Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Kirkhill]

Jim Seggie's post on the highway fire is an enervating answer to pbi's questions.

I sit on the fence and thank God I wasn't in either of those situations.

 

[George Wallace]

This was in todays Ottawa Citizen Opinion pages. 

LINK

Ghosts of Somalia


By Gary Younghusband, The Ottawa Citizen
August 7, 2010


Re: Military justice system was not fair to Capt. Semrau, Aug. 4.

The military judicial system is not meant to dispense justice; it is intended to enforce discipline.

Notwithstanding the verdict, there was nothing disgraceful about Capt. Robert Semrau's conduct. The only disgrace is what has been done to him by the military.

I'm sure the majority of combat arms personnel feel this way. The court martial was a knee-jerk reaction from the ghosts of Somalia with the senior brass wanting to demonstrate how squeaky clean the Canadian Forces have become. With Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson's attendance at the proceedings to sway the court martial judge's decision on severity of sentence comes the writing on the wall that Capt. Semrau will be booted from the military which is shameful. "When one door closes another opens": thank you for your service to Canada ,Capt. Semrau. Best wishes on your second career.

Gary Younghusband,

Cobden

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

 

[Michael OLeary]

The only disgrace is what has been done to him by the military.

So, what's the inference here? That it should have been swept under the rug? And the writer has the audacity to speak of "ghosts of Somalia"? Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed.  The only honorable course of action has been to let the military justice system work this through, as it has been doing. And in doing so, if some procedure or result leaves itself open to appeal, challenge and change, so be it. Those are also part of a balanced and fair judicial system.

How, exactly, would we have been treated in the press if the chain of command had "decided" this wasn't worth prosecuting, and then bits and pieces of the story leaked? You want to talk about "ghosts of Somalia"?

I'm sure the majority of combat arms personnel feel this way.

To the writer - Don't presume to speak for me or anyone else in uniform, on this or any other matter.  The suggestion that you presume that you can is nothing but arrogance.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I was wondering if members were allowed to make comments like this to the press?....

I'm guessing it's not impossible that shortly, the writer will be getting a chat of some sort from an element of the Cpl's chain of command.

 

[Haggis]

I'm guessing it's not impossible that shortly, the writer will be getting a chat of some sort from an element of the Cpl's chain of command.

Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".

 

[The Anti-Royal]

Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".

If I were in Cpl Dorrington's chain of command, our one-way discussion would consist of a review of CF policies on the ability of serving members to offer personal opinion in the media, while representing themselves as serving members.  That's it - that's all.  Whether her opinion is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant.

The philosophical aspects of the Semrau issue should be discussed around the water cooler or, even better, as the central topic of a commander's hour on Army ethics.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Given the polarized opinions on this case, both inside and outside of the CF, that chat could go one of two ways.  "Well done, Cpl, for speaking your mind". or "You were out of line in speaking out like that".

If I had to bet a loonie, though, given the potential for people WAY higher in the food chain probably bringing this to the attention of said chain of command, I'd go with Anti-Royal's version:

.... our one-way discussion would consist of a review of CF policies on the ability of serving members to offer personal opinion in the media, while representing themselves as serving members ....

 

[Haggis]

If I had to bet a loonie, though, given the potential for people WAY higher in the food chain probably bringing this to the attention of said chain of command, I'd go with Anti-Royal's version:

Agreed. However, the potential is there for an opposite reaction.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

So, what's the inference here? That it should have been swept under the rug? And the writer has the audacity to speak of "ghosts of Somalia"? Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed. 

How, exactly, would we have been treated in the press if the chain of command had "decided" this wasn't worth prosecuting, and then bits and pieces of the story leaked? You want to talk about "ghosts of Somalia"?

Have you reported every crime of which you have knowledge to authorities?  I doubt it.  Maybe you have and are very very lonely.  Hundreds of people probably heard rumours of the action and successfully ignored them.  As rumours are pervasive and endless they can be ignored, moreso if the consequences are distasteful. 

 

[armyvern]

Have you reported every crime of which you have knowledge to authorities?  I doubt it.  Maybe you have and are very very lonely.  Hundreds of people probably heard rumours of the action and successfully ignored them.  As rumours are pervasive and endless they can be ignored, moreso if the consequences are distasteful.

When evidence suggests that "the rumour is based upon an actual incident", then it's a whole other ballgame. That's what we have rules, investigations and the NDA for. It's been quite awhile since you've served; we are long over the coverup era. And, that's a very good thing.

Someone being very very lonely ( :) has absolutely zero to do with that.

