[roger-roger]

As for distances its very hard to tell without knowing the weapon used.

[putz]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Im quite shocked, CFNIS does not charge someone unless they feel they are guilty of the crime. ROEs also clearly state that you will not fire on an unarmed combatant, we will have to see what the trial brings out. Its also a little puzzling to hear the OMLET was in a tic, they are not front line units. My understanding is that when something like this happens the defendant will stand trial in Canada. If found guilty could spend no more than 2 years in a military prison before being transferred to a National Correctional Facility to serve out the rest of his sentence.

The CBC should have waited like CTV did in reporting this, this is news.

OMLT is indeed a front line unit (maybe not on paper but in practice), these guys see the same if not more tics then the battlegroup these days. They not only train but go out on patrols often just small numbers of them and the ANA. I just think its funny that CTV is running the Steve Chao for info... last I heared he wasn't in the good books as a reporter with the military and was no longer an imbeded reporter.

[mikewood86]

Must be so hard in the heat of the moment to be thinking these things. However, I'm sure it is drilled into their heads daily during training. You gotta feel for the guy, sending him to a horrible place like that and then putting him up on charges. But, that is what seperates us from the people we are fighting and shows why they are in the stone age, and we are not.

It is so tough to pick a side here. I want our soldiers to be top notch pro's, which I have no doubt that they are, but I also want all rules to apply. Good luck to him.

[roger-roger]

putz putz:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Im quite shocked, CFNIS does not charge someone unless they feel they are guilty of the crime. ROEs also clearly state that you will not fire on an unarmed combatant, we will have to see what the trial brings out. Its also a little puzzling to hear the OMLET was in a tic, they are not front line units. My understanding is that when something like this happens the defendant will stand trial in Canada. If found guilty could spend no more than 2 years in a military prison before being transferred to a National Correctional Facility to serve out the rest of his sentence.

The CBC should have waited like CTV did in reporting this, this is news.

OMLT is indeed a front line unit (maybe not on paper but in practice), these guys see the same if not more tics then the battlegroup these days. They not only train but go out on patrols often just small numbers of them and the ANA. I just think its funny that CTV is running the Steve Chao for info... last I heared he wasn't in the good books as a reporter with the military and was no longer an imbeded reporter.

I dont remember seeing the OMLT callsigns during offensives when I was over there, but my eyes were to the front since I was on the tip of the spear.

[putz]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

putz putz:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Im quite shocked, CFNIS does not charge someone unless they feel they are guilty of the crime. ROEs also clearly state that you will not fire on an unarmed combatant, we will have to see what the trial brings out. Its also a little puzzling to hear the OMLET was in a tic, they are not front line units. My understanding is that when something like this happens the defendant will stand trial in Canada. If found guilty could spend no more than 2 years in a military prison before being transferred to a National Correctional Facility to serve out the rest of his sentence.

The CBC should have waited like CTV did in reporting this, this is news.

OMLT is indeed a front line unit (maybe not on paper but in practice), these guys see the same if not more tics then the battlegroup these days. They not only train but go out on patrols often just small numbers of them and the ANA. I just think its funny that CTV is running the Steve Chao for info... last I heared he wasn't in the good books as a reporter with the military and was no longer an imbeded reporter.

I dont remember seeing the OMLT callsigns during offensives when I was over there, but my eyes were to the front since I was on the tip of the spear.

Operations vs Day to Day patrolling is a different matter..... Never had any ANA attached to the units you were attached to? We would have ANA attached to us with their OMLT mentors during some offensives.

[roger-roger]

We had ANA all the time, the OMLT mostly stayed in the rear with the Amb and 99er.

[roger-roger]

Again this was on a different roto, I suspect such things change with whom ever is in command.

[stokes]

martin14 martin14:

I didnt see unarmed prisoner anywhere in the article,
you know something we don't stokes ?

If Semrau is with a training unit, does the ROE apply differently to him ?

oops, my bad, but he was unarmed so either way Semrau has a tough fight ahead.

