Captain Semrau sentenced to no jail time but dismissed from the service

[CaptainCrunch]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...211/story.html

I don't know, I'm torn on this, I'm glad to see that he didn't get prison time though. From all accounts Captain Semrau was an outstanding soldier, however he did disobey orders, by mercy killing a member of the Taliban.

Mercy killing is not allowed in the field and is not considered a legal defense, the standing order is to provide aid and comfort to a wounded enemy that is not longer a threat.

I'm torn because this is a good soldier who made the wrong decision in a terrible situation. I'm torn because I would probably be tempted to take the same action. I'm relieved that he didn't go to prison, and I'm saddened that his military career is punatively ended for doing what he believed was right.

[Pinner]

It was a mercy killing, lesson learned, let the Taliban suffer a slow death.

[Coys1882]

I think the whole idea of it being a moral high road to leave to him suffer rather than mercy kill him absurd. I feel the same way about assisted suicide of the terminally ill.

Shame this man's career is over for actually doing the 'right' thing.

[VladtheImpaler]

I don't know the whole story - did one of his subordinates rat him out, or how did this come to light?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I don't know the whole story - did one of his subordinates rat him out, or how did this come to light?

I was wondering this too. If he claimed he saw him reaching for a gun would any of this have happened?

[CaptainCrunch]

It sounded like the case was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Semrau was seen with the prison. A witness heard a gunshot and Semrau rejoined the platoon. They never recovered the body, but it sounds like there was an admission and the court was basing this on the moral argument.

[VladtheImpaler]

Ah, you have no inside knowledge, CC? Afghanistan (or Somalia, for that matter, thinking back to the Para regiment) isn't the campus of Queen's University - can probably tone down the political correctness a bit...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Ah, you have no inside knowledge, CC? Afghanistan (or Somalia, for that matter, thinking back to the Para regiment) isn't the campus of Queen's University - can probably tone down the political correctness a bit...

I have no inside knowledge.

Somalia was a far different and disgusting thing, and a dream killer to me, for an elite unit, the officers and senior NCO's had no control over their men and their activities, and they acted against the best traditions of the Canadian Forces. The torture of and murder of a young boy is never something that I can understand.

At best the entry and recruiting requirements for the airborne regiment were so out of touch with how elite units muster men that I'm amazed that something didn't happen much sooner and on a larger scale.

With any military the ultimate goal for any soldier with career aspirations is going beyond being a common rifleman, or any other common trade. You want that insignia that you receive for being a member of an elite military unit. For the U.S. Navy its the ultimate honor to get the seal trident, for the Marines you aspire to force recon, for the army you want to be a ranger or a green beret, for a helicopter aviator you want to be SOG. In Canada we only had one elite unit and that was airborne, and I like everyone else aspired to be a part of it, when we lost it, and saw the actions of those men it ripped the heart out of our military and it took years and the emergence of the JTF to gain it back.

In the current case, I understand what Captain Semrau did, but and to remove the political correctness from it was completely wrong.

First and foremost mercy killings are no longer something thats even allowed, especially with the advent of modern battlefield medicine. You're required to render aid and comfort to a wounded and UNARMED enemy, who know, maybe we lost of a good source of intelligence over this.

There's also the political issue, what happens if joe average afghan see's a Canadian Soldier coldly gunning down a prisoner, it possibly could have political ramifications in terms of cooperation with the troops on the ground.

Its a messed up situation, however by showing a consequence to a mercy killing it will prevent that from happening again. sure it sucks for the dying man, but thats the way the Rules of engagement and standing orders are structured.

[Huntingwhale]

[Locke]

Life sucks, then you die.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Shame this man's career is over for actually doing the 'right' thing.

Disagree. What the “right” thing is in this situation is not up to him to determine, reason, or decide.

"Decisions based on personal values cannot prevail over lawful commands.” is what the court said, and they nailed it.

You let the guy decide something like this, who knows what else he’s going to decide on his own too, and what kind of risk that will expose himself, other Canadians, and the locals to. Multiply that by the number of boots on the ground, and imagine the kind of chaos you’d have.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Disagree. What the “right” thing is in this situation is not up to him to determine, reason, or decide.

"Decisions based on personal values cannot prevail over lawful commands.” is what the court said, and they nailed it.