 

[Gunner98]

When evidence suggests that "the rumour is based upon an actual incident", then it's a whole other ballgame. That's what we have rules, investigations and the NDA for. It's been quite awhile since you've served; we are long over the coverup era. And, that's a very good thing.

Someone being very very lonely ( :) has absolutely zero to do with that.

By the way DR, isn't one of the pillars we support through the mission there is to help them understand responsibility as in responsible government?

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

By the way DR, isn't one of the pillars we support through the mission there is to help them understand responsibility as in responsible government?

Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory.  Beating up our own doesn't help accomplish that.  The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.

Responsible government?  Once NATO is gone the guy with the biggest stick will rule.  The guy with a big stick and a grey beard.  Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sorry, we don't get to choose what laws we uphold or how they get prosecuted when wrongs are suspected or known to have been committed. 

True, but each of us decides ultimately which laws they choose to obey.  And should they decide to go against the grain, they take the chance on your second point.  In my old trade, we said " we don't get the boys in s**t, they get themselves in s**t.  No matter how many or what kind of rules you have over you it's always up to you if you want to follow them or not.  At your peril.

 

[jollyjacktar]

  Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.

This is something I said to our Terps, although I was not speaking of the seventh century ideals.  I said that the only people in Afghanistan who can make it a peacefully place with security and prosperity for all is the people of Afghanistan.  If they are not willing to make changes there is not a damn thing that anyone will do to effect change.  I explained more or less about Northern Ireland and how the ordinary folks got fed up with the troubles from both ends of the spectrum, said enough is enough and made change happen.  Of course, getting a tribalistic society amid the pressures to find unity enough for lasting change will be nigh on impossible I think.

 

[medicineman]

Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory. 

I'd have to say they've gotten used to wars without victory that have us stuck in the middle with pretty blue targets on our melons that go on forever - most of the people that were around when we were actually winning wars are either dead or getting on in years.  BTW - once we were entrenched in alot of those places, we were generally ignored by the public, even when guys were being sent home wounded or dead.

MM

 

[pbi]

Call me old fashioned but Canadians have gotten used to wars that end in victory.  Beating up our own doesn't help accomplish that.  The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.

Responsible government?  Once NATO is gone the guy with the biggest stick will rule.  The guy with a big stick and a grey beard.  Getting them out of the 7th century is something they will have to accomplish by themselves.

Dennis Ruhl: Why is holding people accountable for their actions as leaders "beating up our own"? What would you prefer? The good old "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" approach? I served through the Somalia period (and for a good few years before that) and I have no desire to ever, ever see our military sink to that level again. Perhaps if we'd had a bit stronger culture of accountability in those days (at various levels of command), we might have avoided what happened, or at least dealt with it in a more effective manner. Trying to hide things like this will not work, and will only make the end result much worse when things are finally revealed.

The required flip-flops between being Mother Theresa and Atilla the Hun can be problematic to victory, if victory was in the plan, were there actually a plan.

I'm not following here very well. (Age, no doubt...) What exactly do you mean by this? And how, in the circumstances that exist in Afghanistan (as opposed to WWII or Korea), would you define "victory" ? And, anyway, what is the logical connection between that and the issue of being held accountable under military law?

Cheers

 

[McG]

I don't see a serious problem with the time honoured Canadian tradition of discouraging such activity while overlooking it when it happens. 

Overlooking an activity when it happens is condoning the activity.  Once the precedent is set that a "discouraged" activity will be overlooked, the message is sent that the activity is not really discouraged but is actually acceptable.

That is not effective means to the ends of maintaining discipline, unless you believe it effective to enforce regulations through "stop or I shall stay stop again."

In any case ...

Military courts martial do not sacrifice fairness
Re: Military justice system was not fair to Semrau,
The Ottawa Citizen
Letters
04 Aug 2010

I wish to clarify some misconceptions about the roles and responsibilities of the key actors at a court martial and illustrate that courts martial are indeed rigorously fair.

Capt. Robert Semrau was tried by a General Court Martial, at which a military judge presides and at which the verdict is determined by a panel of military officers of or above the rank of the accused person. The panel is composed of experienced military members who are responsible for maintaining the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian Forces in order to ensure its operational effectiveness.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly recognizes the distinctive nature of military tribunals, and the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the necessity and legitimacy of a distinct military justice system.

The rank of prosecution and defence counsel is not relevant in a court martial. All of the legal counsel involved in this case on both sides are highly experienced and competent trial counsel. Prosecutors are assigned to files by the director of military prosecutions, and defence counsel are assigned by the director of defence counsel services in consultation with the accused person.

In the performance of these functions, these directors operate independently of the chain of command.

