Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Dennis Ruhl]

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.

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

I don't think Canadian soldiers should be beating teenage thieves to death but  I don't like second guessing actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained.  I took a couple courses at Petawawa way back, met a few Airborne and had one as an instructor.  Some of those guys were caricatures of soldiers, and I thought that to be a good thing.  The guilty were punished but unfortunately amid massive budget cuts, the Somali incident provided the impetus to disband the regiment.

By my Atiila the Hun/Mother Theresa flip-flop I meant that if you want soldiers, send soldiers. If you want social workers, send social workers.  Soldiers do soldier things and micromanaging their battlefield actions  has no positive outcome.  As to what constutes victory in Afghanistan, how am I to know?  The politians don't know, nor do I think the generals.  I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties. A laudable goal?  Tell me.

 

[pbi]

Why did it take him two months to come forward.

Only he knows for sure, but perhaps he was wrestling with a combination of fear and uncertainty? After all, there aren't very many of us who can just pop up and accuse a superior, particularly a well-liked and respected superior, of a serious crime, are there?

they might then be seen to be some form of a rat in some quarters.

No doubt some people do see the Cpl as a "rat": that is exactly what I was referring to. If we create an environment in which peope are afraid to report what they reasonably believe is wrongdoing, where does that leave us?

The sentence when it comes down will I fear only add fuel to the fires of both sides of this case.

I'm pretty sure there won't be a sentence that will please everybody. It will be seen in various quarters as too lenient or too harsh. But I'm actually not all that worried about the sentence, or even if he stays in the Army. What I'm worried about is that everybody remembers that we are supposed to be ruled by law and accountable to it. And that when we choose to break it (as any one of us can, at any time: nobody holds a gun to our heads...), we understand that we will be called to answer for it.

Cheers

 

[pbi]

I don't think Canadian soldiers should be beating teenage thieves to death but  I don't like second guessing actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained. 

Ok....so why bother having any of the rules and regulations (LOAC, ROE, Geneva Convention, QR&O), etc that are intended to influence those same  "...actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained...". Didn't events in Somalia occur under the pressure and tensions and frustration of operations in a harsh and hostile place? So how come we can agree that THAT behaviour can be judged, but other behaviour can't be? If we can't "second guess" people who were involved in a particular incident, how can military discipline be enforced during operations?

the Somali incident provided the impetus to disband the regiment

Right, it did. And I never want to see that kind of thing happen again. Particularly not by cultivating a mentality that says we cxan ignore violations, or somehow rationalize them away.

Soldiers do soldier things and micromanaging their battlefield actions  has no positive outcome

Yes, soldiers do those things. And throughout history (not just the last decade) those "soldier things" have included a very wide range of activities. Soldiers whose skill repertoire is limited  to killing and smashing things might be good for a war of annihilation, or desperate fight for national survival, but not for all the things in between that actually occupy most  armies' operational time.  I don't see how enforcing  a reasonable standard of accountability and discipline from soldiers is the same as "micromanaging their battlefield actions". On the contrary, I'd suggest that a basic requirement for successful mission command (generally accepted as the opposite of micromanagement)  is the ability to trust in the discipline and professionalism of your soldiers.

I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.

Based on what?

Cheers

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Quote
I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.


Based on what?


I've been running a bit off topic but  -  based on the fact that our side has been there for 8 years and the situation has become more critical than ever, it is becoming increasingly obvious who is in charge of the situation.  Did anyone actually ponder the "out" when they did the "in" other than circling a date on the calendar?

 

[Teflon]

Quote
I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.


Based on what?


I've been running a bit off topic but  -  based on the fact that our side has been there for 8 years and the situation has become more critical than ever, it is becoming increasingly obvious who is in charge of the situation.  Did anyone actually ponder the "out" when they did the "in" other than circling a date on the calendar?

Not a bit off topic, that has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[armyvern]

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.
...

Fuck this gets tiring.

The testimony was:

Afghan medic accused Semrau of killing
Last Updated: Friday, March 26, 2010 | 12:46 PM ET Comments89Recommend35.

Five words of broken English from an Afghan army medic — "Capt. Rob boom, boom Taliban" — led to second-degree murder charges against Capt. Robert Semrau, his court martial heard Friday.

At the military trial in Gatineau, Que., Maj. Steve Nolan testified that a medic named Gulamjaan made the accusation about two months after a badly wounded insurgent died on a battlefield in Helmand province.

