Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[TangoTwoBravo]

Military Law is never a simple matter, the Presiding Officer Training Course Slides and Handbook offer insight and references.  Mr. Dickson's recommendations were added as footnotes to the actual Bill to amend the NDA.

I agree that Military Law is not a simple matter, which is why I had to go through the Presiding Officer training.  I keep the references on my office bookshelf and read them plus the online QR&O before, during and after presiding over a trial.  I also talk to the legal advisor before trial and among other things he reminds me that I must find that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before rendering a guilty finding.

 

[SeanNewman]

What I liked about being part of a BOI is the way they dealt with findings.

We were actually allowed to make findings based on 98% (for argument's sake) truth.

It wasn't ever a matter of taking logic jumps or anything or a crystal ball, but we were allowed to say "We don't have everything but we have a whole lot of evidence pointing to _________ so that's what we can say we believed happened with all reasonable probabilities".

 

[McG]

What I liked about being part of a BOI is the way they dealt with findings.

Of course, a BOI is an administrative investigation and something all together different from disciplinary investigations or the military judicial system.

 

[SeanNewman]

Of course, a BOI is an administrative investigation and something all together different from disciplinary investigations or the military judicial system.

Of course, absolutely.  It was just to state that it was nice not to have to do the 100% "without a reasonable doubt" thing.  I am by no means suggesting that when someone's life or freedom is on the line.

I obviously can't go into details about anything, but say for example it was on an ND causing death or something like that (mine wasn't, I'm just using smoke and mirrors to parallel my example).  How can you possibly state with 100% certainty that the bullet was accidental, careless, or malicious?

I don't envy the prosecutor at all in this case, because his job is to prove more with less than what we had.

 

[dapaterson]

The facts of this case have not been pushed out to the media.  The prosecution has them, the defence has them, and no one here has them.

Guessing and second guessign reasons for the proceedings are irrelevant; the Crown decided there was sufficient evidence to proceed.


That Peter Worthington knows not of what he writes (unanimity at a court martial has been required for several years), and regularly slags non-combat arms personnel as somehow unworthy (despite MSE Ops, for example, spending more time outside the wire/outside the FOBs than pretty much all the Cbt Arms types) is another topic.

 

[TheBlackCat]

I read the witness statements and in terms of the morale imperitave leadership needed in counterinsurgency operations compared to textbook leadership he did the right thing morally in my opinion but he can easily get nailed by not going by the book.

 

[GAP]

Canadian soldier thought insurgent was already dead
By Andrew Duffy, Ottawa CitizenApril 20, 2010
Article Link

A member of Capt. Robert Semrau's mentoring team told a court martial that he did not offer first aid to a downed Taliban fighter because he thought the man was already dead.

Semrau, 36, of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, faces four charges in the case, including second-degree murder. The father of two young girls has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie was the first Canadian soldier to see the insurgent, who had been shot during a firefight on the morning of Oct. 19, 2008.

The firefight erupted in the early hours of an operation to clear a swath of ground next to the Helmand River.

Semrau's four-man team was embedded with an Afghan battalion, which led the operation.

The prosecutor, Capt. Tom Fitzgerald, asked Longaphie why he didn't offer first aid to the downed Taliban fighter given that military rules require soldiers to collect and treat the wounded.

"At that time, I didn't feel there was a need for me to go over there," Longaphie testified. "Visually, from what I perceived to be a dead Taliban, I didn't think there was any need to go to confirm whether he was dead or alive."

Prosecutors allege the insurgent was still alive, and that shortly after Longaphie left the scene, Semrau fired two shots into the man's chest.

Longaphie, a 25-year military veteran, earlier told court about the confusion that marked the early hours of the Helmand operation.

The Canadian mentoring team, he said, encountered a chaotic scene at the planned line of departure. Afghan National Army forces were there along with Afghan National Police and border officers.

"The ANP and border police were literally running all over the place," he told the court martial.

The Canadians found the Afghan army company to which they were attached, then began to move along the Helmand River.

About an hour into the mission, Longaphie and another Canadian soldier, Cpl. Tony Haraszta, near the front of the Afghan company, came under enemy fire.