Military judges are independent and possess all of the constitutionally required objective hallmarks of judicial independence. As a result, the military chain of command has no control or influence over the judge's decision making throughout the trial, including sentencing. Military judges assess witness testimony based on the same principles as civilian judges, and make their decisions on sentence in accordance with objective principles of sentencing.

The court martial system is not intended to be identical to the civilian criminal justice system. It is designed to meet the unique needs of the military to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale in order to ensure the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.

However, in doing so, it does not sacrifice fairness, transparency or justice. It is fully subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to the supervisory jurisdiction of civilian appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lt.-Col. Bruce MacGregor
Director of Law and Military Justice Policy

 

[jollyjacktar]

PBI, I agree in that we don't want to see the systemic problems that were evident in the Somalia era come back to  the CF.  I believe we are past that now and this mentality has been cut out.  I was in 1CMBG at the time and yes, there were some bad apples around in those days.  They were dealt with and I hope this problem has been resolved in the prevailing years.

But while both incidents are bad, I think they are not related other than both the men who came into contact with our personnel were prisoners.  Once you touch them, and take control of them, they are prisoners and yes you are legally bound to treat them accordingly.  But other than that they are not related due to the fact of what went on and the reasoning or lack thereof behind these acts.  MCpl Matchee and Capt Semrau are polar opposites in mentality and intentions.  Capt Semrau although convicted of a crime, is not in my opinion a lowlife as the other one is.  His intentions were, despite the end result not meant to be cruel and cause suffering.  I believe it is a disservice to lump them both in together.  I also hope we will not tear ourselves apart either.

 

[pbi]

Jollyjacktar:

They were dealt with and I hope this problem has been resolved in the prevailing years.

I hope so too, very much. The problem is that we can't just rest on our laurels about the fact that we've made a huge effort to fix things since those days. Any institution, including (especially...) an army, runs a very high risk of going bad if it isn't subject to regular scrutiny and accountability., both internally and from without. Once we set the standard of what we expect, we haven't got much choice but to go on enforcing it, or risk a backward slide.

I believe it is a disservice to lump them both in together.

As do I. I certainly never meant to suggest that Capt Semrau's actions were motivated by the same things that may have motivated those who committed war crimes in our past history (including Somalia), or those who tried to cover them up. If I appeared to suggest that, then I must apologize.

What I did mean, and what I would not apologize for, is that the danger to the Army (and to all of us who serve in it) is very much the same now as it was then. The danger is caused when people (at any rank level) begin to think that they aren't accountable to a higher authority for what they do while they are in a theatre of operations. Capt Semrau himself may not have believed that; he may have understood quite clearly that he would be called to answer for what he did, but decided to do it anyway.

That is quite a different mentality than the one I am worried about, the one that seems to suggest that he should never have been held to account in the first place, or that it "just didn't matter", or it a conspiracy by "the brass", or (most disturbing) the thinly veiled inferences that any soldiers who report these acts are somehow worse than those who committ them. This kind of thinking, sometimes dressed up as the "wisdom" of "old soldiers", or as a somehow heroic and mystical code that only a few "true warriors" can understand, is the thing that worries me. It is attractive and has a nice "rebel" ring to it, as very bad ideas often do.

Cheers

 

[jollyjacktar]

Not having attended the CM, read the transcripts, reports, results of investigations or knowing either the Capt or his Cpl personally as some do here, I do not therefore have all the facts and can only go on what I have had access to.

Perhaps it is as a result of my former vocation, but I always look at motive and mens rea (guilty mind) in a case such as this.  My questions are as ff: For the Cpl.  1. what was his motivation for coming forward with his information.  Was it because he felt that a crime had been committed and should be answered for.  Or was it as had been suggested as revenge for the Capt not wanting him to be on the team as he was not meeting the expectations of the Capt.  Why did it take him two months to come forward.  If someone reports a crime because it is a crime and seeks justice that is one thing,  if you add in revenge as the prime motivation they might then be seen to be some form of a rat in some quarters.

2.  As for the Capt.  There was no body recovered, no evidence that the Talib was in fact actually injured or killed by rifle fire or evidence that the Talib was even alive at the time of this alleged shooting.  Therefore how was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Capt actually shot into the body of this Talib.  He did not give evidence in his defense IIRC, so unless I missed something with the information I have I personally am not satisfied that a crime did in fact happen as alleged.  Yes, he WAS convicted of a crime, but did he just not shoot beside the body and make it look from a distance that he shot this person?  If there are others out there like myself that do not have the full story and wonder just what the hell really happened that might lead to some folks feeling he should not have been held accountable or had been abused by the system.  The sentence when it comes down will I fear only add fuel to the fires of both sides of this case.