More fun and games . . .
Captain Robert Semrau shot and killed a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan.
He did not do this during active combat, but after the fact. He found the man in the field, with a belly wound, and one of his legs catastrophically amputated above the knee by gunfire from a US Apache helicopter.
The Rules of War say that Captain Semrau acted improperly, and a Canadian military court has dismissed him from service for "Digraceful conduct" and demoted him, while refusing to convict him of murder.
What say you, CPF? Was Capt. Semrau shafted?
He did not do this during active combat, but after the fact. He found the man in the field, with a belly wound, and one of his legs catastrophically amputated above the knee by gunfire from a US Apache helicopter.
The Rules of War say that Captain Semrau acted improperly, and a Canadian military court has dismissed him from service for "Digraceful conduct" and demoted him, while refusing to convict him of murder.
What say you, CPF? Was Capt. Semrau shafted?
Comments
The enemy combatant was going to die anyways. Was more humane to kill him there than just leave him behind to suffer and die.
Not sure where to find them in one spot but this is from the wiki entry.
"Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering; "
Found this which has a pretty good description...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war.htm
I think the rules of combat states that you are supposed to assist your wounded enemy just as you would your own teammate. Just not sure how practical that would have been in this case.
Also, how can you be so sure that "The enemy combatant was going to die anyways"?
The man in question was a leader of a squad. His actions were in direct violation to standards set for Canadian military personnel. Not only is this now an issue of what he did, but also an issue of setting standards for the men under his command. Couple this with the fact that it now places the subordinates in a quandary of reporting their superior officer.
Personally, I think there's a lot of pressure on soldiers. Anyone would. However, I seem to consistently have high standards for people and their behaviours in life in general. IMO - a soldier is representing Canada and it's people. When they agree to their duty, they're not just doing a job, they're entering a pact to hold themselves to the most elite of expectations. They are placed in the most impossible situations as a condition of their position, and only those that have the utmost discipline and compassion should be in the role.
I'm not so naive to think I could do this... but I think in this case, justice was not served. He got off too easy.
Mark
His leg had been completely severed between the knee and the waist. Death by exanguination would have taken minutes, due to the bleed out from the femoral artery. This guy was dead already, the message just had not reached his brain.
Also, Semrau's troops were still actively engaged with the enemy. His primary duty (to me) is to ensure their safety. If that means silencing a dying enemy soldier (who cannot be saved anyway) to avoid drawing attention, so be it.
Question is then. If this had been one of his own men in the same situation what would he have done? The same thing? What say thow?
Definitely an ethical quandry...
I do everything I can to save my guy. He's one of mine . . . but google the phrase "unit closure" for a different perspective.
Their guy? 9mm medical kit . . . and move on.
If I were in Semrau's shoes, I would have acted EXACTLY the same way.
Mark is right in one sense. There is a certain amount of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't about this case. If Semrau had stayed with this enemy combatant, to the detriment of his own troops, or the mission he was tasked with, he could quite conceivably have faced reprimand for doing so.
Semrau was tasked with an objective on that day. One thing Canadian troops have historically been very good at is finding a way to complete their assigned objectives, regardless of hazard or difficulty. Semrau, imo, carried out his orders to the best of his ability, and with the primary objective in mind. To me, it is Monday morning QB'ing to have prosecuted this case in this fashion. At worst, this should have been a down-check in his file, nothing more.
Example: Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. I am pretty sure that "the Taliban" are not (they are an irregular force). So, Canada's soldiers know that, if captured, they cannot expect to be treated as well as a Taliban fighter captured by Canadian forces. So how will this affect how Soldiers in the field interpret the Rules of Engagement? Will they be more suspicious of Taliban fighters approaching under a "white flag"? I would be . . . and how would the press report a situation like that, should it erupt into a fire fight?
No arguments at all from me. Actuality is always different than planned. That's just how it goes with the human race.
I think we're of similar mind, just differing on the punishment on this issue.
On the world stage we have to "appear at least" to be abiding by current rules of engagement. As in this case the practicality of the situation may be somewhat at odds to those same rules.
As I said in my first post, I can be swayed as to level of punishment but not to guilt...
And how come not many others have a strong opinion?
Taliban and insurgents job is to Kill all coalition forces soldiers. They are a bunch of dirty pieces of crappola.
War is Kill the enemy regardless of their condition, or end up Dead Yourself.
Does anyone think the Taliban actually cares about the GENEVA CONVENTION. :bs:
No, it is not. War, and the training for it, is very complex. And this issue has nothing to do with the values espoused by the Taliban.
Oh really. You are angry with and want to punish a bunch of guys who reported a violation of the Geneva convention, human rights conventions and international humanitarian law. The mistake was Semrau's. By doing so, you encourage others not to whistleblow and invite greater transgressions. :-[
Semrau did what was necessary to ensure his unit had a better chance of surviving that situation than if he had attempted to disengage, and assume a more defensive posture to treat a dying enemy. His men should have supported that action. Some of them did not. Unit cohesion is thus broken and needs to be reestablished. The only way to do this is to transfer the men who broke the cohesiveness of said unit.
As for inviting greater transgressions, I think not. This is not Rwanda, or even My Lai. This is a situation-specific incident which, whether people wish to believe it or not, has probably happend before, and will almost certainly happen again. Semrau's comments about a "soldier's unspoken pact" may seem fanciful to some, but I have no doubt there is a kernel of truth in them.
As for Humanitarian Law, we are talking about warfare, which on it's own can be considered a violation of Humanitarian Law.
This is not "Snitches get stitches", moose. It is, "my commander saved our asses, so I'll be damned if I'm going to hang his out to dry".
Iraq or Afghanistan is a DIRTY WAR. People think that every country follows the Geneva Convention WRONG!
They are not going to tell you everything that goes on on the Battlefield.
A lot of bad stuff that has happened has leaked out.
Technology has a lot to do with this.
If I was over there fighting I would probably do the same thing. Don't think for a second the TALIBAN wouldn't. It's not like there is a referee there to penalize a soldier because he shot an enemy who was laying there dying.
In combat you have to put your life in the hands of your fellow soldiers, as they have to put their lives in your hands. The military is not the same as it was so many years ago.
Yes what he did was wrong, I totally agree with that. But I would be willing to bet if you put 10 soldiers in that posistion 7 would have done the same.
Trust is the biggest factor here. Units or platoons have to trust each other. If they don't it may cost them their lives.
Oh that's a bunch of crap. Transferring out soldiers who did the right thing IS punishment and puts the blame on them. It clearly sends the message to always look the other way. AND he was there as an advisor to an AFGHAN unit. The battle was over. It wasn't like the were taking fire and the guy ran by and put two bullets in him to shut him up. Trusting your fellow soldiers to follow the rules of war is step ONE in being able to trust your comrades in arms.
Mole wins . . .
And moose, the initial contact was passed, but the area was not yet secured. The Afghanis were refusing to treat the Taliban fighter, so Semrau's actions were the best solution. As previously stated, and not refuted, this guy was dead already, his body just had not stopped yet.