NATIONAL NEWS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / SOMMAIRE DES NOUVELLES NATIONALES
ADM(PA) / SMA(AP)
July 20, 2010 / le 20 juillet 2010
MINISTER / LE MINISTRE
Minister Announces Appointments
MGen J.M.M. Marquie Hainse will be leaving Kingston and his post as Commander of the Land Force
Doctrine Training System and going to Ottawa, where he will serve as Chief of Program at National
Defence Headquarters, the defence department announced Monday. MGen Hainse's appointment is one
of several announced yesterday by Defence Minister Peter MacKay. Mr. MacKay also announced the
imminent retirement of MGen Daniel Gosselin, commander of the Canadian Defence Academy in
Kingston (Staff: KWS 8).
Funds Announced for Social Units
The provincial and federal governments are spending $762,000 to renovate 34 social housing units in St.
John's. The money - part of the federal economic stimulus program - is part of $2 billion across Canada
for housing projects according to a news release sent out Monday. "Our government is committed to
giving a hand-up to Canadians who need some help," said the federal minister responsible for
Newfoundland Peter MacKay (Staff: SJT A3).
Airshow Attracts Industry
New Brunswick companies are using the world's largest aerospace trade show to expand business and
attract investment. The annual Farnborough International Airshow is held outside London, U.K. The show
attracts more than 1,500 companies and major players display their innovations. Last week Defence
Minister Peter MacKay announced the Canadian Forces would purchase 65 new F-35 Joint Strike
fighter jets at a cost of $9 billion from the company. Several Canadian suppliers are expected to be
involved in the manufacturing (N. Visschedyk: NBTJ B1).
CDS / CEM
No related coverage. / Aucune couverture pertinente.
MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION / COMMISSION D'EXAMEN DES PLAINTES
CONCERNANT LA POLICE MILITAIRE
No related coverage. / Aucune couverture pertinente.
CANADA IN AFGHANISTAN / LE CANADA EN AFGHANISTAN
Kabul Conference
Afghanistan will seek greater control of billions in development funds at a major international meeting
today, promising in return to take on more responsibility for security as well as generate economic growth.
The ambitious pledges will be made at the Kabul Conference, where President Hamid Karzai will plead
for more say in $13 billion in international funding to use on programs he hopes will boost economic
growth and help end the insurgency. A recent poll found 75 per cent of Afghans believed foreigners
disrespect their religion and traditions, 74 per cent believe working with foreign forces was wrong, 68 per
cent believed foreign forces did not protect them and 65 per cent wanted the Taliban and its leader,
Mullah Mohammad Omar, to join the government (Reuters: Gaz A14, EJ A11, VSun B4; AFP: WStar C2,
NP A13).
Sporadic loud blasts were heard in the Afghan capital early Tuesday as dozens of foreign ministers,
including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, slept before a conference on the country's future. A
security blanket has been thrown over the capital for the conference, with the area that houses the
capital's diplomatic and government quarter under virtual lockdown (Reuters: ESun 37, CSun 18, TSun
24).
U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Pakistan to do more to tackle militant groups hiding in
the country's lawless tribal areas as she unveiled $500 million in new aid projects yesterday (R. Crilly,
London Daily Telegraph: Gaz A14).
Kabul Conference: Comment
Toronto Star editorial: Kabul is under lockdown today for a major international conference, with highprofile officials, including Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, seeking a strategy to shore up
security and democracy in Afghanistan. There have already been seven such meetings. But now time is
running out, as the U.S., Canada, and others are edging toward the exit. Training of Afghan army and
police, meanwhile, has fallen short, with more dropouts and a steeper learning curve than Western forces
had hoped. Few believe they will soon be ready to take over defence of the country. The Kabul meeting's
theme, "Afghan priorities for the Afghan people," has a sharply ironic edge. But with 24 million lives at
stake, it should be more than a diplomatically disguised scramble for the door (TStar A16).
Legacy of Kandahar Mission: Comment
Peter Dimitroff, Kandahar City, in a letter to the editor: While the efforts and sacrifices of our soldiers in
Afghanistan must be recognized, the description of Kandahar as a job well done does not correspond
with the reality here on the ground. Our engagement in Afghanistan will be viewed as a costly and
ultimately ineffective enterprise by future commentators. Certainly in any post-mortem, questions will have
to be asked why senior Canadian military and political leaders chose to follow a flawed American strategy
of counter-insurgency rather than devise our own approach in the areas under our command. Yes, we
should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it must also be
recognized that we failed, both in our approach to the strategies and tactics required, and in the
resourcing which was demanded of the mission. It is critical that a comprehensive lessons-learned
exercise be conducted, and as part of that, we must first recognize Afghanistan for what it is--a costly
defeat. Good effort? Certainly. A job well done? Not by a long shot (NP A15).
Déploiment de la mission canadienne
Entre 2000 et 2300 soldats s'envoleront vers Kandahar, en Afghanistan, en octobre, à raison de 100 à
150 militaires tous les deux ou trois jours. Les modalités exactes de toute cette mission restent à
déterminer, précise Alex Maillé, porte-parole de la base militaire. Mais tout indique que la mission actuelle
de l'armée canadienne prendra bel et bien fin, comme prévu (Sol 14).
53 militaires du 430e Escadron tactique d'hélicoptère, seul unité de force aérienne de Valcarier, se sont
envolés pour rejoindre l'armée canadienne en sol afghan. Côté hélicoptères, six appareils Chinook
seront utilisés, de même que huit Griffon. Les militaires partis hier reviendront en avril. Les missions
sont souvent d'une durée de six mois, mais cette fois, neuf mois en terrain ennemi sont prévus (Sol 14).
OTHERS / AUTRES
Capt Semrau Trial
Capt. Robert Semrau is not guilty of murder, but he did shoot an unarmed and wounded enemy
combatant in what has been described as a mercy killing. He was convicted Monday of disgraceful
conduct for the shooting, but the victim may have been dead already. Capt Semrau was cleared of
second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his military duty. The disgraceful
conduct charge under the National Defence Act carries a maximum five-year prison sentence. Capt
Semrau, whose military record prior to the October 2008 incident on the Afghan battlefield was
exemplary, could also be booted from the Canadian Forces. The sentencing hearing is expected to begin
next Monday, assuming the judge, LCol Jean-Guy Perron, allows a sentence to be issued in the case.
Capt Semrau and his lawyer declined didn't commented to comment on the on verdict. Capt Semrau's
brother, Bill, told reporters that the family was disappointed with the verdict (B. Weese: ESun 10, CSun
20, OSun, WSun 10, KWS 9, LFP B1; A. Duffy: Ctz A1, Gaz A11, CH A5, EJ A3, VTC A9, VSun B2, SSP
C8, WStar C1, NBTJ A6; S. Chase: G&M A7; R. Brennan: TStar A1; CP: HCH A1, MT&T B1, CG A8, HS
A1).
Captain Semrau was found guilty yesterday of the lesser charge of disgraceful conduct in the death of a
Taliban insurgent, sending a "sobering signal" to the military about the controversial so-called soldiers'
pact. Military experts say the outcome marks condemnation of an unwritten warrior code -- a pact that
says if one soldier is wounded and on the verge of death, another should hasten the inevitable. Scott
Taylor, publisher of the military magazine Esprit de Corps, said: "I think this was the best possible verdict.
This was never a witch-hunt. But it's clear that they couldn't let this go without some sort of
condemnation" (K. Blaze Carlson / A. Duffy: NP A1).
Capt Robert Semrau's decision to put a fatally wounded Taliban fighter out of his misery after a gun battle
in Afghanistan was "appropriate," retired army major-general Lewis MacKenzie says. Such occasions do
happen -- albeit very rarely -- and will continue regardless of Semrau's court martial. MGen MacKenzie
said complicated battlefield context makes them all extremely difficult to judge -- especially in a peaceful
Canadian court -- and they are best left unreported (B. Weese: OSun 7, ESun 10, WSun 10, TSun 9,
KWS 9, LFP A6).
When Canadian Forces Capt. Robert Semrau was acquitted Monday in the mercy killing of a wounded
Taliban soldier in Afghanistan, Frank Gavin was sitting at home in Welland, Ont., quietly cheering. "I was
rooting for this young captain," says Gavin. "I'm really happy that he beat the rap.” But it wasn't merely
Semrau's "professionalism" that Gavin admired. He also had every reason to sympathize with what
Semrau was alleged to have done in putting a mortally wounded soldier out of his misery. Nearly a halfcentury earlier, Gavin had seen almost the same scene take place on the battlefield in Korea, and no
charges were ever laid (K. Kidd: TStar A9).
Capt Semrau Trial: Comment
Christie Blatchford: If it looks like jury nullification and walks like jury nullification and quacks like jury
nullification, it's probably jury nullification. It may be that there's another explanation for the verdict in the
military trial of Captain Robert Semrau, but it sure isn't the obvious one. Capt. Semrau's conviction on the
disgraceful conduct charge raises an obvious question - what did he do that was disgraceful if he didn't
shoot the wounded Talib? By all accounts, the married father of two little girls is considered an excellent
soldier and an upstanding and honourable man (G&M A1).
Eric Morse, former Canadian diplomat and is now vice-chair of the Security Studies Committee at the
Royal Canadian Military Institute: Since the trial began, there have been questions as to why it was
happening at all, given that the prosecution's case was expected to be very difficult if not impossible to
prove. The public supposition has always been that the military did not feel it could overlook the matter in
light of the very public scandals around Somalia and the detainee affair. This was probably a fair
assessment, and the verdict seems to justify it. The jury has cleared Capt Semrau of the most serious
charges, and has left it to the judge to determine through the sentencing process what price he shall pay
for whatever it was that happened that day in Helmand province. Capt Semrau is almost universally
acclaimed as an honourable man and a model soldier. The system seems to have acted as fairly as it
knew how, but it is a pity that he should have been the one caught in this vise (Ctz A11).
Peter Worthington: Throughout the Canadian military there'll be a collective sigh of relief that Capt Robert
Semrau was found not guilty of murdering a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. Reduced to its
essence, the four member panel of the court martial rightly rejected "murder." To their discredit, however,
they couldn't resist finding him guilty of disgraceful conduct -- when his conduct was utterly the opposite
of "disgraceful." He was acting on the highest of moral principles -- delivering to a horrendously wounded
enemy the sort of mercy most soldiers would choose for themselves in a similar situation. Looking back,
there should have been no trial at all. If Semrau is sent to prison it'll be a travesty (OSun 6, TSun 19,
CSun 15, LFP A6).
Non Coupable
Le capitaine Robert Semrau a été déclaré coupable de conduite déshonorante, mais a a échappé à des
accusations de meurtre non prémédité, par un jury composé de quatre membres des Forces armées
canadiennes. L'homme de 36 ans, faisait face à quatre chefs d'accusation pour avoir prétendument tiré
deux rafales d'arme à feu sur un combattant taliban blessé et désarmé, dans la province de Helmand, en
Afghanistan, en 2008. Les avocats doivent présenter leurs arguments sur la peine jeudi. Le militaire fait
face à un maximum de cinq ans de prison (Pr A11, LN 20, Dr 15, VE 8, Qt 13, AN 16, Sol 17, Dv A4).
F-35 Purchase: Comment
St. John's Telegram editorial: So, now we're going to spend roughly $16 billion on fighter jets that don't
even seem to be the type we need, right on the heels of a $1.2-billion security debacle at the G20. The F35 fighter contract doesn't sound either like the kind of airplane we need, or anything like a reasonable
deal. But wait a minute - maybe if we were to get the new aircraft with pontoons, we could land them on
our spiffy and expensive G20 fake lake. We're all being told that these are tight fiscal times, that we have
to tighten our belts and expect less. Our federal government is busy undoing its belt, one multi-billiondollar notch at a time, and running the largest budget deficit in Canadian history in the process. Now these are Conservatives, right? Because they sure don't behave like Conservatives (SJT A6).
J.M. Ouellet, Canadian Forces petty officer second class, (retired), in a letter to the editor: Federal Liberal
leader Michael Ignatieff and his looney Liberals are threatening to cancel the acquisition of F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters, even though it is the only aircraft that can deliver what the government and military have
determined to be the capabilities needed to protect Canadian interests and sovereignty. Having worked in
the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) monitoring Soviet submarine activity during the Cold War, I can
assure you that Canada is not immune to internal and external sovereignty security issues. We deserve a
government that will recognize the threats we face in the world and equip our military accordingly. The
Liberals have repeatedly shown that they are not up to that job (NP A15).
