Posted on 02/15/2005 2:24:48 AM PST by AliVeritas
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343444/posts
Posted here, Fisked at Post #3.
Why are FReepers so quick to demand that the military justice system ignore reports of criminal activity?
I haven't seen anyone make a ridiculous demand like that. I have, however, seen a press release from a supposedly impartial spokesman tailored to paint the Marine as guilty, discourage Americans from supporting him, and prompt other Marines to hesitate in performing their duty. There's no reason the Marine Corps can't perform an investigation without some irresponsible spokesman deviating from the standard form of press release and stabbing his fellow Marines in the back, just so he can see his name in the papers.
This time things are different. Eason Jordan just found out about it, and his running dog lackey, Peter Arnett, demonstrated that we can even go back to earlier wars, identify "newsies" and others who were bad actors, and pull their plugs.
When there has been actual crime, Vietnam vets can make sure everybody gets a fair trial and that the "newsies" get beaten down as necessary. They all lie through their teeth anyway, and some of them invent this stuff. There is a suspicion that this particular situation is an example of that sort of thing.
To an outsider some of this resistance may look like we are supporting the commission of crimes. In some cases where there seems to be a dispute between the ranks, some of our officer class who post here and in various Blogs ALWAYS take the position that the enlisted personnel must be guilty, and some of our enlisted class will always take the position that the officers are exclusively responsible until demonstrated otherwise in an open court!
Still, in both cases we are going to make sure these men and women get defended and that the legal processes are managed fairly.
This didn't go on during the Nam. That's one of the reasons why the Democrats ended up running someone like John Kerry in this last election.
I thought that the investigation was over and that murder charges had been filed?
Sorry, there is something lacking in this story. I didn't
hear why the charges were brought or by who. That my friends
is a big hole in this affair.
I can only hope that this young man didn't do anything wrong
but there is nothing in the story above to make me want to
stand for him or stand against him at this point.
Need to know a lot more about the case before I would be
willing to get on either band wagon.
I hope you never serve on a jury.
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.
A court martial can find the defendant guilty or not
guilty. If this Marine is innocent the best way to
prove it is military court procedures.
This puts the matter to rest.
Interesting declarative presupposition of guilt.
No, the military justice system goes into action based on a report of criminal activity; the purpose of the military justice system is to determine whether said report is actually fact.
Waiting for the results of the investigation.
I am content to do that. Farah wants a guaranteed verdict of innocent.
We don't want warriors that obey orders. . .we want warriors to obey lawful orders (there is a difference).
ROEs are lawful orders.
One more time, for the record: you are utterly ignorant of the Marine Corps, what it is, what it does, and how it does what it does. The public affairs officer said nothing of what you desperately wish him to have said.
If the USA keeps up nonsense like this, they are not going to find anyone to fight their wars!
I sensed over the weekend, when I first read about LT Pantano, that the story would have strong staying power.
Battlefield investigation only.
I have to agree with you...........let the system work, and the truth will come out....if he is innocent, he will be found innocent.......
I don't see how your point flows logically into the notion that suspected criminal behavior should be ignored.
Marine's charges set 'terrible precedent'
Lt. Col. West's lawyer sees similarity to case he defended
Posted: February 12, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
Noting similarities to the case of an Army officer he defended more than one year ago, a U.S. military lawyer says Marine commanders should have the courage to dismiss charges against a lieutenant who could face the death penalty for killing two insurgent terrorists in Iraq.
Pantano addressing officers of TBS (The Basic School), October 2003
Neal A. Puckett, who represented Lt. Col. Allen B. West, told WorldNetDaily the case of Second Lieutenant Ilario G. Pantano could set a dangerous precedent.
Pantano, charged Feb. 1 with premeditated murder in connection with the April 15, 2004, shooting incident, claims one of the men he shot appeared to be preparing to attack the Marines or detonate nearby explosives.
"It sets a terrible precedent for Marines, who have to make life-or-death decisions in the field, facing terrorists who follow no rules or laws of war," Puckett said in an e-mailed response.
Noting that the combat incident was investigated at the time, clearing anyone of wrongdoing, Puckett said it "defies logic" that the case should be re-opened the following year with criminal charges.
Puckett said Marines now apparently must fear prosecutors as well as terrorists.
