Capt. Robert Semrau Charged With Murder in Afghanistan

[Gunner98]

All I know is that he's been accused of something and he's going before a court martial to decide guilt or innocence.

I feel the need to state the obvious - the finding will be guilty or not guilty.  Once you are charged and subject to the judicial process you will not be found "innocent".  Innocence can only be claimed by the finding of another person guilty of the same single act or by having the charges dismissed.  There are many reasons for a "not guilty" finding which  in the case of courts martial is "reasonable doubt."

As for mercy killing, that is whole different story best left to the world of advanced care directives and compassionate medical practitioners and not soldiers on a battlefield.  In the end we will all die, what is in question in the "mercy scenarios" is whether it should be decision, a consequence, a natural or un-natural cause.

 

[vonGarvin]

I feel the need to state the obvious - the finding will be guilty or not guilty.  Once you are charged and subject to the judicial process you will not be found "innocent".  Innocence can only be claimed by the finding of another person guilty of the same single act or by having the charges dismissed.  There are many reasons for a "not guilty" finding which  in the case of courts martial is "reasonable doubt."

Fair enough. 

 

[ballz]

This is getting off topic (in any case the Captain has not been charged with mercy killing nor has he offered it as a defence), but I take issue with your comparing how we treat pets with how we treat the terminally ill. Pets are not people, they are animals. We can also put pets down when they become an inconvenience to us.

The comparison is still very real, whether you take issue with it or not.

In countries where assisted-suicide is legal, the terminally ill can/will have a loved one "put them down" when they become an inconvenience to their family.

Assisted suicide here is illegal, because a majority of people decided it was inhumane and immoral. It is also illegal to euthanize a pet yourself since it could be inhumane if done improperly.

Has there been any threads on assisted-suicide on this board? I feel like we're headed there...


Back to the topic at hand...

I'm not trying to take sides here because of my own personal bias, but since the burden of proof lays with the prosecution, and they can only prove he fired off 2 shots, and can't even really prove he fired them into the "victim," and even if they could prove that, without a body and an autopsy and all, at the very worst couldn't he just say "Yeah, I shot them. But they were already dead. I was just being a prick and taking out some personal frustration on a corpse."

And the worst charge he could get, which I can't think of the name right now, but it would be significantly less punishment than a murder charge....

 

[PMedMoe]

Has there been any threads on assisted-suicide on this board? I feel like we're headed there...

There is now:  Mercy Killing? Euthanasia? Split From Capt. Semrau Thread

And the worst charge he could get, which I can't think of the name right now, but it would be significantly less punishment than a murder charge....

Indignity to a body, perhaps? 

 

[ballz]

Indignity to a body, perhaps?

Is that the name of the charge? It is what I was talking about, I'm not sure what the "proper" name is. Anywho, everyone knows what we're talking about, anyone know the min and max sentences?

I should add a disclaimer to my other post: I'm not advocating he lies in court. He can sit pretty and keep his mouth shut. I'm just saying if I was on the jury, I'd be bringing that "reasonable" possibility up...

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Military seeks publication ban in murder case
Capt. Robert Semrau charged with killing wounded Taliban soldier
Last Updated: Thursday, February 4, 2010 | 12:58 PM ET
The Canadian Press

Capt. Robert Semrau faces a second-degree murder charge for his alleged shooting of a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan in October. (Canadian Press)

Military prosecutors are seeking a publication ban on some of the evidence to be presented at the court martial of a Canadian officer accused of killing a wounded Taliban fighter on the battlefield.

Lawyers will ask the court on Friday to ban the public from hearing the entire contents of a witness affidavit to be used against Capt. Robert Semrau. Semrau was charged with second-degree murder for allegedly shooting the presumed insurgent in Afghanistan's Helmand province in October.

The statements would have to be weighed behind closed doors.

One military legal expert calls it a highly unusual move that's clearly aimed at protecting the identity of the witness who provided the statement.

Affidavits are usually accepted in high-profile cases only when witnesses have died, or there is some other extreme circumstance, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau.

There are a number of witnesses whose identity the government would not want revealed, for one reason or another, including members of the highly secretive JTF-2 commando unit, intelligence officers, or even foreign military members.

But Drapeau said the inability of Semrau's lawyer to challenge the evidence raises questions about whether the infantry officer, who was mentoring Afghan soldiers at the time of the alleged killing, will get a fair trial.

© The Canadian Press, 2010

Thanks MODS.....

 

[The Bread Guy]

I've forgotten almost all I knew about courts martial - any possibility/provision in the law/rules for in-camera testimony to be heard by the panel, but not the public?

 

[Loachman]

I'm just saying if I was on the jury, I'd be bringing that "reasonable" possibility up...

If you were on a jury, you'd be listening to the evidence and arguments presented, and weighing same.

You have no ability to bring anything up.

 

[dapaterson]

I've forgotten almost all I knew about courts martial - any possibility/provision in the law/rules for in-camera testimony to be heard by the panel, but not the public?