The man was complaining: "Helmand, no good. Mission, no good. Taliban, no good."

Then he dropped the bombshell about "Capt. Rob."

Nolan said the words, accompanied by a shooting gesture toward the ground, prompted him to start asking questions about the October 2008 incident. Semrau is accused of shooting the wounded insurgent, who had been disarmed.

Nolan went first to his sergeant-major, he testified.

"We started to talk about the possibilities of what this meant. I came to the conclusion there was a very real possibility that a crime had been committed."

Nolan had the sergeant-major speak to a private who was on the battlefield at the time of the incident. He then spoke to his commanding officer, Col. Joseph Shipley.

"I told him that there was an allegation, or the possibility of an allegation from the Afghans ... they should probably investigate it."

Semrau was pulled out of the field shortly afterward by military police investigators.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/semrau-court-martial.html#ixzz0jL9ZWUlK

Before anyone starts branding anyone as a rat, perhaps they should "read the transcripts, reports, results of investigations...". Despite testimony, the crap and gossip still perpetuates.

Enough already. Each and every troop who was questionned as part of the investigation and gave their statements did their jobs as they were required to do IAW mil law - honourably too, I'll add.

 

[Franko]

Quote
I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties.


Based on what?


I've been running a bit off topic but  -  based on the fact that our side has been there for 8 years and the situation has become more critical than ever, it is becoming increasingly obvious who is in charge of the situation.  Did anyone actually ponder the "out" when they did the "in" other than circling a date on the calendar?

Not a bit off topic, that has nothing to do with this topic.

I concur.

Back on topic please.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Somehow folks managed to steer this away from the stab job that Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson gave Capt. Semrau and that little bit of rattery is still sticking in my craw.

From all accounts the Capt. had a fine career until this incident, he has been publicly convicted, with nothing hidden and he will need to pay some kind of price, but I find those of you who willfully agree with Gen. Thompson like a pack of Pavilion dogs that he must be removed from the Forces rather sad.

Of course you won't mind explaining to his kids how they can't afford to own a house anymore, or go to college, or even a vacation just because, in your haste to jump into bed with a backstabbing chain of command, you must carry on the nod.

He  MAYBE he screwed up this one time, let him finish his time in one of the thousands of fall-down-officer jobs that exist in the system. [he might even manage to put some integrity into some of those folks].

I'm certainly not asking for a "Labbe" job.......oh, thats right, he had "good" friends.  :[ some of you are even on this site]

My 2 cents.............................

 

[Kat Stevens]

Nice one, Bruce.  Nail, head, hit.

 

[pbi]

Of course you won't mind explaining to his kids how they can't afford to own a house anymore, or go to college, or even a vacation just because, in your haste to jump into bed with a backstabbing chain of command, you must carry on the nod.

Unless you know all the players in the chain of command in question (I don't), that broad condemnation seems a bit stiff.  I haven't read the transcripts, so I have to confess that I don't know in what context Gen Thompson made his statement, what the complete text of it was, or what the judge instructed the members to do about it (or about any other witness statement), but isn't it possible that he, and the rest of the CofC, actually disapproved of what they believed Semrau had done? (Based on what they knew?) Would Gen' Thompson's expression then be "backstabbing" or stating what he truly believed ? If leaders can't accept a certain type of illegal behaviour, then shouldn't they say so? I do know one or two of the people involved in the process, and an epithet like "backstabber" isn't even remotely fair or close. These people were not rubbing their hands in bloodthirsty glee, then or now. They will also live with the results of this trial.

Just about every soldier we sentence to punishment, or compulsorily release, is going to suffer in some way. In some cases his family will also suffer. We have to look these soldiers in the face when we enact punishments or administrative actions against them. Does that mean we do nothing, or automatically give lenient punishment, so that nobody calls us "backstabbers"?

Capt Semrau is not an intellectual abstraction, nor a figure in a morality play, nor a cardboard cut out. He is a real man, with a family and people who love and respect him, and will continue to do so no matter how this ends.  Nothing changes any of that. Capt Semrau made a decision to act in a certain way, probably based on what he thought was right at the moment. There but for the grace of God go half of the people on this board: any one of us could have made the same decision, rightly or wrongly. But all of us, especially any of us in any position of authority, would have to expect to be judged by the system we agreed to be a part of. And, in the end, possibly found guilty and punished in some way. I don't understand how we can operate a modern military in a democratic country on any other basis.

