eyeball Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Because video taping a murder is part of the terrorist mission.... No because terror is just part of their mission, which like ours, comes first. Nice to see your inability to smudge morals is unaltered. That's right, I'm still unable to smudge morality the way Semrau was ordered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 FK! You know a country is really corrupt when the army tries to justify non-combat murder as reasonable. The army is not trying to justify anything, he was found not guilty of murder becuase of the lack of evidence, unless your courts work different where your from, in regular courts of law, they are bound by the law and evidence.....according to the law he should have just left him , to die a painful death...devoid of all compasion, and humanity....shit we can put an animal out of there misery to keep it from suffering, but we can't do that for a fellow human being fair enough it is the law..... I do believe this is the middle of the collapse of this civilization - when morality and values get replaced by excuses and acceptance of criminal / anti-social behaviors. All the armies in the world are not going to save this civilization. Are we prepared to start anew? I think we are fine, after all it was a fellow Canadian soldier who questioned the Capts actions, and brought it up the chain of command ....who actioned it without delay, bringing him up on charges and launching an investagation.....upholding those very morals and values you say we have lost....As far as Anti social behaviors anyone who has studied war, will tell you anything that is anti social /criminal is in one form or another involved with war....if it was'nt then there would be no such thing as PTSD or mental illness our soldiers suffer from when becoming involved in war....and as far as getting rid of war itself it's not going to happen anytime soon, as long as there is man we will have war....and yet civilization still moves forward, man is still on top of the food chain....so much for that theory... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 ...according to the law he should have just left him No, according to the law he should have been treated but I don't think an injection of lead pain killers counts. as long as there is man we will have war As long as there are things that trump virtue or the law we will have war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 That's right, I'm still unable to smudge morality the way Semrau was ordered to. He wasn't ordered to kill him and he couldn't save him even if ordered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 No because terror is just part of their mission, which like ours, comes first. And luckily for the amusement of all here, you are unable to tell the difference between lawful warfare and terrorism...which makes you such a usefull tool for your enemies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 He wasn't ordered to kill him and he couldn't save him even if ordered to. I didn't say he was ordered to kill him, and if Army Guy is correct, saving him was clearly the responsibility of Semrau's superiors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 And luckily for the amusement of all here, you are unable to tell the difference between lawful warfare and terrorism...which makes you such a usefull tool for your enemies... Unluckily for you I do know the difference between right and wrong...which renders me useless to your friends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 (edited) Unluckily for you I do know the difference between right and wrong...which renders me useless to your friends... Yep. Worse than useless, actually. Hence the hostility. Support the Troops, motherfucker. Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 going back to the OP it's a contradiction, following the riles this soldier should have been found guilty of murder, 1st or 2nd degree and sentenced accordingly just as Robert Latimer was found guilty of murder and given a life sentence(on day parole now)...two mercy killings but two very different outcomes...and there are other cases of mercy killings in Canada where a minimal sentence was given...there is inconsistency in the law and how it is applied... To be found guilty of murder you need the evidence to prove that, in this case no body, no ballistics, just one soldiers word agai'st another that it did happen....hence why the he was found not guilty of murder, That being said, he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct, reduced in rank , and released from the forces with a dishonorable discharge...all this is pending an appeal....Military always has a caveat built into thier law system, you may get off with the actual crime, however there are a seris of charges that are much harder to get off, they carry much lighter sentences . In this case disgraceful conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 To be found guilty of murder you need the evidence to prove that, in this case no body, no ballistics, just one soldiers word agai'st another that it did happen....hence why the he was found not guilty of murder, That being said, he was found guilty of disgraceful conduct, reduced in rank , and released from the forces with a dishonorable discharge...all this is pending an appeal....Military always has a caveat built into thier law system, you may get off with the actual crime, however there are a seris of charges that are much harder to get off, they carry much lighter sentences . In this case disgraceful conduct. an eye witness