Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[ballz]

Ballz,

I disagree once you put his testimony in context.  There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.  In the testimony it says the WO felt that First Aid was not appropriate.  If he were a Med Tech he would not have been making a First Aid decision, he would be performing lifesaving treatment.  A Canadian WO (Med Tech or not) does not have the authority to declare someone as being dead, this is done by a doctor in a medical facility (or at least consultation with one) after all efforts are made to save their life.  A Med Tech does not ever make treat or not to treat decisions.

Well, I admit I don't know anything about the job of a Med Tech of course, but wouldn't it be the Med Tech that declares somebody VSA and makes the decision that somebody else is a higher priority for treatment?

Of course, a "visual" is not enough to check for vital signs either...

Or am I way oversimplifying a complicated thing?

There are so few WO Med Techs on the TO&E, if he were one he certainly would not be part of a 4-man mentoring team.

Could you clarify that. I don't know what "TO&E" means. Are you saying that WO Longaphie is probably not a Med Tech? That would obviously change the impact of his testimony. If he's not then I obviously take back what I said and implied about his testimony being the *key* testimony.

 

[Gunner98]

He is not a Med Tech, he would not be taking an Advanced First Aid course at CFB Petawawa (see NP excerpt below), he would be a QL6B qualified Physician's Assistant. 

TO&E is table of organization and equipment, therefore the list of positions for  the unit deployment (in this case the OMLT's order of battle).  Yes, a Med Tech can declare someone VSA but he cannot declare someone dead (by "instinct" alone).  Dead men don't bleed heavily ergo that is one of the vital signs.  Since this individual was the only casualty spoken about, no one would have a higher priority.

From the same National Post article:

The injured Taliban fighter that Captain Robert Semrau is accused of killing had one leg blown off, another foot severed and was bleeding heavily from a wound in his torso, a court martial heard yesterday...

Earlier yesterday, Warrant Officer Longaphie testified that he had been taught never to jeopardize the success of a mission by administering first aid on a battlefield.

He said the instructors at his advanced first aid course at CFB Petawawa stressed that in war "tactical realities" trumped all other concerns.

The instructors suggested, he said, that it was sometimes necessary to sacrifice the lives of injured combatants to ensure the success of a mission.

"I remember one of the opening statements was that the best way to administer first aid is to win the firefight," Warrant Officer Longaphie testified.

From another NP article  http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2960392:

Capt. Semrau decided to respect the Afghan officer's request, Cpl. Fournier said, given the severity of the man's injuries and his belief it would be unsafe to bring an ambulance or helicopter to the unsecured area.

 

[SeanNewman]

Ballz,

TO&E stands for Table of Organization and Equipment, I believe.  It's like the OrBat. 

When a unit deploys, they can't just take whoever they want to Afghanistan.  There is a list of approved positions that need to be filled by certain trades and certain ranks, and when a tour is filled you plug people into the TO&E so to speak with position numbers.

That way, during a RIP, you will usually have a 1-for-1 exchange unless a TO&E change has been made from one roto to the other.

 

[Brutus]

Ref the bold part.  Did you mean to say in your first sentence that a member of the CF does not need to have served in Afghanistan to be capable of judging this man?  Otherwise, I find your statement contradictory.

It seems the discussion has moved on, but yes, I meant that a CF member does NOT need to have been to A'stan to judge.

 

[BernDawg]

So, I'm reading about another hot topic in the CF today and came across this paragraph -

Dozens of Canadian soldiers have faced court martial for misbehavior in Afghanistan. One Canadian officer was being prosecuted for killing a wounded Taliban (after being told by an Afghan soldier that the wounded Taliban had a bomb.) Over 2,000 Canadian military personnel are court martialed each year, out of a force of 62,000 active duty and 25,000 reserve personnel (about 25 per thousand military personnel each year). There are 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and none have been prosecuted for getting pregnant.

The entire article is here -
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100603.aspx

I wonder where this tid-bit of information about the bomb came from?

 

[dapaterson]

Methinks someone has confused the total number of proceedings (summary trial and court martial) with the number of court martials.  Just a minor typo, that...

(Edit because of my minor typos)

 

[BernDawg]

...which would explain the comment about the bomb too I guess...

 

[Michael OLeary]

If we had to conduct 2000 CMs in a year, that's all we would be doing.

 

[BernDawg]

And Court Reporter would be one of the largest trades in the CF not one of the smallest.

 

[armyvern]

Methinkssomeone has confused the total number of proceedings (summary trial and court amrtial) with the number of court martials.  Just a minor typo, that...

'Ya think?!  :-\

Like always ... it's not as if they couldn't have simply used google for their fact-checking. Absolutely typical these days of them to not let facts stand in their way of a good story.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/index-eng.asp#surveysstats

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/index-eng.asp

 

[Fishbone Jones]

From the same article, again, totally out to lunch.

Such weapons discharges in combat zones, or even peacetime, are common. Most of the time, the worst that happens is the offender gets a dirty look from an NCO, or a few sharp words. There is ridicule from other soldiers, which hurts the most. Usually, only repeat offenders receive any official punishment.

A dirty look from an NCO and a few sharp words :rofl:

 

[SeanNewman]

If an officer "gets away with" anything, that is the end of all discipline in that unit.

In fact, typically it goes the opposite way that even when a strong argument could be made for the officer being not guilty, he will still be found guilty in a ST environment just for optics' sake so nobody can have the perception that he has gotten away with anything.

My OC was on firing point 12 on a range, when nobody right of 8 heard the RSO say "this is a trial exposure" after "watch and shoot" (RSO was probably facing left to 1-6).  Targets came up, the OC fired a round, and everyone else from 8-11 later admitted they were just about to fire a round themselves when the RSO yelled "Stop!".

End result: Even though all common sense said that it was by no means negligent and in fact very intentional because the last words he heard were "watch and shoot", he was still charged and found guilty because to have an officer fire a round under any questionable circumstances whatsoever must be found guilty in order to ensure soldiers know there is no getting away with anything.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'd advise your OC to redress it. That is pure injustice which cannot be tolerated, NO MATTER what the rank is.

I hope he appealed the verdict.
Whoever found him guilty...should NOT be in command.

My two cents.

 

[SeanNewman]

I'd advise your OC to redress it...

I don't think his career took too much of a hit over it. 

This was several years ago, and he has since gone on to be the CO of arguably the most prestigious unit.

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't think his career took too much of a hit over it. 

This was several years ago, and he has since gone on to be the CO of arguably the most prestigious unit.

Standards at the Infantry School?  >

EDIT TO ADD:
Oh, sorry, you said prestigious.  Never mind!

 

[SeanNewman]

I would absolutely agree that your cell is prestigious, but I am not sure I would say that you are being granted unit-level command right now  :-\

 

[vonGarvin]

I would absolutely agree that your cell is prestigious, but I am not sure I would say that you are being granted unit-level command right now  :-\

By "prestigious" you mean "anal-retentive", right?  But in my mind, I command divisions of troops across vast fields of battle.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The CM resumes in theatre tomorrow:

The court martial of Capt. Robert Semrau — charged with second-degree murder in the 2008 shooting death of an unarmed Taliban fighter — is to reconvene Wednesday 11,000 kilometres away from where it began three months ago in Gatineau, Que.

In an unusual but not unprecedented move, the Canadian military justice system decided to fly the judge, five-man jury, court reporter, defendant, and defence and prosecution lawyers to Kandahar Airfield in order to hear evidence from Afghan witnesses.

The Afghan portion of the case, which has been shrouded in secrecy, will be heard in a huge, nondescript tent by the Canadian group as temperatures are set to rise well into the 40s.

All those deploying to Afghanistan to participate in the trial were required to have medical checkups and take first aid, weapons, and chemical and biological weapons training.

(....)

Details provided by the military about the Afghan proceedings have been extremely sketchy. The court apparently hopes to hear from about eight Afghan witnesses, however, some of them may not be available — away fighting in the war.

Only two witnesses have been confirmed so far: an Afghan interpreter, known as "Max," who was with Semrau on the day of the alleged shooting and an unnamed Afghan soldier.

Because of these uncertainties, guesses about how long the Afghan portion of the testimony may take have ranged from one week to more than one month. The first day of hearings here on Wednesday is expected to be taken up with procedural matters ....

Am I the only one thinking the +1 month guess is pretty long?  I ask that not knowing how much evidence (or how complicated it might be) there is to be examined and cross-examined.  It'd be interesting to know who "guessed" such a range.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The medal folks??

 

[PMedMoe]

The medal folks??

Wouldn't surprise me.  :