CAN OMLT Officer Charged with Murder
Link to earlier news release announcing investigation, and some MSM coverage, below text....
Charge Laid Relating to Death of Presumed Insurgent
Canadian Forces National Investigative Service news release CFNIS 2009-01, 2 Jan 09
News release link
Quote:
OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) has charged one military officer late yesterday with an offence relating to the death of a presumed insurgent in Helmand Province on or about October 19, 2008.
Captain Robert Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to
Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to
Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau was a member of the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team at the time of the incident. He is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person. Captain Semrau is currently in Military Police custody and will be transported back to Canada shortly for a hearing before a military judge to determine whether he is to be retained in custody.
The Commander Task Force Kandahar was made aware of the allegations on December 27, 2008 and notified the CFNIS who immediately initiated an investigation. The CFNIS laid the charge after analyzing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. As the matter is now proceeding in accordance with the Code of Service Discipline, and another part of the investigation is still ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
The
CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, Departmental employees and Canadian Forces personnel serving in Canada and abroad....
"CFNIS Investigation Started", CFNIS 2008-08, 31 Dec 08
Globe & Mail posts video of officer, taken by US military, before operation in question
Army Times shares original Canadian Press version of story
Canadian Press: Free from custody w/conditions
"Military judge releases captain pending murder trial"
Quote:
A military judge has released an army officer charged with murdering a wounded and apparently unarmed enemy fighter in Afghanistan. The judge, Lt.-Col. Louis-Vincent d'Auteuil, has granted a joint request by both defence and prosecution to allow Capt. Robert Semrau, 35, to rejoin his unit at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa and live at home in neighbouring Pembroke, Ont. D'Auteuil placed conditions on the soldier's release, however, ordering him to remain under military authority, to stay in Canada, to surrender his passport and not to communicate with any Afghan National Army troops or five Canadian soldiers. Semrau is also not allowed to handle any weapons or explosives, even in his soldierly duties, without prior approval from the court....
So were my paralegal and I - somewhat confused -
when we discussed this case before heading home. Assuming the CPT shot the guy (not entirely beyond a reasonable doubt from the limited facts), it might have been a mercy killing. If so, we concluded he shouldn't be charged - based on our own morals & ethics, not on any criminal law concepts (she's a criminal justice grad).
I really want to see how the facts develop in this one.
Since I'm not legal beagle.....
...I'm looking forward to hearing more from the proceedings to find out more details about things like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Does it have any force in Canadian law?
Does violation of the GC lead to an allegation of homicide in this case?
Seems to be a non-issue (with respect to Captain Semrau's case) to me... :confused:
- all I have is what's been written in the MSM, which is also why I used "may".
As for this, 120mm:
Quote:
What if the officer involved would've just left the man there, to die? Wouldn't similar charges apply? What is the standard, exactly, for when a grievously wounded enemy soldier makes mission accomplishment impossible?
I'd LOVE to hear from any legalists on this one, too, since MSM is only covering what's coming out of the process for the moment, and not speaking to experts about such issues. Mind you, depending on how such issues are covered, beware what you wish for re: effects on pubic perception of the proceedings and the individual.
Can we use this for a "research project" ?
In another thread, I've been flopping about like a large-mouth bass in the bottom of the boat on much the same issue. Perhaps, some progress was made in my presentation at posts ## 54-56 - you judge.
Any how ways, my theory is that operational law must correspond to what is a reality in the field (law serves the soldier; the soldier does not serve the law); which requires placing more discretion in the field commander to set the rules, based on the "totality of circumstances" as viewed by him and subject only to some very general guidelines.
So, it is more important to me to hear from field folks on what they think the rules should be in this and related situations (basically a point A to point B problem with an intermediate hitch which requires a go or no go decision).
Don't have to be a lawyer - this is a "what the rules should be" problem with no "correct answer". Also, we could have a general rule (fitting situations A, B, C and D), together with exceptions for E, F and G.
There are some articles out there (feel free to find them), but are not particularly helpful cuz they tend to be top down solutions - law imposed on soldiers, not law developed by and for soldiers. Betcha we can do better.
I'd appreciate comments on this proposition.
------------------------
These kind of problems caused Grotius to develop his work on the laws of war. The problem with Grotius' (the European or Code Systems) method of legal development is a tendency to impose law from above (theorists). That is contrary to the UK-US method of legal development (in its pure form) which derives the law from actual practice (Bracton and those who have followed him for 800 years). Guess which school of thought I belong to.
Canadians Investigating Alleged Civilian UXO Deaths
NATO statement:
Quote:
Elders from a village located approximately 15 km west of Kandahar City alleged today that two local children were killed and two were wounded when unexploded ordnance they were handling detonated. It is alleged that the unexploded ordnance was left behind by ISAF soldiers who were conducting a practice range exercise in the area the day prior, however the nature of the munition involved has yet to be determined....
I have to say I was disappointed in CNN's initial version of the story:
Quote:
Villagers in southern Afghanistan stacked the bodies of two dead children in front of a provincial council Monday to protest their deaths in a rocket attack. The villagers blamed Canadian rockets for killing the children and injuring five men, but their claims could not immediately be verified....
I've sent CNN links to other MSM sources, and await with interest to see what they do with them.
Now, there seems to be a range of narratives out there:
Quote:
....Some media sources reported the children were killed when a missile hit a house in the Panjwai village. Five other people were injured. However Canadian media reported that the children may have died when an unexploded bomb detonated as they searched for scrap metal in the Panjwai valley. A local police chief said the deaths may have been caused by a Taliban attack ....
I've found nothing on English-language jihadist fora with the Taliban's version of events yet - will share if/when I find anything.
Shameless & brazen self-plug: a little more here.
CAN Efforts to Focus on K'Har City, Environs
At least according to a senior government official quoted in this account....
Quote:
“Canada’s area of responsibility in the Taliban heartland will be cut by nearly half this summer as part of U.S. President Barack Obama’s new Afghan strategy, to be unveiled Friday. But Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan is to retain control of some of Kandahar’s most violent areas — Kandahar City and the farming districts to the west of the provincial capital where three-quarters of Kandaharis live. Canada’s army also will remain NATO’s point of contact with the provincial governor. “Canada will be more focused on major population centres in and around Kandahar city, which is exactly where we want to have an impact with our priorities,” David Mulroney, the Privy Council Office deputy minister who heads the government’s Afghanistan Task Force, told an all-party committee of MPs Thursday….”
.... as well as RUMINT shared in this account from earlier in the week....
Quote:
…. Rumours have been circulating among local Afghans that the Canadians are planning to pull out of all districts except for Zhari, Panjway and Kandahar city….
A little more here.