account is more than sufficient more for a conviction, if the eye witness account is discredited than there would be no charge at all...if he had done nothing why "disgraceful conduct" surely the military doesn't convict someone of doing nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 No, according to the law he should have been treated but I don't think an injection of lead pain killers counts. I think there is some confusion as to the rule of law, here in Canada in the civilian world we do have laws that dictate that every measure should be taken to save a life... However in the rules of war, the primary goal is the "mission itself" example, Normandy beach landings orders were given "every soldiers first and primary goal or mission was to take ground, engage the enemy until thier defences were combat ineffective. To bypass all wounded which would be left for follow up forces....meaning if your buddy got shot you were to carry on with the mission...this included enemy soldiers as well... In this case the Capt informed his superiors of his situation, which included a medical assetment of the wounded enemy soldier.....he was told to carry on with the mission, that medivac operation would comprise the mission, attract more enemy soldiers, a situation they did not want with green Afghan soldiers...The enemy soldier was given basic first aid, however his wounds required alot more than basic first aid... The Capt very famliar with pain and suffering thought these orders to be cruel, and he thought he was provided some humanity by ending his suffering.... As long as there are things that trump virtue or the law we will have war. Don't think for a second, there is any virture or law as we know it in War...everything we know as morals and values , or laws as we take for granted today are thrown out the window, and the longer any person is placed in those conditions the worse it becomes...until that world of war becomes normal, and our world as once knew it... becomes foreign, or unnatural.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 an eye witness account is more than sufficient more for a conviction, if the eye witness account is discredited than there would be no charge at all... Nonsense.... you can have 20 witnesses, but if there is absolutely no evidence that a crime was committed, then there is reasonable doubt and no conviction. if he had done nothing why "disgraceful conduct" surely the military doesn't convict someone of doing nothing? The burdon of proof is different for murder versus "disgraceful conduct", obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 In this case the Capt informed his superiors of his situation, which included a medical assetment of the wounded enemy soldier.....he was told to carry on with the mission, that medivac operation would comprise the mission, attract more enemy soldiers, a situation they did not want with green Afghan soldiers... Obviously Eyeball is more comncerned with the opportunity to have more coalition wounded than the actually pretending he cares whether a mortally wounded enenmy gets morphine to die quietly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 Nonsense.... you can have 20 witnesses, but if there is absolutely no evidence that a crime was committed, then there is reasonable doubt and no conviction. nonsense to your nonsense, it only takes one witness to convict, if 19 people saw nothing and one witnessed the incident that is enough to convict...david milgaard spent 23 yrs in prison on the testimony of one witness(who lied)...I was the sole witness in criminal case once and my testimony alone was enough to get a conviction... in this case even army guy has confirmed the fact-"The Capt very famliar with pain and suffering thought these orders to be cruel, and he thought he was provided some humanity by ending his suffering" there is no doubt he did what he was accused of doing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 Obviously Eyeball is more comncerned with the opportunity to have more coalition wounded than the actually pretending he cares whether a mortally wounded enenmy gets morphine to die quietly... I agree completely with what Eyeball has said. You may pump out the propaganda that Peter F longs for the opportunity to have more coalition wounded and that I gleefully dance in the streets etc etc and blah and blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 nonsense to your nonsense, it only takes one witness to convict, if 19 people saw nothing and one witnessed the incident that is enough to convict...david milgaard spent 23 yrs in prison on the testimony of one witness(who lied)...I was the sole witness in criminal case once and my testimony alone was enough to get a conviction...in this case even army guy has confirmed the fact-"The Capt very famliar with pain and suffering thought these orders to be cruel, and he thought he was provided some humanity by ending his suffering" there is no doubt he did what he was accused of doing... And while what you say is true, But according to witness statements none of the witnesses actually saw anything that could prove with out a doubt the Capt shot the wounded terrorist, they saw the Capt go back to the wounded terrorist , they heard the shots, but no one saw the capt shoot anyone, nor did they go back to confirm that the terrorist was dead, due to the capts actions..so we are assuming he is dead, investagating teams that went back to the area searched it all they found was a few empty casings which were from the Capts rifle...but no body, nor any bullets with any DNA on them, no other evidence. which in itself can not prove without a doubt he fired the shots that ended the terrorist life... Like i have said before one can not apply the same rules of evidence or burden of proof on the battlefield, it's a totally different world, combat units do not have the personal to cordon it off and allow forensics teams to recreate and log all the events that happened to ensure each kill was legal and within all the rules and laws laid out that govern warfare. when in reality the battlefield is the exact opposite, at the end of the battle a reorg taks place troops are move around, the dead are searched, the area is searched , resupply happens, trucks, helos, drop off more ammo, pick up the wounded and dead, troops prepare to move on or defend the new postion....then the civilians move in to scour the area, pick up brass, anything they can redeem for money...in other words it's picked clean...On top of all that, the entire battle happens so fast that each persons account of what happen is different, hard to find two the same... Much like the court can not find or prove Omar guilty of any wrong doing... we know he did it, but will we be able to prove it, not likely...hence why the military stuck to something they knew they could prove...disgraceful conduct... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 I agree completely with what Eyeball has said. You may pump out the propaganda that Peter F longs for the opportunity to have more coalition wounded and that I gleefully dance in the streets etc etc and blah and blah Oh, he doesn't even believe it himself. He's just afraid of a serious and honest discussion. Support the fuckin' troops, Peter F! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 I think there is some confusion as to the rule of law, here in Canada in the civilian world we do have laws that dictate that every measure should be taken to save a life... However in the rules of war, the primary goal is the "mission itself" example, Normandy beach landings orders were given "every soldiers first and primary goal or mission was to take ground, engage the enemy until thier defences were combat ineffective. To bypass all wounded which would be left for follow up forces....meaning if your buddy got shot you were to carry on with the mission...this included enemy soldiers as well... In this case the Capt informed his superiors of his situation, which included a medical assetment of the wounded enemy soldier.....he was told to carry on with the mission, that medivac operation would comprise the mission, attract more enemy soldiers, a situation they did not want with green Afghan soldiers...The enemy soldier was given basic first aid, however his wounds required alot more than basic first aid... The Capt very famliar with pain and suffering thought these orders to be cruel, and he thought he was provided some humanity by ending his suffering.... I don't buy it. This wasn't a case of soldiers running up a beach under fire, the fight was over and these guys were standing around talking about what to do with their patient/prisoner. Canada missed a opportunity to teach some green Afghan soldiers what it really means to go above and beyond the call of duty and demonstrate how to better win hearts and minds in a war and a world that is desperately short of both. Isn't that also supposed to be part of the mission? Do you ever see a day when old Taliban and Canadian veterans get together and reminisce? I sure don't. Don't think for a second, there is any virture or law as we know it in War. I'm sorry but I was taught from a very young age to think war without virtue or law was evil and criminal. That said I was also taught that our representatives are right and honourable. I'm pretty sure that's the first thing that shattered my illusions. ...everything we know as morals and values , or laws as we take for granted today are thrown out the window, and the longer any person is placed in those conditions the worse it becomes...until that world of war becomes normal, and our world as once knew it... becomes foreign, or unnatural.... I know. This is why going in the first place was so wrong. This was an unjust war right from the very start and that is why our morals, values and virtue have become compromised. Canada is no longer the country I grew up in, nor is it the country I was taught to believe my Grandfathers fought to defend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 And while what you say is true, But according to witness statements none of the witnesses actually saw anything that could prove with out a doubt the Capt shot the wounded terrorist, they saw the Capt go back to the wounded terrorist , they heard the shots, but no one saw the capt shoot anyone, nor did they go back to confirm that the terrorist was dead, due to the capts actions..so we are assuming he is dead, investagating teams that went back to the area searched it all they found was a few empty casings which were from the Capts rifle...but no body, nor any bullets with any DNA on them, no other evidence. which in itself can not prove without a doubt he fired the shots that ended the terrorist life... Like i have said before one can not apply the same rules of evidence or burden of proof on the battlefield, it's a totally different world, combat units do not have the personal to cordon it off and allow forensics teams to recreate and log all the events that happened to ensure each kill was legal and within all the rules and laws laid out that govern warfare. when in reality the battlefield is the exact opposite, at the end of the battle a reorg taks place