Barbara Yaffe: Canadian taxpayers certainly could be forgiven for wanting to change the way Ottawa
makes major military purchases. No sooner had the Harper government announced on Friday that it
would be purchasing 65 F-35 fighter jets from American contractor Lockheed Martin, at a projected cost
(including maintenance) of $16 billion, than official Opposition Liberals declared an intention to put the
order on hold should they form government. The declaration smacked of deja vu. Liberals are on safe
political ground in threatening to can the deal because Canadians generally don't like big military
purchases. Polling last December by the Strategic Council revealed just 26 per cent of taxpayers believe
Canada gets good value for money on major military equipment purchases. Canadians should not be left
scratching our heads about the necessity for such a huge purchase. Nor should we be called upon to fork
over huge amounts of cash for cancellation fees because government and opposition politicians cannot
get their acts together (VSun B2).
Intégration militaire
Selon le chroniqueur Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, avec l'achat de 65 avions de chasse F-35 au coût de 16
milliards de dollars, le Canada pourrait se présenter comme l'allié le plus fiable du Pentagone. Ainsi les
entreprises canadiennes seront perçues comme des partenaires à part entière du complexe militaroindustriel nord-américain au lieu de concurrents menaçants pour l'emploi et la sécurité nationale des
États-Unis (Dv A6).
Veterans Affairs Critic Hosts Agent Orange Meeting
A member of Parliament's standing committee on veterans' affairs wants to hear from New Brunswickers
about the legacy of toxic herbicide spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. Liberal MP Rob
Oliphant is a member off the committee that will decide this fall whether to recommend a public inquiry
into the spraying of Agent Orange and other defoliants at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. He will be in
Fredericton on Thursday night to hold an informal town hall meeting with citizens concerned about the
federal government's reaction to effects of the spraying. The event takes place at 7 p.m. at Days Inn
Oromocto (S. Berry: FDG A3).
RCMP / DND Offices Vandalised
Police are searching for possible connections after a second Canadian law-enforcement office in Quebec
was attacked in less than three weeks. Early yesterday morning, vandals hurled blunt objects through
windows of an RCMP and Department of National Defence office in southwest Montreal, causing damage
in excess of $5,000. No group has claimed responsibility for yesterday's act of vandalism and the
investigation is ongoing (NP A6).
Race the Base Event
Competition is heating up in Cold Lake as drivers and pilots prepare to duke it out, at the Race the Base
event, next month. The race is a new addition to the Dream Wheels Weekend and spectators will see 100
speedsters attempt to keep up with a low-flying CF-18 Hornet -- a military fighter jet -- on the Canadian
Forces Base Cold Lake runway. On Friday, Aug. 27, car owners will receive instruction from professional
drivers from 1 to 6 p.m. The Hornet will then face the world's fastest, street legal Ferrari car on Saturday,
Aug. 28. In the past, the Ferrari has been unable to top 300 km/h, while the Hornet can reach speeds of
almost 2,000 km/h. The Ferrari is expected to do well to start, with the jet catching up about two kilometres in (A. Rodrigues: ESun 16).
Section: News
Lead: Maj.-Gen. J.M.M. Marquie Hainse will be leaving Kingston and his post as Commander of the Land
Force Doctrine Training System and going to Ottawa, where he will serve as Chief of Program at National
Defence Headquarters, the defence department announced Monday.
Headline: Commander leaving Kingston for Ottawa
Page: 8
Byline: THE WHIG-STANDARD
Outlet: The Kingston Whig-Standard
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Maj.-Gen. J.M.M. Marquie Hainse will be leaving Kingston and his post as Commander of the Land Force
Doctrine Training System and going to Ottawa, where he will serve as Chief of Program at National
Defence Headquarters, the defence department announced Monday.
Hainse's appointment is one of several announced yesterday by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
Since he began his military career in 1977, Hainse has served on five operational missions abroad and
held a number of command and staff appointments that have taken him across the country and beyond.
In April 2002, he served as commander of the Bosnia- Herzegovina Task Force and in 2007, he served in
southern Afghanistan as Deputy Commander Regional Command South. In July 2006, he was appointed
chief of staff of Canada Command in Ottawa.
MacKay also announced the imminent retirement of Maj.- Gen. Daniel Gosselin, commander of the
Canadian Defence Academy in Kingston. Gosselin holds a graduate degree in public administration from
Queen's University and graduate degrees in war studies and structural engineering from Royal Military
College.
He is currently pursuing a doctorate in military history at Queen's, where he is researching civil-military
relations and command at the strategic and operational levels of war.
Major-General Daniel Gosselin has had a long career and although he clearly has spent a lot of time in
Kingston, appointments have taken him far abroad.
His various assignments included deputy commander of the Canadian Contingent and commander of the
National Command Element for the United Nations Mission in Haiti, and director of airfield engineering at
Air Command Headquarters.
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: Provincial
Outlet: The Telegram (St. John's)
Headline: Funds announced for social units
Page: A3
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
The provincial and federal governments are spending $762,000 to renovate 34 social housing units in St.
John's.
The money - part of the federal economic stimulus program - is part of $2 billion across Canada for
housing projects according to a news release sent out Monday.
"Our government is committed to giving a hand-up to Canadians who need some help," said the federal
minister responsible for Newfoundland Peter MacKay.
"In these tough economic times, Canada's Economic Action Plan is providing Canadians not only with
safe, affordable housing, but also with the jobs and opportunities they need, so they can strengthen and
contribute to our communities."
Provincial Transportation and Works Minister Tom Hedderson said the money is part of $27 million
committed in this year's budget for housing projects.
"Our commitment to provide lower-income households with quality, safe and affordable housing is
continuing," Hedderson said.
"This renovation announcement is another example of how Newfoundland Labrador Housing has used its
federal-provincial funding to make the most of upgrading our social housing portfolio throughout the
province and to ensure that we have viable housing options for future generations," said Hedderson.
Back to Top
Section: Business
Headline: Airshow's overall mood ?very positive'; Aerospace The aviation industry went through a low
trough over the last 18 months but ?we are pulling back out of it,' says Apex Industries executive from the
annual Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K.
Page: B1
Outlet: New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal
Byline: nicole Visschedyk telegraph-journal
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
New Brunswick companies are using the world's largest aerospace trade show to expand business and
attract investment.
The annual Farnborough International Airshow is held outside London, U.K. The show attracts more than
1,500 companies and major players display their innovations.
Keith Donaldson, director of sales and business development for Apex Industries Inc., said his goal is to
network with future and current customers and suppliers.
Company executives attend the event and senior staff are in selling mode, he said.
"There have been some tough times in the aviation industry and we went through quite a low trough over
the last 18 months but we are pulling back out of it," said Donaldson. "The overall mood here is very
positive."
Canada is well represented at the show, said Donaldson, and well respected in the industry. As the
world's fifth largest supplier with 80,000 employees, many are closely following Canadian innovation, he
said.
On the floor people are talking about a recent deal with Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT), Donaldson
said.
Last week Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the Canadian Forces would purchase 65 new F-35
Joint Strike fighter jets at a cost of $9 billion from the company. Several Canadian suppliers are expected
to be involved in the manufacturing.
Apex does precision machining for the aerospace industry and is shifting toward larger and more involved
projects, Donaldson said. "The complexity we are working with is increasing."
"We totally integrate the painting, testing and coating in house," he said.
The added control and speed means Apex can expand into the large international market, he said.
The Moncton-based company plans to use the event to gauge how they are doing and discuss the
company's future.
Everything from landing gear to software will be showcased, he said. "Commercial planes, jets, military
vehicles and helicopter's are here," he said, adding companies from around world will fly during the onsite air show.
"It's all about the latest and the greatest," he said.
Apex shared a spot on the showcase floor with a number of Atlantic Canada companies including three
other New Brunswick organizations.
ING engineering Inc., CANLink Aviation Inc. and the New Brunswick Aerospace and Defence Association
all made the overseas trip for the week-long event.
Mike Tilley, CEO of CANLink, said over email, the first day allows senior executives the chance to
network before the show opens.
Over the next few days his company plans to meet with potential customers from China in the hopes of
expanding its Moncton flight school, said Tilley.
The Chinese pilots come to New Brunswick because the air is much cleaner than the pollution-ladened
cities of their home, said Jen Wood, a project manager with CANLink.
Jeff Trail, assistant deputy minister, is representing Business New Brunswick at the Farnborough event.
He said deals are made that may only become evident years later.
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: SAYED SALAHUDDIN
Outlet: Montreal Gazette
Headline: Afghans to seek greater control over aid funds; U.S. advises cautionin peace talks with Taliban
Page: A14
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: KABUL
Source: Reuters
Afghanistan will seek greater control of billions in development funds at a major international meeting
today, promising in return to take on more responsibility for security as well as generate economic growth.
The ambitious pledges will be made at the Kabul Conference, where President Hamid Karzai will plead
for more say in $13 billion in international funding to use on programs he hopes will boost growth and
help end the insurgency.
With governments anxious to withdraw from the 150,000-strong NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF), they are keen, too, for assurances the country won't slide back into the isolation
that allowed Al-Qa'ida to flourish and launch the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.
But the Taliban, treating any talk of withdrawal timetables as signs of weakness, have spurned any peace
overtures and insist it will fight until all foreigners leave.
Some rights groups fear that, as the west disengages, the government will try to cut a peace deal with the
Taliban that will sacrifice gains made since the 2001 overthrow of the hard-line Islamist group.
"Amnesty International fears that human rights, including women's rights, will be compromised as the
Afghan government and its U.S./NATO partners seek a quick solution to the conflict," said Sam Zarifi, the
group's Asia-Pacific director.
A security blanket has been thrown over the city for the conference, attended by representatives from
more than 60 countries or international organizations, including UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon and
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The streets of the capital were deserted yesterday as even foreign diplomats found themselves unable to
pass through scores of checkpoints.
A recent poll found 75 per cent of Afghans believed foreigners disrespect their religion and traditions, 74
per cent believe working with foreign forces was wrong, 68 per cent believed foreign forces did not protect
them and 65 per cent wanted the Taliban and its leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, to join the
government.
Karzai will be seeking international support for exploring peace talks with Taliban leaders, but Clinton
warned some remain personae non gratae.
"We would strongly advise our friends in Afghanistan to deal with those who are committed to a peaceful
future," she said in a town hall-style meeting in Pakistan earlier. Clinton said, however, that history
showed that sometimes peace forays work and thus should be tried.
"We would never reject that. We just caution, you need to enter into it very realistically," she said.
Tuesday's gathering will hear the Afghan government present a grand vision that contains commitments
to both its own people and the international community. It will reportedly be divided into five areas:
funding, governance and law, economic and social development, peace and reconciliation, security and
international relations.
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: Lynne O'Donnell
Outlet: The Windsor Star
Headline: Afghanistan's future on the table; International talks begins
Page: C2
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: KABUL
Source: Agence France-Presse
Afghanistan is to host a key international conference in Kabul today, aiming to chart a future of peace and
development and show supporters the war-torn country is acting on past pledges.
Billed as the first step of the Afghan government's transition from dependence on Western backers to
running the country alone and responsibly, it is the biggest international meeting ever to be held in the
Afghan capital.
Kabul has been locked down in a massive security operation, patrolled by thousands of Afghan and
NATO soldiers to guard against Taliban attack. The airport and key roads have been shut, with Monday
and today declared holidays.
The conference is to open at about 9 a.m. with a Koranic prayer. President Hamid Karzai is scheduled to
give a keynote address.
He is expected to detail Afghanistan's development priorities and lay out a time frame for Afghan security
forces to take responsibility for security, allowing U.S.-led NATO troops to withdraw by end of 2014.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who is to join Karzai in chairing the conference, has led international calls on him
to unveil "concrete" steps to improve governance and promote national reconciliation after a nine-year
Taliban insurgency.
"We expect President Karzai and his government would come up with a concrete action plan ... about the
way to enhance good governance, promote further reconciliation and also how he can improve the
security situation in his country," he told AFP in an exclusive interview ahead of the conference.
Up to 70 international representatives and 40 foreign ministers, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, are scheduled to attend.
Afghan officials are expected to outline proposals covering governance, economic and social
development, rule of law and justice, human rights, peace and reconciliation, regional and global
partnerships, and aid effectiveness.
NATO and the United States have 143,000 troops in Afghanistan, set to peak at 150,000 in coming
weeks as they take a U.S.-led counter-insurgency to the insurgents' southern strongholds in an effort to
speed up an end to the war.
Western nations are under increasing public pressure to justify their aid and military commitments to one
of the world's most corrupt countries, where the war has killed at least 380 foreign soldiers so far this
year.
Afghanistan and the United States are trying to reach out to Taliban foot soldiers, offering them jobs and
cash in exchange for laying down their weapons. Karzai has also called for peace talks with insurgent
leaders.
Rasmussen described today's conference as "a milestone in the process by which Afghans are finally
becoming masters of their own house."
Rasmussen -- who on Monday toured battlegrounds in southern Afghanistan where Western troops have
seen the worst fighting, said the process of transition would not be rushed.
"This transition will not be done on the basis of an artificial timetable. It will be done on the basis of clear
assessments of the political and security situation in each area," he said.
Central to the transition process, conference organizer Ashraf Ghani told AFP, is a commitment from the
international community to grant the Afghan government control of 50 per cent of all donor funds within
two years.
While officials are adamant it is not a donors' conference, some have said the United States, Britain and
Japan could add billions of dollars to their existing commitments.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: Sporadic loud blasts were heard in the Afghan capital early Tuesday as dozens of foreign
ministers, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, slept before a conference on the country's
future.
Headline: Blasts shatter Kabul calm Foreign ministers meeting on Afghan future
Page: 37
Byline: REUTERS
Outlet: The Edmonton Sun
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: KABUL, Afghanistan
Sporadic loud blasts were heard in the Afghan capital early Tuesday as dozens of foreign ministers,
including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, slept before a conference on the country's future.
A security blanket has been thrown over the capital for the conference, with the area that houses the
capital's diplomatic and government quarter under virtual lockdown.
At least four loud blasts were heard near the heavily barricaded and fortified area around midnight local
time but Kabul is frequently the target of bloody suicide bomb and commando-style attacks.
Afghan security officials were not available to comment while a spokesman for the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force said that while they had heard the blasts, they had no information about them.
The Kabul Conference will hear Afghan President Hamid Karzai appeal for a greater say in how billions in
development aid is spent as around 150,000 foreign forces tackle an increasingly bloody insurgency.
Donors and other stakeholders are seeking commitments from the government that greater control won't
be marked by corruption or incompetence and that Afghanistan is prepared to take on a bigger share of
the war.
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: ROB CRILLY
Outlet: Montreal Gazette
Headline: Pakistan must do more to stop militants: Clinton; U.S. secretary of state unveils $500M aid
plan
Page: A14
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: ISLAMABAD
Source: London Daily Telegraph
U. S. Secretaryof State Hillary Clinton called on Pakistan to do more to tackle militant groups hiding in the
country's lawless tribal areas as she unveiled $500 million in new aid projects yesterday.
The funds are the latest addition to a $7.5 billion five-year U.S. aid package designed to win over a
skeptical Pakistani public and strengthen ties in the struggle against Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban.
"It is our goal to slowly but surely demonstrate that the U.S. is concerned about Pakistan for the long term
and that our partnership goes far beyond security against our common enemies," Clinton said.
But as she unveiled projects to improve electricity and water distribution, she warned that the country
must get tough with militant groups on its own doorstep.
"There are still additional steps that we are asking and expecting the Pakistanis to take," she said. "There
is no doubt in anyone's mind that, should an attack against the U.S. be traced to Pakistan, it would have a
very devastating impact on our relationship."
She said she believed Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qa'ida militants were hiding in Pakistan.
"It would be very helpful if we could get them," Clinton said.
She confirmed that the State Department was considering whether to classify the Haqqani network as a
terrorist organization. It is one of the most feared of the insurgent groups operating against NATO forces
in Afghanistan and is thought to have strong links to Pakistan's intelligence services.
There is a common perception in Pakistan that the country was used by the U.S. as a base for a proxy
war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s, but then forgotten once victory was achieved.
With CIA drones striking targets in Pakistan, often killing innocent civilians along with hitting enemy
targets, there is a constant undercurrent of anti-American feeling.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Headline: Seeking Afghan strategy
Page: A16
Outlet: Toronto Star
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Kabul is under lockdown today for a major international conference, with high-profile officials, including
Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, seeking a strategy to shore up security and democracy in
Afghanistan.
There have already been seven such meetings. But now time is running out, as the U.S., Canada, and
others are edging toward the exit. This is where the rhetorical rubber meets the road of realpolitik. If the
politicians hope to snatch any victory from the ever-widening jaws of defeat, they will have to emerge with
more than sound bites.
First they must decide what victory looks like, after nearly a decade of reversals and confusion. Is their
priority to squelch the threat of Al Qaeda, to contain the Taliban, to strengthen central government
control, to empower local administrations, to raise the standard of living, or to establish the rule of law?
All may be desirable, but few may now be possible, and fewer still in a limited time frame that has Taliban
leaders patiently tapping their watches. With the counterinsurgency struggling, insecurity spreading, and
President Hamid Karzai's government failing corruption tests, some are looking at a decentralized
approach to governing the country. That would involve arming and backing local militias, like the Sunni
"awakening" groups in Iraq. But Afghans hear alarm bells, recalling the deadly turf battles between
warlords that preceded Taliban rule.
Training of Afghan army and police, meanwhile, has fallen short, with more dropouts and a steeper
learning curve than Western forces had hoped. Few believe they will soon be ready to take over defence
of the country.
The Kabul meeting's theme, "Afghan priorities for the Afghan people," has a sharply ironic edge. But with
24 million lives at stake, it should be more than a diplomatically disguised scramble for the door.
Back to Top
Section: Letters
Byline: Peter Dimitroff
Outlet: National Post
Headline: The job's not done
Page: A15
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: National Post
Re: A Job Well Done in Kandahar City, editorial, July 17.
While the efforts and sacrifices of our soldiers in Afghanistan must be recognized, the description of
Kandahar as a job well done does not correspond with the reality here on the ground. I am puzzled by the
criteria used by the editorial board. After nine years of effort in the country, and several years of intense
effort in Kandahar City and the surrounding districts, there is no substantial progress which NATO,
Canada included, can claim for the region. Violence and insecurity is at record levels. The Taliban move
and strike throughout the city at will. Confidence in the Karzai regime and NATO is near zero. Conditions
are such that the majority of the community is, at best, ambivalent about the return of the Taliban in a
position of national or regional power, a development certain to occur within the next two years. Indeed,
many in the south support the prospect.
Our engagement in Afghanistan will be viewed as a costly and ultimately ineffective enterprise by future
commentators. Certainly in any post-mortem, questions will have to be asked why senior Canadian
military and political leaders chose to follow a flawed American strategy of counter-insurgency rather than
devise our own approach in the areas under our command.
Yes, we should be commended for taking on the part of Afghanistan known to be the toughest. But it
must also be recognized that we failed, both in our approach to the strategies and tactics required, and in
the resourcing which was demanded of the mission. It is critical that a comprehensive lessons-learned
exercise be conducted, and as part of that, we must first recognize Afghanistan for what it is--a costly
defeat.
Good effort? Certainly. A job well done? Not by a long shot.
Peter Dimitroff, Kandahar City, Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: Capt. Robert Semrau is not guilty of murder, but he did shoot an unarmed and wounded enemy
combatant in what has been described as a mercy killing.
Headline: Captain cleared of murder Found guilty of disgraceful conduct
Page: 10
Byline: BRYN WEESE PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
Outlet: The Edmonton Sun
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: GATINEAU, Que.
Capt. Robert Semrau is not guilty of murder, but he did shoot an unarmed and wounded enemy
combatant in what has been described as a mercy killing.
He was convicted Monday of disgraceful conduct for the shooting, but the victim may have been dead
already.
"One of the elements that had to be proved to prove murder in the second degree is the individual died as
a result," said Lt.-Col. Mario Leveillee, the chief prosecutor in the case. "They (the jury) may have had a
reasonable doubt about this."
The combatant Semrau shot had been shot out of a tree earlier by a U.S. helicopter. One of his legs had
been severed at the hip, the other leg was severely damaged and he had a a gapping gaping fist-sized
hole in his abdomen.
PRISON SENTENCE
Semrau was cleared of second-degree murder, attempted murder and negligence to perform his military
duty. The disgraceful conduct charge under the National Defence Act carries a maximum five-year prison
sentence.
Semrau, whose military record prior to the October 2008 incident on the Afghan battlefield was
exemplary, could also be booted from the Canadian Forces.
The sentencing hearing is expected to begin next Monday, assuming the judge, Lt.- Col. Jean-Guy
Perron, allows a sentence to be issued in the case.
Semrau's lawyer has filed an application that military court martial proceedings are unconstitutional -- a
Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge that has been made before.
Semrau and his lawyer declined didn't commented to comment on the on verdict.the verdict.
W hile Semrau's family is
relieved the 36-year-old captain was found not guilty of murder, his older brother, Bill Semrau, said they
are still "disappointed" the disgraceful conduct charge stuck.
'DID NOTHING WRONG'
"We've always believed that my brother did nothing wrong and we put our faith in the military justice
system, and had hoped they would find the same thing," Bill Semrau said.
He cited the thousands of supporters "around the world" for helping Semrau and the family get through
the ordeal.
"But I'm afraid you'll never know what what your you're words words and your and your thought thoughts
and and your prayers have meant for all of us," he said.
As of Monday afternoon, the Support the Freedom of Capt. Robert Semrau Facebook facebook page had
8,377 members.
Semrau was joined by his wife, Amelie, and brother in military court Monday.
The four-member military panel, which acted as a jury of his peers, began deliberations on Saturday after
Perron read out 84 pages of instructions.
Semrau didn't didn't testified testify during dur the trial, which is believed to be the first murder case
against a Canadian soldier for actions on the battlefield.
No body was ever recovered.
bryn.weese@sunmedia.ca
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: Andrew Duffy
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Headline: Semrau faces jail over conduct; Soldier cleared in 'mercy killing' of injured Taliban
Page: A1 / FRONT
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
Capt. Robert Semrau faces up to five years in prison after being found guilty of disgraceful conduct in the
battlefield shooting of a severely wounded Taliban insurgent.
Semrau, however, was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in the Oct. 19, 2008 incident in Afghanistan's
Helmand province.
The shooting, on a dirt path at the edge of a cornfield, had been sometimes characterized as a mercy
killing. Semrau, 36, betrayed no emotion as the jury foreman, Navy Commodore L.M. Hickey, delivered
the same verdict -- not guilty -- on three of four charges: second-degree murder, attempted murder and
the negligent performance of a military duty.
Hickey said Semrau was guilty of disgraceful conduct, a charge laid under provisions of the National
Defence Act. Soldiers' battlefield actions are subject to the act, which among other things requires them
to collect all wounded combatants and offer them medical treatment.
The military court is to reconvene next Monday to discuss Semrau's sentence, which could include jail
time and his dismissal from the Canadian Forces.
Semrau's brother, Bill, told reporters that the family was disappointed with the verdict.
"We always believed he did nothing wrong," Bill Semrau, 39, said outside the courtroom, "and we always
hoped the military panel would find the same thing."
He thanked his brother's thousands of supporters and called on them to continue to "support the freedom
of Capt. Robert Semrau."
Military prosecutor Lt.-Col. Mario Léveillée told reporters that Semrau has been found guilty of disgraceful
conduct for shooting a wounded and unarmed insurgent.
The body of the unidentified fighter was never recovered and Léveillée conceded that fact may have
played a role in the jury's split decision.
Indeed, it appears the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Taliban fighter was still
alive when Semrau shot him, yet the four-officer panel clearly disapproved of his conduct.
The judge, Lt.-Col Jean-Guy Perron, had told the jury that in deciding on the charge of disgraceful
conduct, they had to ask themselves whether another officer, in a similar situation, would have acted the
same way.
Léveillée would not reveal what sentence prosecutors will be seeking in the case.
Semrau's defence team has filed a constitutional challenge to the military's sentencing provisions that
must be ruled upon before a punishment is decided in the case. Perron is expected to rule on that
application later this week.
