Circumstances

Well, we've heard some additional details regarding the case of Capt Rob Semrau. And for those of you who read my piece yesterday, where I speculated about potential circumstances, please remember it was purely speculation.

Here's a joint statement of circumstances from both the prosecution and defence that isn't speculation:

On Oct. 19, Semrau's troops — a handful of Canadians and more than a hundred Afghan National Army troops — were on patrol when they were ambushed by Taliban insurgents in Helmand province.

With the help of U.S. air support, Semrau's group was able to regain control. Two Taliban fighters were found, one dead, the other severely wounded. Afghan soldiers took away the rifle of the wounded man.

According to the joint statement the injured insurgent was wounded too severely for any type of treatment in the field.

Semrau was then left alone with the injured man and two shots were heard, according to the statement. The statement claims an unnamed witness interviewed by military investigators will testify he saw Semrau shoot the man.

The body was left behind and not recovered, according to the statement.

We'll see how this develops, and what other details come to light.

Update: Christie Blatchford sees no possible justification for the act, if the allegations are true:

If the question is whether this could have been a mercy killing, the answer is also an unequivocal no.

For one thing, given the state of modern battlefield medicine, most injuries are treatable, at least, that is, if the soldiers are travelling with a Western-trained medic; Afghan medics have much less training, medical and ethical, and less skill and equipment. OMLT teams usually have one Canadian medic with them at all times.

Medics are obliged to treat the most seriously injured first, regardless of whether they are friends or enemy, and they take this as gospel. This is the concept of triage, and as someone told me yesterday, triage isn't done on a "friend or foe" basis, but according to need. As someone else said, a wounded man "is not a frigging dog. You may shoot animals to put them out of their misery, but not people."

In this rare instance, I'm going to disagree with Christie: there's an off chance this could have been a mercy killing, precisely because only "most" wounds are treatable. If someone's had their bottom half torn away by shrapnel and is obviously going to die in unbearable agony in the next few minutes, there may be a moral justification in giving them a quick end.

I doubt there's a legal one, however.

I'm not trying to justify the alleged act, because - thank God - I've never been in a situation where I've had to make such a decision. Better men than me could weigh in on both sides, I'd wager. I'm just trying to provide a bit of context.