"Monday morning quarterbacking, in the absence of any evidence of criminal intent on the part of a trained Marine officer, is just the wrong way to run a war," he said.
"If the officer made a mistake, that should end the matter. Mistakes are made in war. It sounds like Marine prosecutors are trying to justify their jobs by creating a case where there should not be one."
Puckett said the "more ominous possibility" is that outside political pressure is causing military brass to turn against their young leaders.
"That's just wrong," he said. "I think most veterans would agree."
'What's he supposed to do?'
According to news reports yesterday, Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division, convened an investigation to determine if the 33-year-old Pantano should stand trial, but no further details were released.
Charles Gittins, Pantano's civilian attorney, said, however, the Marine has been formally charged with murder and has "made it pretty firmly clear that he is not guilty."
The platoon Pantano commanded had been ordered to search a suspected terrorist hide-out south of Baghdad last April. After finding weapons, ammunition and bomb-making material in the building, the Marines saw two men fleeing in a sport utility vehicle, Gittins said, according to the wire report.
The Marines shot out the vehicles tires and took two Iraqi men into custody, ordering them to search for booby traps and secret compartments in the vehicle by ripping out its interior and seats, Gittins told Reuters.
Then, according to Gittins, one of the suspects turned suddenly toward Pantano "as if to attack." When Pantano ordered them to stop, they kept moving toward him, Gittins said.
Pantano "thought he was in danger and he fired and he killed them and that's what we do to terrorists who don't listen to orders. ... It's a combat situation, kill or be killed," the attorney told Reuters.
Fearing the two suspects might have been attempting to detonate explosives remotely, Pantano shot them, Gittins said.
"What's he supposed to do, wait until he's standing in the inferno?" the attorney added.
After the incident, Pantano served three more months in Iraq then returned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina at the end of his tour of duty.
Possible outcomes to the case, say Marine investigators, are that Pantano could be court-martialed, disciplined administratively or have the charges dropped.
'Lives of my men'
As WorldNetDaily reported West was charged with aggravated assault after a 2003 incident in which he took charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi policeman believed to be withholding information about a planned ambush of West and his unit.
Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman's head, not harming him – but scaring him. The policeman immediately disclosed the information, leading to the arrest of two Iraqis and cessation of attacks on West's 4th Infantry Division battalion.
But Army prosecutors said West's actions had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although he faced a wide range of possible outcomes – from no disciplinary action to a sentence of up to eight years in prison – he ultimately was fined $5,000.
At a hearing in late 2003, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again.
"If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can," he said.
'Who is my son?'
Merry Pantano, the accused Marine's mother, has created a website titled "Defend the Defenders" to tell her son's story and raise money for his defense.
"Who is my son?" she asks on the website:
He is a young, intelligent, charismatic Marine officer and all that that entails. And yet he is incomprehensibly charged with heinous crimes related to a dangerous military operation that took place in "the triangle of death" just south of Baghdad.
It was during the peak of insurgent violence in mid April of 2004, with hundreds of fellow Marines and soldiers being killed and wounded throughout the "Sunni Triangle." Terrorists, captured while trying to recover a vehicle used in an earlier attack on the Marines, had given detailed information about a supply of weapons and terrorist hideout that my son and his platoon were hastily dispatched to search. Their search revealed weapons, ammunition, mortar equipment, bomb-making material and two fleeing terrorists.
In an ensuing search of the terrorists' vehicle, my son, concerned for his safety and the safety of his men shot them both in self defense and then disabled their vehicle so it could not be used in further attacks. He and his men went on to fight with distinction and honor in Falluja and the surrounding areas and, when possible, aided in the reconstruction effort. Months later, the government began an investigation that only now, 10 months after the fact, alleges an evil intent which is at polar opposite of my son's character and principles.
Marines urge patience in accused-officer case
Corps says it understands outrage
over possibility of death penalty
Posted: February 15, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
Americans outraged at the murder charges against a Marine who claims he killed two insurgent terrorists in Iraq in self-defense should have confidence in the military justice system, insists a Marine Corps spokesman.
Ilario Pantano and family (defendthedefenders.org)
Maj. Matt Morgan of Camp Lejeune, N.C., told WorldNetDaily he understands why the public is rallying behind 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano after news of his case broke Friday.
"Americans have seen what is in the press, and they have a tendency to support the Marines," he said. "On the other side of that, completely unconnected, there is something called the law of war, and it is possible for a Marine to violate that. To say you can't second-guess a Marine -- well, every Marine who deploys has the experience that anything they do can be second-guessed."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Pantano, 33, was charged Feb. 1 with premeditated murder in connection with an April 15, 2004, shooting incident. He claims one of the men he shot appeared to be preparing to attack his platoon or detonate nearby explosives.
"I just believe that it's important for Americans to have faith in the judicial process and understand that Lt. Pantano is presumed innocent and will continue to be so unless determined otherwise," Morgan said.
Pantano's attorney Charles Gittins, however, told WND his client is "very angry."
"He feels like he's been betrayed," Gittins said. "What has to be annoying is that he reported to his superiors very shortly thereafter that he killed these two Iraqis."
Nobody took him out of combat duty, the attorney emphasized.
"They didn't mind him out there dodging bullets for three months after this happened," Gittins said, adding it was only after returning to the U.S. that Pantano was charged.
Sunni Triangle
The Marine officer, who arrived in Iraq in March 2004, led a quick-reaction platoon that responded to intelligence reports on weapons caches and hide-outs in the volatile "Sunni Triangle," where suicide bombers feigning surrender and booby-trapped bodies and vehicles often threaten U.S. soldiers. In the April incident, the platoon stopped two men who fled in an SUV from a hide-out where weapons were discovered. Pantano said the two men came toward him despite his command in Arabic to stop.
An Article 32 hearing -- a pretrial hearing -- tentatively is scheduled for the end of the second week of March, Morgan said.
The Marine Corps spokesman contends it's inaccurate to say Pantano has been "charged." "Formal allegations" have been filed, he said, which should not be equated with a criminal indictment.
In an Article 32 investigation -- required in any case in which a court martial is under consideration -- a presiding officer hears the prosecution, allows the defense to cross-examine and present its evidence, then makes a recommendation to the presiding authority -- in this instance Maj. Gen. Richard Huck.
Huck would then have a full range of punitive options, from a general court martial -- the equivalent of a felony trial -- to dismissal.
Gittins, a Marine reserve, questions the thoroughness of the investigation that led to the charges, asserting that while his client has a track record of outstanding character and credibility, the accuser is suspect.
"There's reason to believe he might not be a big fan of Lt. Pantano," Gittins said.
He described the accuser as a sergeant who holds the position of radio man, a non-leadership position that indicates he's been put in a place where he can do the least harm.
"No one actually went and looked at the lack-of-credibility issues," he said. "There is no evidence of any investigation."
'Things that need to be done'
Pantano, who grew up in New York City, served in the 1991 Gulf War at age 19. Then, moved by the 9-11 attacks, he gave up a lucrative stock-broker position and set aside his film-making company to re-enlist.
A friend, James Rafferty, told the New York Times the Sept. 11 attacks brought Pantano "to the realization that he is a Marine and there are things that need to be done so that stuff like this doesn't happen again. It would be hard to sit back and not be a part of that."
Rafferty added, "I think he felt like his brothers are going to fight for our freedom, and if he still can, then he will."
Gittins pointed out that the leadership in Iraq stood behind Pantano after the April incident.
"People making the decisions are sitting in air-conditioned offices of Camp Lejeune, not on the battlefield," he said.
The issue, said Gittins, is how the military defines self-defense.
"There is no question my guy intended to kill them," he said. "Is that murder or lawful killing in the normal process of war? "
A Marine, he said, has both the right and obligation of self-defense if he comes upon a situation in which he is threatened.
"My threshhold for self-defense might be higher or lower," the lawyer said. "But we should not be in the business of second-guessing."
Gittins believes the case will have a damaging effect on recruiting and morale.
"Every Marine knows that a Marine has been charged with premediated murder," he said. "If it causes them to hesitate for one second because they worry about being second-guessed, that is criminal neglect on the part of Marine Corps leadership. We should not suffer one casualty because they are worried about being second-guessed."
Marine Corps spokesman Morgan said he cannot discuss the facts of the case but noted the specific rules of engagment in operation during that time in the Sunni Triangle are crucial to determining whether Pantano violated the military code of justice or legitimately engaged in self-defense.
The thresholds vary from location to location and conflict to conflict, Morgan stated.
"Our Marines in that province are guided by a different set of rules than our Marines who are guarding armories here in the United States," he explained.
Uh-oh. Pantano hired the same attorney who (mis)handled West's defense by conducting it in the press instead of in the court room.
I'm inclined to believe that there's a strong probability of guilt for a few reasons, specifically:
1. The USMC is not in the habit of doing these investigations for giggles.
2. The accused hired Charles Gittin, which is the military equivalent of an accused celebrity hiring Mark Geragos.
3. Gittin is conducting his defense in the court of public opinion, and not the court of law. (When defense attorneys spend more time pounding the table than they do pounding law books and prosecution witnesses, it's a sign that either the defense case is weak, or that the defense attorney is incompetent.)
But I'm perfectly willing to accept the outcome of the investigation, whatever it is.
DEFEND THE DEFENDERS
By Michelle Malkin · February 14, 2005 09:47 PM
Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough had a troubling story in today's paper about a Marine who may face the death penalty for killing two Iraqi insurgents in the heat of battle in a terrorist-infested town near Baghdad.
The young Marine is 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, and his defenders say that:
[T]he two Iraqis who came toward him despite his order in Arabic to stop were mortal enemies. Booby-trapped suicide bombers are killing Iraqis by the score and some have even feigned surrender in order to get close to U.S. soldiers. But the Corps views it as murder and filed charges against him Feb. 1. ..
... Lt. Pantano has retained Charles Gittins, a Marine reserve officer and one of the country's most prominent military defense attorneys.
Mr. Gittins said his client reported the shootings to superiors and remained in combat for weeks afterward. It was not until an enlisted man, whom Mr. Gittins described as "disgruntled" after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began.
"Lt. Pantano told everyone who needed to know," Mr. Gittins said. "He told them what he did and why he did it. After that, he served three months in combat. Nobody had any problem with it."
The Corps has presented Lt. Pantano with a document known as a "charge sheet" that officially charges him with two counts of murder.
Despite this, a Marine spokesman at Camp Lejeune said the officer had not yet been accused. Mr. Gittins on Saturday sent a letter to the base's commanding general demanding that he fire the public affairs officer for putting out erroneous information.
Lt. Pantano, raised in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, had already served his country as an enlisted Marine when al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center. He eventually rejoined, graduating from officer training at Quantico, Va., and earning a commission.
The married father of two sons took a hefty pay cut, going from the $100,000 salary of a New York stock broker and TV producer, to the pay of a Marine second lieutenant.
"If he has a fault," says his mother on the site, "it is that he is too idealistic and puts moral responsibility and duty to his country and his men before anything else."
Pantano's mom's website is Defend the Defenders. Read through all of it and judge for yourselves, especially the letters from other Marines Pantano has served with in combat.
(Update 2/15 7:25 am EST: Unfortunately, the Defend the Defenders site has gone down, probably because it exceeded its bandwith limit.)
More coverage of Pantano's case here and here.
Pantano's plight is especially relevant in light of Easongate/Eason's Fables/Eason-quiddick. Pantano's mom writes:
As America rallies behind the rhetoric, the talk of “bringing terrorists to justice” must be translated into action. Fighting men and women with wills of steel are in dark corners of the world getting their hands dirty where “the rubber meets the road” so policy can become a reality. These men and women are placed in harms way and are required to make split-second, life or death decisions – decisions that could cost them their own lives.
DefendtheDefenders.org stands behind the man who puts his life on the line again and again, who makes life or death decisions in the blazing heat, exhaustion, fear and confusion of war while conducting combat operations intended to capture or kill the enemy and as a result of his actions in combat becomes the subject of an investigation or even formal charges.
Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano charged with murder
Filed under: Justice/Prosecuting , War on Terror by John Behan @ 11:40 pm
I note here, in the WashTimes, that Marine 2d Lt. Ilario Pantano has been charged with two counts of murder in the killing of two Iraqis.
My interest in this case arises for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that I am a prosecutor by day. As a result, I grapple daily with when to charge individuals, and what to charge them; I am acutely aware of the havoc that can be wreaked on lives after I decide to indict an individual. As a result, I’m always mindful of the need to be sure of someone’s culpability before proceeding with prosecution.
From the facts of the Pantano matter as related in the media, I have serious questions about this potential prosecution:
Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March 2004, leading a quick-reaction platoon, the kind of unit that is crucial to the U.S. military in its battle against insurgents. Such units receive intelligence reports on hide-outs and arms caches, and must move quickly before the enemy can escape.
