IMHO, Mr Beswetherick's letter is ill-informed nonsense. In particular:
The Canadian Forces judicial system fails to provide justice to its members.
Really? Based on what? How many summary trials/courts martial has Mr B. participated in? Has he compared how our military judicial system works compared with what happens on civvy street? My guess is the overwhelming majority of our offences get handled swiftly and fairly in comparison to "downtown".
The four members of the panel selected by the military failed to include anyone who ever had been in combat, and three were senior in rank to him
What do either of these have to do with anything? Since when do members of a CM need to have shared experiences with the accused? On that basis, it might become quite difficult to conduct CMs. I would like to see convincing evidence that the rank of those sitting as members of a CM has anything to do with the nature of the verdicts they pass. I think what Mr B would liked to have seen was a CM loaded with people who would have been prejudiced in favour of the accused.
In addition, the military selected a lieutenant colonel as the prosecutor, but left the defence to a major.
Again, an irrelevancy. What possible difference could the lawyers' ranks make? It's about their experience and skill, not their rank.
The chain of command then sent a brigadier-general, Denis Thompson, to attempt to influence the decision of the judge, a lieutenant-colonel, concerning the sentence. Thompson stated: "I don't think we have any other option but to release him from the service."
The chain of command didn't "send" anybody. CMs don't work that way in Canada. The calling of witnesses is not a chain of command decision, for obvious reasons. They're summoned by the court. In my experience, the Officer of the Court makes sure they are present, although this may have changed) Again, Mr B misses the point that the purpose of calling ANY witness in ANY trial is to influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Otherwise, why would you bother with witnesses?
Thompson stated: "I don't think we have any other option but to release him from the service."
His assessment as an experienced senior officer, which he was no doubt requested to provide by the court. I doubt he just piped up and offered it. Like the opinion of any witness, the court can consider it or dismiss it, subject to the presiding judge's instructions.
If the chain of command believes that Semrau must be released from the military, then the Chief of the Defence Staff should have had the moral courage to deliver that message personally rather than send a senior staff officer as his errand boy.
Oh, good idea. On this principle, perhaps the CDS should attend every summary trial and court martial in the entire CF so that all present get it from the horse's mouth and not from those nasty flunky COs, Formation Commanders, and members of CMs. Another indication that Mr B doesn't really have much functional idea how things work.
Semrau's sentencing has less to do with justice than with maintaining the reputation of Canada's military and particularly of its senior officers.
Well, this is a completely unfounded and silly statement (the CM system is by intent separate from the chain of command, and its decisions subject to review by the Court Martials Appeal process), but let's consider it for a second. Actually, a big part of the purpose of having a military discipline system IS to maintain the reputation of the military. That's why we have offences like "Conduct Prejudicial", etc. An undisciplined military very quickly gets a bad reputation, as it should. And, by extension, the reputation of a military attaches itself to the leadership (senior officers). So, that much is true, I guess. But, I fail to see exactly how trying this Capt for shooting a wounded enemy, with all of its attendant publicity and controversy, can be seen as a conspiracy to maintain the image of various senior officers. Wouldn't the reverse be true, as this offence happened on their watch?
Brigadier-General Thompson asked the judge for a sentence which would be harsh enough to send a message to members of the Forces.
OH? Was he the President of the CM? The Prosecutor? Did BGen Thompson actually "ask for a sentence", or did he offer his opinion/recommendation when requested to do so?
A harsh sentence will ensure that the message is "Don't trust the system" because fairness and justice will take second place to other considerations.
Garbage. The accused's case was subject to very broad scrutiny almost as soon as the story broke. For whatever his reasons were at the moment, Capt Semrau made a decision for which, as a good officer, he must reasonably have known he would eventually have to face the consequences. You may not like that, and you may feel that only those on the scene have a right to judge, and that a "code of silence" would have been the better way to handle this. (That worked well in Somalia, right?) The point is that, based on the evidence, the court didn't agree. The sentence, like all military sentences, was most definitely intended to send a message: remember that it is a Code of Service
Discipline we are talking about here: it is intended to send exemplary messages The message here is "Follow the LOAC: don't shoot the helpless wounded, even if they are the enemy".
Cheers
