But leaving them there to die is fine?

I have no idea what he was really thinking at the time. So I won't comment on that part of it.

But I agree with Beshpin.

What should happen is a full review of the case - done not to blame anybody but to determine exactly what happened and why.

Yes, we have an obligation to our troops. We also have an obligation to the people we sent them to fight. We have an obligation to all humans.

Bear in mind, there are credible reports that American troops have been killing prisoners on the battlefield. You might also remember, in your patriotic moments, that Canada had a terrible reputation (among the British) for killing prisoners in world war one.

We need to understand what happened. That is not to blame the soldier.  After all, the soldier is trained to kill, and conditioned to hate so it won't bother them to kill. (That's why they call Afghanis "ragtops" instead of people. We need to understand what happened. We need to know how modern war afffects people. We have to learn how to control it.

Singing O Canada just isn't good enough.

79 years.64 days, 23 yours,and fifty minutes.

[quote=graeme]

79 years.64 days, 23 yours,and fifty minutes

Exactly but isn't it 79 years 364 days, 23 hours and 50 mionutes.

the last numeral in a nine word phrase is always written in letters. I saw that written in a book....once.....somewhere....

Just thought of something. Would we be having this discussion if a Taliban had shot a wounded Canadian to put him out of his misery?

graeme

From the article in question....

Their mission—Operation Atal 28—was to troll for Taliban, pick a fight, and shoot to kill.

The soldier performed his orders.

According to one eyewitness, the Taliban fighter was lying in a pool of blood on a dirt path, and had a hole in his back “the size of a dinner plate.” His left leg was riddled with shrapnel, and his foot, barely attached, was twisted completely around. From what Fournier could see, there was also “a fist-sized laceration to his stomach.”

I'm not a doctor, but I doubt this man would have lived another 79 years.  He would have died in excruciating pain perhaps in another 79 minutes which might have felt like 79 plus years to the poor soul.

LB

There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgement of his God.

"Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."

      The Final Inspection, Author Unknown

So you would congratulate a Taliban who shot a Canadian under the same conditions?

Well, during World War I, the Canadians fought under British command.  (Robert Borden was the gutless prime minister who allowed this to happen.)  About 23 or so Canadian solders were shot at dawn for stupid reasons like going AWOL, 'cowardice' -whatever that is, suffering from battle fatigue, etc. as an example to others.  Were any of the British commanders charged for these offences?  Were any of them fragged or recipients of relatiatory measures by the victim/s families?  No.  The British officers got away with murder.  The Canadian government permitted this disgrace to happen.  The Australian government had the 'wontons' to insist the British army didn't do the same to their soldiers.   As far as I know, no compensation was paid to the families of these victims even after their names were cleared.  Gee, a 25 year old soldier suffering post traumatic stress is given a Kangaroo court trial and shot at dawn. That'll teach him a lesson, eh?  They even asked their comrades to volunteer for a firing squad.  It takes a real man to give a command like that.  Talk about bullying.  I guess fighting under a foreign country's flag means you take whatever consequences of those actions.  Every once in a while, they have to bully a young soldier to death, pour encourager les autres.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cdnsad/

If someone I loved was fatally wounded on the battlefield and there was no medic in sight and no chance of survival, I would be grateful to anyone who gave him a chance to die quickly and less painfully. I would want to know that my loved one did not suffer more than necessary.

If the principle of it all is that it's wrong to kill at any cost, why don't we stop putting our pets down when they're suffering and there's nothing we can do? What's the difference between our poor animals suffering and dying and our loved ones suffering and dying? What is the great difference that makes animal euthansia okay but human euthanasia flat out wrong in any circumstance?

To me there's no difference, and on the battlefield especially, it makes sense that fatal wounds be handled more humanely than "walk away and let him die". It's our fault they're in that situation in the first place - bullets aren't a natural phenomenon - so why does it suddenly become wrong when killing could actually be an act of grace and humanity?

Sometimes, even the cruelest act can be the right one. Right and Wrong are defined by us, which makes them subjectible to change by us when necessary - nothing stops us from changing the rules when clearly the circumstances fit it.

Actually, all of those death sentences were pronounced by Canadian officers. And, in military terms, it makes sense.  (that is not the same as saying I agree with it.)

When the commander of the van doos was absent for a spell in hospital, he came back to a terribly demoralized regiment.

awols were frequent, and the whole regiment was in danger of collapse on its part of the line.

He (a Canadian) immediately ordered five executions. the Problem promptely ended.

British officers thought Canadians used execution too often. The French, on the other hand, had a much higher rate.

