Army colonel steers clear of conviction against soldier
Published on August 13th, 2010
Jim Day
Clearly, Col. Michael Pearson wasn’t keen to discuss the case of Capt. Robert Semrau, the Canadian soldier awaiting sentencing in a disgraceful conduct conviction for shooting a severely wounded insurgent in Afghanistan.
Pearson, the base commander of CFB Gagetown, was interviewed by The Guardian during his visit to P.E.I. Thursday.
Topics he was both eager and prepared to detail included an upcoming fundraising dinner in support of military families and injured soldiers in N.B. and P.E.I., his meeting with Premier Robert Ghiz in which the pair spoke about “issues of mutual interest and concern’’ and improvements that are being made to the aging building that is home to the P.E.I. Regiment.
Pearson tried to steer clear of sizing up Semrau, who unarguably took the law into his own hands by violating humanitarian law when he chose to fire two bullets into an Afghan soldier to spare the man from dying a slow, agonizing death.
Many have argued the action taken by Semrau was courageous and humanitarian, rather than a departure from the exemplary character and lauded military service he enjoyed leading up to the life-changing (and possible career-ending) incident in Afghanistan.
Asked if Semrau is a good soldier, Pearson replied: “I have nothing to say about that.’’
Why no comment?
“That’s because a sentence hasn’t been rendered and it’s hard for me to say. I didn’t review the evidence. I don’t know what to say.’’
Yet, the colonel, who moments earlier in the interview before he was urged to comment on Semrau, described a good soldier as being defined by three basic characteristics: loyalty, bravery and dedication.
A good soldier today, said Pearson, is no different than a good soldier of the past.
So, again, is Semrau a good soldier?
The evidence — or, more accurately, a military jury’s finding — concluded otherwise, noted Pearson.
While Semrau was acquitted of murder in the alleged mercy killing, he was found guilty of a lesser, but still serious offence for shooting a wounded, unarmed insurgent on Oct. 19, 2008, in Helmand province.
“A conviction for a disgraceful conduct is a conviction and that sort of sounds to me (like) not a good soldier,’’ said Pearson.
“I trust that the court martial made a proper decision.’’
Pearson says he is not looking to read anything into the length of Semrau’s sentence, set to be rendered in September, regardless of whether it appears harsh or light.
“It can’t make any difference,’’ he said.
“The law is bigger than the military and so the military are servants of the
law.’’
