This U.S. Marine Needs Your Help

CFP ^ | February 28, 2005 | Alan Caruba

[MikeEdwards]

I served long ago in a peacetime, Cold War army, but my training in the combat arts and the skill-sets necessary to stay alive probably didn’t differ that much from that which Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano received. No, in fact, his training was probably better. Marines exist for one purpose. They are not peacekeepers. They are true warriors. They are the ones sent first to where the fighting will be the worst. They know it. They volunteer for it.

On April 15, 2004, the Lieutenant and his patrol were on duty in Iraq’s violence-filled Sunni Triangle. That date had been proceeded by days of ambushes and near misses. Indeed, April 2004 marked the assault on Fallujah with considerable action in Najaf and Sadr City. As the Washington Times pointed out, "About one-third of the 147 U.S. servicemen killed that month were Marines. They were killed in firefights and ambushes, and risked explosive devices in the streets."

It is unlikely that more than a few reading this have ever seen such street-to-street, house-to-house combat. It requires a level of courage most of us will never be required to summon in our entire lives. The wrong decision can get you dead. It can get the men under your command dead.

Last month, a friend shared an email with me from Damon Chapman, the brother-in-law of 2nd Lt. Pantano. He called him "the most honorable man I have ever known." The Marine Corps has charged him with the premeditated killing of two Iraqi insurgents based on a complaint, two months after the event, by a sergeant in his unit who had reportedly been admonished on several occasions by the Lieutenant.

The man now facing the death penalty . . . . .

[kellynla]

I expect this Marine to be exonerated.

The charges were filed by a Marine with a chip on his shoulder.
The rest of the Marines under Lt. Pantano's command support him.

This "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" by pinheads in the media who never laced up a pair of combat boots in their lives is really annoying.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[2banana]

Web Site: http://www.defendthedefenders.org/pages/3/index.htm

[SalukiLawyer]

Bet it never gets past the Article 32.

[DustyMoment]

If we want Lt. Pantano to be exonerated (as he should be), start writing Don Rumsfeld and putting pressure on him. This "case" should be dropped before it ever gets to trial. It's ridiculous and stupid and the military should be embarrassed that it has gotten to this point.

The charges should never have survived beyond a preliminary, unit-level investigation.

[JarheadFromFlorida]

The charges against this outstanding Marine officer will be dropped shorty......guaranteed. The whole of this country is in no mood for prosecuting our young warriors.

[Coldwater Creek]

I certainly hope so!!!!!! I cannot imagine just what the military is thinking.

BTW we are taking way too many prisoner's.!!!!!

[kellynla]

"I cannot imagine just what the military is thinking."
It's just an investigation which has been well publicized...I expect this Marine to be exonerated just like the one who was investigated for shooting the Iraqi who was "playing dead!"

"we are taking way too many prisoner's"
With every day that passes, the Iraqis are taking over more and more responsibility which will not only keep us out of the mix but will also lower the American casualty rate.
It was half as much this month as last.

[kellynla]

"Iraqi who was "playing dead!"
I should have said the "enemy" who was playing dead since we don't know what his nationality was...

[Coldwater Creek]

Maybe I didn't make my statement that we are taking too many prisoner's clear. We should have shot most of them dead at the beginning. If this sounds ruthless the killing of our people is even more so.

[kellynla]

Oh, as an ol' Marine Corps Point Man, I understood exactly! LOL

[Coldwater Creek]

Sorry! I won't make that mistake about you again. Even though my Husband and children are Navy, we love the Marines, as they rescued my Husband from the Russians when his plane went down in their country. Black ops so credit was never given!

[Poohbah]

My comments below are based solely on Lt. Pantano's own statements. Said statements illustrate, BTW, why there is a right to remain silent.

1. Lt. Pantano violated standing orders (Note: not "regulations," orders) for handling prisoners that were put in place to safeguard the lives of the Marines in his charge. That showed appallingly bad judgement.