 

[Occam]

According to the media, the statement that was attributed to BGen Thompson was this:

“It’s such a blow to the credibility of the institution that I don’t think we have any other option but to relieve him from service”

I'll admit that I don't know what constraints (if any) there are supposed to be on the testimony given by witnesses for the prosecution during the sentencing phase.  That said, I'm not certain that the CoC is supposed to be making suggestions as to punishment.  Isn't the punishment supposed to be an issue dealt with by the military judge?

If the CoC wants to release him, that's fine - but their wishes (and that's all they are) should translate into administrative action, and not encroach on disciplinary action which is the role of the CM.  Isn't that the reason why CMs are dealt with by military judges and not by the CoC?

 

[KevinB]

Capt Semrau made a decision to act in a certain way, probably based on what he thought was right at the moment. There but for the grace of God go half of the people on this board: any one of us could have made the same decision, rightly or wrongly. But all of us, especially any of us in any position of authority, would have to expect to be judged by the system we agreed to be a part of. And, in the end, possibly found guilty and punished in some way. I don't understand how we can operate a modern military in a democratic country on any other basis.

AMEN

While I disagree the logic of the verdict based on the small excerpts of the CM I have seen released in the media, I do not in anyway believe that soldiers, contractors or anyone should not be accountable for their actions.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

(Based on what they knew?)

Bullshit......................while being a witness for the prosecution he/they shouldn't be speaking "based on what they knew", he/they should be speaking based on the EVIDENCE brought forth at the trial, otherwise its hearsay and certainly not admissible.

..and from everything I've read he states that he is speaking for the chain of command. If I truly believed what I was saying I would state that it's my opinion also and if I didn't believe it and I was just being a pull-string caricature for th......................naw, no need, it would never happen.


EDIT; for KevinB, and I have also stated that a price must be paid, all I am upset about is the job his boss did on him. With all the Gen's. floating around they had to send the one whom this incident left a stain on his tour command?

 

[dapaterson]

According to the media, the statement that was attributed to BGen Thompson was this:

“It’s such a blow to the credibility of the institution that I don’t think we have any other option but to relieve him from service”

I'll admit that I don't know what constraints (if any) there are supposed to be on the testimony given by witnesses for the prosecution during the sentencing phase.  That said, I'm not certain that the CoC is supposed to be making suggestions as to punishment.  Isn't the punishment supposed to be an issue dealt with by the military judge?

If the CoC wants to release him, that's fine - but their wishes (and that's all they are) should translate into administrative action, and not encroach on disciplinary action which is the role of the CM.  Isn't that the reason why CMs are dealt with by military judges and not by the CoC?

Witnesses called in sentencing are not bound by prior testimony, though they are bound by the findings of the court.  Judges make sentences based on the recommendations of the prosecution and defence, taking into account the testimony both during the trial and during the sentencing phase.  But it is ultimately the judge's sentnce - he integrates the information provided by the prosecution and the defence and that was given in testimony and crafts a sentence to meet the aims of discipline - and his statement to the court will explain how and why he reached his conclusions, what factors weighed heavilly, lightly, and which were ignored.

In sentencing, there is more leeway for testimony.  Opinions can be solicited - indeed, the defence asked the opinion of the CO of 3 RCR, LCol Cameron.  Other evidence can be introduced as to the character of the accused or other information relevant in deterining the sentence.

There is a significant difference between an administrative dismissal from the CF and a disciplinary dismissal.  That is likely why BGen Thompson came out recommending that the military judge impose a sentence including dismissal.

BGen Thompson was sent to the CM because he fills the position of the Chief of Operations for the Land Staff.  As such, the day to day operations of the Army are under his purview (of course, CLS rides over top).  Thus, he was the logical general to send to this CM.  Who else could have been sent?  BGen Patch, of ADM(Mat)?  LGen Davis, from Brussels?  MGen Bertrand, as Chief of Programme?  VAdm Rouleau, as the VCDS?  This case deals with an Army officer, engaged in land operations, and the prosecution sought out an Army general serving in the Army to testify.  That's a limited pool - CLS, ACLS, COS Ops, COS Strat, Comd LFDTS, 4x LFA Comds.  The only ones in the direct chain of command would be Comd LFCA, COS Ops and CLS.

