At vinde krigen Page #6

---

you did have doubts about his judgment.

I quote:
"He had trouble

prioritizing important tasks."

That is verbatim from your testimony.

Claus is my friend. We started

at officer school together

and I know his family,

so I was worried about Claus.

At a personal level,

not as my boss.

But he was your boss.

He was the head of a whole company.

Your boss exhibits, according to you,

signs of impaired judgment.

He has difficulty prioritizing tasks

and ends up in serious combat

with several wounded.

Then he orders the bombing of

a compound in the village.

Did you consider, as next-in-command,

that something went terribly

wrong out there?

That is a difficult question because ...

You can't imagine,

what it means to be out there.

Claus is the most capable soldier

I know.

And ultimately it is our responsibility

to get our men back home in one piece.

That is what we are there for.

But he shouldn't have been

out there with them.

We should have been in the camp

with the overview.

That's all for me. Thanks.

Hey.

I gotta do something, Maria.

I gotta to do something.

Hey. Come on.

There there.

Hey.

We need you. Hey!

Yes, Kenneth Jensen,

or Butcher ...

That is what we have mostly heard

you referred to as.

I was called Butcher, colloquially.

It's a nickname.

Where does it come from?

That's a long story.

My father was a butcher.

And I have two brothers.

So we just got the nicknames Butcher.

Butcher and Butcher.

There was Little Butcher,

Medium Butcher, and Big Butcher.

Okay good.

In this court, we have heard

the sound from a video clip,

in which you pass on

orders from the defendant

to bomb Compound 6.

At the time, did you know

the reason for that order?

Yes, I did.

It was me who told Claus,

that I could see muzzle flashes

from Compound 6.

Will the audience please refrain

from commenting?

Could you repeat that?

I told Claus that I saw

muzzle flashes coming from Compound 6.

This is completely new to me.

How is it possible for you

to provide that information to the defendant

from your location behind the wall?

We have heard several accounts

of how chaotic it was.

We have heard that you were lying in cover

with him behind the wall

and that you were

under heavy fire.

We were, but the boss gets up

to gain insight

on the compounds from which the shots

are coming. I get up behind him.

And then I see some muzzle flashes

coming from Compound 6

and the surrounding area,

and I inform him of this.

When we're back in cover

behind the wall,

he asks me to verify

coordinates on Compound 6.

And then I can call TOC

and ask for the air support we got.

On the audio sequence from

Lars Holm's helmet camera

nothing indicates that you or the

defendant did what you are now saying.

I wasn't really near Lars.

I was behind the boss.

So I can't comment on what's

on that audio clip.

I'm just telling you

that it doesn't match your statement,

but that it is very consistent

with your previous testimony.

May I just point out

to the court,

that testimony is not signed.

Is that true?

That is correct.

It is exhibit 23. There is nothing odious

about it not being signed.

The witness was on his way to patrol,

when he testified.

It was written

on a laptop in the camp

and it was read through on the screen.

I was just pointing it out.

It has been noted.

But back to you, Kenneth.

It was made in Afghanistan,

a few days after the incident occurred.

In it you don't mention any muzzle flashes

or any enemies around Compound 6,

none of this new information.

I wasn't asked about those specifics, either.

If I had been,

I would have answered.

You have to be asked specifically about that?

Not necessarily.

But I wasn't asked. We had just been

in enemy contact two-three days before.

A man was critically wounded, and we were

on our way out in that same area again.

Then I was questioned. And unfortunately, no.

I didn't mention anything about it.

Obviously, I'm sorry about that.

But, well ... That's the way it is.

Does the prosecutor have anything else?

Your company commander is in difficulties

and has been indicted for half a year.

The information

you're bringing forward now,

would have been of significant importance

to both the man and his case.

Do you want me to believe,

that at no point

did it occur to you

to share any

of this information?

It's been six months.

Yes, it has. Sorry.

Was that it?

Yes, that was it. Thank you.

Does the defence have any questions

for the witness?

No, I can't seem to think of

anything right now.

Then you are done.

You may leave or sit with audience,

if you so please.

The law is clear:

The prohibition against arbitrary attacks

is of central importance

in the protection of

the civilian population.

At no point has the defendant

been able to justify

why he decided

to attack.

He says someone in the unit identified

Compound 6 as a hostile target,

but he hasn't indicated who or

specified further circumstances.

The court has heard me question every single

soldier in the vicinity of the defendant,

who would have been

able to identify Compound 6.

And one soldier, Kenneth 'Butcher' Jensen,

waited until court to inform us

that he observed the muzzle flashes

and conveyed it to the defendant.

I have no trust in

the witness,

because in the sound recording

we can clearly hear the exchange of words

between the defendant and Butcher

up until the order: "I don't

give a sh*t who's in there."

And when next-in-command

in TOC insists on PID:

"Tell them, I know

who's in there."

I see a man who disregards

the need of a civilian population

to save his

own guy, Lasse.

Is that understandable from a human perspective?

Yes.

We can probably all understand

the difficult dilemma.

But although we have

sympathy for the defendant,

who appears to be

a competent soldier and leader

and although we must provide

Danish soldiers room for manoeuvreability

in extreme circumstances,

no one is above the law.

Otherwise, a judicial system is rendered superfluous.

If we in a case like this

let such a serious violation

of humanitarian rights slide,

we will end somewhere,

where we do not want to be.

Claus Michael Pedersen must be sentenced

because there is no doubt

that he intentionally disregarded

the elementary rules of engagement.

Basically, the penalty in 36.2

is prison for life.

Now, however,

this is a jury trial,

because the defendant did not have

the intention to kill civilians.

But their deaths are a direct

consequence of his decision.

The maximum penalty is four years.

It is my contention, that we

are close to that maximum.

With these remarks, I rest my case.

I would like to remind the court,

that it is the prosecutor

who has the burden of proof

and must prove beyond any

reasonable doubt

that my client is guilty.

The point of contention was quite

simply, if my client had PID.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes