Capt. R. Semrau on trial for murdering Afghan insurgent
February 4, 2010 - 1:36pm
Continued below.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Military seeks publication ban
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 [ret. Col. Michel] 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.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/04/ott-military-publication-ban.html]Military seeks publication ban
But [ret. Col. Michel] 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.
What a bunch of bs. The prosecution provides irrefutable evidence and this retired Colonel Michel Drapeau clown cries about an 'unfair' trial.
Is there no end to the perfidy of the Harper administration and Canada's military?
Could this testimony by affidavit - and inability for Semrau's lawyer to cross-examine - be a gift to Semrau? That's what crossed my mind in reading this.
Could someone clarify--it seems unclear to me who is asking for the publication ban. I inittially assumed it would be the defence, but the defence seems to believe that:
What's the deal?
It's the military prosecutors who asked for the ban and for the witnesses to testify by affidavit rather than in person:
What irrefutable evidence? The trial has just begun, and much of the evidence has yet to be placed before the court. The defence has yet to cross examine witnesses and test the evidence.
When the story first broke, the claim was that there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting. When the trial was announced, it was mentioned that there was at least one eyewitness to the shooting and was suggested the person was Afghan. I wonder what other changes to the story will we hear.
Changes will occur regarding the presumption of innocence when evidence to the contrary is laid out at trial. Investigations take time to reveal the evidence if it exists, to be used in determining guilt. The fact that it made it to trial at all is remarkable in itself. Apparently someone on that patrol felt a line was crossed, which might suggest that things are not as monolothic as it usually appears to us. Heresay rumours before trial of the possibility that an eyewitness exists, or doesn't, isn't evidence at all, let alone irrefutable.
All that's being said above is that full evidence will not be made public (to protect the identity of those testifying, etc.). Why is ol' Col. Drapeau already, in a knee-jerk fashion, crying 'unfair' and 'mistrial'?
Prob because of this, quoted above:
"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."
If you cannot crossexamine a witness, you cannot exmine their testimony for lies, evasions, mistakes, credibility or anything and thus an unfair trial.
The accused has the right to face and challenge their accusers.
Again, it sounds like a lot of bs to me. For example, in cases where witnesses were asked to testify in cases concerning defendants accused of perpetrating human rights atrocities in the Rwandan genocide, the witnesses still testified but their identities were not revealed and their voices were modified.
The sloppy worded article goes from talking about a public ban of testimony and evidence to suggest that the testimony/evidence won't even be released in camera in the court, which I think is utter nonsense.
Yes but it also says they want witnesses to only submit affadavits which means no cross examining. And its a murder trial, not a genocide trial and even then, they could challenge the witnesses who were present for their testimony even if they identities were concealed
It's a little bit more than a murder trial. It's a war crimes trial. I'm sure at some point, either the evidence will be questioned/further examined and/or additional witnesses will be brought in or provide affadavits who/that will support Semrau's testimony/account.
According to the media story thus far, I don't know why the Court Marshall is acting like a bunch of clowns on this. Unless it's a case of the military acting to ultimately protect well, the military.
This trial is symbolic of the whole illegal, immoral and unjust Afghan war.
I hope it has the same effect with the Canadian public on the Afghan War as the Tet offensive and the Mai Lai massacre did with the American public on the Vietnam War.
How about waiting until a verdict is reached in the trial before condemning the accused. I have no doubt some sort of scheming is afoot in this court martial but is it not necessary to conclude the trial before condemning the prisoner, if not extending such possible verdict into a political condemnation of war?
I'm surprised a Frmrsldr doesn't know what a court martial is. You sound much more like a poseur than a former serving member or, is it me passing sentence before the trial?
re: the court
Most any military type court is a Kangeroo court. Not being able to cross-examine witnesses means it does not adhere to the same principles as the criminal justice system. Second, there is a vested interest in the gov't in the outcome of the trial. So almost regardless of what verdict is rendered, it will be suspect.
Semrau is accused of having murdered an Afghan, in Afghanistan. He should be tried in Afghanistan, by the Afghan people. Is there something difficult to understand about this? The so-called trial being orchestrated right now is the height of racism and colonialism.
As for attacks on Frmrsldr, who is a principled and honest contributor to this board, such attacks should be met with the utter contempt that they richly deserve. It is indeed difficult to believe that this board countenances low-life posters who avidly support the NATO-U.S.-Canadian war crimes against the Afghan people. But fortunately, the toxic matter that issues from their mouths will fool no one.
I don't disagree with that Unionist. Though, having said that, with the cirrent proped up regime in charge, the verdict would be the same or lighter that the current court martial.
Just my opinion though.
A real trial by the afghans wont be happening anytime soon, until we pull out and let them decide themselves
I would also point out I have not attacked frmrsldr, merely disagreed with him
Though, having said that, with the cirrent proped up regime in charge, the verdict would be the same or lighter that the current court martial.
I wasn't thinking that he should be tried by the puppet regime imposed on the Afghan people by Western military might. Just hand him over to the good folks and let them determine his fate.
Fully agree. He should stay in Afghanistan till then - as a detainee.
I certainly wasn't referring to you, Bacchus.
I'm surprised a Frmrsldr doesn't know what a court martial is. You sound much more like a poseur than a former serving member or, is it me passing sentence before the trial?
canuquetoo that is an unwarrented personal attack, anything like that again and you'll be taking a vacation
I'm surprised a Frmrsldr doesn't know what a court martial is. You sound much more like a poseur than a former serving member or, is it me passing sentence before the trial?
Oh, I know what a Court Martial (sorry about the incorrect spelling) is. I was damn near dragged before one a year ago for saying things about the Afghan war the military didn't dig.
Semrau violated military law (the Queen's Regulations and Orders) - "Conduct Unbecoming". He is the Canadian military's problem. He is an image and PR nightmare for the military. Concerning the verdict, the Canadian military will act in its best interest. If it's in the military's interest to let Semrau get away with murder or a slap on the wrist, then he will get away with murder or a slap on the wrist. If it's in the military's interest Semrau gets thrown to the lions, then he gets thrown to the lions. To the military, you are just a pair of hands. A disposable pair of hands. If the military can use you, then it's all good. If you no longer have utility for the military, then you are cast aside like yesterday's garbage.
What the military ultimately cannot control is public reaction/opinion. The Canadian public may be indifferent, they may rally behind Semrau, the military, (possibly the government) and the war or public opinion (as in the case of Tet, Mai Lai and the Vietnam War) may turn against Semrau, the military, the government and the war.
I have no idea what will happen in advance (concerning public opinion). We can only wait and see.
My hope is this war ends sooner rather than later.
It's a little bit more than a murder trial. It's a war crimes trial. I'm sure at some point, either the evidence will be questioned/further examined and/or additional witnesses will be brought in or provide affadavits who/that will support Semrau's testimony/account.
According to the media story thus far, I don't know why the Court Martial is acting like a bunch of clowns on this. Unless it's a case of the military acting to ultimately protect well, the military.
This trial is symbolic of the whole illegal, immoral and unjust Afghan war.
I hope it has the same effect with the Canadian public on the Afghan War as the Tet offensive and the Mai Lai massacre did with the American public on the Vietnam War.
[Edited to correct spelling error.]
Thank you Unionist. And yes frmrsldr 'conduct unbecoming' was that wonderful all inclusive rule if you couldnt pin anything else on a soldier. I remember that from my MP days
There hasn't been a decision one way or another yet as to the rules of evidence. A modification along these lines to protect identities might be a workable compromise, so long as he's found guilty I assume. If not, then we can always scream cover up.
So this appears to be a JTF2 outfit, understandably seen as a bunch of murderous thugs by any standard that we know of round here, and yet turning on one of their own for an allegedly wanton act that even they cannot countenance. Imagine that.
So this appears to be a JTF2 outfit, understandably seen as a bunch of murderous thugs by any standard that we know of round here, and yet turning on one of their own for an allegedly wanton act that even they cannot countenance. Imagine that.
The act was committed in the presence of Afghans who the Canadian (and U.S. and NATO) troops were training. The insurgent's killing probably offended the sensibilities of the Afghans and the fact that the story made it to international media probably came from their quarter.
My guess is the insurgent was probably known by intelligence (JTF and CIA) and may have been a double agent. He may have know too much and was "terminated" to keep him from talking.
It matters little how many probabilities, guesses and ‘may have's' are mixed together when it comes to determining guilt or innocence. The end result presents us with the question of accepting the thin gruel at face value, or assuming a wait and see approach as the situation develops. Where ideology suffices in the absence of anything substantive to conveniently shoehorn our own preconceptions into the realm of unequivocally damning evidence, we don't appear to be much further along in the scheme of things than remote drone assassinations.
He hasn't violated anything yet. Specifically though, he's been charged with one count under Section 130 of the National Defence Act for second degree murder contrary to subsection 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. I suppose if found guilty, it has the inherent effect of highlighting ones unbecoming conduct, but that is not the exact charge he is facing at the moment.
"Semrau violated military law (the Queen's Regulations and Orders) - "Conduct Unbecoming".
