Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[The Bread Guy]

I suspect that is the message intended.
If that's the case, the defence would always have the option to call them as character references.

I wonder if we will, indeed, end up hearing from them....

 

[greentoblue]

It seems the CO of 3 RCR didn't get the message of the headshed:

"His commanding officer, Lt.-Col. Kevin Cameron of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ont., said he would have no reservations about accepting Semrau back into his unit."

It will be interesting to see if there will be any blowback to LCol Cameron's career after a statement that goes against the message the CoC is sending out.

I am also wondering if Gen Thompson's statements are even permissible because he references Capt Semrau as shooting the enemy as a statement of fact when my reading of the verdict was that the prosecution could not prove that he did in fact shoot the talib?  How can you condemn a man for an illegal killing when it was proved there was one?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/07/26/14828631.html

 

[BernDawg]

A little more here.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Semrau+risked+life+treat+wounded+Afghan+soldiers/3323759/story.html

GATINEAU, Que. — One month after he shot an unarmed Taliban insurgent, Capt. Robert Semrau risked his life to treat Afghan soldiers wounded during a deadly mortar attack in the Panjwaii District, his court martial heard Monday.


Pte. Joseph Villeneuve said Semrau saved his life during the mortar bombardment of an embattled Afghan National Army outpost in Mushan.


Identifying the telltale sound of an incoming mortar, Semrau told Villeneuve to pull a wounded Afghan soldier behind a nearby Ford Ranger truck. The mortar round landed a moment later where the soldiers had been standing.


"He saved my life right there," Villeneuve told Semrau's sentencing hearing.


Semrau then ran outside to assist other wounded Afghan soldiers, despite the continuing mortar fire.


"He was completely calm, level-headed, telling us what to do," Villeneuve said of Semrau. One Afghan soldier was killed and six were injured in the bombardment.


Semrau was the senior Canadian officer on scene at the time of the attack.


"He was always about the troops, making sure the troops were safe," Villeneuve said, adding later: "From my experience, he's a great leader and a great man."


That assessment was largely shared by two officers with whom Semrau worked during his five-year career in the Canadian military. They painted him Monday as a courageous and dedicated soldier.


Both Maj. Cayle Oberwarth, who fought alongside Semrau in Afghanistan, and Lt.-Col. Kevin Cameron, commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment to which Semrau is attached, said they would be willing to serve with him again should the judge return him to service.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Semrau+risked+life+treat+wounded+Afghan+soldiers/3323759/story.html#ixzz0uqAC14uM

 

[Jarnhamar]

Our Generals are really making us proud aren't they.

 

[dapaterson]

So no sentence today, or is it going late?

Today was arguments from the prosecution and defence on sentence (not sure if they have finished).  Once they are done, the judge will leave to consider sentencing, base don the arguemnts and precedents cited by both.

Regardless of his decision, I suspect the sentence will be appealed.  (to say nothing of the multiple preliminary motions by the defence, any one of which may give rise to an appeal to the CMAC). 

This is not an easy case, and crafting an appropriate sentence will take time.

 

[SocialyDistorted]

I've been hearing buzz that a few hundred people are writing letters to Peter Mackay and Michaelle Jean

Will that have any bearing whatsoever on the case (as in can they step in) or is it just a waste-o-paper

 

[captloadie]

Like on civvy street, the judicial system cannot be influenced by outside forces at this point. After the sentence, then maybe political pressure could have an affect on an appeal, or possibly on Corrections Canada (who would administer Capt Semrau's sentence if it were more than 2 years).

Unlike in the USA, I don't think any of our elected officials, nor the GG, have the power to pardon people outright.

 

[Ammo]

Prosecutors want jail for Semrau

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/07/27/14840701.html

GATINEAU, Que. - Military prosecutors asked the court Tuesday to dismiss Capt. Robert Semrau with disgrace from the Canadian Forces and send him to jail for two years less a day.

Prosecutors said Semrau should be made an example of and the court should punish him without any consideration of public opinion.

Semrau was found guilty of disgraceful conduct last week for shooting an unarmed and wounded Afghan insurgent in October 2008.

But four fellow officers, who acted as a jury of his peers, found him not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his duties.

Prosecutor Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee told the judge presiding over Semrau's sentencing hearing that the primary focus of his punishment should be deterrence.

"Not because he or she deserves it," but because it would be intended to stop others from doing the same activity, he said. 
 

Leveillee said Semrau acted in a "potentially dangerous" way by shooting the wounded insurgent.

Semrau would have known he was breaking the military's code of conduct and basic principles of international law that say wounded enemies unable to defend themselves should be treated humanely, the prosecutor said.

"Humanly does not mean accelerating the death of a person," Leveillee said, it means collecting and caring for that person.

Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide, he said, noting Semrau's victim didn't ask to die.

Semrau's actions were especially egregious because he was acting as a mentor to the Afghan National Army and was expected to be a role model, Leveillee said.

"All it takes is an incident like this one to bring back memories of Somalia," Leveilee said.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The "victim" asked to die the second he picked up a rifle and pointed it at anything not sporting antlers.  Fuckin' lawyers.

 

[George Wallace]

Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide, he said, noting Semrau's victim didn't ask to die.

He wasn't in Canada.  He was in Afghanistan, and we all know that they don't have the same laws as we do.  Yes, as a member of the CF he must while deployed remember that he falls not only under Canadian law, the laws of the land he is in and International Laws, but to state that Criminal law in Canada prohibits assisted suicide is pretty much absurd in this case.

"All it takes is an incident like this one to bring back memories of Somalia," Leveilee said.

Right!  Here we go again.  Let's demonize the CF one more time.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Right!  Here we go again.  Let's demonize the CF one more time.

Made even more "helpful" coming out of the mouth of a CF officer...    :

 

[Sig_Des]

Prosecutor Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee told the judge presiding over Semrau's sentencing hearing that the primary focus of his punishment should be deterrence.

"Not because he or she deserves it," but because it would be intended to stop others from doing the same activity, he said.

To those Presiding Officer familiars or qualified pers here, what is the standard of punishment under the NDA? Is it rehabilitation, incapacitation, condemnation , or as the prosecutor alludes, detterence?

Just wondering as to this statement, not a fan of the wording. Any punishment should be deserved. If not deserved, there should be no punishment.

 

[George Wallace]

To those Presiding Officer familiars or qualified pers here, what is the standard of punishment under the NDA? Is it rehabilitation, incapacitation, condemnation , or as the prosecutor alludes, detterence?

Just wondering as to this statement, not a fan of the wording. Any punishment should be deserved. If not deserved, there should be no punishment.

True.  Looks like Lt-Col. Mario Leveillee is only succeeding in sticking both feet in his mouth.

 

[dapaterson]

You are taking his comments out of context.

The Prosecution is stating that this sort of behaviour must be condemned by the institution to avoid the instituion being tarred with that brush again - in essence, he is stating that the act denunciation is proof that he CF has changed and evolved since then.


The Defence arguments will be interesting.  I suspect they will argue two sides: first, they will propose a sentence of their own - a forfeiture of seniority, perhaps, as that is the highest punishment without loss of rank or imprisonment - and hence a "stronger" message of denunciation than a reprimand or severe reprimand; second, they will attack the prosecution's request for dismissal with disgrace and a custodial sentence and request that any custodial sentence be suspended.


I'm certain that the defence has already drafted a request for release pending appeal in the event of a custodial sentence.  This case will end up before the Court Martial Appeal Court as a minimum, however it turns out.


Beadwindow:  All  of the above.  The objectives of sentencing are:

a.  General deterrence;
b.  Specific deterrence;
c.  Rehabilitation and reform; and
d.  Retribution.

4. General deterrence is based on the concept that legal sanction against an offender will discourage potential offenders. General deterrence is often given particular weight when offences involve violence, or when there is a prevalence of a specific offence in a community. Specific deterrence has the goal of dissuading the offender from re-offending. Rehabilitation is emphasized in relation to an offender who has demonstrated a reasonable probability that the offender can become a law abiding member of society. Retribution will be highlighted to demonstrate society’s aversion towards morally reprehensible conduct. Retribution is linked to denunciation as a sentencing objective.