2. Said violations of standing orders, in all likelihood, led directly to the deaths of prisoners in Lt. Pantano's charge. If they were innocent, then said deaths were negligent homicide at best. If they were actual terrorists, then Lt. Pantano's poor judgement ensured that there would be no opportunity for interrogating the prisoners. Dead men tell no tales, but prisoners can become downright chatty.

When I was in the Marine Corps, we were taught to handle prisoners as follows:

1. Secure the prisoners so that they would have no opportunity to escape or pose a threat to yourself and other Marines;
2. Search the prisoners and ensure they were not concealing weapons or destroying/hiding items of intelligence value;
3. Silence the prisoners to prevent them from communicating among themselves, whether said communication be to facilitate an escape attempt or an effort to deny accurate intelligence;
4. Segregate apparent leaders from their subordinates, to prevent them from exercising command and control;
5. Safeguard the prisoners from hostile fire or enemy attempts to free them;
6. Speed them to the rear so that they could be interrogated while any information they had was still of intelligence value.

None of the above is rocket science. When Pantano uncuffed the prisoners, he engaged in felony-grade stupidity.

By not adhering to standing orders for handling prisoners, Lt. Pantano recklessly endangered his Marines' lives. The Marine Corps is not known for tolerating that sort of conduct from its officers. When simple common-sense orders get ignored and somebody ends up dead when they shouldn't be, the USMC gets rather bloody-minded about it, and someone will wind up with a broken career at a minimum.

[Melas]

When Pantano uncuffed the prisoners, he engaged in felony-grade stupidity

I can't count the times I've said the exact same thing in these threads. However, I can say that it's been ignored 100% of the time. I used to think that emotionalism before reason was a liberal trait, but this particular incident is leading me to believe that a lot of conservatives are no different.

[Poohbah]

So I've noticed.

If the Force gives Charles Gittins power over weaker minds, then we have a bunch of FReepers who, if brains were rifle oil, wouldn't have enough to grease the dynamo in a firefly's butt.

[exnavychick]

Good luck trying to make the point. Don't get me wrong, I understand the urge to want to support our troops without reservation, but this Marine has indicted himself...doesn't sound like he's got much hope of getting off entirely. I'm not sure how lenient they should be, considering what MIGHT have happened instead.

I feel for him, though. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Kretek]

I used to think that emotionalism before reason was a liberal trait

Knee-Jerking and Leaping to Conclusions are championship sports...

[Melas]

I guess so. I just don't get the support of this marine by freepers. As close as I can tell, the support is based solely on his nationality. He's an American, and the victims were Iraqi.

Not one of his defender is willing to address the fact that he violated standing orders when he uncuffed those prisoners. That's just ignored and swept under the rug.

[Poohbah]

but this Marine has indicted himself...

Which is why, when you are accused of criminal behavior, you really shouldn't say anything.

I'm not sure how lenient they should be, considering what MIGHT have happened instead.

The critical event--the point where this could've been prevented from happening--appears to be the decision to uncuff the prisoners. The USMC is unlikely to be lenient, because the USMC's policy is that if Person A gets killed due to Person B's breach of orders, then Person B is going to hang, particularly if he is in a leadership billet. It's the only way you can run a military, really. There may be an element of Voltaire's pour encourger l'autres at work, but it's just the nature of the beast.

I feel for him, though. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Well, he's prior enlisted, so he doesn't have the "I'm just a dumb 2nd Lieutenant with no experience whatsoever" excuse.

[Melas]

In fairness, it's not a lack of intellect. They would never admit it publically, but what it boils down to is a firmly held belief that whatever an American does to "those people" is perfectly ok. A marine can break the rules, ignore orders, fly the finger towards procedure, and get people killed as a result, and it doesn't matter, because he's an American, and they were Iraqi.

What's ironic is that you and I are part of a very small cadre who're actually supporting the Marine Corps, and not the rogue marine. If that's not messed up for a conservative site, I don't know what is.