Talk:Christopher Speer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Challenge from User:Cmst66[edit]

I quote from my discussion listed under Morris Davis: According to Wikipedia editor Geo Swann: Press reports have widely described Sergeant Speer as a "medic" in a way that I feel is highly misleading-- Speer had been in the Army for something like ten years. He did received paramedic training -- not uncommon in modern special forces units.”

SFC Christopher Speer was an 18D---that is; 18 series, with a designation of D, a SF Medical Sergeant. This cannot be disputed. How you can even begin to argue that this is a “misleading” description of Speer would be humorous if it wasn’t so blatantly offensive. By demonstrating a lack of understanding for basic military training and structure you prove an inept at author for any of these articles related to Speer’s combat death. The course to become a medic in the SF is approximately 46 weeks, a lengthy school by Army standards. Special Forces teams work in squads with varying specialties. So SFC Speer does have the apparently unfathomable capacity to be a medic and a squad leader, extensive combat training and specialized training is what makes the SF both a multifaceted and elite fighting force. Speer died clearing a building thought to contain dead of wounded enemy forces, which he ironically would have then treated and evacuated. According to Layne Morris, another soldier wounded during the attack: “(Omar Khadr's)lucky we had a second doctor there. After Omar had killed our first medic, the second one saved his life.” [3} Speer was fatally wounded before he was able to complete his mission that day.

Finally, Speer is not a “Sergeant” he was a SFC, I didn’t catch this the first time, regrettably. I will revise the article to reflect this; there is a big difference between an E-5 and an E-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmst66 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2006 March 15

remove editorializing -- see talk[edit]

I removed this paragaph not because it was not referenced -- something which could be fixed -- but because I thought it was editorializing. I found it interesting, and infomratiove, but it the wikipedia is not for advocacy.

If we can cite an authorititative source which offers the view that Khadr wasn't charged with killing a noncombatant medic because the Prosecutors know they couldn't back up tht charge, by all means we can cite that. Otherwise...

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert -- see talk[edit]

I reverted a recent edit with the edit summary (→Paramedic training and status as "medic" - Clarified Geneva Convention discussion to reflect Article 25 & 41 provisions.) No question that this material, properly cited, can be covered in the wikipedia. But, since it states: "It is not clear from published accounts whether Sgt. Speer's mission to investigate the compound for survivors was considered to meet these criteria or whether he was wearing the required distinctive armband." -- it doesn't belong here.

Accounts of the firefight make pretty clear that the GIs do not believe anyone survived. There is no support for the assertion that Speer was looking for survivors. The Toronto Star article stated:

"During the next 45 minutes, two Apache attack helicopters unloaded ordnance, two A-10 Warthogs pockmarked the land – at one point narrowly missing the spot where Morris had been dragged – and, finally, two F18s dropped 500-pound bombs.

"A few of the house's walls still stood, but the scene was largely now just a quiet, smouldering heap. No one believed any of the suspects had survived."

  • (Michelle Shephard (April 29, 2007). "Khadr goes on trial". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2007-09-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

An article in the National Post stated:

"...with the five men refusing to give up even as they were being bombed from overhead. When the shooting stopped, Sgt. Speer and four other Special Forces soldiers were ordered to clear the compound -- collect arms and intelligence. When Sgt. Speer and his fellow soldiers entered the bombed-out compound, they weren't expecting to find anyone alive and were caught off guard when Omar, who was wounded from the bombing, and hiding between two mud-brick buildings, threw a grenade at the passing soldiers.

"'We were amazed that anyone could still be alive in there,' said Captain Mike Silver, who walked into the bombed-out compound behind Sgt. Speer. 'Within seconds, we had him [Omar] pinpointed and we opened fire.'"

I'm removing "Military prosecutors and most press accounts refer to Speer as a "medic." Although Sgt. Christopher Speer had been trained as a medic, he was actually leading the squad combing the compound after they believed all occupants had been killed". The cited source, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/11/1136956242159.html?page=2, is totally silent on the subject of whether Speer was a medic or not. If there is a source for the contention that "military prosecutors and most press accounts" are wrong in their use of "medic", that source is obviously not it. Furthermore, the contention Speer was "leading the squad" is actively contradicted by http://www.thestar.com/News/article/208502 which states that "Delta soldiers moved in through a hole in one of the walls. The fourth in line was Silver, and just behind him was Sgt. First Class Chris Speer". If Speer "leading the squad", why was he, an enlisted man, "behind" Mike Silver, an OFFICER?Bdell555 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert -- see talk[edit]

I reverted this unexplained edit, after leaving a note on the wikipedian's talk page.

It just seemed to reduce the readability and maintainibility of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Plus, {{reflist}} is unnecessary with relatively few citations. –Pomte 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed? See talk[edit]

The accidental release of OC-1's testimony is going to require a lot of revision of this and other related articles. I thought I should tone down one of those revisions.

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the accidental release of the unredacted statement from the CIA official confirms that Khadr did not throw the grenade. The CBC article doesn't actually take the stand that the released document confirms that Khadr did not throw the grenade. I thought the version prior to mine needed to have this toned down. The CBC article quoted Khadr's lawywers stating it showed he didn't throw the grenade. It can be read as containing some broad hints that he didn't throw the grenade. But it stops short of saying he didn't throw the grenade.

I think some of my correspondents can guess as to which side I would take, in a private discussion. But, in article space, we can't go beyond what our references state. If someone found an authoritative reference that did state the new document proved Khadr didn't throw the grenade, we could include that conclusion in article space. But, we would have to attribute that conclusion to the source -- because other authoritative sources don't go that far.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

medics and noncombatant medical personnel[edit]

I believe this edit is inferior to that it replaced. The following sentence was added to the end of a paragraph on the limits the Geneva Conventions puts on noncombatant medical personnel:

If a medic actively participates in hostilities, he loses the protections of the Geneva Conventions as a non-combatant.

The new sentence doesn't belong in this paragraph. It belongs in a paragraph about medics in general. It doesn't belong here.

So I reverted it. Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The edit replaced this factually incorrect fragment concerning medics, which was later restored by its author:
"And they may never take a direct part in hostilities."
The aforementioned sentence fragment constitutes a legal conclusion ("may not"), and is inaccurate. If a medic takes part in hostilities, that medic simply loses the protections of the Geneva Convention as a non-combatant. The article, as written, could be improperly interpreted to lead the reader to the conclusion that the the former subject broke international law when he engaged in combat. The fragment should be revised for the following reasons: (1) It is legally inaccurate, and (2) It is a sentence fragment that does not pass editorial muster. Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your change:
"Medical personnel protected by the Geneva Conventions may never take a direct part in hostilities."
No cite is utilized to support this claim. Importantly, the Geneva Convention requires a multi-part test in this regard. Namely, whether the person is trained as a SF medic or not, he must have the insignia of a medic to gain non-combatant status. Article 24 defines them as persons who only perform this duty. [1] Anyone who only acts as a non-combatant as defined in Art. 24 must wear an emblem, pursuant to Art. 40. [2] Art. 25, however, makes it clear that in the case of an individual specially trained to act as a medic (among other things) should the need arise, that individual is provided protection only if that person performs "these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands." [3] In conclusion, your statement above is wrong. Speer, as a member of the Green Beret, may have received medic training, but the sources make clear he was not acting as a medic when the assault took place. Thus, there was therefore no violation of the Geneva Convention, notwithstanding your assertion to the contrary. For this reason, I will edit your final statement quoted above. In any event, the entire section should not be in the article in the first place because it has obiovusly not been well researched, and is anything but neutral. I would suggest you review cross-training by members of Green Beret teams before commenting further.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After making this change, I got called away before I could paste in my explanation. I am going to paste in my original explanation of that edit, written before the comment above, in this box, followed by my response to the comment immediately above:
Please note the sentence that immediately preceded the one in question, which states:

However, according to [24] and [40], in order to qualify as noncombatant medical personnel, the individual must display certain insignia.

That is, in order to be protected by the Geneva Conventions noncombatant medical personnel have to wear an armband with a Red Cross, a Red Crescent, or the more recent interdenominational Red Lozenge.
According to my understanding of the GC if readers drew the conclusion that someone wearing a Red Cross were to actively engage in hostilities they would be in breach of the Geneva Conventions then they would be drawing the correct interpretation.
The wording preferred by my correspondent implies that a noncombatant medic can decide, on the spur of the moment, "what the heck, now that I am here, I might as well forgo my GC protection, and start fighting beside my buddies."
IIRC, chaplains and noncombatant medics are allowed to carry a side-arm, on the battlefield, without losing their protected status. But they are only authorized to use this side-arm for self-defense. IIUC they are prohibited from using it against lawful combatants. IIUC, in theory, they would have no call to use their side-arms against lawful combatants, because lawful combatants would recognize and respect their designated insignia, and not fire on them.
Of course, in practice, a battlefield is going to be a very dangerous place to anyone who exposes themselves, even if they are wearing a Red Cross.
IIUC noncombatant medical personnel are authorized to use their side-arms for self-defense against other dangerous people they might encounter on the battlefield, like armed and desperate civilian looters and other criminals; crazed deserters; and saboteurs or other combatants who penetrated the front line by disguising themselves as civilians, who thus stripped themselves of the protection of the GC.
Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one I know of has accused Sergeant Speer of violating the Geneva Conventions. If I came across an article that accused Speer of violating the Geneva Conventions I would be very careful about using it, because I would not consider that accusation credible. As I have written elsewhere I have read nothing that hints at anything other than Sergeant Speer being a perfectly honorable soldier. As I have written elsewhere, he is reported to have used his medical training to treat some Afghan children, a few days prior to the skirmish. As I have written elsewhere, as the father of young children, I would be amazed if he wasn't reminded of his own children, and treated the Afghan children with gentleness and warmth.

Let me repeat -- I am unaware of anyone accusing Sergeant Speer violating the Geneva Conventions or committing any other breaches of honorable behavior.

Many readers understanding of the term "medic" think it always means a non-combatant protected by the Geneva Conventions. Khadr has widely been accused of violating the Geneva Conventions, because he "killed a medic". That was what I thought when I first read of Khadr "killed a medic" during his capture. The only way I could imagine he could kill a medic was to have a hidden weapon, and to have duplicitously struck out when someone approached him to treat him.

The USA no longer sends non-combatant medical personnel to the battlefield -- the kind we are familiar with from WW2 movies.

Medic is a vague term. One needs only to look at how many complete rewrites the article medic has gone through, and how many content forks. I suggest it is a term we should avoid using, when clearer terms are available. "Medical personnel protected by the Geneva Conventions" is well defined.

Since there is no canonical definition for "medic" your use of the term, and your conflation of it with "medical personnel protected by the Geneva Conventions" is frankly misleading.

YOu have obviously read [25]. I re-read it this afternoon, before your note. I'll paste it here for other readers.

Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.

You stated that article 25 was about medics. However, it is actually about "hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers" who are engaged in "the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick".

  • Speer was not an "auxiliary stretcher-bearer";
  • Speer served in the field, not in a hospital, as a nurse or orderly;
  • Speer was not searching for the wounded or sick. He was not transporting or treating anyone. All reports of the skirmish are consistent. The GIs all believed that the multiple aerial bombardments had killed all the compound's occupants.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I will bold the relevant language for you:
Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands.
I don't think it can be more clearly stated than that. As a "medic", one is trained to treat the "wounded and sick". The term "medic" does not appear anywhere in the articles cited by either of us. One is considered, technically, under the articles, a "nurse", or one who treats the "wounded and sick." In this case, Speer would have not have been acting in that capacity "at the time", and his actions were, therefore, not in breach of the Geneva Convention(s). If the need were to arise, however, he had received "special training" to act as a medic (or nurse) if the need were to "arise". Your original cite did not include this rather important qualifier, and your good faith confusion is understandable. One can be trained as a medic and still be a combatant, so long as one is not "carrying out" his duties to "treat[ment of] the wounded and the sick" at the time. It is for this reason I changed the relevant language to make this important point. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tagged the article section as off topic a month ago and it seemed to put an end to this debate. That is, no one came in and said how the above discussion resolved whether Speer was or was not in a protected medic status at any time. Even so, the particulars of his death belong more in the Omar article -- not here. With this in mind, I've deleted the medic controversy material. And I see that the refs supporting his medic training and the clinic naming are failed. This material should be deleted as well. Also, I will add that I have no axes to grind in this matter. My professional association with SOF and Army medics is a long and positive one.--S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The USA does not field non-combatant medics in combat areas, they did so during WW2, don't now, and, near as I can tell, haven't done so for decades, possibly didn't do so even in Vietnam.
    • Speer is still frequently referred to as a medic. The CBC has referred to him as a medic several times during Khadr's sentencing hearing, while referring to him as a special forces soldier most of the time. It seems that the news writers who draft the copy that refers to him as a medic are those who work the late shift, or the weekend shift -- the less experienced writers. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about his "medic" status is a red herring. He (and all other medics) can be called a "medic" because of the advanced combat medical training he received. Moreover, his team would refer to him and call for him as "the medic" whenever medical needs arose. As a SOF qualified medic, he probably had extensive training in military medicine, which would include basic treatment of illnesses (as opposed to wounds). This training would be applied in treating civilian personnel in "hearts & minds" campaigns. He was not, however, a medic entitled to special protection on the battlefield because he was not wearing the distinctive emblems required. This brew-ha-ha (no pun intended) about medic status was apparently brought up in order to characterize his death as a "grave breach" of the Geneva Convention. In any event, as long as the "grave breach" stuff is omitted, it is proper to refer to Speer as a medic.--S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is proper to refer to him as a medic, it is not proper to repeatedly remove sourced information indicating he is indeed armed if this removal misleads the reader into believing this is an unarmed red cross non-combatant under the Geneva convention. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]

Khadr's Plea[edit]

Khadr has pled guilty to the charge of murder. Obviously, this changes this article dramatically. I have made some edits to update the matter, as well as in the Khadr article itself. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in your update did you state that Khadr's plea was the result of years of negotiation for Khadr to agree to a plea bargain. I welcome an explanation as to why you excluded this important information. Geo Swan (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the not-so-minor detail that any confession obtained by throwing a fifteen-year-old kid into an extrajudicial torture camp (which does not even respect US law, or what passes for it) and holding him for four years without trial will be unreliable. There are other discrepancies with the US version of events, such as a presumption that Khadr was the only one still alive to be able to throw the grenade (later refuted by a witness, OC-1, to indicate one other was still alive but was later killed by the Americans). A confession obtained by torture is useless as a victim will say anything just to make the abuse stop. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing confusion over how SFC Speer died[edit]

This military site is at odds with later accounts:

  • "Christopher J. Speer". Military Health Service. Archived from the original on 2010-11-01. Sergeant First Class Christopher J. Speer, an Army Special Forces Medic attached to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, died on August 6, 2002, from injuries sustained on July 27, 2002. He and four other Soldiers were wounded when their reconnaissance patrol was ambushed near Khowst in eastern Afghanistan. Speer was evacuated by air first to Bagram Air Force Base, then to Ramstein Air Base in Germany for evaluation and treatment. His wife flew to be with him for the last week of his life, and she made the decision to remove him from life support and to donate his organs for transplant. At his funeral on August 13, 2002, at the Village Chapel in Pinehurst, North Carolina, Speer was mourned by family, friends, and military comrades.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This same bit of whitewashing (claiming Speer's group was randomly ambushed out of the blue instead of acknowledging that they were on the offensive, surrounding and attacking an occupied building believed to house insurgents) also appears in this source <ref name="matteredmost">{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=icZ0DQLaoeUC&pg=PA11 |title=When It Mattered Most: Remembering Our Fallen Medical Personnel in Iraq |author=Samuel Ward Casscells |accessdate=2012-09-29|isbn=9780160818523|year=2009}}</ref> but this is wildly inconsistent with other sources. I'm wondering if I should have even cited the source, although for some basic info such as date and place of burial it is of value. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Speer Wearing Indigenous Clothing?[edit]

I can't find a reference for the statement that Sgt. Speer was wearing indigenous clothing when he was fatally wounded, near the beginning of the article.

Does anybody know where that information came from, or whether it's accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane1976 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be murder to kill someone who invaded your country?[edit]

No offense to the family but I don't understand, and the article does not give any indication at all, of how a person is a murderer for killing someone who invaded their country?

I mean, the civil war in Afghanistan may have meant the then dominant faction was able to claim to be the government, and maybe that is a great thing, and of course if you are going to take part in a war you can't very well just let prisoners go, to possibly attack you again, but I can't get from any reasonable idea of sovereignity for a nation to the claim that an invader being killed is "murder". That makes no sense to me.

Isn't this guy a prisoner of war at the most? We got attacked by someone in Afghanistan, so, I don't disapprove of the mission, but if I go to someone else's country that does not want me, and they kill me, it's just too bad for me in my opinion. Well, to put this in Wikipedia terms, I think the article should explore the basis in law for claiming a "murder". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.90 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as to the discussion above, when someone is entering your stronghold, after bombing you and so forth, and you throw a grenade at them, are you NOT allowed to throw a grenade because the last guy in might be a medic? Or even if you know he IS a medic? I mean, a grenade can not be that precise can it? If it's OK to blow up the other four guys and you happen to kill the medic...????? Was he armed? Seems to me that is the crucial criterion. If you've got arms, and I kill you, you played the game and lost. Seems like a big abuse by the US Government is going on, though I admit I have never read about this before today. I hate to be ashamed of being an American but someone in the military makes me feel that way every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.90 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a rather weak argument. Members of a military are provided what is called a "belligerent's privilege". Thus, when they shoot an enemy soldier, they cannot be charged with murder (yet if they kill a civilian without cause, it is murder). In terms of Afghanistan, and Christopher Speer, Omar Khadr was not a member of the military of his country, and is thus not provided privilege for his actions. Traditionally, such individuals (known as guerillas) are lined up against the closest wall, blindfolded and shot, and international law recognizes such summary military execution in an active area of military operation. He is also not afforded "Prisoner of War" status, but is instead treated as an enemy combatant. In light of traditional remedies, the American action of imprisoning AQ suspects was unusual, and Obama's actions in simply killing them with missile strikes is more in line with old school remedies. The Supreme Court's ruling is that such individuals (detainees), while not POW's, must be kept in accordance with Geneva Convention Article III. Thus, and pursuant to International Law, Khadr's action is one of murder, not a military action afforded protection. Your argument goes to an affirmative defense, which is self defense. Yet Khadr's own testimony in his trial obviated this defense. In sum, the argument is a non-starter, and is you have any questions, check Khadr's trial/sentencing transcript for further clarification. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yachtsman1 may be correct that, during some conflicts, some American soldiers did line captives up against a wall and shoot them. Those soldiers may actually have thought they were authorized to shoot captives. But those soldiers were acting in violation of the Geneva Conventions. More importantly for American soldiers, they were in violation of Army Regulation 190-8.
I think AR-190-8 is very clear -- soldiers are required to protect the lives of captives, to feed them, keep them warm and dry, make sure they get medical treatment, if they have wounds, move them if there is a danger of aerial or artillery bombardment. Once they are captured, it doesn't matter if their immediate captors conclude their captive committed a war crime, like killing civilians, or pretending they were civilian so they could get into a position to whip out hidden weapons.
Once captured both the Geneva Conventions and AR-190-8 agree -- all captives are supposed to be given all the protections of POW status. There is a formal process through which captives suspected of committing war crimes can be stripped of POW status. Once stripped of POW status they can be tried for criminal acts committed on the battlefield. But it is never legal for soldiers to summarily execute prisoners during or after battle.
As to whether Sergeant Speer's mortal wounding should be called "murder" here -- wikipedia contributors are obliged to follow the wikipedia's policies. Those policies prevent us from using our personal judgment on issues like whether this death was a murder. Khadr was charged with murder, he eventually agreed to a plea deal that required him to plead guilty to murder, and he was subsequently convicted of murder. So, by policy, it is accurate to call him a "murderer" or a "convicted murderer". There are WP:Reliable sources that have taken the position that since his trial was not a fair trial, since his acquittal would not necessarily win him freedom, his only path to a definite release date would be to plead guilty -- even if he were innocent.
The position of those references could be summarized or quoted, over in the Omar Khadr article, if one bore in mind WP:UNDUE.
Similarly, other individuals who were convicted before military commissions had their convictions overturned, because the charges violated the principle that no one should be convicted of a crime if the act was not illegal at the time they committed it. Khadr's murder conviction is being challenged on the same grounds. If his murder conviction is overturned, we would no longer call Khadr a murderer, and we would no longer call Speer's tragic death a murder. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is completely

  • To address User:75.61.141.90 last question about killing medics -- the Geneva Conventions require lawful combatants to protect the lives of non-combatant medics -- and also non-combatant chaplains too. Those non-combatant medics and chaplains are supposed to wear special markings -- like a Red Cross armband -- so enemy soldiers will recognize they are non-combatants, and not fire upon them. However, those medics and chaplains have an obligation to not take part in the combat the soldiers they are with are engaged in.
Most of us who know this, know it from WW2 movies. The USA employed non-combatant medics during WW2. This works when fighting opponents who understand the obligation not to fire on medics with an armband -- and, just as importantly opponents who honor that obligation. Since WW2 the USA fought opponents with snipers trained to pick off medics first.
So the US Military doesn't send non-combatant medics into the field. Rather some soldiers will be cross-trained, so they can also provide emergency front-line medical care. They carry the same weapons as their comrades, and they are no more protected than their comrades.
Speer's comrades tell a story of just a few days before the fatal skirmish, entering a minefield to treat and rescue some Afghan children who had wandered in their, and been wounded. I think this speaks highly for his bravery and character -- but it doesn't make him a non-combatant medic. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Speer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christopher Speer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Speer&oldid=1205390665"