troops are move around, the dead are searched, the area is searched , resupply happens, trucks, helos, drop off more ammo, pick up the wounded and dead, troops prepare to move on or defend the new postion....then the civilians move in to scour the area, pick up brass, anything they can redeem for money...in other words it's picked clean...On top of all that, the entire battle happens so fast that each persons account of what happen is different, hard to find two the same... Much like the court can not find or prove Omar guilty of any wrong doing... we know he did it, but will we be able to prove it, not likely...hence why the military stuck to something they knew they could prove...disgraceful conduct... I just went over some of the testimony, two people saw him shoot the man, and Semrau admitted to the mercy killing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 And while what you say is true, But according to witness statements none of the witnesses actually saw anything that could prove with out a doubt the Capt shot the wounded terrorist, they saw the Capt go back to the wounded terrorist , they heard the shots, but no one saw the capt shoot anyone, nor did they go back to confirm that the terrorist was dead, due to the capts actions..so we are assuming he is dead, investagating teams that went back to the area searched it all they found was a few empty casings which were from the Capts rifle...but no body, nor any bullets with any DNA on them, no other evidence. which in itself can not prove without a doubt he fired the shots that ended the terrorist life... Like i have said before one can not apply the same rules of evidence or burden of proof on the battlefield, it's a totally different world, combat units do not have the personal to cordon it off and allow forensics teams to recreate and log all the events that happened to ensure each kill was legal and within all the rules and laws laid out that govern warfare. when in reality the battlefield is the exact opposite, at the end of the battle a reorg taks place troops are move around, the dead are searched, the area is searched , resupply happens, trucks, helos, drop off more ammo, pick up the wounded and dead, troops prepare to move on or defend the new postion....then the civilians move in to scour the area, pick up brass, anything they can redeem for money...in other words it's picked clean...On top of all that, the entire battle happens so fast that each persons account of what happen is different, hard to find two the same... Much like the court can not find or prove Omar guilty of any wrong doing... we know he did it, but will we be able to prove it, not likely...hence why the military stuck to something they knew they could prove...disgraceful conduct... I just went over some of the testimony, two people saw him shoot the man, and Semrau admitted to the mercy killing...you do not need DNA or even a body for a conviction only a witness, in this case two and a confession... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 Like i have said before one can not apply the same rules of evidence or burden of proof on the battlefield, it's a totally different world, combat units do not have the personal to cordon it off and allow forensics teams to recreate and log all the events that happened to ensure each kill was legal and within all the rules and laws laid out that govern warfare. Go tell it to Omar Khadr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 there is no doubt he did what he was accused of doing... actually, there was reasonable doubt.... or the killing didn't fit the murder charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 actually, there was reasonable doubt.... or the killing didn't fit the murder charge. actually there wasn't but there was no way they were going to convict a canadian for killing a taliban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 actually there wasn't but there was no way they were going to convict a canadian for killing a taliban So the killing didn't fit the murder charge. Perhaps he should have been charged with a lesser crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 16, 2010 Report Share Posted October 16, 2010 The high and mighty, rich and powerful love a surrogate spat. They also hold the marshall class in contempt much like they do blue collar unionists...The people that wage these illegal wars, profit from them..also..it is a perverse power surge that the high and mighty get around violence and death...It does not matter to these high and mighty types if the enemy is killed- or if our troops are killed...as long as someone is killed they get a sick thrill...I can't stand assholes who dupe our young men and woman and then after the dirty work is done - get a kick out of spitting on them. We should only attack if being attacked or to prevent an attack - Yes you can say the Bushite line.."fight them their so we don't have to fight the terrorist here" - BUT ------------If there was a terrorist attack on Canadian soil...the body count would be less than that of our dead and maimed troops...ALSO - some bearded Afghani dope smoking chump is not going to come to Canada and blow you up... This adventure was a total waste of blood and money. And spare me the High way of heros song..with the big rousing drum fills...This is bullshit.................for God sake you have Canadian Colonels that are rapists and murdering bastards..not to mention a status quo that facilitate arms deals...Mulroney? There are a thousand scoundrels drinking young Canadian blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.