Semrau and his battlefield partner, Pte. Steven Fournier, were somewhere behind them.

The soldiers hunkered down for about five minutes beside a handful of Afghan soldiers, then decided to make a run for a tall cornfield nearby. Gunfire followed them.

"It didn't stop us from running," Longaphie said, "but it scared the bejesus out of me."
More on link

 

[old medic]

Key witness to testify in Semrau case
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
25 April 2010
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/04/25/13714406-qmi.html

OTTAWA — The case against a Canadian captain charged with murdering a wounded Afghan on the battlefield is expected to come to a head Monday when a court martial hears from the prosecution’s key witness.

Cpl. Steven Fournier is expected to testify that his mentor, Capt. Robert Semrau, told him he shot a man to relieve him from his suffering.

Semrau told Fournier he “couldn’t live with himself” if he left an injured human being to die like that, prosecutor Capt. Tom Fitzgerald said Fournier would testify, when the Crown outlined its case last month.

Fournier will say Semrau had confided in him that “anyone would do the same thing” and he was prepared to “take the fall” for his actions, Fitzgerald said.

Semrau, a father of two young daughters, pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder for killing a disarmed and wounded Afghan insurgent while leading a small team of Canadian soldiers mentoring members of the Afghan National Army.

Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie, another member of the Canadian team, recently testified Semrau had “father-son talks” with Fournier.

During one of these chats, Fitzgerald said Semrau told Fournier, “I’ve even killed a man, who knows what will happen.”

Semrau’s case has been plagued with procedural delays and is weeks behind schedule.

 

[rormson]

My thoughts and best wishes are with Capt Semrau.

 

[old medic]

Semrau witness: All wounded were to be aided
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
26 April 2010

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/04/26/13722311-qmi.html

GATINEAU, Que. — Canadian soldiers were repeatedly instructed to provide medical aid to friends or foe equally, a key witness testified Monday at a Canadian captain’s court martial for murder.

Cpl. Steven Fournier testified his four-man team was told during numerous training sessions on combat care and rules of engagement that first aid should be provided to those who needed it most.

“It didn’t matter, if it was friendly, suspected enemy or enemy,” Fournier told the court martial’s five-member panel.

“It goes from most severe to least severe no matter what the circumstances,” he said.

Fournier’s captain, Robert Semrau, is charged with second-degree murder, accused of shooting a wounded and disarmed Afghan insurgent on the battlefield.

Semrau, a father of two girls, was charged after members of the Afghan National Army came forward with the allegation.

Fournier, Semrau’s partner, said Monday that rule seven, governing the conduct of Canadian Forces personnel, specifies that soldiers are to “collect all wounded and sick, and provide treatment whether they are friend or foe.”

Fournier said if he came across a wounded individual, he had to treat him until he could be evacuated to a higher level of care.

His testimony continues this afternoon.

 

[GAP]

Cellphone video of alleged Afghan victim shown to murder court martial
Article Link
By: THE CANADIAN PRESS 26/04/2010

A cellphone video of the victim of an alleged battlefield execution in Afghanistan was shown at an unprecedented court martial of a Canadian soldier.

The 10-minute video, shot by a soldier in the Afghan National Army, shows a bearded, motionless man covered up to his chest in a light blue blanket.

When an Afghan soldier partially pulls back the blanket, one of the victim's legs is seen to be all but severed above the ankle, although no other wounds are visible.

Capt. Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder for allegedly firing two shots into the man from close range shortly after the video was taken in October 2008.

The grainy images show no signs of life from the alleged victim, nor do they show any efforts at medical care, nor Afghan soldiers kicking sand on him as has been testified in court.

The video also calls into dispute testimony that a fierce firefight was underway at the time, as Afghan and Canadian soldiers are seen standing upright in an open field seemingly at ease for several minutes.

Cpl. Steven Fournier, one of the key prosecution witnesses, is set to testify about the events surrounding the video and what he saw take place after the camera was shut off.

Fournier was Semrau's junior partner in their four-man Operation Mentor Liaison Team, which was helping guide the Afghan National Army troops during an operation in Helmand province.

