Dealing with ethical and/or legal issues in operations

[the 48th regulator]

The final thing I really want to get off my chest. The comparison between Clayton Matchee and 2Lt Semrau is completely uncalled for. Not in any universe should that ever be made.

Why,

Because it shows you how morals, and ethics can be sent askew?  Each one of those examples, falls under any argument anyone makes of Semrau.

That is my point.  We do not know what went through the Man's mind, when he did the double tap.  Not one Iota.

So as far as I am concerned, the examples are valid.  Good luck in the PM debate!

dileas

tess

 

[ArmyRick]

I have made my point and this is the last I am going to say on it. I would not even touch "whats going on in his mind", because in that case we don't know what goes on in anyone's mind. People are not convicted or judged on their thoughts but rather their actions. (Note speaking your mind is an action IMO).

The Facts
-Captain Semrau was NOT convicted of murder but disgracefull conduct. He is being punished accordingly. The Court Martial heard from the witnesses and the people present, and they made a decision based on what they BELEIVED.


Next arguing morality and ethics is largely an opinion not fact based. What I consider moral in my world maybe different than what someone else considers to be moral.

For example, I may think slapping my child in the back side is a suitable punishment where as another family may be dead set agaisnt any form of physical fitness discipline for a child. One family thinks one way and another family another. So how do we decide who is immoral and who isn't?

A hungry man steals a can of food because he is famished. He committed a crime, does that mean he is also immoral? Was there a reason for stealing the food?

I will say it again (and expand on it) and I am done arguing with people who think they know best. What is moral to one's beleifs is not always legal. What is legal is not always moral based on said beleifs.

Army Rick out.

 

[Gunner98]

Now, don't tell any Ulmer that they are in Bavaria: they are in Baden-Württemberg.  Neu Ulm is in Bayern (aka "Bavaria") ;D (They are in fact one city on the border) But just for anyone reading this, get them out of Afghanistan and get them into the problem.  If you have to tell them "the freshly dead person is wearing the uniform of your enemy", and if further explanation is required, tell them that yes, sometimes the enemy DO wear uniforms.

The NVA used the AK series of weapons:

I guess my problem with your wish to put present-day soldiers in past conflicts is: they will never face that issue as it was different place and different time and a different reason for the conflict.

The entire purpose of the ethics package unless you have all forgotten is to teach all soldiers that there is a military decision making process for all issues including ethical ones.  If the doer is comfortable with being judged then he must be prepared for the judgment.  As far as I can remember we do punish people for thoughts and orders and not just actions.  If the officer orders the soldier to go into the room and kill an unarmed man - it is an illegal order which does not need to be carried out.  But what I am hearing is that if he does the deed himself it is a moral decision and we don't care that it is illegal.

The judge was not able to decide whether Mr. Semrau was or was not guilty of murder, his role was to instruct the panel and determine the punishment appropriate to the finding.  Two very different roles.  So we must remember that this is the way the system works.  The panel decided what he was guilty of, perhaps if the judge had we would be having an entirely different discussion.  Sometimes it is better to be judged by a jury of your peers than one man who knows the law very well.

 

[ArmyRick]

I know I said this before but after reading the court martial report in detail, I will make one final post on this (Semrau ethical issue)

I have one final thing to say about 2Lt Semrau. In the court martial report his Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Cameron testified he would welcome you (Semrau) in his battalion without reservation if you (semrau) were permitted to remain in the Canadian forces (Page 6 of the Cour martial report R vs Semrau).

In that same report, Major Oberwarth, testified he would gladly have him under his command in the future. (page 7)

For those that think they know best. You have two reputable officers who were still willing to see him serve. His actions were illegal and he is being punished as he should. No one is disputing that.

I am not making a hero out of him, but I don't think we should villify him either. I would like to see how any of us would react to a gravely wounded man lying there and knowing we are not going to give him any aid because of the orders given. Go ahead, arm chair quarterbacks and key board commandos, say what your going to say.

He made a call in what most beleived was out of compassion for a fellow human being (and it breached military laws and discipline). Not an easy thing to live with, either choice he could have made.

Had he knowingly let that man suffer and die painfully, knowing he was not going to be cared for, I can only imagine the demons that would have haunted him inside his head.

I would also ask you please read the court martial report before you make any remarks here.

Before you comment on my post, read it very carefully and don't make assumptions on what I am saying.

ArmyRick out (for real this time).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Did someone mention keyboard commandos?!  :camo:

I am not making a hero out of him, but I don't think we should villify him either. I would like to see how any of us would react to a gravely wounded man lying there and knowing we are not going to give him any aid because of the orders given. Go ahead, arm chair quarterbacks and key board commandos, say what your going to say.

He made a call in what most beleived was out of compassion for a fellow human being (and it breached military laws and discipline). Not an easy thing to live with, either choice he could have made.