Canadian QR&Os contain no service offense "Conduct Unbecoming". This is an Americanism.
We have 3 conduct offenses
The common catch all that Bacchus mentions is likely Conduct To The Prejudice Of Good Order And Discipline
there is also
But no unbecoming
Correct Rand! And what a wonderful rule it was, especially since there was no 'dumb insolence' law
I was never a dick with it but I saw it in use enough to actually not like it very much. Though it was usually handled at the local commander level and went nowhere
Actually, Semrau is being tried twice simultaneously (which is often the case if a soldier has violated both military and civilian law) the military will throw the "Conduct To The Prejudice of Good Order And Discipline" at him because he made the military look bad during the performance of his duties.
On the civilian side, this case is unique as this is the first time a Canadian soldier has faced the charge of murder committed during war, on the battlefield, in uniform and while performing his duties. Under these circumstances, he has violated international law - the Geneva Conventions and relevant protocols and other treaties. If found guilty, he could be charged with committing a war crime.
He will be tried under Canada's relevant Criminal Law that are in line with the Geneva Conventions, etc.
His case will be different from Colonel Russell Williams' because Williams committed his alleged crimes (presumably) off base, off duty and out of uniform.
If my assumptions are correct, Williams' is a more straight forward case of alleged murder and sexual assault. Even though his alleged actions bring disrepute to the military, given (what I believe to be) the circumstances, he will be tried as a civilian under civilian law.
In the transcript of his pre-trial custody hearing, the presiding judge outlined one charge, that being second degree murder.
HEARING
Witness to alleged execution says he was told to leave: 'don't need to see this.'
The body of the insurgent has never been recovered, although the court martial was shown a cellphone video of the limp, unmoving casualty taken by an Afghan National Army soldier shortly before he was allegedly shot twice at close range by Semrau.
Cpl. Steven Fournier testified that neither he nor Semrau, his superior officer, administered any first aid or checked the wounded insurgent for vital signs. [...]
Fournier says a captain with the Afghan National Army, or ANA, indicated the wounded insurgent's life was in the hands of Allah and ordered that he be left untreated.
"No, no, we leave him. No treatment needed," Fournier testified he heard the ANA captain say.
I also read in the news that the cell phone imagery shows that there was no fire fight shortly before Semrau, Fortier et al. went over to the wounded Afghan "insurgent". The cell phone images show the members of the OMLT standing upright in open desert, talking and moving about casually. No gunshots or explosions are seen or heard.
I put insurgent in quotation marks because of the nature of his injuries. They are described as one of his feet was twisted in an unnatural 180 degree position, he had lacerations and shrapnel wounds in his legs and abdomen.
This would suggest he was injured by a mine, UXO or IED (an upward explosion from ground or just below ground level). He could have been a villager, shepherd or nomad who had the double misfortune of earlier encountering the explosives, then later being discovered by Captain Semrau.
Seymour Hersh: On Battlefield Executions
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003268.html
"...And I'll tell you right now, one of the great tragedies of my country is that Mr. Obama is looking the other way because we are equally horrible things are happening to prisoners, to those we capture in Afghanistan. They're being executed on the battlefield. It's unbelievable the stuff going on there that doesn't necessarily get reported.."
Good thing our troops would never do that...?
Wounded Taliban seen on Semrau court video
Our Afghan "allies" and their attitude toward their own people
Shafigullah told the court martial at Kandahar Airfield that his soldiers prevented Afghan border police from strangling the Taliban fighter.
That's so much BS he's not a doctor there is no way he could know if he was "98% dead" or "50%" dead or whatever. Coverup!
That's so much BS he's not a doctor there is no way he could know if he was "98% dead" or "50%" dead or whatever. Coverup!
I would question a cover up in this instance. It seems that what they are trying to say is that he was going to die anyway so his life didn't matter. Instead of providing aid and comfort, they eliminated the problem. It was a cheaper more efficient solution. Further, if we are there to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, this is how you do it, right?
Our Afghan "allies" and their attitude toward their own people
Shafigullah told the court martial at Kandahar Airfield that his soldiers prevented Afghan border police from strangling the Taliban fighter.
We have trained our ANA puppets very well.
It wasn't very difficult, actually. The majority of Taliban are Pashtuns.
The majority of ANA, ANP and NDS are Tajiks and Uzbeks. Afghanistan's different ethnic groups don't get along with each other at the best of times.
We just "helped" them in this aspect, so to speak.
First divide and conquer. Then divide and rule.
This is a very splendid little English (colonial) war. Pip, pip. I say what.