At the time of the shooting, Semrau was the leader of a four-man mentoring team embedded with an
Afghan rifle company. The team was known by its radio call sign, 72 Alpha.
Semrau, an officer with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment based at CFB Petawawa, was
not charged until more than two months after the incident.
His general court martial began in late March at the Asticou Centre, a military training facility next to
Gatineau Park, but moved at a snail's pace because of procedural wrangling. The trial travelled to
Afghanistan in June to hear from two witnesses at Kandahar Airfield.
In all, the prosecution called 12 witnesses during the 31/2-month trial, which was the first in Canada to
involve allegations of a battlefield murder.
Semrau, the youngest son of devout Christian parents from Moose Jaw, Sask., did not testify and did not
speak to the media about the case.
The former high school football star and personal trainer was the perfect soldier throughout the trial -silent, impassive, intensely concentrated.
Testimony in the case was sometimes contradictory.
Cpl. Steven Fournier, the youngest member of Semrau's mentoring team, told court that he heard
Semrau fire two shots in the direction of the downed Taliban fighter. Fournier said Semrau told him he
couldn't have lived with himself had he left an injured human being in that condition.
Minutes later, Fournier said, the men of 72 Alpha huddled on the battlefield and Semrau told them it had
been a "mercy killing."
Semrau's second-in-command, Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie, told court a dramatically different story.
Longaphie said no battlefield meeting took place that day and that Semrau never made such a
confession.
With the jury absent, the third member of 72 Alpha to testify, former Cpl. Tony Haraszta, told court the
mentoring team discussed a coverup on the evening of Oct. 19, 2008. Haraszta, who is now a civilian,
said Longaphie raised the issue at a team meeting as the Canadians prepared to establish camp.
At that same meeting, Haraszta said, Semrau told the team that he would accept the consequences of his
actions, which he believed relieved the suffering of a dying man. "He (Semrau) told us that he shot the
Taliban, he put him out of his misery and if anything came of it, he would wear it -- those were his exact
words," Haraszta testified.
In Afghanistan, a translator, identified only as Max, said he saw Semrau fire one shot into the Taliban
fighter's head. An Afghan officer, Capt. Shafiqullah, testified that Semrau later apologized to him for the
shooting.
Military prosecutor Léveillée argued that the case against Semrau had been established, particularly
when combined with the physical evidence in the case. Two expended cartridge casings were recovered
from the scene in Helmand province; a ballistics expert testified they were fired from Semrau's C-8 rifle.
Defence lawyer Maj. Steven Turner argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a
reasonable doubt. Turner, who did not call any witnesses, said the prosecution's witnesses were both
unreliable and contradictory.
It was not clear, Turner argued, whether the Taliban fighter was alive at the time of the alleged shooting,
or had already died of his wounds -- the result of being shot out of a tree by an Apache helicopter.
Back to Top
Section: National News
Outlet: The Globe And Mail
Byline: STEVEN CHASE
Headline: Semrau guilty of disgraceful conduct, not murder
Page: A7
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
A young Canadian army captain has been acquitted of murdering a wounded Taliban fighter, but found
guilty of disgraceful conduct, in a controversial military trial that sparked a debate about mercy killing in
wartime.
Captain Robert Semrau was found not guilty of second-degree murder and attempted murder by a jury of
fellow officers at the conclusion of a historic military court martial in Gatineau, Que. He showed no
emotion as the verdict was read out Monday.
He was, however, found guilty of disgraceful conduct, a lesser charge that carries a penalty of up to five
years and could even result in discharge from the Canadian Forces. The 36-year-old father of two has yet
to be sentenced.
Capt. Semrau is believed to be the first Canadian soldier to be prosecuted for an alleged battlefield killing
- for a shooting that occurred in 2008 in the Afghan province of Helmand. The court martial heard that he
fired a double tap of bullets into a critically wounded insurgent whom one witness testified was ``98 per
cent dead'' already.
Lieutenant-Colonel Mario Leveillee, a member of the prosecution team, said he believes the jury's verdict
reflects what could be proven in the court martial.
``They've found him guilty of shooting an unarmed, wounded person,'' he said. ``One element that had to
be proved to find murder in the second degree was that the individual died as a result. They may have
had a reasonable doubt about this.''
Prosecutors faced an uphill battle in establishing a murder case, even after some of Capt. Semrau's
fellow soldiers testified the officer had privately admitted to shooting the insurgent at close range. There
was no body, no autopsy report and witnesses gave conflicting testimony.
Still, Bill Semrau, the captain's brother, said the soldier and his supporters are disappointed that he was
convicted of disgraceful conduct.
``We have always believed my brother did nothing wrong and put our faith in the military justice system,''
he said. He urged people to join a Facebook.com group, Support the Freedom of Captain Robert
Semrau, which on Monday counted close to 8,400 members.
The prosecution had alleged the army captain committed a mercy killing because he felt bound by a
``soldier's pact'' to end the suffering of gravely wounded combatants. There is no defence for mercy killing
in the law.
Scott Taylor, publisher of Esprit de Corps, an independent magazine about the military, said he thinks the
verdict as it stands is the best possible result.
``I think the message has been sent that they [the Canadian Forces] are going to restrain soldiers from
playing God,'' he said.
Monday's verdict represents the first time a Canadian soldier has been convicted of shooting an unarmed
combatant, Lt.-Col. Leveillee said.
Some supporters of Capt. Semrau argue it's unfair that he has been forced to face prosecution for
decisions made on the battlefield. ``It sickens me to no end that the same government that sent you to a
foreign hellhole is prosecuting you for doing your job,'' one wrote on the Facebook site.
Retired colonel Alain Pellerin with the Conference of Defence Associations said the court martial was
necessary for transparency. He said the military is determined to avoid a repeat of the 1990s Somalia
affair, where military brass covered up evidence of wrongdoing.
He said the Semrau prosecution, recent charges laid against Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard for an
intimate relationship with a subordinate, and the early recall of Colonel Bernard Ouellette from his United
Nations post in Haiti are all signs of this.
During the court martial, one of the soldiers under Capt. Semrau's command testified that the officer told
his team that he finished off the insurgent and would accept responsibility for any consequences.
``He [Semrau] told us that he shot the Taliban, he put him out of his misery and if anything came of it, he
would wear it - those where his exact words,'' former Corporal Tony Haraszta told the court martial in
May.
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: Semrau not guilty of murder Conviction sends strong signal, lawyer says; Captain still faces
five years in prison - and discharge from military - for 'disgraceful conduct' in shooting of wounded,
unarmed Taliban fighter
Page: A1
Byline: Richard J. Brennan and Bruce Campion-Smith Toronto Star
Outlet: Toronto Star
Illustrations:
ourt following theverdict in his court martial in Gatineau, Que., on
Monday, on a charge of killing a wounded combatant. Capt. Robert Semrau arrives with his wife Amelie
Lapierre-Semrau to hear the verdict in his court martial in Gatineau, Que., on Monday. Sean
Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Capt. Robert Semrau is the first soldier in Canadian history to be found guilty of shooting a wounded,
unarmed combatant on a battlefield.
While a four-person military judicial panel found the 36-year army captain guilty Monday under the
National Defence Act of disgraceful conduct in the Afghan shooting, he was found not guilty of seconddegree murder, attempted murder and negligent performance of duty.
He faces up to five years in prison for the lesser charge, and most likely a discharge from the armed
forces. Sentencing will be on Monday.
"For an officer to be convicted of ... disgraceful conduct is for all intents and purposes a career-ender,"
said Stuart Hendin, a University of Ottawa expert on armed conflict and human-rights lawyer who
participated in the Somalia inquiry.
Even so, Semrau's brother Bill Semrau said the family was "disappointed" at the one finding of guilty. He
thanked the public for its overwhelming support during the lengthy trial and lead-up.
"As a family ... we always believed that my brother did nothing wrong and we put our faith in the military
justice system and hoped they would find the same thing," he told reporters following the verdict.
Semrau said "thousands" of people from Canada and around the world added their voices of support for
Robert by phone or on a Facebook site calling for his freedom.
"The support we have received from the public is fantastic," he said.
As has become a matter of course, Semrau arrived with his wife Amelie Lapierre-Semrau to hear the
verdict in a hearing room in a nondescript government complex. The two left without saying a word.
The verdict was delivered in a monotone voice by lead panellist Commodore Laurence Hickey.
Semrau betrayed no emotion as the decision was read.
"The charge of disgraceful conduct was for shooting and wounding an unarmed person ... that's why he
was found guilty of that offence," Lt.-Col. Mario Leveillée, a member of the prosecution team, told
reporters. "I think it's the first time it's ever happened."
Leveillée explained the burden of proof with a second-degree murder charge is that a person dies as a
result "and they (the panel) may have had a reasonable doubt about this," especially since the body was
not recovered.
The members of the military jury faced a daunting task to peer through the fog of war and pass judgment
on a battlefield shooting.
The verdict caps a drama that began on a dusty battlefield in southern Afghanistan on Oct. 19, 2008.
Semrau was part of a team of Canadian Forces mentors to the Afghanistan National Army in Helmand
province in the southern region of the country.
An Apache helicopter had attacked nearby Taliban insurgents, firing a devastating volley of shots that
blasted off an insurgent's leg, almost severed his other one and severely wounded him in the abdomen.
An Afghan interpreter assigned to the Canadian team - identified only as "Max" by court order - testified
that the severely wounded insurgent was moving before Semrau fired a single round from his assault rifle
into the man's head.
Another soldier with the patrol testified that he saw Semrau standing over the insurgent with his rifle
pointed at his chest seconds after two quick shots were fired. The trial heard also evidence that Semrau
told fellow officers after the shooting that he simply wanted to put a wounded and dying enemy fighter out
of his misery.
While Semrau was cleared of murder, his conviction on a charge of disgraceful conduct will send a
powerful signal to soldiers about their actions on the battlefield, said Michel Drapeau, an Ottawa lawyer
and a retired colonel.
"Some people may feel he's getting away with it. Well, he's not," he said in an interview.
"He may not have been found guilty of murder but it's a question of nuances here. His conduct has been
found to be reprehensible and, judged by his peers, found to be disgraceful," Drapeau said.
"I think it's going to send a sobering message to this generation of soldiers that the Canadian Forces
carries with them the entire body of laws that applies to Canadians ... and you'll be held to account for
what you do.
"This will provide added stress to the soldiers in the battlefield because it's a precedent, somebody being
charged for actions on the battlefield against an enemy combatant."
He said the notion of a "mercy killing" cheapens the role and training of a professional soldier and flies in
the face of human-rights conventions governing treatment of injured soldiers.
Drapeau echoed other experts who viewed Semrau's conviction on a murder charge as a long shot, given
that the body of the insurgent was never recovered. "I never believed from the get-go that you could
prove that beyond a reasonable doubt so for that reason the verdict is not surprising," he said.
International law expert Michael Byers called the jury's finding appropriate. "There is no reason to believe
that Capt. Semrau was acting maliciously, or that the insurgent would have survived if medical assistance
had been called," said Byers, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International
Law at the University of British Columbia.
"What matters here is that Capt. Semrau disregarded the rules of international humanitarian law, in which
all our soldiers are schooled, and chose instead to follow his own moral code," he said in an email.
"Professional militaries cannot tolerate this kind of freelancing, since it undermines discipline, consistency
and the effectiveness of the team."
Alain Pellerin, of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations, said the verdict should be well
received in the ranks of the armed forces.
"In the army, there are those that are familiar with the context of the war in Afghanistan. They will feel it
was the right decision. Not an easy one," Pellerin said.
The panel began their deliberations Saturday afternoon after hearing from military Judge Lt.-Col. JeanGuy Perron that Semrau was to be presumed innocent, and that the prosecution bore the burden of
proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Semrau never testified in the three months of hearings and his lawyers never called any witnesses,
believing that the case against the Moose Jaw, Sask., native was fraught with flimsy evidence.
Perron is to hear a Charter challenge Tuesday from defence counsel questioning the "constitutionality of
the sentencing regime," Leveillée said.
'I'm really happy that he beat the rap'
Frank Gavin, 78, of Welland, Ont., is pleased Semrau was acquitted of murder. Nearly a half-century
earlier, Gavin was a private and had seen almost
the same scene take place on the battle-field in Korea, with no charges ever being laid. His story, A9
Back to Top
Section: Front
Byline: Stephanie Levitz Of The Canadian Press Reports On The Military Panel&rsquos Decision From
Gatineau, Que.
