Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Greymatters]

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

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

 

[SeanNewman]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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

Sun Media/QMI:

A Canadian soldier has pleaded not guilty to four charges, including second-degree murder, related to the 2008 shooting death of a wounded Taliban insurgent.

Clean-shaven and wearing full military uniform, Capt. Robert Semrau pleaded not guilty to two charges under the Criminal Code, second-degree murder and attempted murder, and two charges under the National Defence Act, behaving in a disgraceful manner and negligently performing a military duty.

If convicted of any or all of the charges, Semrau could face expulsion from the Canadian Forces and up to life imprisonment.

The court martial will be heard by military members who are now determining if they have any conflict of interest. They were also warned that the case, which is expected to last until June and will likely take them to Kandahar to hear witness testimony, could take a personal toll ....

Ottawa Citizen:

Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in Afghanistan.

On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced: "Not guilty, your honour," when presented with the charges against him.

The prosecution alleges that Semrau fired two shots into a severely wounded and disarmed Taliban insurgent on Oct. 19, 2008, in Afghanistan's Helmand province.

Semrau was commanding a small team of Canadians that had been assigned that day to mentor a company of soldiers from the Afghan

National Army. During a dismounted patrol, the group was attacked by Taliban insurgents. A U.S. army Apache gunship responded and fired on the Taliban, killing one fighter and severely injuring another ....

CanWest News Service:

Capt. Robert Semrau of CFB Petawawa has pleaded not guilty to charges that he shot and killed a wounded Taliban fighter after a firefight in Afghanistan.

On the opening day of his general court martial, Semrau, 36, in a green military dress uniform, four times announced: "Not guilty, your honour," when presented with the charges against him.

The prosecution alleges that Semrau fired two shots into a severely wounded and disarmed Taliban insurgent on Oct. 19, 2008, in Afghan-istan's Helmand province.

Semrau was commanding a small team of Canadians that had been assigned that day to mentor a company of soldiers from the Afghan

National Army. During a dismounted patrol, the group was attacked by Taliban insurgents. A U.S. army Apache gunship responded and fired on the Taliban, killing one fighter and severely injuring another ....

Globe & Mail:

The battle had ended and the Taliban insurgent was disarmed and seriously wounded – badly enough that one onlooker said whether he lived or died was in “Allah’s hands.”

But instead of arranging medical attention, Canadian Army Captain Robert Semrau fired two bullets into the insurgent’s body – an act that he later described to a subordinate as a mercy killing of sorts, military prosecutors allege.

The court-martial of Capt. Semrau, 36, began in Gatineau on Wednesday. He’s believed to be the first Canadian soldier to face a murder charge for an alleged battlefield killing. He pleaded not guilty.

Those who built the case against Capt. Semrau say the killing took place on Oct. 19, 2008, in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, where the Canadian officer was leading a Forces team mentoring Afghan soldiers.

In an opening statement, military prosecutors sketched out the “road map” for their case, one that uses Capt. Semrau’s conversations with comrades against him ....

Toronto Star (end o' day 24 Mar 10):

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

Two gunshots and several moments later, the experienced officer is alleged to have admitted to putting the wounded man out of his suffering.

Even after the 36-year old was charged in the Oct. 19, 2008 murder of an unknown Afghan insurgent, in January 2009, Semrau allegedly confided to one of his superiors at CFB Petawawa of an unwritten “soldier’s pact” he ascribed to, an agreement between enemy warriors that one would put the other out of his mortal misery on the battlefield if certain death could not be turned away.

“You do to the enemy what you would want or expect him to do to you,” a military prosecutor recounted Semrau saying at the opening of a court martial hearing the second degree murder charges against Semrau ....

Toronto Star (first version 25 Mar 10)

A Canadian soldier facing a murder charge lived by an unwritten "soldier's pact" in which enemy combatants put dying adversaries out of their misery on the battlefield, an historic court martial has been told.

Capt. Robert Semrau is alleged to have killed an unarmed Taliban fighter with two gunshots in October 2008, first telling a younger comrade to look away before he pulled the trigger, the prosecution said Wednesday.

Even after 36-year-old Semrau was charged with the murder of the wounded Afghan insurgent in January 2009, he allegedly confided to one of his superiors at CFB Petawawa about the pact, an agreement between enemy warriors that one would put the other out of his mortal pain.

"You do to the enemy what you would want or expect him to do to you," military prosecutor Capt. Thomas Fitzgerald recounted Semrau as saying. Fitzgerald was addressing a court-martial hearing on the second-degree murder charges against the soldier.

The high-profile case is the first instance of a Canadian soldier facing murder charges for causing death on the battlefield.

It is slated to run until June and could travel back to the Afghan crime scene to hear up to a dozen witnesses, including an Afghan interpreter nicknamed Max, who prosecutors said witnessed the second of two bullets hitting the disarmed fighter ....

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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

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

 

[Fusaki]

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

 

[the 48th regulator]

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

True that,

Where has any of that occurred?

dileas

tess

 

[cn]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Journeyman]

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

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

Does your village know you're posting stuff online?

*long time reader, first time poster* haha

Maybe read a bit longer.

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

I'm just sayin'  :nod:

 

[cn]

Does your village know you're posting stuff online?

Maybe read a bit longer.

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

I'm just sayin'  :nod:

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

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

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

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

 

[FastEddy]

Does your village know you're posting stuff online?

Maybe read a bit longer.

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

I'm just sayin'  :nod:

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

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

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

 

[the 48th regulator]

True that,

Where has any of that occurred?

dileas

tess

Cancel last,

I have been sorted out by a wise and trusted mentor

dileas

tess

 

[observor 69]

Global News
Soldier told to assist wounded Taliban, major says

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

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

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

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

Semrau replied, "Roger, out."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Also more at TORONTO STAR

 

[Journeyman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[vonGarvin]

op:

 

[armyvern]

More from CBC ...

Reproduced under the fairdealings provisions of the copyright act.

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

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

Afghan medic accused Semrau of killing
Last Updated: Friday, March 26, 2010 | 12:46 PM ET Comments89Recommend35.

Five words of broken English from an Afghan army medic — "Capt. Rob boom, boom Taliban" — led to second-degree murder charges against Capt. Robert Semrau, his court martial heard Friday.

At the military trial in Gatineau, Que., Maj. Steve Nolan testified that a medic named Gulamjaan made the accusation about two months after a badly wounded insurgent died on a battlefield in Helmand province.

The man was complaining: "Helmand, no good. Mission, no good. Taliban, no good."

Then he dropped the bombshell about "Capt. Rob."

Nolan said the words, accompanied by a shooting gesture toward the ground, prompted him to start asking questions about the October 2008 incident. Semrau is accused of shooting the wounded insurgent, who had been disarmed.

Nolan went first to his sergeant-major, he testified.

"We started to talk about the possibilities of what this meant. I came to the conclusion there was a very real possibility that a crime had been committed."

Nolan had the sergeant-major speak to a private who was on the battlefield at the time of the incident. He then spoke to his commanding officer, Col. Joseph Shipley.

"I told him that there was an allegation, or the possibility of an allegation from the Afghans ... they should probably investigate it."

Semrau was pulled out of the field shortly afterward by military police investigators.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/semrau-court-martial.html#ixzz0jL9ZWUlK

 

[McG]

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

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

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

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

 

[FastEddy]

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

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

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

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

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

What are you, 8 years old?  :

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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

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

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

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

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

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