Earlier Monday at the court martial, Fournier had testified about the field medicine course he had taken in preparation for working on the liaison team, and the way it applied to the Canadian Forces' code of conduct. The injured were to be treated starting with the most badly wounded first, regardless of whether friend or foe.

"It was very clear cut," Fournier told the court martial. "It didn't matter who it was, you treat him the same as everybody else."

Fournier also described a relationship with Semrau, his superior officer, that went beyond the purely professional.
More on link

 

[PMedMoe]

Accused Canadian captain pointed rifle at insurgent’s chest, court-martial hears

Article Link

The key prosecution witness at an unprecedented court-martial says he saw a Canadian captain standing over a captured Afghan insurgent with his rifle pointed at his chest seconds after two quick shots were fired.

Captain Robert Semrau, 36, is charged with second-degree murder for the alleged battlefield execution of a severely wounded and disarmed Taliban in October, 2008.

Standing outside the witness box in a military courtroom, Corporal Steven Fournier demonstrated Capt. Semrau's stance with his C8 assault rifle barrel “at a perfect 45-degree angle” toward the wounded insurgent.

“The muzzle was within a metre of the man on the ground,” Cpl. Fournier testified.

The most junior member of Capt. Semrau's four-man Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, or OMLT, is a crucial witness in a bizarre murder trial that includes video footage of the alleged victim but no body and no confirmed cause of death.

Cpl. Fournier testified Tuesday that Capt. Semrau told him and an Afghan interpreter to leave him alone with the injured insurgent: “We can head back; that we don't have to see this.”

They had gone no more than 10 steps, Cpl. Fournier said, when two shots were fired “behind me, in quick succession.”

He spun around, looking for incoming fire, only to see Capt. Semrau standing almost directly over the insurgent and closing the ejection port on his C8.

The body of the insurgent has never been recovered, although the court-martial was shown a cellphone video of the limp, unmoving casualty taken by an Afghan National Army soldier shortly before he was allegedly shot by Capt. Semrau.

More on link

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory? 

This case is just so odd on all levels.  ROE's and SOP's may have been broken; however, I find it very hard to sit here and condemn someone who was operating in an environment that I know nothing about. 

Regardless of whether he did or didn't do it, I have a feeling that Capt. Semrau is already being hung out to dry for higher political reasons.  This is bad on the political level and kind of like the detainee scandal in a sense that it is a hot potato that government wants nothing to do with. I think we would be putting our heads in the sand if we thought this is the first and only time this has happened. 


 

 

[SeanNewman]

That brings up a very interesting point and kudos to you for bringing it up.

Yes, every member has an obligation to act if they feel that something wrong is taking place, and they become culpable in the event if they do not.

As taught in Ethics training, "Doing nothing is not an option".

 

[George Wallace]

Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory? 

What do you expect Cpl Fournier could have done?  He couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.  The only thing he could have, and should have, done, if he felt that something illigal had been committed, was to report it immediately up his Chain of Command.  It appears that he did not do this 'immediately', thus he could in fact be considered an accessory.  Perhaps, now with some thought, Cpl Fournier is trying to do some CYA.  Whatever the situation is, it will be brought up by either the Defence, or the Prosecution.

 

[SeanNewman]

couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.

Agreed that would be less than ideal, but an interesting read about WO Hugh Thompson.  During the My Lai massacre (not comparing this incident to that) WO Thompson landed he helicopter in the middle of it and gave his door gunners orders to shoot the American soldiers if they continued murdering the Veitnamese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

He was heavily scolded by higher US Army brass, called a traitor, etc for decades.  Then in the 1990s he was presented a soldiers' medal, the highest non-combat medal possible, and became an Ethics instructor at I believe Anapolis and West Point.

Again, not comparing that situation to this one so much as to show that there have been examples of Blue-on-Blue escalations of force.

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, back on the topic.

Does being present at the time of the incident and not doing anything to stop it make the Cpl Fournier an accessory?

No.  Being present and being able to stop an incident one knows to be illegal, yet doing nothing about it, would not make anyone an accessory.  It would make them guilty of their own crime, as I understand it.  Irrespective of that, from his testimony, Cpl Fournier would not be considered an accessory or culpable of anything illegal.