Outlet: The Chronicle-Herald
Illustrations:
believed my brother did nothing wrong." (Sean Kilpatrick / CP)
e always
believed my brother did nothing wrong." (Sean Kilpatrick / CP)
Headline: Not guilty of murder; Soldier cleared of shooting Afghan insurgent gravely hurt in battle,
convicted of lesser charge of disgraceful conduct
Page: A1
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
CANADIAN FORCES Capt. Robert Semrau's conduct in the minutes after a fierce battle in Afghanistan
was disgraceful, but it wasn't murder, a military panel ruled Monday.
The unprecedented court martial found Semrau not guilty of second-degree or attempted murder for the
shooting of an Afghan insurgent in October 2008, but guilty of a lesser charge of disgraceful conduct
under the National Defence Act.
While one expert hailed the decision as the right choice for the panel to make, it was cold comfort to
Semrau's family, who had been buoyed by an outpouring of public support since the father of two was
charged with the crime last year.
"As a family, we're disappointed in the verdict," said Semrau's brother, Bill, outside the military tribunal
room. "We've always believed my brother did nothing wrong."
Semrau was also found not guilty of a lesser charge of negligent performance of a military duty. The
decision marks the first time a soldier has been convicted of shooting a combatant, said prosecutor Lt.Col. Mario Levaille.
But it also speaks to how difficult it is to prove crimes committed in the fog of war.
The prosecution called a dozen witnesses during the four month trial, which also travelled to Afghanistan
to hear witnesses there. Semrau himself never testified.
The body of the insurgent he was charged with killing was never recovered, making forensic evidence of
murder impossible to find.
"We proved the fact that he shot and wounded an unarmed man, that's what we proved beyond a
reasonable doubt," Leaville said outside court.
"Why they reached the verdict they reached, I cannot say."
The dramatic legal-military saga began on Oct. 19, 2008, on a dusty battlefield in the Taliban-infested
Helmand province, just west of Kandahar, the province where most of Canada's soldiers are stationed.
Semrau was part of a team of Canadian soldiers assigned to the Afghanistan National Army as mentors.
Following an intense fire fight that pitted Canadian and Afghan forces against the Taliban, an insurgent
lay on the verge of death. He had been strafed by a U.S. helicopter gunship and witnesses described
devastating injuries, including a severed leg and a gaping hole in his abdomen.
The trial was told that Semrau fired two rounds from his rifle into the dying man and that he'd told fellow
officers after the shooting that he simply wanted to put a wounded and dying enemy fighter out of his
misery.
But the concept of a mercy killing is so far removed from acceptable military practice that the verdict
against Semrau can serve a valuable lesson, suggested retired Col. Michel Drapeau, who is now a
lawyer.
"Justice will be seen to render soldiers a service," he said.
"If this issue of mercy killing is in fact common currency among soldiers, this just put an end to it. It puts
an end in a very brutal and certain way that this is illegal, immoral, unethical and will not be tolerated."
But may also have soldiers thinking twice about firing their weapons at all, Drapeau said.
"There is a grey zone there, when an enemy is down, he could be down legitimately, because he's
injured, because he's sick or because he wants to surrender," he said.
"But he could also assume a prone position with the intent of calling you."
Semrau's conviction carries with it a maximum penalty of five years in prison. He could also be
discharged from the military.
Semrau is a married father of two girls and had a spotless record with the British and Canadian militaries.
Lawyers for both sides were scheduled to meet again today for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms
argument over the military's sentencing procedures.
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: Kathryn Blaze Carlson and Andrew Duffy
Outlet: National Post
Illustrations:
Semrau leaves his court martial in Gatineau, Que., yesterday with his wife, Amelie, after being found not
guilty of second-degree murder, but guilty of disgraceful conduct.
Headline: Semrauverdict deals blow to warrior code, experts say; 'Sobering Signal'
Page: A1
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: TORONTO and GATINEAU, Que.
Source: National Post; With Files From Postmedia News
Canadian Forces Captain Robert Semrau -- the first Canadian soldier to be charged with murder on the
battlefield -- was found guilty yesterday of the lesser charge of disgraceful conduct in the death of a
Taliban insurgent, sending a "sobering signal" to the military about the controversial so-called soldiers'
pact.
Although Capt. Semrau, a 36-year-old father with what one judge described as an "exemplary" service
record, was acquitted of second-degree murder, military experts say the outcome nonetheless marks
condemnation of an unwritten warrior code -- a pact that says if one soldier is wounded and on the verge
of death, another should hasten the inevitable.
The precedent-setting case offered a rare glimpse of this supposed code: The prosecution alleged that
during an Afghan-led operation in Helmand province in October 2008, Capt. Semrau shot and killed a
severely wounded enemy fighter in what may have been an "act of so-called mercy."
"This case sends a very sobering signal," said Colonel Michel Drapeau, a lecturer on military law at the
University of Ottawa. "This decision will make the task of the soldier that much more exacting. Soldiers
will now recognize that they carry the law right into battle with them."
Capt. Semrau, a church-going officer with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment based at
Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, betrayed no emotion as the jury foreman, Navy Commodore L.M.
Hickey, delivered the verdict.
The charge, laid under the National Defence Act, carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and
could include dishonourable discharge from the army. A sentence is expected next week.
Col. Drapeau said he was "not surprised" at the acquittal on the second-degree murder charge, mostly
because the body of the alleged victim was never found and therefore cause of death was difficult to
establish. Capt. Semrau, the youngest son of devout Christian parents in Moose Jaw, Sask., was also
found not guilty of attempted murder and the negligent performance of a military duty.
"I think this was the best possible verdict," said Scott Taylor, publisher of the military magazine Esprit de
Corps. "This was never a witch-hunt. But it's clear that they couldn't let this go without some sort of
condemnation."
Capt. Semrau, who at the time of the incident was leader of a four-man mentoring team embedded with
an Afghan rifle company, did not testify and did not speak to the media.
The former high school football star and personal trainer was the perfect soldier throughout the 3½-month
trial -- silent, impassive, intensely concentrated. He seemed to move only to whisper into the ear of his
lawyer.
His two defence lawyers wore blue navy dress uniforms; the two prosecutors were in army green. Both
legal teams, and Capt. Semrau himself, snapped to attention every time the judge, Lieutenant-Colonel
Jean-Guy Perron, entered the courtroom.
John Thompson, a warfare expert and president of the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, said this courtmartial case will no doubt "send a chill" to Canadian soldiers making difficult decisions in the battlefield.
"The reality of combat is that sometimes things like this happen," he said. "It does not do well to start
poking around in the matter afterwards."
Capt. Semrau's brother, Bill, told reporters that the family was disappointed with the verdict.
"We always believed he did nothing wrong," he said outside the courtroom, "and we always hoped the
military panel would find the same thing."
But Mr. Taylor said anything less than yesterday's outcome would have established a dangerous
precedent, where Canada's soldiers would be somehow exempt from the Criminal Code and the Geneva
Conventions, which says that "all wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."
Beyond arguments in international law, however, the case seemed to turn on the contradictory testimony
of some of the prosecution's 12 witnesses.
Corporal Steven Fournier told the court martial that he heard the captain fire two shots in the direction of
the downed Taliban fighter. Capt. Semrau allegedly told him he could not have lived with himself had he
left an injured human being in that condition.
Minutes later, Cpl. Fournier said, the team huddled on the battlefield and Capt. Semrau told them it had
been a "mercy killing."
However, Capt. Semrau's second-in-command, Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie, said no battlefield
meeting took place and Capt. Semrau never made such a confession.
Prosecutor Lieutenent-Colonel Mario Leveillee argued that the case had indeed been established,
particularly when combined with the physical evidence. Two expended cartridge casings were recovered
from the scene; a ballistics expert testified they were fired from Capt. Semrau's C-8 rifle.
Defence lawyer Major Steven Turner, who did not call any witnesses, argued that the prosecution had
failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was also unclear, he argued, whether the Taliban
fighter was alive at the time of the alleged shooting, or had already died of his wounds--the result of being
shot by an Apache helicopter.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: Capt. Robert Semrau's decision to put a fatally wounded Taliban fighter out of his misery after a
gun battle in Afghanistan was "appropriate," a retired army major-general says.
Headline: Former general backs soldier's decision
Page: 7
Byline: BRYN WEESE
Outlet: The Ottawa Sun
Illustrations:
Amelie on Monday.
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Capt. Robert Semrau's decision to put a fatally wounded Taliban fighter out of his misery after a gun
battle in Afghanistan was "appropriate," a retired army major-general says.
Such occasions do happen -- albeit very rarely -- and will continue regardless of Semrau's court martial.
"I think the occasions are so rare you can count them on one finger," said Lewis Mac- Kenzie, a 35-year
veteran of the Canadian Forces, who headed up the UN mission in Sarajevo during the Balkans War.
"It's not something that anybody would even think about ahead of time. It's just a situation develops and
then it happens. I would suggest in the nine years we've been in Afghanistan, this is probably the only
one."
DIFFICULT TO JUDGE
But MacKenzie said complicated battlefield context makes them all extremely difficult to judge -especially in a peaceful Canadian court -- and they are best left unreported.
"Some people will interpret that as being cavalier. It's not," MacKenzie said. "People have to understand
the battlefield...
"There was a judgment call that was made at the time that, in my estimation, was appropriate, and it's
taken three years to clean it up and come to a conclusion."
On Oct. 19, 2008, Semrau was part of a team of Canadian Forces mentoring members of Afghanistan's
National Army when they were ambushed by Taliban insurgents.
Following an intense fire-fight -- in which a U.S. Apache attack helicopter was called in -- one of the
insurgents had been shot out of a tree by helicopter cannon fire.
Court heard one of his legs had been severed at the hip, the other held together only by flesh.
He also had a gaping hole in his abdomen.
Court had also heard Semrau told fellow officers after the shooting he wanted to put the dying Taliban
insurgent out of his misery.
In Monday's dramatic verdict, Semrau was found not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder
and negligence to perform his military duty.
But he was convicted of disgraceful conduct, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.
"I'm just hoping the mitigating circumstances mean the punishment for that will be modest to the
extreme," MacKenzie said, adding he's "disappointed" the one conviction stuck.
But he warned legislators and bureaucrats not to "cover" Semrau's case with a new rule banning mercy
killings.
No such rule officially exists.
"Quite frankly, every incident is going to be so different," he said.
"I mean those guys are lugging around enough pages of rules of engagement now to all of a sudden
insult their intelligence by saying, 'We don't want you to mercy kill.' "
Semrau's sentence hearing begins Monday in Gatineau.
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: 'I was rooting for this young captain'; Veteran Frank Gavin supports acquittal, saying a mercy
killing ended enemy's suffering during Korean War
Page: A9
Byline: Kenneth Kidd Toronto Star
Outlet: Toronto Star
Illustrations:
1951, applauds the acquittal of Capt. Robert Semrau.Mercy killings are a "fact of life" on the battlefield,
Gavin says. Glenn Lowson for the Toronto Star
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
When Canadian Forces Capt. Robert Semrau was acquitted Monday in the mercy killing of a wounded
Taliban soldier in Afghanistan, Frank Gavin was sitting at home in Welland, Ont., quietly cheering.
"I was rooting for this young captain," says Gavin. "I'm really happy that he beat the rap.
"He was a brilliant soldier. He fought in the Parachute Regiment in England and then he came back to
Canada and he joined the RCR (Royal Canadian Regiment). He looked the part of a soldier."
But it wasn't merely Semrau's "professionalism" that Gavin admired. He also had every reason to
sympathize with what Semrau was alleged to have done in putting a mortally wounded soldier out of his
misery.
Nearly a half-century earlier, Gavin had seen almost the same scene take place on the battlefield in
Korea, and no charges were ever laid.
"I was only a kid," said Gavin, now 78, who was then a private with the Royal Canadian Regiment. "But I
thought it was the greatest thing that ever happened, the poor man was suffering so bad."
In August 1951, about 1,500 Canadian soldiers had been sent out on a three-day patrol.
"There was a bit of a lull in the action," says Gavin. "We wanted to find out what was going on with the
Chinese."
So they crossed the Imjin River in rubber boats and soon enough found themselves under heavy fire,
which they managed to withstand.
