We don't carry morphine in Canada so the story is not true. Soldiers, the wounded and prisoners are not dogs. Dogs have no legal standing. It is never exceptable to kill a prisoner, it is never acceptable to kill the wounded, there is no such thing as mercy killing. This is not our first rodeo when it comes to these situations.
"The Taliban Don't Wave" - Robert Semrau
- Thread starter Sharps '63
- Start date
- Status
We don't carry morphine in Canada so the story is not true. Soldiers, the wounded and prisoners are not dogs. Dogs have no legal standing. It is never exceptable to kill a prisoner, it is never acceptable to kill the wounded, there is no such thing as mercy killing. This is not our first rodeo when it comes to these situations.
Could beat what he MAYBE DID or DID NOT do to death. Like Semrau in the book and the witnesses at the trial state, the truth will remain between Semrau and the dead. No one knows for sure what happened. As no witness testimony matched others testimony. He was found guilty of section 93. And not guilty of murder. he is not a convicted murderer.
my bad, wrong section thanks Morpheus
my bad, wrong section thanks Morpheus
Last edited:
So kill all the wounded...just in case?
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Haven't read the book, but know the story. That very badly wounded Taliban was in no condition to retaliate. And I support the court martial results to cashier the officer. There are rules; he didn't follow them. No Army can tolerate wanton rule breakers like that. (And yes, there are rules broken daily and hourly for all kinds of reasons, but none of those transgressions cost a man his life.)
That is incorrect, he was found guilty of behaving in a disgraceful manner under section 93 of the NDA. This was a bit more than an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
So you're saying he should have left the poor bastard to fry in the sun till the scavengers showed up?
Grizz
So you're saying he should have left the poor bastard to fry in the sun till the scavengers showed up?
Grizz
Nope. Once he was wounded, he became "hors de combat", at that point he became our prisoner. Just as any of our soldiers when they are hurt, we are obligated to provide first aid to friend and foe alike. The likely result, had he provided first aid, he would have died anyway but you don't get to summarily execute the prisoner because you assess that they are going to die anyway. It simply does not work that way.
Not our first rodeo dealing with this sort of stuff...
He violated the Canadian Criminal Code and international conventions. And was/should have been aware of it as a trained professional. As for being "ratted out", not reporting it could have resulted in charges against others who knew of his actions.
Even if you're dying in extreme pain in an accident, police or EMT's can't perform a mercy killing.
I believe the reason he couldn't be found guilty of murder was that without the body and therefore the ability to perform an autopsy, it couldn't be proved that his shooting a person who was "hors de combat" was what actually caused the death of the individual (who, granted, would have reportedly died as a result of his wounds anyway). At best they could have charged and likely convicted him him for increasing the suffering to the wounded. And I suspect that would have been a career ender for any soldier.
Regardless of personal feelings or opinions, there's just some things you can't do.
Even if you're dying in extreme pain in an accident, police or EMT's can't perform a mercy killing.
I believe the reason he couldn't be found guilty of murder was that without the body and therefore the ability to perform an autopsy, it couldn't be proved that his shooting a person who was "hors de combat" was what actually caused the death of the individual (who, granted, would have reportedly died as a result of his wounds anyway). At best they could have charged and likely convicted him him for increasing the suffering to the wounded. And I suspect that would have been a career ender for any soldier.
Regardless of personal feelings or opinions, there's just some things you can't do.
Ok name a war where this has not happened. If your defeated you are tried for the offences . If your the victor you are given medals. There have been countless civilians killed in previous wars some times even targeted to destroy moral and prisoners on both sides have been executed and the wounded dispatched. Not saying it is right but it happens .
This is the law:
If a soldier can't follow these simple rules, they have no place in the CAF.
If a soldier can't follow these simple rules, they have no place in the CAF.
Certainly not, let them bleed out I say. I'm unfamiliar with military protocol, but anyone down who was just trying to kill me would never be on my top priority of things to attend to. Secure the scene 100%, break out the water and MRE's (not for "him", rather ours) and radio some help for him. If "air ambulance" gets to him in time, so be it. If not, so be it.
Executing the wounded is not something our military ought to represent IMHO
That is an understatement...
So what are you saying...it happens so it is what? OK?
It is not right and if we accept the behaviour then it will happen more often. We are Canadians, we don't execute prisoners, we don't kill the wounded. It is a rather simple principle and is a requirement we expect all soldiers to adhere to. As a professional soldier if you can't understand that and adhere to it, you leave the profession of arms. It is simple as that. I would court martial anyone who killed a prisoner or shot enemy wounded. It is never acceptable...
Wow! This discussion has turned into the proverbial 'two way range'.
Enforcing ROE when fighting enemies like the Taliban and ISIS just doesn't compute in my Cold War era mind. Considering the loyalty Semrau expressed for his soldiers (and his ANA), I do think he was 'ratted out'. Their names should have been made public.
Like Sheen said of the Colonel (Marlon Brando) in "Apocalypse Now" - "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500."
Enforcing ROE when fighting enemies like the Taliban and ISIS just doesn't compute in my Cold War era mind. Considering the loyalty Semrau expressed for his soldiers (and his ANA), I do think he was 'ratted out'. Their names should have been made public.
Like Sheen said of the Colonel (Marlon Brando) in "Apocalypse Now" - "Charging a man with murder over here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500."
That is why you are not a professional soldier. If you did join, we train you to what is correct and what we expect you to follow through with your training. I don't have issue because your are not trained.
Would you kill a driver that cut you off and injured your family? He is badly hurt and not going to make it? Maybe you should put him out of his misery. You wouldn't do it would you? Even though the guy has hurt you and your family and will likely die anyway. Nope you provide first aid. Trying to find an analogy for you but the badly injured driver works best for Canada.
You have to understand that we expect soldiers to be obedient to orders and regulations. To be honest, it is why we are ruthless from a discipline point of view to those that are not subordinate to orders. You don't get to chose which orders to follow, when you want to follow a regulation. It simply does not work that way in the army.
I hope that makes sense to you why this is such a big deal to those in uniform.
As a medic with a few operational tours I have worked on taliban that were wounded by my section. I gave them the same standard of care I gave my guys. This is what makes us Canadian. This is what separates us from the Taliban brutality and keeps our actions honourable.
Frankly, if I was involved in a MVA, my wife killed or badly injured by an obviously intoxicated driver, I'd be torn about what to do - let the SOB bleed out or do what I could to keep him alive and watch the court sentence him to 6 months house arrest and a two year driving ban and/or the privilege of driving to work only.
You see your are missing the point here. Just because you are fighting the bad guys does not mean anything goes. In fact our conduct is demonstrative of us as a society. I know I know, they are really bad. I can assure you that after three tours in Afghanistan, we killed plenty of bad guys.
It is really "nice" that Semrau had loyalty to his soldiers. Maybe, if he considered that he expected people to cover up for him, we might see that his actions resulting in stress for his subordinates who knew from training and experience that what he did was wrong. The names were published and to be clear, I would have sought charges for him myself. The are things you simply do not do...executing prisoners and the wounded is one of the them. No one "ratted him out", not disclosing that they believed a service offence has taken place is an offense which the military takes very seriously.
Quoting a movie is not really relevant. You don't get to do whatever you want when you are overseas. We DEMAND soldiers to obedient to orders at all times, more so when under stress like combat. The use of deadly force which is part of what we do in the military is something we take very seriously. You don't shoot prisoners. It is totally unacceptable and there is no justification. Zero, nada.
Your call but we have certain expectations set forth. They are clear.
That is what we call ETHICS and MORALS. You live your life by them. In the profession of arms, we have an ETHOS, which underlines our ETHICS and MORALs. You can believe whatever you want before you joing the military, but once in the profession of arms, you must adapt the ETHOS of the military. No option. If you can't you leave or get booted. What is acceptable or tolerated to civilians can be completely unacceptable to the military. Canadian troops performed outstanding service in Afghanistan but this service's foundation was the military ethos and the obedience to orders. That is how we roll...
- Status
