"Captain Rob has shot him"
What, truly, is the point? Insisting on treating the Afghanistan mission as though it represents any other traditional mode of war, where two suited-up and similarly-armed armies march against one another. And where a specific code of conduct is observed. And where divergence from that contract of gentlemanly-military conduct merits the kind of admonitory attention that only a court martial can adequately deliver.
Except that when battling an elusive enemy fighting his own kind of war, a guerrilla conflict which a regular, trained army is not capable of meeting on those surreptitious, clandestine, deadly terms, there may be, on occasion, a suspension of the rigidly-observed code by which an honourable army conducts itself. Of course, honour is also a matter of perception, and insurgents, as guerrillas, fight with their own code of conduct.
A western military man who observes a more casual, but empathetic for the larger part, code of humanitarianism may take it upon himself to assess the critically wounded condition of an adversary, to determine the mortality of wounds sustained, and take the initiative to remove that adversary from further pain. In certain conditions and certain circumstances it becomes more cruel to let someone die in slow agony, than to dispatch them to death.
Whether or not this represents the actual scenario and mode of thought that propelled Capt.Robert Semrau in October of 2008 in Helmand province to shoot dead a man whose spirit was grasping the Angel of Death for release from his anguish, no one will ever know. This is Capt. Semrau's given explanation for his spontaneous decision-making, in shooting a Taliban horribly wounded by an attack helicopter.
The Canadian military court has been temporarily relocated to Afghanistan, where Capt. Semrau was stationed as a mentor along with his Canadian team of three, to an Afghan army unit. "His legs were cut off. His belly was torn out. He was hardly breathing. He was not moving", recounts the Afghan army commander, Shafigullah, to whom Capt. Semrau was attached on that day, at that place.
The Afghan army unit's reaction was to pay religious homage to another Muslim, and to allow the severely wounded man to die, facing Mecca; their religion forbade them from taking his life, no longer capable of combat. While Capt. Semrau, for his part, decided not to prolong the dying insurgent's agony, and took it upon himself to shoot him. The Afghan army unit had previously halted their police counterparts from killing the dying insurgent.
In testimony before the Canadian court martial, the Afghan officer claimed because of the circumstances it would not have been possible to call in a medevac unit, and the man was close to death. He also characterized the man on trial, Capt. Semrau, smilingly, as his "best friend", obviously having enjoyed confidence in his professionalism and his patronage.
"There was no possibility for him to stay alive. He could die in five, to 10 minutes, no more than 3 minutes, and probably in 20 minutes ...there was no blood in his body."
The four-man panel of Canadian officers hearing the case must weigh conflicting testimony, and no evidence save that of some blurred video tape. The insurgent's identity is unknown, his body never recovered. It this an issue to be dealt with?
Then deal with it. How can Capt. Robert Semrau be found guilty of murder? By an rigid stretch of righteousness, that's how.
Except that when battling an elusive enemy fighting his own kind of war, a guerrilla conflict which a regular, trained army is not capable of meeting on those surreptitious, clandestine, deadly terms, there may be, on occasion, a suspension of the rigidly-observed code by which an honourable army conducts itself. Of course, honour is also a matter of perception, and insurgents, as guerrillas, fight with their own code of conduct.
A western military man who observes a more casual, but empathetic for the larger part, code of humanitarianism may take it upon himself to assess the critically wounded condition of an adversary, to determine the mortality of wounds sustained, and take the initiative to remove that adversary from further pain. In certain conditions and certain circumstances it becomes more cruel to let someone die in slow agony, than to dispatch them to death.
Whether or not this represents the actual scenario and mode of thought that propelled Capt.Robert Semrau in October of 2008 in Helmand province to shoot dead a man whose spirit was grasping the Angel of Death for release from his anguish, no one will ever know. This is Capt. Semrau's given explanation for his spontaneous decision-making, in shooting a Taliban horribly wounded by an attack helicopter.
The Canadian military court has been temporarily relocated to Afghanistan, where Capt. Semrau was stationed as a mentor along with his Canadian team of three, to an Afghan army unit. "His legs were cut off. His belly was torn out. He was hardly breathing. He was not moving", recounts the Afghan army commander, Shafigullah, to whom Capt. Semrau was attached on that day, at that place.
The Afghan army unit's reaction was to pay religious homage to another Muslim, and to allow the severely wounded man to die, facing Mecca; their religion forbade them from taking his life, no longer capable of combat. While Capt. Semrau, for his part, decided not to prolong the dying insurgent's agony, and took it upon himself to shoot him. The Afghan army unit had previously halted their police counterparts from killing the dying insurgent.
In testimony before the Canadian court martial, the Afghan officer claimed because of the circumstances it would not have been possible to call in a medevac unit, and the man was close to death. He also characterized the man on trial, Capt. Semrau, smilingly, as his "best friend", obviously having enjoyed confidence in his professionalism and his patronage.
"There was no possibility for him to stay alive. He could die in five, to 10 minutes, no more than 3 minutes, and probably in 20 minutes ...there was no blood in his body."
The four-man panel of Canadian officers hearing the case must weigh conflicting testimony, and no evidence save that of some blurred video tape. The insurgent's identity is unknown, his body never recovered. It this an issue to be dealt with?
Then deal with it. How can Capt. Robert Semrau be found guilty of murder? By an rigid stretch of righteousness, that's how.
Labels: Canada, Conflict, Crisis Politics, Human Fallibility
posted by Pieface | 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home