"The next morning, we went out again, and we come under fire, 7, 8 o'clock in the morning," recalls
Gavin. "Our officer came out and said we had to fix bayonets. I said, 'bayonets? That went out in 1914.'
"I was on the Bren (machine) gun and all the boys fixed their bayonets. We never really used them,
except for opening tin cans, and they were rusty. Under the Geneva Convention, if you're caught with a
rusty bayonet, it's game over for you."
The Canadians nevertheless charged uphill, suffered three or four casualties that Gavin could see, and
eventually came upon a big Chinese soldier, dug in with a machine gun. They threw a grenade, which
ripped apart his legs and stomach.
But the enemy soldier, despite being mortally wounded, still tried to cock his machine gun again, going
through the motions as if on instinct.
"Our officer - I'm not going to name names - he walked up with a 9mm (pistol) and he fired in the back of
his head.
"The guy kind of blinked a little bit and then went through the (cocking) action again. So my corporal, he
ran up with a .303 (rifle) and put a bullet in his head and killed him. He killed him because he was going to
die anyway.
"If you had a surgeon with you and all the equipment, maybe you could have saved his life."
But with no such luxury available, Gavin says the unwritten code of professional soldiers simply kicked in.
"I'm sure it happened in the Second World War and the First World War and I know it happened in
Korea."
If Gavin were still a soldier, mortally wounded on the battlefield, would he want an enemy soldier to end
his life rather than let him suffer a long and painful death?
"If I had lost a limb or both limbs, or whatever, yes I would. It's a sad thing to say in any war, but it's a fact
of life."
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Outlet: The Telegram (St. John's)
Headline: Lots of dollars, no sense
Page: A6
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
So, now we're going to spend roughly $16 billion on fighter jets that don't even seem to be the type we
need, right on the heels of a $1.2-billion security debacle at the G20 that saw, at the height of its
absurdity, armed police ordering protestors to stop the threatening behaviour of blowing soap bubbles.
Canada's federal government may call themselves Conservatives, but darn it, they're suddenly spending
like Liberals. And not even smart Liberals. They're spending like drunken Liberals.
Because the F-35 fighter contract ($9 billion to buy the planes, and a guaranteed $7-billion maintenance
contract) doesn't sound either like the kind of airplane we need, or anything like a reasonable deal.
The new stealth fighter, which will replace the CF-18 (which, after recent upgrades, doesn't need
replacement until 2017), doesn't seem to be designed for any of the fighter applications Canada's air
force might require.
And then there's the tricky problem that the federal government, while Parliament is shut down for the
summer, has announced the purchase without so much as a competitive tender. We don't know whether
the planes are a reasonable price, we don't know what sort of industrial benefits might accrue to this
country, and we're not even willing to have a competitive process that might put more industrial benefits
on the table, let alone get us an airplane with attributes the match the needs of the Canadian Forces.
Instead, by buying into an existing plan for Americans, we're supposed to be somehow ingratiating
ourselves to our nearest neighbour. Well, there's a fascinating investment scheme.
That's sure to benefit us, somehow.
Think, for a minute: if you have to spend $16 billion, how much better would it be to spend it on something
else.
If you invested it in municipal infrastructure, the work could be done here, wages would be paid here, and
the resulting infrastructure would help Canadian taxpayers drive to work or get fresh water.
The same amount in international aid could do untold good deeds, and saves scores of lives.
Heck, even a healthy investment in new Coast Guard vessels would do more to protect our borders than
a fleet of Cadillac attack fighters - and we could build the ships here, and pay Canadian shipbuilders to
build them, too, spinning the money through the Canadian economy instead of just sending it south.
But wait a minute - maybe if we were to get the new aircraft with pontoons, we could land them on our
spiffy and expensive G20 fake lake.
We're all being told that these are tight fiscal times, that we have to tighten our belts and expect less.
Our federal government is busy undoing its belt, one multi-billion-dollar notch at a time, and running the
largest budget deficit in Canadian history in the process.
Now - these are Conservatives, right? Because they sure don't behave like Conservatives.
Back to Top
Section: Letters
Byline: J.M. Ouellet
Outlet: National Post
Headline: F-35 purchase defended
Page: A15
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: National Post
When former prime minister Jean Chretien cancelled the EH-101 helicopter contract, the Canadian
Forces were left without badly needed aircraft. The Liberals also sent us into Kandahar with substandard
equipment (recall the Iltis jeep debacle). Decisions such as these left the Canadian military without the
tools they needed to take on the missions they were assigned, resulting in the high rate of casualties
suffered by Canadian forces in Afghanistan.
Now federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his looney Liberals are threatening to cancel the
acquisition of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, even though it is the only aircraft that can deliver what the
government and military have determined to be the capabilities needed to protect Canadian interests and
sovereignty.
Having worked in the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) monitoring Soviet submarine activity during
the Cold War, I can assure you that Canada is not immune to internal and external sovereignty security
issues. We deserve a government that will recognize the threats we face in the world and equip our
military accordingly. The Liberals have repeatedly shown that they are not up to that job.
J.M. Ouellet, Canadian Forces petty officer second class, (retired), Chilliwack, B.C.
Back to Top
Section: Canada & World
Byline: Barbara Yaffe
Outlet: Vancouver Sun
Headline: Canadians have questions about Ottawa's fighter-jet purchase; Shouldn't the defence
committee have been involved from the start? Why these particular jets -- and why now? We have a right
to know
Page: B2
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: Vancouver Sun
Canadian taxpayers certainly could be forgiven for wanting to change the way Ottawa makes major
military purchases.
No sooner had the Harper government announced on Friday that it would be purchasing 65 F-35 fighter
jets from American contractor Lockheed Martin, at a projected cost (including maintenance) of $16 billion,
than official Opposition Liberals declared an intention to put the order on hold should they form
government.
A Liberal news release scolded, a "sole-sourced contract, agreed to without transparency, can't be
allowed to proceed."
The declaration smacked of deja vu.
Back in 1993, Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien, after winning an election, cancelled a Mulroney
government deal to buy $4.8 billion EH101 helicopters to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings,
asserting the new choppers would be Cadillacs when Chevys would do just fine.
The EH101 contract, as all contracts do, contained provision for cancellation forcing taxpayers to cough
up $500 million for the new government's change of heart.
That cancellation wound up significantly delaying acquisition of the badly needed replacements, which
have yet to be delivered.
A query to Lockheed Martin about cancellation fees in the Harper government's contract for the F-35s did
not yield a reply this week. But you can bet that cancelling the deal would not be a pretty scenario.
Liberals are on safe political ground in threatening to can the deal because Canadians generally don't like
big military purchases.
Polling last December by the Strategic Council revealed just 26 per cent of taxpayers believe Canada
gets good value for money on major military equipment purchases.
On the positive side, the purchase is expected to yield subcontracts for Canadians.
Interoperability is also a factor; NATO nations are buying F-35s.
But the purchase is being made at a time when Canada is battling a deficit.
Questions have also been raised about the stealth fighters' practical utility in a country that doesn't
engage all that often in air-to-air combat.
Further, the aircraft is equipped with only a single engine, prompting some to wonder if this is wise, given
the aircraft will be called upon to patrol vast distances in the north and along remote coastlines.
But surely all these issues should have been raised before, and settled to the satisfaction of all the
parties, before a purchase commitment being made.
After all, Canada has been a member of the F-35 project since 1997. An international competition was
held in 2001 -- when the Liberals were in power -- that crowned Lockheed Martin as lead contractor over
Boeing.
Why are Liberals moving now to threaten the project?
In an era of minority governments, when it's not unusual for governments to frequently change hands, it
makes sense to bring all political players on board before multibillion-dollar commitments in defence
spending are made.
The squabbling over the F-35 acquisition, coming so late in the day, is totally Mickey Mouse.
Liberals are calling for the Commons Defence Committee to be quickly reconvened to examine the
"secretive, unaccountable decision to proceed with this contract."
Would it not have made more sense for the defence committee to have been involved from the beginning
of the purchase process?
And shouldn't politicians have explained to taxpayers what specific role these aircraft are designed to fulfil
-- and why it is we need them -- to ensure necessary public support?
Canadians should not be left scratching our heads about the necessity for such a huge purchase. Nor
should we be called upon to fork over huge amounts of cash for cancellation fees because government
and opposition politicians cannot get their acts together.
byaffe@vancouversun.com
Back to Top
Section: Main
Headline: Veterans Affairs critic wants to hear about impact of Agent Orange spraying
Page: A3
Outlet: The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
Byline: SHAWN BERRY berry.shawn@dailygleaner.com
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
A member of Parliament's standing committee on veterans' affairs wants to hear from New Brunswickers
about the legacy of toxic herbicide spraying at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.
Liberal MP Rob Oliphant is a member off the committee that will decide this fall whether to recommend a
public inquiry into the spraying of Agent Orange and other defoliants at Canadian Forces Base
Gagetown.
He will be in Fredericton on Thursday night to hold an informal town hall meeting with citizens concerned
about the federal government's reaction to effects of the spraying. The event takes place at 7 p.m. at
Days Inn Oromocto.
"It's for anybody who feels there's still a story that hasn't been told, or an answer hasn't been given to
them," he said Monday at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood.
Oliphant said he'll have an ear out for anyone whose story might give more insight about the issue to his
fellow committee members.
"They will be concerned with whether the committee calls for an inquiry - full hearings - into what actually
went on for a whole generation where defoliants were used at Gagetown."
The federal government is making $20,000 payments to people whose health may have been harmed by
Agent Orange spraying at the base. To qualify, applicants must have one of 12 illnesses associated with
Agent Orange exposure and have worked at, trained at or been posted at CFB Gagetown, or lived within
five kilometres of the base when chemicals were sprayed in June-September 1966 and/or 1967.
Oliphant said he's heard from people who say $20,000 is too little, and others who said the criteria for
compensation should be expanded.
Widows on a Warpath, one of the groups Oliphant is to meet with Thursday, has also protested the fact
compensation was limited to people who were alive Feb. 6, 2006 - the date the federal Conservatives
came to power.
Back to Top
Section: Canada
Outlet: National Post
Headline: Police seek connection as second law-enforcement office hit in Quebec
Page: A6
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: National Post
Police are searching for possible connections after a second Canadian law-enforcement office in Quebec
was attacked in less than three weeks. Early yesterday morning, vandals hurled blunt objects through
windows of an RCMP and Department of National Defence office in southwest Montreal, causing damage
in excess of $5,000. A Canadian Forces recruitment office in Trois-Rivieres, Que., was bombed on July 2,
causing no injuries due to the late hour. Quebec radical organization Resistance internationaliste claimed
responsibility for the July 2 bombing in Trois-Rivieres. No charges have been laid in connection with the
July 2 bombing. No group has claimed responsibility for yesterday's act of vandalism and the investigation
is ongoing.
Back to Top
Section: Column
Outlet: The Globe And Mail
Byline: CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Headline: For jury in Semrau case, penalty didn't fit crime
Page: A1
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
cblatchford@globeandmail.com
If it looks like jury nullification and walks like jury nullification and quacks like jury nullification, it's probably
jury nullification.
It may be that there's another explanation for the verdict in the military trial of Captain Robert Semrau, but
it sure isn't the obvious one.
Capt. Semrau is the 36-year-old Canadian soldier who on Monday was acquitted of three charges including second-degree murder - but convicted of one count of disgraceful conduct. All the charges
relate to a single incident, the alleged shooting death of a gravely wounded Taliban fighter on Oct. 19,
2008, in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.
Capt. Semrau's conviction on the disgraceful conduct charge raises an obvious question - what did he do
that was disgraceful if he didn't shoot the wounded Talib?
By all accounts, the married father of two little girls is considered an excellent soldier and an upstanding
and honourable man.
Yet by just about every indicator usually used in such matters, military prosecutors arguably proved their
case.
Certainly, despite the absence of a body (the Talib's was never retrieved from the battlefield, the
allegations not arising until about two months later) or physical evidence, no one seems to ever have
suggested at the court martial that a badly wounded Talib did not in fact die that day, or that this was all a
mirage or something imagined through the fog of war.
An Afghan interpreter testified he saw Capt. Semrau fire the second bullet into the Talib's body.
There was a cellphone video introduced at trial which showed a wounded man, allegedly the wounded
man, lying still and unmoving.
