 
> ...



I guess my first hand knowledge has resulted in "my lack of knowledge and understanding". :

Infidel, well said!


----------



## FastEddy (10 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :   Sorry that is then what is 100% ****ed up with the CF MP branch.
> 
> ANYONE who gives credence to a story by a local about coalition actions is a MORON.  I've seen some chnage their stories 3-4 times trying to make it look like we where at fault.




Well you've answered your own question, if that's the case, no wonder it took four months to get it straight and in favour of our personnel.


----------



## FastEddy (10 Jul 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I guess my first hand knowledge has resulted in "my lack of knowledge and understanding". :
> 
> Infidel, well said!




Yes I can well imagine, you've had lots of first hand knowledge and dealings with the Military Police.


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2006)

Afghan family awaits payout
Monday July 10, 2006  -  The Chronicle Herald
By JOHN COTTER The Canadian Press
http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/515313.html


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The family of an Afghan civilian fatally shot by a Canadian soldier at a vehicle checkpoint has heard nothing about a federal report that cleared the soldier of any wrongdoing and says it still has not received any compensation.

"No one told us, we are not aware of that," said Farid Ahmed, 23, Hassan’s eldest son, through an interpreter.

"Our father was innocent and he was killed. He left a wife and children behind and a lot of memories. It is my request for Canadians to please do something for us. We can’t survive easily."
More on link


----------



## 2 Cdo (10 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Yes I can well imagine, you've had lots of first hand knowledge and dealings with the Military Police.



Yes, but not in any way you are implying! : I've also had lots of experience dealing with people who won't take ANY responsibility for their own limitations or their trades limitations!


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> "Our father was innocent and he was killed. He left a wife and children behind and a lot of memories. It is my request for Canadians to please do something for us. We can’t survive easily."



I can think of 17 Canadians who gave everything for Afghanistan, all of whom have families.

In the link, the family demands to come to Canada and be paid compensation. 

*Seek it from the driver who got your father killed.*


----------



## geo (10 Jul 2006)

GO!
the same as we would over here..... people try to claim from those with the deepest pockets.  The cab driver had nothing and has nothing..... so they look to us for their salvation.  We don't have an obligation towards them........... or do we?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2006)

no we don't


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2006)

And this from the Globe and Mail

Afghans barred from seeking compensation from Canada
Canadian Press - Globe & Mail - 4:36 PM EDT ON 10/07/06 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wafghanliable0710/BNStory/Front

Afghan civilians who are accidentally injured or killed, or whose property is damaged by Canadian soldiers have no legal right to compensation under an undisclosed arrangement signed by the two countries last year.

Instead, restitution to mostly dirt-poor villagers depends upon an obscure claims process that would provide payments under “moral considerations,” say heavily censored documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws.

In the course of combat operations, “Canadian personnel will not be liable for any damages to private or government property,” said a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor on the accidental shooting of a civilian last March in Kandahar
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jul 2006)

Still, this doesn't (appear) to reflect the reality on the ground....

Excerpt from 
Blatchford, Christie.  “Cat and mouse Afghan fight claimed Canadian soldier's life.”  Globe & Mail online, 10 Jul 06, viewed at http://tinyurl.com/h8ckw .

“The soldiers always do a "battle damage assessment," which at first I thought meant a tally of ground gained and lost, but in fact is the process by which the Canadians determine if they have taken action that saw, say, a farmer's wall damaged by a vehicle, and then arrange to fix the wall. This Canadian niceness does not extend to battles in which they are engaged by the Taliban, but still, as Major Fletcher said, it's an easy enough gesture to make.”

Anyone in country - how true is this?  Makes sense from a "hearts and minds" perspective, and can still be done without "Big Brother" admitting liability, no?


----------



## FastEddy (11 Jul 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Yes, but not in any way you are implying! : I've also had lots of experience dealing with people who won't take ANY responsibility for their own limitations or their trades limitations!




Ah !, so you agree that ones Trade may have limitations, therefore it would be fair to suggest that those executing those Trades would also be limited in their performance of that Trade and restricted by those limitations.

Therefore a individual working within the cofines and limitations of that Trade, can  attribute their degree of performance to the Trade and its limitations.

It would appear that your vast experience and dealings is especially related to the Military Police Branch and qualifies you to illuminate on all matters concerning it.


----------



## 2 Cdo (11 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Ah !, so you agree that ones Trade may have limitations, therefore it would be fair to suggest that those executing those Trades would also be limited in their performance of that Trade and restricted by those limitations.
> 
> Therefore a individual working within the cofines and limitations of that Trade, can  attribute their degree of performance to the Trade and its limitations.
> 
> It would appear that your vast experience and dealings is especially related to the Military Police Branch and qualifies you to illuminate on all matters concerning it.



Yes, I said all trades have limitations. I also said I have a problem with people who won't take any PERSONAL responsibility for their limitations. I guess we know which camp you're in! :


----------



## FastEddy (12 Jul 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Yes, I said all trades have limitations. I also said I have a problem with people who won't take any PERSONAL responsibility for their limitations. I guess we know which camp you're in! :




With reference to the case in question, you are suggesting that the MP are and should be responsible for the, what might be deemed an excessive length of time for the completion of the investigation. There is no set time limit for the completion or submission of any Major Investigative Report. Such, depends entireally on the individual case and the evidence and facts surrounding it.

Your personal feelings are simply, "you feel that the findings appeared to have been a long time coming". But you go on to suggest that its due to the inefficiency of the MP, that they deliberately delayed it and now won't admit it. I suggest that you contact the Director of the NIS and inform him of your suspicions, as I'm sure he would definitely like to know how poorly his staff and the MP are doing.

That clearly outlines your attitude and which Camp you're in.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jul 2006)

Hey Fast Eddy -- playign Devil's advocate -- you have no proof that 2CDO is wrong either  

  From watching how other coalition countries do investigations like this - it should have been done in a week.


Heck if I shoot someone the investigation takes like 30min...


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Hey Fast Eddy -- playign Devil's advocate -- you have no proof that 2CDO is wrong either
> 
> From watching how other coalition countries do investigations like this - it should have been done in a week.
> 
> ...



Exactly, but in Fast Eddy's world MP's are infallible. :


----------



## FastEddy (12 Jul 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Exactly, but in Fast Eddy's world MP's are infallible. :




As we well know, where the human factor is involved, that is sadly impossible.

However, we do try harder.

With regard to the preponderance of the circumstances, it would suggest you are wrong.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Heck if I shoot someone the investigation takes like 30min...


If that's the case, do you do freelance work?  

;P


Just kidding


----------



## geo (12 Jul 2006)

would say that part of the problem lies in the mandate of what the MPs are asked to do...... Do we do a board of inquiry for every death?


----------