5. None of these sentencing goals should be considered on their own. For example, denunciation, while a legitimate goal of sentencing, can only be assessed having regard to the circumstances of the case and the offender. When assessing the weight given to the goal of denunciation consideration should also be given to the effect it might have on the rehabilitation of the offender.

6. A basic principle in sentencing is that a punishment imposed must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence. This helps ensure that the public, including members of the CF, can be satisfied that the offender deserves the punishment, and feels confident in the fairness and rationality of the system. Punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender. A person causing intentional harm should be punished more severely than someone causing harm unintentionally.

The manual for the presiding officer course is (DWAN link) at http://jag.mil.ca/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf

 

[Danjanou]

Made even more "helpful" coming out of the mouth of a CF officer...    :

He's not the only one. I noticed Tony Keene ( Capt G&SF/PAFFO) commenting on the CBC website, and joining the "stone the unclean one" mob mentality there. :

 

[dapaterson]

More from the POCT book on sentencing - points the judge will have to consider:

13. When an accused is found guilty the presiding officer shall receive any evidence concerning the appropriate sentence to be imposed, including aggravating and mitigating factors. The factors which should be considered when considering sentence include:

a. the deterrent effect of the sentence on the offender and other members, bearing in mind that one of the purposes of summary proceedings is the maintenance of military discipline at both the individual and unit level;

b. the number, gravity and prevalence of the offences committed;

c. the degree of premeditation and the consequential harm caused;

d. the degree of provocation and any other extenuating circumstances;

e. any time spent in custody prior to or during trial;

f. where applicable, any sentence imposed on a co-accused or accomplice;

g. the need for consistency in sentencing, having regard to punishments imposed on other offenders;

h. the offender’s circumstances and previous character including his age, rank, length of service, rate of pay and financial situation, family and personal problems, background, training and experience in the Canadian Forces having regard to his military record and in particular any previous convictions, honours, awards, medals and decorations; and

i. any indirect consequence of the finding or sentence.

Chapter 14 is the guide to sentencing.

Internet link:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/Training-formation/MilJustice_JustMilv2.1-eng.pdf

 

[Sig_Des]

learn something everyday. Thanks for posting that, dapaterson

 

[Ammo]

Capt. Semrau should stay in the military, defence argues

GATINEAU—Rather than being jailed for shooting an unarmed, severely wounded Afghan insurgent Capt. Robert Semrau should have his rank reduced and receive a severe reprimand, his military lawyer said Tuesday.

Speaking to his client’s court martial sentencing hearing, Major Steve Turner said the 36-year-old Semrau is far too good a soldier to go to jail and be drummed out of the service as recommended by the prosecution.

“The character of Capt. Semrau is important,” Turner argued.

“It is a serious offence but he has significantly good character,” he said of Semrau, who was found guilty of disgraceful conduct.

Turner cautioned that the sentence should not be overly tough to appease the military brass but should take into mind the message it would send to the rank and file.

Turner argued that the shooting was a military matter that required a military sentencing.

“This sends a military message to the military community this won't be tolerated,” he told the hearing.

Earlier today Lieutenant-Colonel Mario Leveillee argued Semrau should be dismissed from the Canadian Armed Forces with disgrace and sentenced to prison for two years less a day, a military prosecutor urged a court martial Tuesday.

More... http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/840611--capt-semrau-should-stay-in-the-military-defence-argues?bn=1

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Toronto Star:

Capt. Robert Semrau won't find out his fate until Sept. 8.

Military Judge Jean-Guy Perron said Tuesday it will take him that long to sort through the arguments and evidence offered by defence and proseution on appropriate sentencing.

(....)

The National Defence Act states that a person convicted on disgraceful conduct can be sentenced to prison time but other options include dismissal with disgrace from the armed forces, simple dismissal, reduction of rank, forfeiture of seniority, severe reprimand and or simple reprimand.

- edited to add following -
Or maybe September 9, if you believe a Tweet from a Canadian Press reporter and another from QMI/Sun Media reporter:

althiaraj: Capt. Robert #Semrau will be sentenced on Sept 9. Judge had set Sept 8 but just pushed it back a day. #cdnpoli

 

[GAP]

Hmmmm....sounds like his block leave is due....