There was contradictory testimony from members of Capt. Semrau's small Operational and Mentor and
Liaison Team (OMLT), with two soldiers saying Capt. Semrau told them afterward he had shot the Talib to
put him out of his misery and the third denying any such discussion had taken place.
But there was also a potential explanation for the differing accounts, though the jury never heard it
because the judge ruled it was inadmissible.
According to former corporal Tony Haraszta's last-minute revelation, the unit had also discussed a coverup at that team meeting, and the man who raised the idea, Warrant Officer Merlin Longaphie, was also
the soldier who denied that Capt. Semrau had met with the team after the shooting and told them it was a
mercy killing.
Capt. Semrau didn't testify. His defence team called no evidence. In other words, the jurors were given no
alternate explanation and had no denials ringing in their ears when they retired to consider their verdict.
As a smart lawyer friend of mine says, ``The law is supposed to be consistent with or equivalent to some
moral code. The question here is, was it?''
Jurors, whether civilian or military, usually get things right.
They accept the invitation and responsibility to enter the sometimes complex world of the law and to bring
their life experience and common sense to bear, and, to a surprising degree, that collective wisdom
usually also leads them to the legally correct result.
But what if, as my lawyer friend says, they were unhappy with the relationship between the law and the
inherent moral question? What if they believed the punishment - in Capt. Semrau's case, conviction on
second-degree murder would have meant life in prison with no parole for at least 10 years - didn't fit the
crime?
It seems pretty clear to me that was the case here, that the jurors - though a criticism of them was that
they are administrative and logistics officers, with no one from the combat arms - found a disconnect
either between the severity of punishment and crime or between the law and morality, or perhaps both.
If that's so, it would be akin to the several trials of abortion provider Henry Morgentaler, who performed
safe abortions for women at his clinic for years in defiance of the Criminal Code. He was acquitted by
juries every time, and went to jail only when one of those acquittals was reversed by a higher court.
Those juries were plainly expressing their dissatisfaction with the state of the law.
The approval that has thus far greeted the military verdict is founded not in evidence but in supposition not that Capt. Semrau, in the vernacular, didn't do it, but that that he must have been acting mercifully.
The Talib, after all, had life-threatening wounds to his abdomen and his legs from an attack helicopter
called in to help the Canadians and the Afghan soldiers working with them; the small unit was in no
position to call in a medical evacuation for him and was in an area overrun by hostile forces. The Talib
must have been suffering terribly.
These were some of the things that ran through my head too, when the allegations against Capt. Semrau
were first made public.
Yet every soldier I asked about it said pretty much the same thing: The Geneva Conventions, the
International Law of Armed Conflict and the Canadian soldier's bible on such matters, Duty with Honour:
The Profession of Arms in Canada, all are firm that once a soldier is injured and hors de combat , French
for ``out of the fight,'' he is considered a prisoner of war, and deserving of every protection.
It reminded me of something I once heard my favourite commander say, and this was in the early spring
of 2006 in Kandahar.
Lieutenant-Colonel Ian Hope was addressing his troops at a grimy and isolated base. ``We need
discipline,'' he said, ``and we need to keep up our professionalism - that's what distinguishes you from
every other guy with a gun in this country.''
I should be clear: Lt.-Col. Hope was particularly talking about the need for his men to shave regularly, but
he was also talking about much else. I wonder if that distinction between Canadian soldiers and every
other guy with a gun in Afghanistan now will be more difficult to establish.
Back to Top
Section: Arguments
Byline: Eric Morse
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Headline: Something happened that day in Helmand province
Page: A11
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Source: Citizen Special
A military jury has found Capt. Robert Semrau not guilty of second-degree murder as well as of attempted
murder and of negligently performing a military duty imposed on him, while at the same time finding him
guilty of disgraceful conduct.
Given the testimony, it could hardly have come out much differently and yet it is probably one of the most
delicately balanced verdicts that a military justice system still haunted by the ghosts of Somalia and the
very live detritus of other events in the Afghanistan campaign could have come up with.
Justice is supposed to be blind to all but the facts of the case. In fact it is all but impossible to seal jurors
from outside influences, past history and present environment, and the four officers sequestered in that
room must have felt an impossibly heavy burden, not only of determining a man's guilt or innocence but of
the good of the service to which all four plus the accused belonged.
Semrau was accused of firing two shots into a Taliban fighter on the field of battle who may or may not
have been still alive. No body or autopsy was ever produced, and while one witness had claimed to have
seen shots fired, and other witnesses testified that they had heard Semrau say things that suggested he
might have undertaken a mercy killing, it is clear from the verdict that the jury of one naval commodore,
two majors and a captain -- after three full days' deliberation -- could not decide that he was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. He was therefore acquitted. Juries, whether military or civilian, take the burden of proof
beyond reasonable doubt very seriously indeed.
What may be far more interesting is the decision to acquit on one lesser charge -- that of negligently
performing a military duty imposed on him -- while convicting on the vaguest of the four charges:
disgraceful conduct. "Failure to perform a military duty imposed on him" implies a stricter standard of guilt,
since precisely what duty that would be then comes into focus. "Disgraceful conduct" is a far broader
brush.
It is still a serious charge. It is likely to end Semrau's career in the Forces. But according to experts, the
sentence for it could range anywhere from a caution without record, through a fine, to five years
imprisonment.
What seems clear, and must have seemed clear to the jury, is that something happened that day in
Afghanistan that could not be overlooked.
War is an evil occupation at the best of times, and the army of a democratic state that is engaged in one,
especially if it belongs to a country like Canada, must make every attempt to preserve its reputation with
friends and foes alike -- but not at the cost of convicting an innocent man.
They were not so squeamish in other days. Plenty of men in two world wars -- Canadians among them -were executed "as examples" to their comrades. And memoirs tell us of acts committed in battle -- or after
it -- far more heinous than that which Capt. Semrau stood accused of. One veteran has said to me, "I
would have had a hard time doing what Robert Semrau was accused of doing. I think I'd have had to
force myself not to let him (the enemy fighter) suffer instead."
Since the trial began, there have been questions as to why it was happening at all, given that the
prosecution's case was expected to be very difficult if not impossible to prove. The public supposition has
always been that the military did not feel it could overlook the matter in light of the very public scandals
around Somalia and the detainee affair.
This was probably a fair assessment, and the verdict seems to justify it. The jury has cleared Capt.
Semrau of the most serious charges, and has left it to the judge to determine through the sentencing
process what price he shall pay for whatever it was that happened that day in Helmand province.
Semrau is almost universally acclaimed as an honourable man and a model soldier. The system seems to
have acted as fairly as it knew how, but it is a pity that he should have been the one caught in this vise.
Eric Morse is a former Canadian diplomat and is now vice-chair of the Security Studies Committee at the
Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: Throughout the Canadian military there'll be a collective sigh of relief that Capt. Robert Semrau
was found not guilty of murdering a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan.
Headline: Semrau acquittal didn't go far enough
Page: 6
Byline: PETER WORTHINGTON
Outlet: The Ottawa Sun
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Throughout the Canadian military there'll be a collective sigh of relief that Capt. Robert Semrau was found
not guilty of murdering a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan.
That he was found guilty of one of four charges -- "Behaving in a disgraceful manner" that carries a
maximum five-year sentence -- is overshadowed at the moment by his acquittal on other charges of
murder, attempted murder and negligently performing a military duty.
Reduced to its essence, the four member panel of the court martial rightly rejected "murder." They
concluded he shot the wounded guy, but weren't convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" he'd killed the
guy who was part of an ambush on the patrol Semrau was mentoring.
No body, no identity, no autopsy, possibly unreliable witnesses, all clearly persuaded the panel to clear
him. To their discredit, however, they couldn't resist finding him guilty of disgraceful conduct -- when his
conduct was utterly the opposite of "disgraceful."
On a scale of moral values, Semrau was anything but "disgraceful." He was acting on the highest of moral
principles -- delivering to a horrendously wounded enemy (missing a foot and limb with innards torn out)
the sort of mercy most soldiers would choose for themselves in a similar situation.
Looking back, there should have been no trial at all.
The incident should never have been brought to public attention, but remained an unspoken incident
within the battle group. Now Semrau's future as a superlative officer in the Canadian Forces is in doubt.
He'll go into history books as the only Canadian soldier ever court martialled for killing an enemy on the
battlefield. That reality should give pause to anyone examining the case. Not that he's the first Canadian
soldier to extend what could be called "mercy killing" to an enemy, but the first to be charged with doing
so.
'98% DEAD'
How come, one wonders? Witnesses called by the Crown, so to speak, in varying degrees of reluctance
told the story.
One Afghan officer acknowledged the wounded man was "98% dead" when Semrau shot him. An Afghan
interpreter is being credited (blamed?) for blowing the whistle on "Capt. Rob" for doing "a bad thing."
Pretty meagre pickings. His troops must be beside themselves.
If Semrau is sent to prison it'll be a travesty.
Surely, the court will see the injustice of such a move. It'll also be a travesty if Semrau is forced to leave
the army, which is always in need of field officers of his calibre.
Most combat soldiers will see nothing "disgraceful" in what Capt. Semrau did Oct. 19, 2008. Rather, most
would probably vote to serve under him.
While relief in the verdict will be palpable in the military, some were understandably uneasy that Semrau's
defence lawyer, Maj. Steve Turner, chose not to mount a defence of his client, or subpoena witnesses.
Instead he relied on the prosecution having to prove its case -- which it didn't do. A gutsy gamble that
worked.
Semrau served in the British army in the Balkans and Iraq before coming to the Canadian army. If the
Royal Canadian Regiment no longer want him, there are those who hope he might wind up with the
Princess Pats.
Whatever his future, Canada should hope he remains in the army, where he has so much to contribute.
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: If Superman took on the Batmobile in a race, who would you place your bet on? What about an F18 versus a Ferrari?
Headline: Brag racing ready for takeoff Pride is the prize as CF-18 military jet takes on Ferrari next month
at CFB Cold Lake
Page: 16
Byline: ANGELIQUE RODRIGUES EDMONTON SUN
Outlet: The Edmonton Sun
Illustrations:
NStained-glass master artist Paul Winter checks some
of the 28 stained-glass windows Monday that he restored with his son Andre for the new St. Joseph
Seminary at 84 Street and 98 Avenue. The new seminary is set to open in September.
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
If Superman took on the Batmobile in a race, who would you place your bet on? What about an F-18
versus a Ferrari?
Competition is heating up in Cold Lake as drivers and pilots prepare to duke it out, at the Race the Base
event, next month.
The race is a new addition to the Dream Wheels Weekend and spectators will see 100 speedsters
attempt to keep up with a low-flying CF-18 Hornet -- a military fighter jet -- on the Canadian Forces Base
Cold Lake runway.
"We thought it would be an interesting matchup: military muscle versus automotive speed," said
committee chairman Sal Naim.
It's all set to take place Aug. 27 and 28, and each of the exotic car drivers, led by Zahir Rana, owner of
ZR Auto in Calgary, will pay $1,000 each for a chance to reach top speeds on the military runway, with
proceeds going to charity.
On Friday, Aug. 27, car owners will receive instruction from professional drivers from 1 to 6 p.m.
The Hornet will then face the world's fastest, street legal Ferrari car on Saturday, Aug. 28.
In the past, the Ferrari has been unable to top 300 km/h, while the Hornet can reach speeds of almost
2,000 km/h.
The Ferrari is expected to do well to start, with the jet catching up about two kilo-metres in.
Naim doesn't know who will win, but he says both sides are taking things very seriously.
"I don't think this has ever been done before," said Naim.
The public is invited to attend race day from 8 a. m to 1 p. m, as well as a car display in Bonnyville at the
Centennial Centre afterwards.
Tickets are $18 for the weekend or $12 for race day admission.
© 2010 Sun Media Corporation
Back to Top
Section: Actualités
Byline: Guimond, Josée
Outlet: Le Soleil
Headline: Vers la fin de la mission
Page: 14
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Le prochain départ majeur des militaires de Valcartier se fera cet automne, pour ce qui semble être un
des derniers grands déploiements de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan, qui doit se terminer l'an
prochain. Entre 2000 et 2300 soldats s'envoleront vers Kandahar, en octobre, à raison de 100 à 150
militaires tous les deux ou trois jours. Les modalités exactes de toute cette mission restent à déterminer,
précise Alex Maillé, porte-parole de la base militaire. Mais tout indique que la mission actuelle de l'armée
canadienne prendra bel et bien fin, comme prévu.