This case is just so odd on all levels.  ROE's and SOP's may have been broken; however, I find it very hard to sit here and condemn someone who was operating in an environment that I know nothing about. 

You should use that same restraint when commenting in this thread.  This has nothing to do with ROE or SOP.  This is about black and white criminal law.

Regardless of whether he did or didn't do it, I have a feeling that Capt. Semrau is already being hung out to dry for higher political reasons.  This is bad on the political level and kind of like the detainee scandal in a sense that it is a hot potato that government wants nothing to do with. I think we would be putting our heads in the sand if we thought this is the first and only time this has happened.

Restraint.  Use it.  The detainee "scandal" is nothing like this: that "scandal" is a political hot potato.  Capt Semrau is before a military court, aka "court martial" for a ciminal matter.  He was charged after being investigated.  There is no hanging him out to dry. 

And I say this, fully acknowledging that I call Capt Semrau a friend.  And I will continue to call him my friend, irrespective of the verdict of the court.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What do you expect Cpl Fournier could have done?  He couldn't turn around and shoot the Capt.  The only thing he could have, and should have, done, if he felt that something illigal had been committed, was to report it immediately up his Chain of Command.  It appears that he did not do this 'immediately', thus he could in fact be considered an accessory.  Perhaps, now with some thought, Cpl Fournier is trying to do some CYA.  Whatever the situation is, it will be brought up by either the Defence, or the Prosecution.

No he obviously couldn't shoot the man but maybe a pat on the shoulder saying "Hey Bud maybe you should reconsider doing that" especially in such trying circumstances, adrenaline was probably pumping, perhaps cooler heads would have prevailed.

What about even looking at this from another angle.  They were there mentoring Afghan soldiers.  Had a company of Afghan soldiers under there command, Afghan Captain says "leave him die," had they started administering medical aid would that potentially break the trust with the Afghan forces.  I can't imagine ANA like the Taliban too much, would your OMLT team who is working in with an Afghan company decide trust or would you put the insurgent out of misery.  Better to do the latter then risk alienating the men you are supposed to be working with.

Also I don't think it was the good Corporal who came forward, I believe the allegations came from the Afghan army, did they not?  Correct me on this one if I am wrong.

 

[SeanNewman]

Techno,

Agreed.  This was first being investigated at the end of 2008; long before the detainee potato combusted as it has.

Stymiest,

Things can be done at the tactical/operational level (gaining trust of the ANA) that may not pass the strategic "Globe and Mail test". 

Even in a case where a soldier is protecting his convoy against a speeding car that's approaching and failing to observe the warnings to slow down, if that soldier shoots and it is told in the media the wrong way, that poor guy not has the court of public opinion against him even though he did everything that was expected of him.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

OK, back on the topic.No.  Being present and being able to stop an incident one knows to be illegal, yet doing nothing about it, would not make anyone an accessory.  It would make them guilty of their own crime, as I understand it.  Irrespective of that, from his testimony, Cpl Fournier would not be considered an accessory or culpable of anything illegal.
You should use that same restraint when commenting in this thread.  This has nothing to do with ROE or SOP.  This is about black and white criminal law.
Restraint.  Use it.  The detainee "scandal" is nothing like this: that "scandal" is a political hot potato.  Capt Semrau is before a military court, aka "court martial" for a ciminal matter.  He was charged after being investigated.  There is no hanging him out to dry. 

And I say this, fully acknowledging that I call Capt Semrau a friend.  And I will continue to call him my friend, irrespective of the verdict of the court.

Point taken, My intent is not to compare it to the detainee scandal as I feel thats on an entirely different level of hot potatoes; however, to say that a Canadian soldier shooting a incapacitated enemy is not a Hot Potato wouldn't be doing it justice.  Bringing this to a court martial has as much to do with politics as it does with doing the right thing.

Things can be done at the tactical/operational level (gaining trust of the ANA) that may not pass the strategic "Globe and Mail test".

 

I am going to tread away from this topic as I don't want to invoke a strong response, but this just proves my point.  A decision was made at the tactical level, it somehow made its way up to the strategic level and failed the litmus test, thus there is a need to do something about.

As Nelson Mandela would say, "Everything is a political calculation"