You let the guy decide something like this, who knows what else he’s going to decide on his own too, and what kind of risk that will expose himself, other Canadians, and the locals to. Multiply that by the number of boots on the ground, and imagine the kind of chaos you’d have.

Disagree Infinity!!

So are they sane/responsible enough to wear my flag on their arm and carry a gun or not?

The logic of 'you can kill him - that's ok, but if you wound him and he's dying a slow painful death, you can't then kill him.' is absolutely bonkers.

This report should have been shredded.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Disagree Infinity!!

So are they sane/responsible enough to wear my flag on their arm and carry a gun or not?

The logic of 'you can kill him - that's ok, but if you wound him and he's dying a slow painful death, you can't then kill him.' is absolutely bonkers.

This report should have been shredded.

If they are going to wear my flag on their arm, they are going to follow the Geneva convention. Or do you propose that the Canadian Forces abandon that? What guiding principals and international convention do you suggest instead?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Disagree Infinity!!

So are they sane/responsible enough to wear my flag on their arm and carry a gun or not?

The logic of 'you can kill him - that's ok, but if you wound him and he's dying a slow painful death, you can't then kill him.' is absolutely bonkers.

This report should have been shredded.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with international law, specifically, Article 12 of First Geneva Convention:

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004a92f3

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

If they are going to wear my flag on their arm, they are going to follow the Geneva convention. Or do you propose that the Canadian Forces abandon that? What guiding principals and international convention do you suggest instead?

The Coys1882 Convention in my bonus room this evening decided that leaving someone do die a slow painful death is less humane than ending his suffering.

Don't take me for some fool that isn't aware of why these laws are put in place. There is a difference between this and the cold execution of POWs or the raping/murder of peasant villagers in a remote Vietnamese village.

Better judgment, human judgment I dare to say, could have been used here save what is by all accounts a good man's career and reputation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow, hell has frozen over, I'm agreeing with Marchhare.

But their assessment is completely correct. As much as I sometimes disagree with the Geneva Convention, and that I still believe that it doesn't truly apply to the Taliban irregulars, what separates our troops from the armies of banana republics, and other nations is that we follow not only the international conventions of warfare, but we also follow the strict Military laws of this country.

And one of those rules is that mercy killings or the killing of disarmed combatants is not allowed under any circumstances.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Thank you for that wonderfully patronizing and condescending reply. The key line in all that is this: "they shall not be murdered or exterminated" <-- I think the argument that most people in support of euthanasia is that it's not murder nor extermination.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

The Coys1882 Convention in my bonus room this evening decided that leaving someone do die a slow painful death is less humane than ending his suffering.

Where the rule wasn't applied was on both sides of the equation. First and foremost the Afghan commander on the scene didn't offer to render aid to the wounded Taliban fighter. But Semrau first and foremost disobeyed an order to leave him, and secondly knowingly broke the law. Sometimes when you're a soldier your moral code doesn't align with the rules in place, but you're as a soldier obligated to follow those rules unless its considered an immoral or inherently dangerous order.

Originally Posted by Coys1882

1Don't take me for some fool that isn't aware of why these laws are put in place. There is a difference between this and the cold execution of POWs or the raping/murder of peasant villagers in a remote Vietnamese village.

Except that the rules plainly applied state that you are obligated to extend medical aid to an unarmed combatant. Semrau was obligated to provide that aid, however mercy killing is not considered extending medical aid.

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Better judgment, human judgment I dare to say, could have been used here save what is by all accounts a good man's career and reputation.

That judgment allowed him to escape prison time, it also allowed him to avoid a prejudicial discharge. But because the law was clearly broken, pretty well the discharge that he received was a pretty light sentence.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that the rules plainly applied state that you are obligated to extend medical aid to an unarmed combatant. Semrau was obligated to provide that aid, however mercy killing is not considered extending medical aid.

I get all that - I do. The story I read said this guy was shredded - literally ripped to pieces. What are they supposed to do? Maybe you can enlighten me - as I'm assuming from your posts you're ex-military, how would you have handled this situation? Applying gauze, administering morphine and holding his hand til he expires seems more callous to me.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

First and foremost the Afghan commander on the scene didn't offer to render aid to the wounded Taliban fighter. But Semrau first and foremost disobeyed an order to leave him, and secondly knowingly broke the law.

Ok - clarify for me, honest question here. The original order to leave the guy was a violation of the law cited above correct? (they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created)

Was that guy up on charges too?