When Capt. Robert Semrau’s court martial starts next Monday, it will be the first time in the long history of the Canadian army that a soldier on the battlefield, in a war, faces murder charges for killing a wounded enemy.
In no way should this imply that it’s the first time this has happened.
In every war Canada has fought, things happen on the battlefield that rules and traditions forbid, but which are deemed necessary at the time. Invariably, silence prevails.
Semrau’s patrol of mainly Afghan soldiers, for whom he was a mentor and trainer, was ambushed in October 2008 in the volatile Helmand province. Two months later, he was charged with murdering a gravely wounded Taliban fighter.
When the ambush was broken, two shots were heard and it was presumed the wounded Taliban insurgent was killed. Later Semrau, 35, was charged with second-degree murder, attempted murder (odd, but one supposes this is in case the murder charges collapse). Other charges are “behaving in a disgraceful manner,” and “negligently performing a military duty” — both of which seem absurd, considering Semrau’s exemplary record of three years in the British army (Macedonia and Iraq) before joining the Canadian army in 2005 and serving with the Royal Canadian Regiment in Afghanistan.
It would seem Semrau’s choice on the battlefield that Oct. 19 was either to leave the wounded man to the mercies of Afghan soldiers, or to abort the patrol to attend to the mortally wounded man.
Aborting the patrol would have meant the ambush had succeeded in deterring the patrol. Semrau opted to continue the mission, which was his prime duty.
However the trial in Gatineau, Que., turns out, it is unprecedented and startling.
And in my view, should never be taking place.
[More]
In the real world, it is obvious that the trial is unnecessary and an affront both to the members of the CF, but also all normal thinking Canadians. But, in the politically correct world of Ottawa, where such decisions are made and their spin assessed, the trial is essential — to demonstrate to our enemies how much we love and respect them. Because only through love and respect can you win wars against such an implaccable foe as the Taliban or the jihadists.
We cannot win this war — or any war for that matter — under such political leadership.
I watched a war documentary not so long ago on the History channel. It showed Japanese soldiers jumping from an island into the South Pacific ocean to get away after having been defeated at a horrific cost of America lives. As the enemy soldiers swam for their lives the American troops calmly, as though on the rifle range, set up and began sniping them in their heads as they bobbed in the waves. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with them doing that. Today we have this. I wonder if liberalism will ever enable the west to roundly and soundly defeat a ruthless enemy today?
Been – how would you feel if the roles had been reversed?
Probably dead.
I would like to see a people’s referendum roll out right now as to whether all charges be dropped against this soldier as they should be. The Toronto crowd are reading this today and so should be informed. If the people voted on this today, this kangaroo court would be ditched at the level of 80 percent.
Re: #5 — We have laws Dora and while I understand where Peter is coming from (he’s right) the officer is going to have to go through the mill now that it’s out in a public forum. I do not expect him to be convicted (there’s no evidence) but that is the price we all pay for public service.
If there’s an applicable law here, especially in a clear guerilla warfare scenario, the legislature should move to purge it. Our soldiers are already in hell in the quagmire that is Afghanistan. It’s too high a price to pay from any perspective. And we’re speaking up for that express reason.
You can be that Taliban Jack, Dosangh and Rae will be up in arms about this and advocating for the rule of law or some other bull$hit sound bite. We have a fifth column in Canada, of that I have no doubt.
Nya, nya, nya!! How’d you like it if they did that to you….and other brain dead statements. They would have if they could have.