“He was in combat every day,” Mr. Gittins (Pantano’s attorney) said. “They were taking serious casualties. In the three weeks before [the shootings] happened, there were over 1,000 [dead and wounded] in his area of operation.”
On April 15, commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano’s men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano’s account.
The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised. If it was booby-trapped, the Iraqis, not Marines, would pay the price.
It was at this point that the Iraqis stopped searching and moved quickly toward Lt. Pantano.
“They start talking in Arabic and turn toward him as if they are going to rush him,” Mr. Gittins said. “He says, ’stop.’ They don’t stop and he kills them. He didn’t know what they were doing but they weren’t listening to him. He was in fear of his life and he killed them.”
The lawyer said it turned out that the men were unarmed and there were no weapons in the SUV.
“They were from a town that was really bad in terms of the insurgency,” he said.
Okay, it needs to be said that I’m not a military prosecutor. Also, let’s acknowledge that there are likely facts that are not related in the few paragraphs above.
However, on the face of this, the prosecution looks absurd, especially when you consider that this young 2d Lieutenant may face the death penalty for these “crimes.” Listen, I’ve charged people with the death penalty, and I’ve had a jury come back with a death verdict. It’s not a Sunday afternoon tea, and it’s not an action to take lightly. I can’t imagine what aggravating facts could have been left out that would call for a sentence of death. I just can’t imagine….
Folks, we’re talking about enemy combatants, smack in the middle of a war zone.
Read this description of Pantano:
Lt. Pantano, raised in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, had already served his country as an enlisted Marine when al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center. He eventually rejoined, graduating from officer training at Quantico, Va., and earning a commission.
The married father of two sons took a hefty pay cut, going from the $100,000 salary of a New York stock broker and TV producer, to the pay of a Marine second lieutenant.
“If he has a fault,” says his mother on the site, “it is that he is too idealistic and puts moral responsibility and duty to his country and his men before anything else.”
Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March 2004, leading a quick-reaction platoon, the kind of unit that is crucial to the U.S. military in its battle against insurgents. Such units receive intelligence reports on hide-outs and arms caches, and must move quickly before the enemy can escape.
“He was in combat every day,” Mr. Gittins said. “They were taking serious casualties. In the three weeks before [the shootings] happened, there were over 1,000 [dead and wounded] in his area of operation.”
You won’t see me saying too many good things about defense attorneys, but it seems like good news that Pantano has “one of the country’s most prominent military defense attorneys” defending him. His mother has also been very active in support of her son; take a look at Defend The Defenders, her site.
Michelle Malkin and Powerline are also actively blogging this story.
UPDATE: More commentary from Prince Pundit, and Opinion Bug. Opinion Bug asks for the thoughts of a man who has been in Lt. Pantano’s shoes: LTC Allen B. West. It’s powerful stuff.
A Combat Marine Charged With Murder—LTC (R) Allen B West Responds
Filed under: Iraq— Tim @ 10:16 pm
I’ve asked LTC (R) Allen B West for his thoughts on the Marine charged with killing two Iraqi’s while searching a terrorist hideout. LTC (R) Allen B West is a man who has been there and knows. His article is powerful and thought provoking:
***
Well, Tim, with what I know right now, it seems very ironic to me to charge someone with premeditated murder during war. I thought that when you sit and plan a military operation and carry out that plan…well that is premeditated.
Perhaps we should go back and charge Sam Houston and his Texans with premeditated murder since they planned to attack Santa Anna and his Mexican army at San Jacinto during their siesta. What would 60 minutes or CNN say about that if they had a war correspondent at the scene? Let us not forget that any raid carried out should be considered such as well. Perhaps we should go back and arrest the Soldiers from the famed Battle of Mogadishu, after all it was a planned attack. No, I have a better one, go dig up King Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae who carried out a night raid against the Persians while they slept, attempting to kill Xerxes himself. I am pretty sure that our media would label that a planned assassination attempt against a Head of State.
Stop, does anyone hear what I hear, well I hear laughter, laughter coming from the radical Islamic terrorists who have us so confused and turning upon our own Warriors in an unsatiable lust for perceived justice. Question, who was the last Islamic terrorist, I refuse to use the PC word “insurgent” to be charged in Islamic court for firing an RPG at a convoy of fuel trucks? Or how about setting up a IED attack that ends up killing civilians as well? What about the guys that planned a suicide bomb attack on an American dining hall? Excuse me but I had to turn down the laughter sounds. Nah, they feel that killing us in anyway required is pretty ok.
As always, I do not submit to wanton violence but as I told my Men in Taji, unleash controlled response and purposeful resolve in the face of the enemy. Never back down from a fight and assert yourself as being in charge, even if he ambushes you. We have locked horns with an enemy that defines warfare in a totally different manner. First of all you must understand Islam to realize that it is politic-religious in its nature. How do you fight an enemy that believes that in a “Jihad” his death will bring forth a great reward in paradise? Well, simply, you must have the commitment to enable that reward for him. Instead, we are looking for everyway to negate toughness because we are afraid of others not liking us, or even worse, promotions.
Now, I do not have the full story but when did we become so self-righteous, or afraid, that we are now so willing to imprison our own Soldiers and Marines? Young men and women that are daily placing lives on the line around the world. Remember in WWII when German Paratroopers jumped in behind American lines donning US uniforms they were summarily executed on site when captured!
This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, if this continues who will answer the call to defend this Nation, Michael Moore? Howard Dean? Dennis Kucinich? Al Sharpton? Or those that follow their lead?
Ok, for those that are confused, war is premeditated killing and has been so since the first caveman picked up a rock and pounded in the head of another. What we are displaying is a weakness that will eventually destroy the very framework of this American society. There was a pretty good quote from the film, “Troy” when Brad Pitt’s character Achilles stated, “War is about old Men talking and young Men dying". However true, but now this war seems to be about old Men talking, posturing and young Men dying and being sacrificed, while sacrificing for the greater Nation. Honestly, it makes me ill and I wish I could be back there with them, if even as a slick sleeve Private.
America, no we are not barbaric, cruel, and insane killers (no matter what those that sit on the sidelines and heckle say) but we are committed men and women that serve this Country to the best of our abilities. If we continue on this glide path, out of fear…I hate when everyone says My Lai, Vietnam, and everything else as a media scare tactic…we are going to inevitably lose. And if we lose this fight, then my daughters and many other American children will grow up in a world of fear, terror.
I do not know the specifics about 2LT Ilario Pantano but he is an American and a combat Marine. Unless his offense was so heinous and unnecessary to his prescribed orders, I stand with him. Let’s stop the laughter, either get serious or get out but stop sacrificing and killing the young men if you do not want to WIN!
Regards to America and all Americans, LTC (R) Allen B West
Marine Charged With Murder For Defending Himself
Rosemary at My Newz ‘n Ideas has brought to my attention the story of Marine 2ndLt Ilario Pantano. It seems that Lt. Pantano shot and killed two Iraqis last April and now last week he was charged with murder.
Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times has an article today that outlines the story. In part it reads:
To Lt. Pantano, the two Iraqis who came toward him despite his order in Arabic to stop were mortal enemies. Booby-trapped suicide bombers are killing Iraqis by the score and some have even feigned surrender in order to get close to U.S. soldiers. But the Corps views it as murder and filed charges against him Feb. 1.
On April 15, commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano's men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano's account.
The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised. If it was booby-trapped, the Iraqis, not Marines, would pay the price.
It was at this point that the Iraqis stopped searching and moved quickly toward Lt. Pantano.
"They start talking in Arabic and turn toward him as if they are going to rush him," Mr. Gittins (his attorney) said. "He says, 'stop.' They don't stop and he kills them. He didn't know what they were doing but they weren't listening to him. He was in fear of his life and he killed them."
Of course it turns out that they were unarmed and there were no weapons in the car, however, Lt. Pantano did not know that at the time. Pantano reported this event to his superiors and continued to serve in combat in the area for an additional 3 months.
His fitness report for that time period shows that no one thought twice about the incident:
His Company Commander states:
“Lieutenant’s Pantano progression as a young platoon commander and leader has been impressive.… he has dedicated himself to subordinate development resulting in the weakest platoon becoming one that is often the Company’s main effort. With a calm demeanor that speaks of confidence, Lieutenant Pantano has led his platoon into urban combat in Latafiyah, and he has also conducted convention operations in Falluja and Zaidon Province, Iraq. He is a proficient communicator, who should be promoted with peers. A proven warrior, Lieutenant Pantano is a Marine that I would proudly serve in combat with at any time.
His Battalion Commander, the reviewing Officer then noted:
“Concur with RS (Reporting Senior). Lt Pantano’s performance during the reporting period has been noteworthy and established his reputation as an accomplished infantry leader. His actions during the fighting in Falluja and Al Zaidon highlighted a solid understanding of tactics and an ability to anticipate the enemy. Leads form the front always and balances his aggressive style with true concern for the welfare of his Marines. Exceptional communication skills for a 2ndLt. Organized, aggressive, focused and driven. Ready for increased responsibility. Retain, promote and assign to challenging assignments.” (Emphasis added.)
So what happened? It was not until a "disgruntled” enlisted man, after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began. Today a Marine officer is being second guessed for a split second decision that he made to protect his life and the lives of this men.
Pantano’s mother has established a web site Defend the Defenders.org with all the details. There is a great deal of information posted as well as supporting comments from fellow Marines and their families.
Rosemary has several posts here and here and here.
Well said. Thank you.
Actually, I'm knowledgable enough about the Marines to know that you are not representative of them. I have occasionally come across others like you, who portray themselves as Vets from one branch or another. The favorite branch being the Marines. They hate American civilians, and paint their supposed brothers in arms as lacking the strength of character needed to resist the criminal acts we put them in the position to commit. I know better. You are an exception, if you ever really were in the Marines. Maj. Morgan, who chose to turn on a fellow Marine for his own gain, is another exception. Lt. Pantano may or not be an exception. Those of you who assume he's guilty just because he's a Marine, are the exceptions. Those of you who hate American civilians who support the troops even more than you hate civilians who don't, are the exceptions. I don't have to be a Marine to know that. When you attack the integrity of our armed forces, you're not attacking me directly, but you are attacking my family. When you portray yourself as having some unspoken authority to speak ill of Marines on their behalf, I'd just like to know how that makes you any different from John Kerry.
With good reason.
and paint their supposed brothers in arms as lacking the strength of character needed to resist the criminal acts we put them in the position to commit.
Actually, I'm just the opposite. I do understand that a very few s**tbirds make it through training and serve in combat. But they are the exception. And when they're found, they're given their due. And that's good for the Corps.
Those of you who assume he's guilty just because he's a Marine,
I'm assuming he's guilty because of his lawyer. Gittin is the Mark Geragos of the military lawyer community--hiring him is about the same as confessing, it's just a lot more expensive.
Maj. Morgan, who chose to turn on a fellow Marine for his own gain, is another exception.
Maj. Morgan did no such thing. He answered questions from WorldNutDaily. He answered them honestly. (That, generally, is the first mistake Marines make in dealing with the press. "No comment" is a far better strategy for dealing with agenda-driven hacks posing as reporters, no matter what their alleged agaenda.) He has had his words twisted to support your political agenda. Your doing so is why I despise you.
You are a liar, and your opinion is still irrelevent.
A couple of posts later someone pointed out that Gittins is the same guy that screwed up West's defense as well.
Either activate this guy Gittins, or get him out of there and bring in a lawyer. When there's a death penalty involved our soldiers deserve better than a clownshow.
In fact, he did treat people he caught that way ~ Davy Crockett, John Wayne, Lou Diamond Phillips, etc.
You know that!
Charles Gittin, like Mark Geragos, does not meet the criterion that I bolded.
I tell ya, if I am ever accused of a crime you can bet your last bit of bandwidth that I will hire the best snake I can find.
Then I would heartily recommend hiring someone other than Gittin. His statements to the press helped get LTC West convicted.
He did it in the West case, too. He likes to accuse NCOs of all manner of perfidy.
Incidentally, if this sergeant was really as inept as Gittins claims, no one in their right mind would make him a radio operator.
An incompetent sergeant can get his squad killed. An incompetent radioman can get his entire platoon killed.
A couple of posts later someone pointed out that Gittins is the same guy that screwed up West's defense as well.
Trials are, IIRC, held in courtrooms, not in the press, and Gittin's a little too much in love with talking to WND.
Either activate this guy Gittins, or get him out of there and bring in a lawyer. When there's a death penalty involved our soldiers deserve better than a clownshow.
Thank you; you got the point.
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.