Yes.  CMs have a good deal of flexibility and can close the doors to the public where warranted (QR&O volume II is wonderful light reading).


One peripheral question:  Capt Semrau's DEU shows no ribbons.  Reports state he has prior service in the UK.  Given he's a member of The RCR, I'd have thought the Bn Adjt would have requested permission for him to wear his UK decorations; given that they're from another Commonwealth country, it's relatively straightforward.

 

[Haggis]

Is that the name of the charge? It is what I was talking about, I'm not sure what the "proper" name is. Anywho, everyone knows what we're talking about, anyone know the min and max sentences?

From the Canadian Criminal Code:

182. Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178.

 

[mariomike]

at the very worst couldn't he just say "Yeah, I shot them. But they were already dead. I was just being a prick and taking out some personal frustration on a corpse."

I am not at all suggesting any similarity to the subject case. I only know what is reported in the papers.
However, what you said reminds me of a book I borrowed from the library. If memory serves, there was some speculation that is what might have happened in that case:
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo4/no2/book-livre-04-eng.asp

Again, any similarity to the subject, or any other case is purely co-incidental.

Ref. Reply #12:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=sv08d58gjk3po3s57qp1ejhgh3&topic=67039/post-624944#msg624944

From what I recall reading in the book, the man executed may, or may not, have believed that the man he shot was already dead. There seemed to be some doubts raised.

 

[1911CoLt45]

:2c:

This is a war, and when faced with the crappy rules of engagement and all the other red tape that the bureaucrats throw at soldiers in the west I cant believe that more "murders" happen. due to frustration. 

 

[Infanteer]

:2c:

Judging by the length and extent of your service, you have no authority to comment on our Rules of Engagement and whether they are crappy or not.

 

[vonGarvin]

Judging by the length and extent of your service, you have no authority to comment on our Rules of Engagement and whether they are crappy or not.

I would also offer that Rules of Engagement are considered to be of a sensitive nature, and I would avoid commenting on them at all.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Yes.  CMs have a good deal of flexibility and can close the doors to the public where warranted (QR&O volume II is wonderful light reading).


One peripheral question:  Capt Semrau's DEU shows no ribbons.  Reports state he has prior service in the UK.  Given he's a member of The RCR, I'd have thought the Bn Adjt would have requested permission for him to wear his UK decorations; given that they're from another Commonwealth country, it's relatively straightforward.

When this case first came to light in the press, I recall seeing that Semrau had only served 3 years in the British Army. It is entirely possible that he did not deploy at all in that time.

 

[TheHead]

Ahh screw it  

I deleted the post. I'll let someone else sort him out.

 

[old medic]

Court martial of soldier in Taliban killing on hold
The Canadian Press
04 Feb 2010
copy at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100204/court_martial_100204/20100204?hub=Canada

OTTAWA — The military judge overseeing the court martial of a Canadian soldier, accused of killing a wounded Taliban fighter on the battlefield, has adjourned until next week.

The case against Capt. Robert Semrau will resume Wednesday in Gatineau, Que., when the composition of the panel will decided. *(gic)

A panel of officers decides the fate of the accused in military trials.

It is unclear whether the judge will deal with a request by military prosecutors to slap a publication ban on some of the evidence.

The court will be asked to ban the entire contents of a witness affidavit and to keep the name of the person a secret.

Semrau was charged with second degree murder following a prolonged October 2008 clash involving Afghan troops, their Canadian mentors, British forces and the Taliban in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province.

* grammar in context

 

[FastEddy]

"The court will be asked to ban the entire contents of a witness affidavit and to keep the name of the person a secret."

I wonder why ? one would think he/she would be proud having done their Civic Duty so to speak.

Cheers.

 

[dapaterson]

"The court will be asked to ban the entire contents of a witness affidavit and to keep the name of the person a secret."

I wonder why ? one would think he/she would be proud having done their Civic Duty so to speak.

Cheers.

Many hypotheticals that could explain it.  For example, an Afghan national fearing reprisals against his family.

The military judge will review and decide; and that decision could be appealed to the Federal Court.

 

[ballz]

From the Canadian Criminal Code:

182. Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed on him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers any indignity to a dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 178.

Max sentence of 5 years vs minimum 10 years before parole (2nd degree murder is life, 10-25 before parole no?)... Yeah I think I'd know which one I'd choose.

If you were on a jury, you'd be listening to the evidence and arguments presented, and weighing same.

You have no ability to bring anything up.

Loachman, what I'm about to ask is out of genuine curiosity, I have no idea what knowledge your have on the subject but it's probably more than me (I have none).

I didn't mean in court, I meant behind closed doors, sitting at the table that seats 12, after hearing the prosecution's case, I would probably look at the other 11 people and say "does anybody else think this might be possible?" That is fair game no?

With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the defence doesn't even have to put forth a case. Would it not be the jury's job to then decide amongst themselves "given the prosecution's case, were there any other possibilities... Oh yeah, here's one." It would NOT have to be a possibility that was brought up by the defence, correct?