Had he knowingly let that man suffer and die painfully, knowing he was not going to be cared for, I can only imagine the demons that would have haunted him inside his head.

On the other (darker) side of the coin. Taking into consideration the methods and tactics that the Taliban use, not to mention their attacks on helpless civilians, I wonder how many soldiers would have looked at the suffering Taliban in pain and said good for ya and walked away.

 

[Occam]

Captain Sereau was
A) Demoted in rank
B) Dishonourably Discharged
Let's give the man a rest.
He has certainly earned his
privacy.
Sir 
Scoty B

A necessary correction - He was dismissed from the CF, but not dishonorably.

Anyone looking for the Sentencing transcript can find it here.

 

[Occam]

On the other (darker) side of the coin. Taking into consideration the methods and tactics that the Taliban use, not to mention their attacks on helpless civilians, I wonder how many soldiers would have looked at the suffering Taliban in pain and said good for ya and walked away.

Considering that action would also be in contravention of the LoAC, I think it a question best not answered.

 

[PuckChaser]

Considering that action would also be in contravention of the LoAC, I think it a question best not answered.

So then Capt Semrau was screwed anyways. He was bound by LoAC to administer aid, and also contravened the LoAC by ending the insurgent's suffering.

 

[Gunner98]

In any mass casualty scenario (and no this was not one) there will be people who are left untreated (Priority 4 imminent) who are made comfortable and then the limited medical or first aid assets are committed to those with injuries less severe.  I cannot agree with others in this thread that have professed that we euthanize them with morphine or hard metal to ease their suffering. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

So then Capt Semrau was screwed anyways. He was bound by LoAC to administer aid, and also contravened the LoAC by ending the insurgent's suffering.

Good point.
I'm not sure what the appropriate first aid treatment would be for someone who is 98% dead.  Moving someone or touching them at that point would probably only result in more pain wouldn't it?

 

[Occam]

Good point.
I'm not sure what the appropriate first aid treatment would be for someone who is 98% dead.  Moving someone or touching them at that point would probably only result in more pain wouldn't it?

What is the protocol for administering first aid to someone who is 1% dead, 50% dead, or VSA?  You perform first aid until no longer able, or until professional medical advice tells you not to.  Of course that is tempered on the battlefield with operational considerations, but you're supposed to do what you can.

 

[wildman0101]

Regard's Capt Semreau's Discharge
I stand corrected. My Apologie's.
Scoty B

 

[daftandbarmy]

I kind of like this article (which is odd really because there are no pictures  ;D)  and what it tells us about how to fight terror e.g., you can't win by stooping to the level of your opponents, and that will be hard to resist.... very hard. You'll notice that it was published a week after 9/11:

Lessons on how to fight terror

A message from the United Kingdom: Don't torture. Don't shoot boys who throw stones. And don't imagine for a moment that there is any guarantee of success.

We've learned that terrorism demands a special kind of war, which is more like Sim City than a first-person shooter like Unreal. Just as in Sim City, you win by keeping civilization going. Killing the bad guys is a side effect. And, just as in Sim City, no single strategy works, even when it is right and necessary.

Violence on its own won't work.

Diplomacy on its own won't work.

Gathering intelligence on its own won't work.

Buying the sympathies of the people who now sympathize with the terrorists won't work on its own, whether you pay in money, blood or effort.

Any successful democratic operation against terrorism needs a blend of all these four methods, and getting the proportions right is an art: It can't be learned from newspaper columns.

Another rather counterintuitive consequence of this is that fewer troops are almost always better than more. Fighting terrorism needs really first-class soldiers. They must be braver and cleverer than their opponents, though not nearly so cruel. They need to be really highly trained, speak the local language and have medical skills. In poor countries British special forces teams are expected to have medical training so that they can bring immediate practical help to the villagers whose trust they must win.

Demoralized, lost and nervous soldiers make more recruits for the other side than ever they eliminate. All of the high-flown and complex policy considerations above have to be put into practice by troops on the ground, acting on their own initiative and understanding. Not many, in even the best armies, are going to be much good for that.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/fighting_terror

 

[TimBit]

Here is something I found interesting.  During leadership training we had a class on Ethics, morals and the law.  Typical class where the course officer gave us challenging "what would you do" questions. The legal answer was always obvious.

Anyhow, he posed this question.
You're a section commander leading your section in battle against an enemy force. You are in a village clearing small buildings. 

You enter a room and find one of your soldiers with his rifle in his hand, barrel smoking.  In front of him is a dead enemy soldier, clearly shot by your man. The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.
Laying on the floor is a dead middle age woman with a gunshot wound in her head, looks like an AK bullet.  On the floor beside her is her  young teenage girl who was clearly being raped and then dies herself from a gunshot would, inflicted by the enemy soldier previously.

Question was, what do you do. Report your soldier to your chain of command for the shooting of the unarmed soldier or forget what you saw. As far as you're concerned the enemy soldier was shot while reaching for his gun.

