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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

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.

Yes to ex military.

Yes, your apply morphine and all that, you never know that single act of kindness could help you in intelligence gathering.

But I don't know what I would have done, I was never in a situation where there was a badly wounded combatant.

The only "combatants" I saw had been dead for a while.

But the rules are in place for reasons.

One of which was that Samrau is not a medical professional, he's not a corpman or medic, so how can he make a medical assessment on a wounded man.

Second of all, the minute that the man was disarmed he was essentially a prisoner of war, and again even though I don't agree with the application of the Geneva Convention to Taliban members, we were obligated under the rules of engagement to follow those rules.

I get the sentiment that the humane thing to do would be to pop the man, but its not the legal thing, and you can't really make the argument that I broke the established rules of military conduct because I had a humanitarian problem with their application.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

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?

From my understanding the mission commander was a Afghan Army officer, as unfair as it sounds the same rules don't apply. He probably wasn't charged by his own army.

But Samrau broke the laws that govern the conduct of Canadian Forces members in the field.

[Mirajj]

So what is this crackerjack ruling going to tell our troops in the field?

"Be sure to shoot to kill."

The problem I have with this is that this guy had just been shooting at the Canadian troops. So you are seriously telling me that if someone is shooting at me, I manage hit them, knock them down and their gun falls out of their hands...that I shouldn't finish them off?

I wonder what this guy would have done if he'd managed to get his gun back in hand. Shoot at them again? Shoot them in the back (The unit had moved past him). Why in the world should our troops waste medical supplies they should be using on themselves and other Canadian (or Ally) troops on guy who wouldn't hesitate to kill them?

I guess that's what makes us 'better' than them...but it's still a hard, bitter pill to swallow. It just feels wrong.

[MarchHare]

So what is this crackerjack ruling going to tell our troops in the field?

"Be sure to shoot to kill."

They're already trained to do just that.

The problem I have with this is that this guy had just been shooting at the Canadian troops. So you are seriously telling me that if someone is shooting at me, I manage hit them, knock them down and their gun falls out of their hands...that I shouldn't finish them off?

That's not what anyone is saying. The Geneva Convention is quite clear that it only applies to wounded adversaries who are no longer in fighting condition. In this case, the Taliban insurgent had been strafed by an Apache helicopter and was (to quote one of the witnesses in the trial) "98% dead". Under those circumstances, our troops were obligated to provide him the same treatment they would one of their own.

If this had been a friendly fire incident and a Canadian soldier had been accidentally shot by an American chopper, do you think Capt. 2Lt. Semrau would have "finished him off" with two bullets as an "act of mercy"? I think not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mirajj

So what is this crackerjack ruling going to tell our troops in the field?

"Be sure to shoot to kill."

The problem I have with this is that this guy had just been shooting at the Canadian troops. So you are seriously telling me that if someone is shooting at me, I manage hit them, knock them down and their gun falls out of their hands...that I shouldn't finish them off?

I wonder what this guy would have done if he'd managed to get his gun back in hand. Shoot at them again? Shoot them in the back (The unit had moved past him). Why in the world should our troops waste medical supplies they should be using on themselves and other Canadian (or Ally) troops on guy who wouldn't hesitate to kill them?

I guess that's what makes us 'better' than them...but it's still a hard, bitter pill to swallow. It just feels wrong.

Sure I get this.

But as soon as a person is no longer a threat on the field they're a non combatant. And these soldiers are not medical officers, they can't do a death diagnosis.

Next thing you know, you get an angry young soldier, pissed off about the loss of a buddy, and you executes a unarmed prisoner because he has a infected toe.

We're better then the Taliban, our soldiers are supposed to be professionals, According to the rules a professional soldier does not execute an unarmed prisoner no matter what their medical condition.

I wonder what this guy would have done if he'd managed to get his gun back in hand. Shoot at them again? Shoot them in the back (The unit had moved past him).

The prisoner was disarmed. Its unlikely though that the soldiers would have left behind a capable enemy with a weapon. If he refused to surrender they would have greased him, if he surrenders then you take him as a prisoner.

The problem I have with this is that this guy had just been shooting at the Canadian troops. So you are seriously telling me that if someone is shooting at me, I manage hit them, knock them down and their gun falls out of their hands...that I shouldn't finish them off?

If you hit him and knock the weapon out of his hand, under the convention, he's now a noncombatant, you are obligated to offer aid. If he picks up his weapon and he's wounded you kill him. If you disarm him and he indicates surrender you can't just shoot him out of hand.

Its just like the rule of the sea, your obligated to offer your enemy rescue if they request it. You can't just shoot their boat out from under them, or grease them with a machine gun.

[afc wimbledon]

Theres all kinds of crap you arn't supposed to do, my grandfathers mate liberated Dachaeu, told me it took a couple of days before they could get the unit under control and not just shooting any german out of hand.

War is brutal and trying to judge a guys actions from some armchair in a court strikes me as assinine, this should never have got to Canada, it should have been quashed over there.

That said whatever happened to getting three or four guys syretes and giving the guy an extra large dose of smack to send him off to his 72 virgins?

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Theres all kinds of crap you arn't supposed to do, my grandfathers mate liberated Dachaeu, told me it took a couple of days before they could get the unit under control and not just shooting any german out of hand.

War is brutal and trying to judge a guys actions from some armchair in a court strikes me as assinine, this should never have got to Canada, it should have been quashed over there.

That said whatever happened to getting three or four guys syretes and giving the guy an extra large dose of smack to send him off to his 72 virgins?

I couldn't imagine trying to keep a level head after seeing that. I would be looking for blood too.

[Byrns]

I agree with former Gen. McKenzie's assessment.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/news/latest...ct/#clip326645

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

this should never have got to Canada, it should have been quashed over there.

Pretty slippery slope if you handle things that way. I intuitively know that a lot of stuff probably does get quashed or dealt with at relatively low levels of authority, if dealt with at all, but if you allow a culture of non-accountability to flourish, do you have a military, or a bunch of armed thugs and mercenaries?

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Pretty slippery slope if you handle things that way. I intuitively know that a lot of stuff probably does get quashed or dealt with at relatively low levels of authority, if dealt with at all, but if you allow a culture of non-accountability to flourish, do you have a military, or a bunch of armed thugs and mercenaries?

Unfortunately in warfare there has always been a rather large grey area for these sorts of things. Without knowing the full context, it's difficult to judge. (and especially if you haven't been in such a situation yourself)

As for the Geneva Convention, I'm not sure I fully agree with everything that's in there. For example it's illegal to fire .50 cal weapons at personnel.