As to the case of shooting a man to put him out of pain, it would be illegal in Canada. It is also illegal under international law. And you have to watch it because shooting of prisoners can become common  - it was in the Canadian army in WW1. It is today in the American army in Afghanistan. A succesful plea here could well encourage a huge increase in "mercy" killings.

I am inclined to tread very carefully. I would like to see a very thorough examination of the whole case before reaching any decision.

So, the military is really just a death cult build on a foundation of bullying behaviour.  In that case, it's too bad it took soldiers until the Vietnam war to catch on to fragging.  Take out an officer or two and they'll think twice.  A late uncle who fought for Canada in WW2 said they didn't like the British officers or authorities.  In fact, they felt sorry for the british soldiers who had to put up with them.

And some of the Canadian officers made few friends by coming back and acting as if they had been British officers.

For western armies, WW1 seems to have been the peak for treating soldiers like scum. There were numerous punishments in Canadian forces, from shooting to crucifying (tied to a wagon wheel, lashed, and left out in the open.) It tapered off sharply in WW2.

graeme

My American counterparts (baby boomers) had to worry about being drafted.  I knew several draft dodgers in University and some who were over here 'just in case'.  A grandson of a family friend was sent to Nam and was killed 10 days later.  So much for their training.  If I were in the military, I'd probably get life in front of a firing squad for insubordination.

For it's one, two, three what are we fighting for?

Don't ask me I don't give a ****

Next stop is Vietnam

(Everybody sing)

Well, life is probably the last thing you're likely to get from a firing squad. I think where firing squads are involved, you have to think very carefully about which side you want to be on.

Yes, although congratulate is not the word I would use.

Quite a few years ago, there was a special on CBC about WWI. One Canadian veteran said they were used as cannon fodder by the British.  Of course, during war, the enemy is de-humanized to 'make it easier' to shoot them (e.g., giving enemies names like Gooks, Nips, Gerries, etc.  You're not killing a person, you're killing a 'gook' etc.).  The Canadian officers must have been kissing up to the British b/c the website about 'shot at dawn' emphasizes that Canada fought under the British and laid the blame on the British military.  Regardless of who was in charge, it boils down to treating a human being like an object or tool to be used and discarded. 

quite true.

And in that war, everybody got used as cannon fodder.

This article needs some more awareness.

Very little of this is actually accurate, your lack of knowledge detracts a great deal from your entire point.

For one thing the ANA (Afghan National Army) are required to follow the same laws of armed conflict as Canadian soldiers are.

In this case, I believe you are referring to the one that was blown up by coalition forces, following which the american soldiers (marines I believe) who were present administered first aid as best they could. One of the soldiers would later confess to administering a mercy killing to end the suffering of a burning teenager. He went through the same court process as Capt Semrau is enduring presently. He pleaded guilty. I believe this case earned him 12 months in lockup and a dishonourable discharge.

Collateral damage is a predetermined variable that is measured using strict Rules and Laws.

I agree, so please be aware of what your writing about prior to ranting like a first year Poli Sci student.

I agree with you here, however you type as though he pleaded guilty, so far the court martial's findings are inconclusive. 

IF the capt is guilty then he is breaking Canadian Forces law, Canadian Law, as well as the international laws of armed conflict as set forth by the Geneva conventions. Canada's intolerance of such war crimes is what allows the Canadian Army to differ from organizations such as the Marine Corps, and remain fully accountable to the Population that they represent.

Would like to hear more opinions on the matter, however let's keep them informed.

In WWI Canada was drawn into the conflict as a colony of Britain, as was australia, british traditional thought would dictate that a colonial life is worth less, however by the end of the war canadian officers had become a vital asset with a great deal of ingenuity that distinguished our forces above the rest.

See Sir Arthur Curry and his achievements, particularly at Vimy Ridge.

Nothing boils down quite that simply, however men will forever rationalize carnal emotions while carrying out orders or necessary actions. Total war is greatly different than what we are currently involved in, however I do see your corollary. 

in response to:

this happens regularly, which is why there are videos of soldier having their heads blown off in executions.

are you suggesting that our legal system should therefore be like the talibans? with zero accountability or moral compass?

not at all. Quite the opposite.

Contrary to myth, Canadian soldiers were not used as cannon fodder by the British. Just take a look at the casualty percentages for both Britain and Canada. The British provided a lot more cannot fodder than Canada did, even as a percentage of total population. In WW1, for example, Britatin and Ireland had only six times the population of of Canada. But it suffered some fifteen times as many casualties.

In fact, the outsanding feature of Curry's command was in care in keeping down casualty rates. In gratitude for that, his political enemies in Canada hounded him to death when the war was over.