A War Page #6

- as we've mostly heard you referred to.

- Most people call me Butcher.

- It's your nickname?

- Yes.

- Where did you get it?

It's a long story, but my dad was

a butcher, and I have two brothers.

- So that's what we were called.

- Butcher and Butcher.

- Little, Medium and Big Butcher.

- Okay then.

We've played the audio of a video clip

in which you pass on -

- the accused's order to bomb

Compound 6 to the TOC.

Were you aware of

the grounds for the order?

Yes.

I told Claus about the muzzle flash

from Compound 6.

Spectators must refrain from commenting.

Please repeat that.

I told Claus about the muzzle flash

from Compound 6.

This is news to me.

How could you give the accused

that information -

- from your position behind the wall?

Even the accused himself says

everything was chaos -

- and that you and he had taken cover

behind the wall -

- and that you were under heavy fire.

We were, but at one point

the chief got up -

- to get a visual of the compounds

from which shots were fired -

- and I kneeled behind him.

I saw muzzle flash from the area

around Compound 6, and I told him.

When we got back down again,

under cover -

- he asked me to verify the coordinates

for Compound 6, which I did.

That was my basis

for requesting air support.

Kenneth, the audio from Lars Holm's

helmet cam contains nothing -

- which indicates that you or the

accused did what you just claimed.

I wasn't near Lars.

I remained behind the chief.

So I can't really comment on

what that clip contains.

No.

But all I'm saying is that it doesn't

tally with what you just said -

- whereas it tallies

with your deposition...

Allow me to point out to the court -

- that the deposition isn't signed.

- Is that true?

- Yes. Exhibit 23.

The lack of signature is not suspect.

The witness was going out on patrol -

- when he gave his deposition

which was typed on a laptop in the camp.

- He read it through on the screen.

- That's all I'm pointing out.

- It's duly noted.

- Back to you, Kenneth.

You were deposed in Afghanistan

just a few days after the incident.

You made no mention of muzzle flash,

enemies near Compound 6 -

- nor any of this new information.

No, but I wasn't asked specifically

about the aforementioned things.

- Had I been, I would have answered.

- You need specific questions?

Not necessarily, but they didn't ask.

As I just said, we'd been engaged

in battle two-three days before -

- one man was badly wounded, and

we're heading back into that same area -

- and then I was deposed. Well,

I'm sorry, but I didn't mention it.

I apologize, but...

That's the way it is.

Does the judge advocate have

any further questions?

Your commander's in trouble. He's been

facing these charges for six months.

This new information you suddenly

offer up now would have been -

- of great importance to this man

and his case.

Do you really expect me to believe that

it never, not once occurred to you -

- to share this information

with someone? Six months have passed.

Yes, six months.

I'm sorry.

- Is that all?

- Yes, that's all. Thank you.

- Does the defense have any questions?

- No, I can't really think of any.

That will be all. You may leave

or sit at the back if you so desire.

The law is clear on this: The

prohibition against random attacks -

- is crucial to protecting civilians

under International Humanitarian Law.

The accused has been unable to explain

the grounds for his decision to attack.

He maintains that someone in the unit

designated Compound 6 an enemy target -

- but he has failed to say who

or clear up the circumstances.

The court has heard me examine

the soldiers who were near the accused -

- and thus able to designate

Compound 6 a target.

One soldier, Kenneth Butcher Jensen,

suddenly revealed to the court -

- that he observed muzzle flash

and reported it to the accused.

I reject this statement, because

we have a helmet cam clip -

- in which we clearly hear the exchange

between the accused and Butcher -

- preceding the command.

"I don't care who's in there."

And when the second-in-command

at the TOC demands PID:

"Then tell them I know who's in there."

I see a clear picture emerging

of a man who disregards civilians -

- in order to save his own man, Lasse.

Is that understandable on a human level?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure we all understand

the dilemma facing the accused.

But despite our sympathy

for the accused -

- who seems like a highly competent

soldier as well as commander -

- and although we must give our soldiers

some latitude in extreme situations -

- no one is above the law. That would

make the legal system redundant.

If we choose to ignore such a breach

of international humanitarian law -

- because of a tough situation,

we'll wind up where we don't want to be.

Claus Michael Pedersen should

be found guilty -

- because there is no reasonable doubt -

- that he deliberately disregarded

the elementary rules of engagement.

The maximum sentence according

to section 36.2 is life imprisonment.

However, we are appearing

before a court of lay assessors -

- because the accused

did not willfully kill civilians.

But their deaths are

a direct result of his decision.

The maximum sentence in this case

is four years.

I move for a sentence

close to that maximum.

And with these remarks

I submit the case to the court.

Let me remind the court -

- that the burden of proof lies

with the prosecution.

They must prove

beyond a shadow of a doubt -

- that my client is guilty.

The crux of the matter was indeed

whether my client had PID.

My client maintains that he did.

The judge advocate claims he didn't.

But then we heard Signalman

Kenneth Jensen aka Butcher say -

- that he saw muzzle flash

from Compound 6.

In other words, he designated

Compound 6 a military target -

- and not a civilian target

as the judge advocate claims.

My client, Claus Michael Pedersen,

had PID.

If Danish soldiers

who put their lives on the line -

- can be convicted

according to military law -

- on the basis of speculation

and questionable photos -

- then we'll wind up

where we don't want to be.

And so I plead that my client

be acquitted on all counts.

And with these remarks

I submit the case to the court.

Thank you. Claus Michael Pedersen,

you have the last word.

Have you got anything to add

that hasn't already been said?

No.

In that case we will retire

to consider the verdict.

We will pass sentence

on Thursday at 2 p.m.

Girls first.

This one is good.

Great.

Two!

Dad, look at this stone.

- Did you find a skipping stone?

- No... It's got a hole in it.

- Hold it like this.

- Like when you throw it.

Can you see me?

How many fingers have I got here?

- Two.

- Yes.

Ready?

- No!

- What?

- That was a girl's throw.

- Yeah, a stupid throw.

The court has reached

the following verdict:

Claus Michael Pedersen is acquitted.

The state will pay the costs.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes