Posted on 02/15/2005 1:22:41 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I don't know about you, but I have practically been hyperventilating since I heard about the charges filed against Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano.
I can scarcely catch my breath when I think about the young New Yorker, who served his country honorably during the first Gulf War and re-enlisted to serve his country again following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
I am praying that he his exonerated, that the Marine Corps recognizes the terrible injustice done in charging him and that, appropriately, those responsible for prosecuting Lt. Pantano are themselves disciplined and dismissed from their positions of authority, which have been grossly abused.
As Lt. Pantano tells the story, he was summoned April 15, 2004, while serving in Iraq, to check out a reported terrorist hiding spot. He led his platoon to the site and found ammunition, weapons and bomb-making materials.
As the Marines were securing the building, they noticed two Iraqis running from the site to a nearby truck. The Marines pursued, shot the tires out and ordered the pair out of the truck. Lt. Pantano told the captives to tear the interior of the truck apart to ensure it was not booby-trapped.
Instead, however, one of the Iraqis made what Pantano determined to be a threatening move. When told to stop, he continued. Pantano shot the two suspected terrorists.
A battlefield investigation cleared Pantano, and he went on to serve with distinction until his tour concluded months later. He even went on to participate in the battle of Fallujah.
But upon returning home, Pantano was informed he was being charged with pre-meditated murder in the deaths of those two Iraqis – a charge that could bring him the death penalty.
Now think about the absurdity of this charge.
If the Marine Corps really thought Lt. Pantano was a murderer, why did it allow him to finish out his tour? Why wasn't he in the brig?
If Pantano actually planned to kill these two Iraqis, why did he shoot out the tires of the vehicle in which they were fleeing? Why wouldn't he have blown up the truck with a rocket-propelled grenade?
What are the new rules of engagement in Iraq? What exactly did Lt. Pantano do wrong? Should he have waited until one of the suspects attacked his troops? What if he had been a suicide bomber?
Have the armchair generals forgotten what kind of enemy we face?
Do we really want our young warriors hesitating in dangerous combat situations?
And what kind of a guy is Lt. Pantano? I don't know him. But I do look forward to meeting him and talking to him when he is able. I have corresponded with him by e-mail, he shows characteristic Marine Corps concern about his buddies, even while he is facing capital charges.
"These are tough times for my family certainly, but my heart breaks for the families of those currently deployed, who can only be disheartened about this situation," he wrote. "I hope it is resolved quickly and positively and I expect that it will be with the continued support of people like you."
Until this charge was leveled against him, Lt. Pantano was, according to his mother, planning to re-enlist for a second tour of duty.
While I feel confident these charges will never stand, I don't understand why they have been filed. I don't understand why the military career of a young hero like Lt. Pantano is being tarnished with outrageous accusations. I don't understand why he and his young family should be "thanked" for their service to our country in such a disgraceful way. I don't understand how we expect to win this global fight for freedom President Bush is talking about by treating our troops so barbarically.
And I also don't understand why I am such a lonely voice expressing outrage over this national disgrace.
Here is the only acceptable resolution of this case: Drop the charges now. Fire the overzealous persecutor. Apologize to Lt. Pantano and grant him a medal for his distinguished and courageous service to his country.
Anybody think that's a typo?
Me neither.
Mr. Farah, the fact that the USMC--an organization not known for being kinder, gentler, or giving a airborne fornication at a rolling doughnut what those who have not earned the title of "Marine" (including you) think--has charged Lt. Pantano indicates that there's real reason for those charges. The fact that his attorney seems to be more busy talking this case up in the press as opposed to doing the real business of lawyering is another signal that there's real cause for those charges.
I am praying that he his exonerated, that the Marine Corps recognizes the terrible injustice done in charging him and that, appropriately, those responsible for prosecuting Lt. Pantano are themselves disciplined and dismissed from their positions of authority, which have been grossly abused.
Mr. Farah, you are a loudmouth civilian puke who lives in a graba$$tic free-for-all known as "civilian life."
As Lt. Pantano tells the story,
Key words bolded. Lt. Pantano tells one story. Apparently, there is evidence that what Lt. Pantano says and what really happened are not congruent. That's why there's a military justice system.
A battlefield investigation cleared Pantano, and he went on to serve with distinction until his tour concluded months later. He even went on to participate in the battle of Fallujah.
Battlefield investigations are not omniscient.
But upon returning home, Pantano was informed he was being charged with pre-meditated murder in the deaths of those two Iraqis – a charge that could bring him the death penalty.
Yup. The USMC does not make these kinds of charges lightly. I can recall ONE case of capital murder being charged while I served in the USMC.
One case across the entire USMC, in eight years.
Now think about the absurdity of this charge.
Think about the absurdity of Joespeh Farah, puke civilian, telling the USMC how to do its job.
If the Marine Corps really thought Lt. Pantano was a murderer, why did it allow him to finish out his tour? Why wasn't he in the brig?
Sometimes, Mr. Farah, evidence of a crime does not surface in a perfectly timely manner. Real life is not an episode of CSI or Law and Order, where cases are wrapped up right after the last commercial break.
If Pantano actually planned to kill these two Iraqis, why did he shoot out the tires of the vehicle in which they were fleeing? Why wouldn't he have blown up the truck with a rocket-propelled grenade?
Uh, gee, maybe he didn't HAVE an RPG?
What are the new rules of engagement in Iraq? What exactly did Lt. Pantano do wrong? Should he have waited until one of the suspects attacked his troops? What if he had been a suicide bomber?
The ROEs are the same that they've always been.
Have the armchair generals forgotten what kind of enemy we face?
Coming from the loudest loudmouth armchair general I've seen in quite a while, this line is extremely funny.
Pot, kettle, black...
Do we really want our young warriors hesitating in dangerous combat situations?
We want our young warriors to obey their orders.
And what kind of a guy is Lt. Pantano? I don't know him.
In other words, you know nothing about him, but you're certain he's innocent.
Mr. Farah, you are taking the short end of a very long bet.
But I do look forward to meeting him and talking to him when he is able.
But in the meantime, the intelligent thing to do would be to not commit one way or another.
I have corresponded with him by e-mail, he shows characteristic Marine Corps concern about his buddies, even while he is facing capital charges.
A few emails seldom reveal much about one's character.
While I feel confident these charges will never stand, I don't understand why they have been filed.
In other words, you don't know jack about the details of this case, but you're "confident" that the charges are bogus. Additionally, we have the spectacle of a civilian not understanding why these charges were filed.
I don't understand why the military career of a young hero like Lt. Pantano is being tarnished with outrageous accusations.
You don't know him, but you're calling him a hero.
Taking the short end of ANOTHER long bet...
I don't understand why he and his young family should be "thanked" for their service to our country in such a disgraceful way.
There's always the possibility that he's guilty.
I don't understand how we expect to win this global fight for freedom President Bush is talking about by treating our troops so barbarically.
"Barbarically?" True barbarism, Mr. Farah, would be to exempt our soldiers and Marines from any consequences for wrongful behavior, and systematically ignoring any accustations against them.
And I also don't understand why I am such a lonely voice expressing outrage over this national disgrace.
Because you're an ignorant civilian puke?
Here is the only acceptable resolution of this case: Drop the charges now.
The USMC will tell you to go talk to the hand.
Fire the overzealous persecutor.
The USMC will tell you to go talk to the hand.
Apologize to Lt. Pantano and grant him a medal for his distinguished and courageous service to his country.
The USMC will tell you to go talk to the hand.
Mr. Farah, having served eight years in the Marines, I can safely say this much: the USMC doesn't give a damn what you think of them. They'd really prefer that you either (a) thank them for their service and move on, or (b) grab a rifle and stand to post. Either way, they don't give a damn as to what you think you're entitled to.
I am curious about your wartime experience. Would you care to elaborate?
Beirut in the 1980s.
At any moment, half of the city was shooting at me.
The other half was reloading. (c8
And I was working under some fairly tight rules of engagement. But I made it home, and did so without violating the trust the Marine Corps had placed in me.
The Marine Corps is not the sort of organization to proffer capital murder charges for giggles. If Pantano's facing premeditated murder charges, I can tell you that the Marine Corps probably has a great deal of evidence against him. The behavior of Pantano's attorney reflects a certain level of desperation--courts-martial are not favorably disposed towards Hollywood lawyering.
Maybe Mr. Farah is looking for a general to be a "man on horseback" who will make the trains to the concentration camps run on time...
The Marine Corps might "do the right thing by the book" in this matter and lose the support of the American people by mishandling the case.
We do have a right to question the rules of engagement for our Marines. Those rules are established by civilian leadership in our form of government.
If we had done so in Viet Nam, we might have stopped a travesty and not have a wall with 50,000 plus names (thousands of them Marines) of dead men carved into it. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense during most of that fiasco, today admits thousands of those fine young men died needlessly. He also now admits that war could never have been won the way he and Lyndon Johnson were fighting it.
A concerned citizen of the United States is not a "puke." A U.S. Marine had better give a damn as to what the civilian citizens of his country think. He serves them.
http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=29504&Section=News
Local paper, Jacksonville, NC News.
Pantano has not been charged, said Maj. Matt Morgan, a spokesman for II Marine Expeditionary Force. He has not been arrested, confined in the brig or put on house arrest.
"These are only accusations at this point," Morgan said.
No other details about the alleged shooting were released by the Marine Corps. An Article 32 investigatory hearing will be held, but no date has been set, according to a statement by the Corps.
As I said in this thread [post 101], http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1340739/posts?q=1&&page=101
Is Pantano charged or is this an investigation into the 'alleged' charges? If someone is 'charged' with premeditated murder, I'd think they'd be confined [if not in a brig, at least to the base] But Reuters says, 'He had not been placed in confinement or otherwise restricted at Camp Lejeune, the Marines said in their statement.'
Is story of charges a little premature?
UPDATE: I think USMC will come out of this looking fine. I'm not writing my Congressman or Senator unless there are actual charges brought.
"Is story of charges a little premature?"
Yes, allegations have been filed and an investigation is being conducted. Once the investigation is complete, a hearing will be held and formal charges levied at that time.
My guess will be that the allegations are found "without merit".
how many times you were involved in a fight to the death or made snap decisions under fire to shoot someone or not?
I can't believe you would in one breath praise the mighty Marines, and in the same breath throw one under the train.
I didn't throw him under the train. If you're not going to read what I actually wrote, then kindly do not reply to me, puke.
If the Marine Corps really thought Lt. Pantano was a murderer, why did it allow him to finish out his tour? Why wasn't he in the brig?
You yourself state you don't know the accused, the facts of the case, or even Farah,
yet you assail his defense of this officer whose battlefield decisions may have regrettably cost civilian lives.
I'm sure designing computer systems never actually killed anyone, though I'm sure you'll agree house to house combat is a different story .
Yes, it is. But that does not make its decisions open to manipulation by noncombatants.
It does not exist as a law unto itself in a vacuum.
No, it doesn't, which is why there are laws governing the conduct of Marines, and a military justice system to adjudicate those laws.
Public opinion is important to any war effort and American civilians (who vote and choose our leadership) are entitled to know their sons and daughters will be treated fairly when serving in the armed forces and risking their lives overseas.
I can tell you this much: a military court martial is the one court you want to be in front of if you are innocent, because you get many breaks that you do not get in front of a civilian court. It is the court you don't want to be anywhere near if you're guilty, because they will come down on you like the wrath of Jehovah.
The Marine Corps might "do the right thing by the book" in this matter and lose the support of the American people by mishandling the case.
In other words, we should not actually try the facts of the case, we should render a politically popular verdict.
What was your take on the trial of President Clinton? Was that verdict appropriate?
We do have a right to question the rules of engagement for our Marines.
Fine. But the Marine in question, serving under those rules, does not.
Those rules are established by civilian leadership in our form of government.
And they're working, contrary to what a bunch of armchair commandos say (or wish).
If we had done so in Viet Nam, we might have stopped a travesty and not have a wall with 50,000 plus names (thousands of them Marines) of dead men carved into it.
That had nothing to do with ROEs, and everything to do with the lack of a coherent strategy.
Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense during most of that fiasco, today admits thousands of those fine young men died needlessly. He also now admits that war could never have been won the way he and Lyndon Johnson were fighting it.
No kidding.
In case you didn't notice:
We're winning this war.
A concerned citizen of the United States is not a "puke."
One who spouts off and castigates the Marine Corps from an admitted position of utter ignorance of the facts of the case is most assuredly a puke.
A U.S. Marine had better give a damn as to what the civilian citizens of his country think. He serves them.
If I had given a damn what you or any other puke civilian had thought of me, I would've gotten out a lot sooner than I did. My sentiment is shared by most of my fellow Marines, past and present. We think that the average American civilian is utterly unworthy of the blood, sweat, and tears the Marines have shed, are shedding now, and will shed in the future; but we did it in the past, we do it today, and will keep on doing it as long as there is a Marine Corps, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. Don't bother asking why; explaining it to a civilian is like trying to explain color to someone who was born blind. So you can thank God that your statement is laughably false.
I didn't always design computer systems, puke.
But you have always been an asshole I'm sure. I am glad your not a marine any longer.
That's odd. That's B what the Islamsists were saying about me.
I am glad your not a marine any longer.
So are a bunch of Islamists.
Its called delusions of grandeur.
Nope, no delusions of grandeur; just the fact that there are quite a few less Islamsists wandering around loose than would otherwise be the case had my unit not been there and done that.
Calm down folks. Formal charges have not been filed and will not be filed until an investigation is completed. At that time a hearing will be held and the accused charged.
Formal allegations have been filed and the accused advised of those allegations. Don't fault the Marine Corp for what they are doing. Once the allegations are formally filed the Marine Corp has no choice but to proceed as regs. require.
My opinion -- The investigation will find the allegations without merit.
Coffee everywhere!
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I do have faith in the leadership of the Marine Corps; I do believe that, whatever the decision reached, it will be a sound one.
But it's interesting how some folks (like Farah) are demanding a predetermined outcome.
Correction--
"At that time a hearing will be held and the accused may or may not be charged."
I don't much like it when folks blame the Marine Corp for doing what they are required to do by UCMJ.
AH! A voice of calm in the wilderness.
I said on another thread that based on what I have read, I tend to believe the Marine, suspect the accuser and trust the Marine Corps.
99.9% of us would say our first reaction is outrage over what we see as a gross injustice.
I am putting my faith in the Marine Corps and the truth. The truth may not take us where we want to go. We do not even want to go down that road. The truth will prevail.
My sense is that the Marine will be cleared of charges and suspicions.
My sense is that, if that happens, it will be in SPITE of his lawyer, rather than BECAUSE of his lawyer.
My goodness - a former Marine that would rather berate a supporter than stand firm with his "brothers" (or is that redheaded stepbrother in this case?). While Joseph isn't a Marine, you weren't there either and the MSM and PC have so taken over that I am willing to give this Marine a break and pray that he is exonerated. What makes you so cocksure that the high-rankers in this aren't political animals, more concerned with their own skins than the skins of those who do the real work? After 24 years in the military (not a Marine, but that seems to be 3 times as long as you served), I remain dismayed at how political the upper echelons have become and how it is considered political suicide to actually take care of your subordinates these days. You did your time, don't piss on those that are currently in the business of killing others so they and their men can live to fight another day.
Dammit, why do I click on links with titles that include the word "Farah?"
It often leads to me reading flame wars between people who probably normally agree with each other.
If charges haven't been filed yet, while Farah bases his whole column around the "fact" that they have, then who exactly is making the baseless charge? The Marines, or the columnist?
Farah is not a supporter of the Marine Corps or of individual Marines. He is using this case as another route of attack against the Bush administration. He is a particularly despicable piece of filth for using this case to advance his scorched-earth agenda against the GOP and the Bush administration, for committing the ultimate unpardonable sin (namely, not governing as Joe Farah wishes them to--and still being politically successful).
While Joseph isn't a Marine, you weren't there either and the MSM and PC have so taken over that I am willing to give this Marine a break and pray that he is exonerated.
I want justice to be done. If he is innocent, I want him to be exonerated. If he is guilty, I want him to face the appropriate punishment. I'm not in the business of praying for one outcome or another; what Pantano did or did not do is in the past, and now comes the reckoning for it, whatever that reckoning is. And I most assuredly dislike civilians who insist on demanding, from an admitted stance of ignorance, a particular outcome in advance, the consequences to the Marine Corps be damned, just to score political points. F*** Farah and the horse he rode in on.
What makes you so cocksure that the high-rankers in this aren't political animals, more concerned with their own skins than the skins of those who do the real work?
I spent eight years in the USMC. During that time, there was exactly ONE case of capital murder charged in the entire Marine Corps. One. That's all. The USMC doesn't play stupid games on stuff like this.
After 24 years in the military (not a Marine, but that seems to be 3 times as long as you served),
OK, so I've served eight years longer in the USMC than you have, and you also don't know jack about the Corps. Thank you for providing your worthless ignorant brain drippings.
You did your time, don't piss on those that are currently in the business of killing others so they and their men can live to fight another day.
I'm not pissing on them. I'm pissing on Farah, because he's pissing me off.
The columnist. It's another way for him to attack the Bush administration.
The Military Justice System must not be confused with its farcial Civilian counterpart.
I am a legal dummy, make that a legal idiot, but it seems to me the lawyer is talking a bit too much.
I do not know the siutation with great detail. But if this is truly an investigation into charges, isn't it wise to wait for the results?
If that's how you served your service under thoughts like that, then your service was a waste of time. And while I share many of your thoughts of Farah and yes he's a grandstander, if you and your fellow Marines served to protect an unworthy civilian population, then your service was not honorable.
You swore to uphold the Constitution. That same Constitution gives us the right to be as we choose as long as we don't violate that same Constitution. Get used to it.
Oh so welcome - I guess it would be too much to get you to understand how much the politics of senior management in all the services changed under the Klinton administration and how a lot of good folks got out (Remember a certain Chief of Staff?) because they felt they were being forced to betray their folks. "The Marines" is not a sentient entity in and of itself; it is comprised of people and some of those people do not embrace the integrity you have so much faith in. The very fact that he was absolved in the field and went back to work for so long before charges came up should be setting off some red flares. I pray you are right, but the fact that only one charge came up in your time seems a little irrelevant and I'm sure it gives this Marine and his family no comfort whatever. All too often, good men and women get the royal shaft so politicians can save face; the Marines aren't immune...
Tony Snow is interviewing his mother now.
The more I hear of these prosecutions the more I wonder why anyone would join the military only to have their life threatening actions called into question by one court after another. Whoever said that adding the thousands of lawyers to the military was a good thing should be hung. These lawyers do what? They practice law, and practice law they will. If they have nothing to do, they will think of something, including prosecuting those who fight the battles.
The only thing is that the military lawyers can't do anything on their own without an investigation begun by the commander.
I purposely didn't reply to anyone specific because my comment was more about Joseph Farah, but here I'll reply to the two that responded to me.
I don't think anyone here at FR wants to see an unjust prosecution by the Marines.
Speaking for myself, I would like to think that if the Marines go ahead with the prosecution, it is warranted, and it isn't just a PC scalpfest.
I would also add that if someone made a charge against Lt. Pantano, the Marines have a duty to investigate it. If the charge is baseless and not made in good faith, the accuser should face some sort of punishment.
But back to my original point - it seems as though Farah has shaded the facts here. I think he does it on purpose, to rile people up - I have seen it before.
People who knowingly make false accusations, whether they be against Lt. Pantano, the USMC, or the whole military (i.e. Eason Jordan), should be called to account for such things.
I don't think Farah should be fired or anything. I just think it should be pointed out that he seems to be jumping the gun here. He has a right to his opinion, he doesn't have the right to make up facts.
Disclaimer: I have never served in the military.
It's also people like the self-proclaimed Marine (who jumped down my throat for supporting this Marine), that cause some civilians to turn against our military. For people who don't come from a military household, contact with jerks like that are sometimes the only contact they have with anyone claiming to represent the military perspective. How can they be expected to support jerkoffs who despise American civilians? I know that he's not representative of our Marines, so he doesn't have the power to convince me to stop supporting them. But I wonder how many civilians he's convinced to hate our troops because of the way he portrays our Marines.
Anchors Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and NPR Reporter Cokie Roberts, along with one Marine assigned to protect them were hiking through the Iraq desert one day when they were captured by Insurgents.
They were tied up, led to a village, and brought before the leader. The leader said, "I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish so, before we kill and dismember you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan so I'd like one last bowl of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song 'O Canada' one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end." The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine.
So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass. The Marine went sprawling, rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from inside his cammies and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine and sprayed the rest of the Insurgents with gunfire. In a flash, all of them were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather, Jennings and Roberts, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"
"What," replied the Marine, "and have you three assholes call me the aggressor?"
It seems that the situation is an offical complaint by a subordinate. A routine matter.
Exactly.
Because those jerkoffs are the ones willing to go where you refuse to go, and do what you refuse to do.
But I wonder how many civilians he's convinced to hate our troops because of the way he portrays our Marines.
The ones who hate the Marines because of me are the ones who would hate Marines anyway, because they always hate those who are willing to go where they refuse to go and do what they refuse to do.
Been there. You haven't. Done that. You haven't. Wore the t-shirt. You haven't. I understand what's going on. You don't.
But on the Web, "abject ignorance" is magically transmuted into "another point of view."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.