zipperhead_cop said:
... around 1948 some men decided to attach rules to war.
It happened long before that.
zipperhead_cop said:
IF ... the Taliban was as badly off as has been described, Captain Semrau was more human, humane, honourable and brave than most people ever will be.
What would your position be if it were a Taliban on trial for putting rounds into a Canadian in similar state? Should he be charged or would you still argue he was doing the brave, honourable and humane thing?
zipperhead_cop said:
IF this was a mercy killing and ...
And
IF it was not? As opposed to turning a blind-eye or covering-up, should not the proper authorities decide what happened?
zipperhead_cop said:
I guess given the seemingly sketchy physical evidence, coupled with the political aspect of this one given the whole detainee issue, I would have hoped the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you and behind you would have kicked in.
In your argument, you are assuming knowledge in the head of the first to report - knowledge which may not have been there. Said person may only have had a reasonable belief that a serious violation of LoAC occured without many of the finer details that you speculate. In action would have been tantamount to covering up the event (regarless of what a proper investigation and competent courtl may later decide actually did happen).
Lets also look at this from a more macroscopic perspective. Sure buddy beside and behind are on the team, but the team is a whole lot bigger than just them.
Consider, the whole Canadian Airborne Regiment suffered for the acts of a few miscreants and a few more "team players" who blindly went with " the dynamics of trusting the guy beside you." The public's first perception of the incident was media lambasting the military for doing nothing. Because action was not seen to be taken prior to the out-cry, the institution was seen to be complicit in the acts of a few, and cover-up was declared. Public confidence in the military leadership was broken and the integrity of the institution (the whole CF and DND) was seen as deviant. The whole CF suffered for the next few years.
Down at the tactical level with the motivations, the individuals, the acts, etc - the current and past situations are light years apart. At the strategic level, there are a lot of common hazards. This time, the publics first perception of the incident was of the military taking action. The public retains confidence in the military leadership and we've retained the exceptional street-cred that has been built over the last two years. The CF gone unscathed had the first reports been the media questioning in-action and institutional integrity. There probably would not be another regiment lost, but we would have been hammered in that last budget and we would be feeling repercussions well into next year or beyond.
I would hope that a soldier would not risk strategic damage to the whole military if that soldier reasonably believed a violation of RoE, LoAC and the CF Code of Conduct to have occurred. In such circumstances, reporting would be the act of a team player and (given the open contempt displayed by some early in this thread) it would require significant moral courage to do so.