ROE's change with the situation, unit, or operation, but nothing limits your right to self-defence up to and including deadly force, to protect yourself, others in your unit, civilians under your protection and property.

[Alta_redneck]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

He should of stayed in the bleachers and not come onto the field if he didn't want to become part of the game.

I just hope we don't find out later that it was the Canadian that went into the bleachers.

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

What are you talking about?

If Mr. Taliban was on the battle field and didn't want to fight, he should of took his donkey and went home.

My second comment meant that I hope we don't hear that Mr. Taliban was on his knees with his hands behind his head, and our guy walked up and put a quick one in his brain.

[Choban]

lily lily:

$1:

HMMMM, Do you think the Taliban charges their fighters for killing unarmed people?

Doesn't matter. We don't set our standards by theirs. If we did, we wouldn't be over there fighting them.

$1:

Why should we charge a soldier who killed an enemy????

Because we play by the rules.

Oh Lily.
I agree with you on both points, it just upsets me to see one of ours dragged through the mud.
The man killed was in a battle, if he was unarmed he didn't belong there, if he wasn't an insurgent then he didn't belong there.
Granted we do not have all the facts, but it just smells funny to me.

[StuntmanMike]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

shooting a man with the intent to kill


Wow, very heavy, I guess I was absent the day they taught "shooting a man with intent to wound".

lol

Whaddya know, a big controversy has erupted involving Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan.

Hate to say I told you so Penatrator, but....I told you so.

Get ready for it guys, because the media types at Torstar and CBC who hate you quietly aren't going to be so quiet over this. Get ready because you're going to read and view stories in the next few months that will really piss you off.

And, just to belabour the point, it's going to be a few lone voices like Christie Blatchford who are the only ones saying anything nice about you.

Get ready for the onslaught guys.

[StuntmanMike]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

If the person does not have a weapon in his hands you dont shoot at him, unless you (or someone else, sensitive material ect) is in mortal danger. The point is there are several rules in place that you must follow when you have to shoot at someone. If he did not follow the rules then he is guilty.

Perhaps. But seeing as how the Canadian justice system is disposed to giving the average total shitbag criminal the benefit of the doubt, I'm prepared to give this guy at least the same.

Why are you military guys so eager to devour your own? Journalists don't do that. Neither do cops, politicians or business people.

[roger-roger]

I think your wrong Stuntman, if anything the nay sayers will be the lone voices while the others know that this is an isolated incident. Streaker and the like will bang the drum and say this is just the tip of the iceburg, most will wait to see what comes of the trial.

[roger-roger]

StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:

Why are you military guys so eager to devour your own?

What makes you think we are eager?

[StuntmanMike]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Streaker and the like will bang the drum and say this is just the tip of the iceburg, most will wait to see what comes of the trial.

Streaker most certainly will. But Streaker is some lone freak who posts garbage on the internet. You don't need to worry about him. What you need to worry about is the spin Patrick Stewart, Peter Mansbridge, and, Rex Murphy will put on it. Those guys aren't in and of themselves against the military. In fact, they're fairly even handed. But they have a strong influence on public opinion.

But when the Carole Off's, the Mary Lou Finlay's, Ken Macdonald's, Toronto Star Editorial Board, and others line up to take shots at you, they'll have an effect on the type of commentary those guys coin. And what you really don't want, trust me, is for that commentary to develop a critical mass against you.

Don't think it can't happen. Since the April 2002 bombing of Pats by an F-16 at Tarnak Farm, soldiers have been something of a motherhood issue in Canada. Nobody in the media can attack them. But don't think that can't change. There are plenty of media, students, activists, and politicians who detest you and everything you stand for. They've lined up agains the military before (i.e. War Measures Act/Somalia/Toronto snow storm/), and they will again given the chance.

All I'm saying, is that through thick and thin, over the last few decades, probably long before you were in the army, there were a few journalists out there who were on your side. They're the same ones who will support you now.

When the Dogs Are Looking For Your Bones, you guys should remember that.