"On nous a dit qu'on n'aurait pas à se préparer à nouveau pour l'Afghanistan", confirme le lieutenantcolonel Erick Simoneau, commandant du 430e Escadron tactique d'hélicoptères. Les militaires canadiens
pourraient demeurer à Kandahar jusqu'à la toute fin de 2011. Ils y sont déployés depuis 2002.
Back to Top
Section: Actualités
Byline: Guimond, Josée
Outlet: Le Soleil
Illustrations:
de de sa mère, Carole Guénette. Les militaires partis hier seront en
Afghanistan pendant neuf mois.
Headline: Un dernier câlin avant la guerre
Page: 14
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Il y avait des larmes sur bien des visages, hier après-midi, dans un hangar de la base militaire de
Valcartier, à l'aube du départ d'un autre contingent militaire qui doit rejoindre la mission canadienne en
Afghanistan. Petits et grands se faisaient des derniers câlins pour se préparer à neuf longs mois de
séparation.
Ce départ concernait le 430e Escadron tactique d'hélicoptères (430 ETAH), la seule unité de force
aérienne de Valcartier. Hier, 53 militaires se sont envolés pour rejoindre l'armée canadienne en sol
afghan. Au total, c'est 174 membres du 430 ETAH qui seront à Kandahar pour assurer un soutien
opérationnel aérien aux troupes sur le terrain. Une quarantaine de membres du 430 ETAH sont déjà sur
place et le reste des militaires, qui complétera l'unité, partira à la fin du mois.
Côté hélicoptères, six appareils Chinook seront utilisés, de même que huit Griffon, ces derniers
protégeant surtout les premiers. Leur mission : assurer un appui aérien de transport en hélicoptères pour
la marchandise et, surtout, pour les militaires canadiens. "Le but, c'est d'avoir le moins d'hommes
possible sur les routes dangereuses", explique le commandant de l'escadron, le lieutenant-colonel Erick
Simoneau, qui partait pour une troisième mission en Afghanistan, hier soir.
Les militaires partis hier reviendront en avril. Les missions sont souvent d'une durée de six mois, mais
cette fois, neuf mois en terrain ennemi sont prévus. "La préparation technique a été la même, mais la
préparation psychologique a été plus délicate", estime le commandant de l'escadron, avouant qu'il est
plus difficile de faire avaler une mission de cette durée, tout en rappelant que tous les militaires y vont sur
une base volontaire.
Plusieurs n'en étaient d'ailleurs pas à leur première mission à l'étranger. Dany L'Écuyer, 25 ans, en est à
sa troisième mission en Afghanistan. Cette fois, il laisse derrière lui, en plus de sa conjointe, Carolyne
Brisebois, le petit Nathan, âgé de seulement cinq mois.
"C'est maintenant plus difficile de laisser la famille ici que d'aller là-bas", estime Dany. Pour sa conjointe,
ce sera une première mission, qu'elle compte bien vivre "au jour le jour".
De son côté, la caporale Renée Rodrigue, 29 ans, vivait son premier départ pour une mission à
l'étranger. Elle avait hâte de partir, mais s'ennuiera de sa fille de 10 ans et de son garçon de cinq ans.
Ces derniers connaissent déjà le principe des missions, leur papa étant lui aussi militaire. "Mais c'est sûr
que quand c'est maman qui part, c'est pas pareil", constate Renée. Son conjoint actuel, Christian Breton,
trouve cette séparation difficile à vivre, mais accepte le métier de son amoureuse.
Enfin, un habitué des missions à l'étranger, le caporal Danny Carroll, vivait son quatrième départ, hier. Il
prenait le tout avec philosophie, tout comme sa conjointe, Isabelle. "C'est sûr qu'on veut qu'il revienne en
un seul morceau et pas dans une boîte", prend-elle soin de préciser. Océane, sept ans, et Lily-Douce,
cinq ans, attendront aussi papa. "Mais on va se parler souvent par Internet, avec notre nouvelle
webcam", lance M. Carroll, pour rassurer sa petite dernière. "Ok, on va se parler sur le Laptop", conclut
Lily-Douce, mi-figue mi-raisin devant le départ de son papa. jguimond@lesoleil.com
Back to Top
Section: Éditorial
Byline: Jean-Robert Sansfaçon
Outlet: Le Devoir
Headline: Achat des F-35 - L'intégration militaire
Page: A6
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Elle est déjà loin, l'époque où le Canada pouvait prétendre au rôle de conciliateur lors de conflits
mondiaux. Avec l'achat de 65 avions de chasse F-35 au coût astronomique de 16 milliards de dollars en
comptant l'entretien, le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper confirme l'intégration accélérée
du Canada à la politique américaine de gendarme du monde. Est-ce bien là la volonté des Canadiens?
On en doute!
Comme notre collègue Alec Castonguay le révélait au début juin, le gouvernement Harper a pris une
décision qui n'était pourtant pas attendue avant quelques années dans le dossier de remplacement des
CF-18, dont la vie utile se terminera en 2020. Des trois concurrents en lice, c'est le F-35 de la
multinationale américaine Lockheed Martin qui a été retenu, un avion de chasse ultraperfectionné sur
papier, mais qui n'est pas en production et qui n'a donc jamais fait ses preuves.
Selon les experts, l'aspect furtif (difficile à repérer) de cet appareil le destine de façon explicite au combat
en pays étrangers puisqu'une telle caractéristique n'est d'aucune utilité pour la surveillance de son propre
territoire. Plusieurs raisons expliquent ce choix, tels les 700 millions promis par le Canada pour le
développement de cet appareil, dont 170 millions ont déjà été dépensés, l'assurance d'un prix ferme si la
commande est passée avant la mise en production, sans oublier la possibilité pour les fournisseurs
canadiens de soumissionner dès maintenant pour l'obtention de contrats.
Mais la première raison, peut-être la plus importante, est le fait que voilà un appareil qui s'intègre
parfaitement au plan américain de maintien de l'ordre dans un monde en proie à l'instabilité. Après l'Irak
et l'Afghanistan, c'est au tour de l'Iran et de la Corée du Nord de présenter des signes menaçants pour la
sécurité américaine. Or, contrairement aux années Trudeau et Chrétien, le Canada de Stephen Harper
ne veut plus se satisfaire d'une réputation de gardien de la paix et souhaite plutôt s'affirmer offensivement
aux côtés de son allié économique et idéologique, les États-Unis.
Bien sûr qu'il y a des avantages à un tel virage, le plus évident étant de nature économique. Entre 2000
et 2009, les dépenses militaires du gouvernement canadien ont bondi de 50 %. Si le Canada se présente
comme l'allié le plus fiable du Pentagone, ses entreprises seront perçues comme des partenaires à part
entière du complexe militaro-industriel nord-américain au lieu de concurrents menaçants pour l'emploi et
la sécurité nationale des États-Unis. Puisqu'il faut équiper nos soldats de façon adéquate, ajoutent les
conservateurs, aussi bien obtenir notre part des retombées économiques.
Dans le cas du F-35 comme dans celui des hélicoptères Chinook ou des avions de transport C-130J,
chaque constructeur s'engage à dépenser au Canada l'équivalent du prix d'achat des appareils. Au fil des
ans, cela pourrait entraîner 12 milliards en retombées compte tenu du fait que Lockheed Martin prévoit
construire 3000 F-35, dont seulement 65 iront aux Forces canadiennes.
Qui profitera de cette manne? Ottawa laisse la société américaine libre de choisir les fournisseurs qui
l'intéressent. Le Québec étant spécialisé dans l'aérospatiale avec des firmes comme Pratt and Whitney,
CAE, Héroux-Devtek et L-3 MAS, il n'est pas mal placé pour tirer son épingle du jeu. Mais rien n'est
gagné d'avance, comme l'a montré la première ronde d'attribution des contrats d'entretien du C-130J
(aussi Lockheed Martin) qui a profité exclusivement à des firmes hors Québec. En l'absence de politique
de répartition régionale, la vigilance s'impose donc de la part du gouvernement Charest et de la
députation québécoise à Ottawa.
Cela étant dit, les mêmes conditions au chapitre des retombées économiques auraient tout aussi bien pu
être posées à un autre constructeur, comme il aurait aussi été possible de choisir un appareil moins cher
destiné exclusivement à des missions de défense du territoire canadien. Si le gouvernement Harper a
choisi avant l'heure, et sans appel d'offres, d'équiper son armée de l'appareil qui sera au centre de la
stratégie militaire des États-Unis d'ici dix ans, c'est qu'il entend y jouer un rôle actif comme c'est le cas
déjà en Afghanistan. Dans ces conditions, la moindre des choses aurait été de demander l'avis des
Canadiens avant de les entraîner dans une spirale dont l'histoire nous a appris qu'il est toujours
beaucoup plus difficile d'en sortir que de s'y engager.
***
j-rsansfacon@ledevoir.com
Back to Top
Section: Actualités
Headline: Le capitaine Robert Semrau non coupable de meurtre
Page: 20
Source: La Presse
Outlet: Le Nouvelliste (Trois-Rivières)
Byline: Hugo De Grandpré
Illustrations:
Date: Tuesday 20 July 2010
Dateline: Ottawa
Le capitaine Robert Semrau a échappé à des accusations de meurtre non prémédité et de tentative de
meurtre, en cour martiale hier, mais a été déclaré coupable de conduite déshonorante. L'homme de 36
ans, père de deux jeunes enfants, faisait face à quatre chefs d'accusation pour avoir prétendument tiré
deux rafales d'arme à feu sur un combattant taliban blessé et désarmé, dans la province de Helmand, en
Afghanistan, en 2008.
Le capitaine Semrau n'a jamais témoigné au cours du procès, mais un capitaine de l'armée afghane a
déclaré que l'homme était "mort à 98 %" lorsqu'il aurait été abattu.
Le corps n'a pas été retrouvé et la défense a plaidé que le capitaine avait simplement voulu abréger les
souffrances d'un insurgé taliban à l'agonie.
Les avocats doivent présenter leurs arguments sur la peine jeudi. Le militaire fait face à un maximum de
cinq ans de prison.
Le jury militaire qui a rendu son verdict hier après deux jours et demi de délibérations était composé de
quatre membres des Forces armées canadiennes.
Ils s'en sont tenus à une brève déclaration et ne se sont pas prononcés sur l'argument de la limitation des
souffrances.
Bill Semrau, frère de Robert Semrau, était visiblement déçu du verdict.
"Nous avons toujours cru qu'il n'avait rien fait de mal. Nous faisions confiance au service de justice
militaire et gardions espoir qu'il conclurait à la même chose", a-t-il dit.
Avec La Presse canadienne
Back to Top
MEDIA SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
LES SOURCES MÉDIATIQUES ET ABRÉVIATIONS
AN (L’Acadie Nouvelle)
CG (Charlottetown Guardian)
CH (Calgary Herald)
CSun (Calgary Sun)
Ctz (Ottawa Citizen)
Dr (Le Droit)
Dv (Le Devoir)
EJ (Edmonton Journal)
ESun (Edmonton Sun)
FDG (Fredericton Daily Gleaner)
G&M (Globe and Mail)
Gaz (Montreal Gazette)
HCH (Halifax Chronicle-Herald)
HS (Hamilton Spectator)
JM (Le Journal de Montréal)
JQ (Le Journal de Québec)
KWS (Kingston Whig-Standard)
LFP (London Free Press)
LN (Le Nouvelliste - Trois Rivières)
MT&T (Moncton Times and Transcript)
NBTJ (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal)
NP (National Post)
OSun (Ottawa Sun)
Pr (La Presse)
RLP (Regina Leader-Post)
SJT (St. John’s Telegram)
Sol (Le Soleil)
SSP (Saskatoon Star-Phoenix)
TM (Télémédia)
TStar (Toronto Star)
TSun (Toronto Sun)
VSun (Vancouver Sun)
VE (Le Voix de L’Est, Granby)
VProv (Vancouver Province)
VSun (Vancouver Sun)
VTC (Victories Times-Colonist)
WFP (Winnipeg Free Press)
WStar (Windsor Star)
WSun (Winnipeg Sun)
Published by / Publié par
P&L Communications Inc.
95 Glebe Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1S 2C2
Phone: 613-231-5597 / Web Site: http://www.plcom.on.ca/