 

[vonGarvin]

BGen Thompson was sent to the CM because he fills the position of the Chief of Operations for the Land Staff.  As such, the day to day operations of the Army are under his purview (of course, CLS rides over top).  Thus, he was the logical general to send to this CM.  Who else could have been sent?  BGen Patch, of ADM(Mat)?  LGen Davis, from Brussels?  MGen Bertrand, as Chief of Programme?  VAdm Rouleau, as the VCDS?  This case deals with an Army officer, engaged in land operations, and the prosecution sought out an Army general serving in the Army to testify.  That's a limited pool - CLS, ACLS, COS Ops, COS Strat, Comd LFDTS, 4x LFA Comds.  The only ones in the direct chain of command would be Comd LFCA, COS Ops and CLS.

Given that the offense was comitted when the member was deployed on foreign operations, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have a member of the chain of command from CEFCOM?

 

[dapaterson]

I don't know who set the witness list.  But CEFCOM tends to take a very narrow view of their role - once a solider is handed back to the force generator, CEFCOM`s involvement is greatly reduced.

 

[SeanNewman]

DAP,

BGen Thompson was more than likely sent because he was Comd TFK when it happened. 

Bruce,

Just because someone defends the integrity and character od BGen Thompson does not mean they are hanging Rob out to dry.

I know both of them, and like most I likely wouldn't want to be in either of their shoes because both ethical challenges will bring people against you who disagree (see my signature block).

It is very easy to be critical of leadership, because a lot of people don't understand how heavy the burden can be.  What would you rather BGen Thompson do?  Look the other way?  Sweep it under the rug?  That hasn't exactly done the CF a lot of good in the past.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't get why people are taking such a black and white view on this thing.  It is ridiculous to say that the captain shouldn't have been disciplined and that it never should have made it into the light once it came up (even if it shouldn't have) and it is equally ridiculous to say that he is such a blight on the military as so that his name should never be uttered and he should be cast out from the CF with maximum disgrace. 
The man made a hard decision, based on (IMO) a very brutal but compassionate stance.  There is a convergence here of what is right and what is lawful and I think there are an infinite number of opinions as to both and how they intersect. 
Again, my opinion, the question should be "is the CF better with or without Captain Semrau"?  In the scheme of things, I believe the answer to that is "No, it would not be better without him".  Everyone from the get-go knew the murder/attempt murder were non-starters.  Those were to make a big flash/bang for the public and politicians.  The only charges that could stick are the ultra interpretive military infractions.  Has he been punished?  Yeah, I'd say so.  Will a year in Club Ed make him a better person/serve any purpose?  I don't think so.  Will ejecting him and losing his skill set/ability/leadership in any way shape or form help the CF?  I wouldn't appear so. 
I'm willing to bet there are plenty of units out there that would be thrilled to have a skilled and honourable leader like Captain Semrau as their RSS.  If he's too soiled and icky for the ivory ranks, send him down to the dirty Mo.  We're all about the end result. 

 

[Brutus]

Although I personally disagree with BGen Thompson's assessment, I am not in his position, and it is not within my purview to definitively state whether the good Captain is suitable for continued employment in the CF. I believe he was 'in his lane' when making those comments as it IS within his purview. Essentially, I can disagree with his assessment, but I don't believe one can argue his professional authority or credibility on the issue itself.

Although I can sympathize with the Captain's situation, and logically follow his decision making process (although I was not there, don't know him, etc.), I don't believe it is right to fully exonerate him due to the blatant illegality of the act he was accused of. You could argue that the Law does not account for the extraordinary circumstance he found himself in, but the solution is not to willingly violate the law. The cost to the Cf of outright exonerating the man would be, IMHO, potentially catastrophic. As we are held to a very high level of discipline, to excuse a significant breach of discipline in such a public way would provide some justification for other soldiers to act in a way that is contrary to our ethos, laws, and culture.

This is a classic moral dilemma - condemn him and you condemn a man who by all accounts acted out of pure and humane motivations. Exonerate him and you encourage unacceptable behaviour from others who will use this ruling as justification for their dishonourable conduct.

 

[dapaterson]

DAP,

BGen Thompson was more than likely sent because he was Comd TFK when it happened. 

Numerous media reports stated

Brig.-Gen. Thompson told Capt. Semrau's hearing...he was speaking for the Canadian Forces chain of command in making his recommendation.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/Semrau+should+discharged+General/3325965/story.html#ixzz0wETnJetG

Thus, BGen Thompson was speaking on behalf of the chain of command, and not as former commander TFK.