He asked who would report the soldier and out of 40 of us 36 raised their hand, and they were quite adamant about reporting this.
He then asked who wouldn't report the solider and only 4 of us raised their hand.  The next question was what I found really interesting. He then asked how many soldiers in the room were parents and the same 4 of us raised our hands.
Really made me think.

Good point...but hear this. I`m a parent. If someone willingly hurt my little girl I could, in a moment of rage, very well strangle them myself. I know that because like all parents I feel very protective of my child`s innocence and life. But I would expect the full punishment of law for having done so... why shouldn't I? I'm sure that punishment would be moderate in view of mitigating circumstances, but still. Wouldn't you expect the punishment of the law?

So, why shouldn't you receive the full punishment of the law for killing someone raping and murdering other people than your own family? Because it`s war? That would be absolute balls...

Bottom line: while at war you may see things that anger you more than in the course of daily civilian life. You may feel more prompted to take..."decisive" action in response to these things. That doesn't make your actions less subject to the law.

 

[KevinB]

Most ROE allow the use of Force, up to and including deadly force to protect non combatants.

Shooting the enemy who was raping a girl falls under that lawful use of deadly force.

As for reporting, simply that Bloggins shot a enemy who was raping a girl?  Do you report each round fired under contact with the enemy?

And this, looking at comments to the above, is why combat is best left to the combat arms, not the hand wringing.

I won't tell people how to change an engine, issue socks, or diagnose the clap, don't tell me how to Close with and Destroy the Enemy.

 

[armyvern]

Most ROE allow the use of Force, up to and including deadly force to protect non combatants.

Shooting the enemy who was raping a girl falls under that lawful use of deadly force.

As for reporting, simply that Bloggins shot a enemy who was raping a girl?  Do you report each round fired under contact with the enemy?

And this, looking at comments to the above, is why combat is best left to the combat arms, not the hand wringing.

I won't tell people how to change an engine, issue socks, or diagnose the clap, don't tell me how to Close with and Destroy the Enemy.

But, in the scenario, the rape is overwith - he is simply leaning over the girl - (did he rape her?? How do you know if you shot first and ask questions later?) and the "enemy" is now unarmed with his weapon resting up against the wall.

Reporting that as "shot a guy who was raping a non-combattant" would be a flat-out lie ... and an offence itself.

That is quite different than what you've laid out above with a rape of a non-combattant in progress by an armed person.

 

[Brutus]

But, in the scenario, the rape is overwith - he is simply leaning over the girl - (did he rape her?? How do you know if you shot first and ask questions later?) and the "enemy" is now unarmed with his weapon resting up against the wall.

Reporting that as "shot a guy who was raping a non-combattant" would be a flat-out lie ... and an offence itself.

That is quite different than what you've laid out above with a rape of a non-combattant in progress by an armed person.

Maybe I'm missing something, but in this scenario, the enemy soldier was going for his weapon? If so, is that not fair game? 
(I realize we don't have coresponding ROEs here, but for argument's sake).

In Bosnia, my ROEs would have required at least SOME escalation of force measures, and even with those restrictions, the enemy soldier would probably only have to suceed in reaching his weapon for the Cdn soldier to kill him justifiably. I'm assuming this context is more along the lines of Afghanistan, and although I have not been there, I would expect the ROEs to be a little less restrictive.

 

[armyvern]

Maybe I'm missing something, but in this scenario, the enemy soldier was going for his weapon? If so, is that not fair game? 
(I realize we don't have coresponding ROEs here, but for argument's sake).

In Bosnia, my ROEs would have required at least SOME escalation of force measures, and even with those restrictions, the enemy soldier would probably only have to suceed in reaching his weapon for the Cdn soldier to kill him justifiably. I'm assuming this context is more along the lines of Afghanistan, and although I have not been there, I would expect the ROEs to be a little less restrictive.

Nope; read the scenario again (it's posted a few posts ago ...). Here's the exact quote from the scenario:

The enemy soldiers AK47 is leaning up against a wall on the otherside of the room clearly out of reach.

 

[PuckChaser]

You could play the what if game forever with scenarios like this. What if he had a knife, what if he was choking the girl, what if he rushed the troop and grabbed his weapon.... etc etc.

 

[McG]

Under LoAC, an enemy soldier is a legitimate target whether there is currently a weapon in his hands or not.  He remains a legitimate target until he is dead, shows his intent to surrender, or becomes a casualty & stops fighting.  In the scenario presented in this thread (which presents a warfighting situation against soldiers) there is no significance to the fact that the AK-47 is against the wall.  It does not matter if there were knives or if a criminal act was being committed.  The dead guy was a legitimate target - killing him was legitimate.

There may be more considerations in a peacekeeping mission or in an environment where the enemy are un-uniformed irregulars & guerrillas ... but that is not what was presented in the scenario.