Accused Marine Sent Iraqis 'A Message'

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 8, 2005 | WorldNetDaily

[Jon Alvarez]

exactly! Americans will not allow the left to betray our brave troops!!

We were very successful here in Syracuse standing up to the lies of disgraced ex-Marine and traitor Jimmy Massey...

Pics: http://www.pabaah.com/modules.php?set_albumName=album09&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

[philetus]

(a) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

(b) The Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President and to this title and section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401), he has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

[philetus]

I went to the link under TITLE 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
for CHAPTER 22—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, here:

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_22.html

and ALL the subchapters I click on say they have been repealed.
What does this mean?

[DustyMoment]

Old news. What's your point?

[verity]

BTW, I used the term "ignorance" in the context that you were not informed about the UCMJ. I did not mean to imply that you were dumb.

I lived with the system for 25 years and have far more faith in it than in its civilian counterpart.

[DustyMoment]

And you assumed that I didn't.

You know about assumptions.

[verity]

It appears you are not very gracious in accepting my apology. So much for ever again being courteous to you.

Based on your post #13, I did not have to assume you were less than knowledgeable about the UCMJ.

[DustyMoment]

I never accepted that your use of the term "ignorance" suggested anything other than what the word means (and "dumb" is not in the definition). And, apologies usually have some form of the phrase "sorry, I . . . . ." Frankly, I had no idea that there was an "apology" going on. For what? What did you say that you felt a need to apologize for? I thought we were having a discussion and this discussion appeared to be centered, at this point, around a definition of positions.

However, your assumption that I am "ignorant" of the UCMJ is incorrect. You stated "Based on your post #13, I did not have to assume you were less than knowledgeable about the UCMJ." But the fact is that you chose to assume it rather than consider that I might have some knowledge in this area.

I have lived with the UCMJ since I was a kid, including my own military service, and I have seen it used to screw totally innocent men to the wall. Frankly (as I have clearly indicated), my faith in the UCMJ is no higher than it is in the civilian justice system. In fact, depending on the political ramifications of a given case, the UCMJ can be substantially worse than the civilian justice system.

Lt. Pantano committed no crime worthy of any UCMJ action. Had his CO been something other than a PC-controlled wuss, he would have listened to both sides of the story and told Coburn to get the h*ll out of his office and never return.

Instead, he forwarded the allegations upstream. That this issue is now in the domain of the UCMJ is outrageous. That a brave, honorable, Marine Lt.'s career is down the toilet, regardless of the outcome of a court-martial, is indisputable. What's the UCMJ got to say about that?

[MarMema]

Good one!!!

[Justa]

The incident happened in Iraq. IOW, without a SOFA only UCMJ should apply. I highly doubt he can be charged under USC as it happened outside its jurisdiction.

Under UCMJ he should walk; it was a war zone, the insurgents were guarding a weapons cache, when confronted they fled. Their affiliation and intent was apparent. I really don't see where the "send a message" statement has any bearing unless someone believes it indicates prejudicial or pre-meditated action. I think it was likely done at that moment as in "hey, why don't I just finish the clip to 'send a message' to other insurgents".

One question is what authority the "interim government" had at the time and what the UCMJ's role therein would be. I believe the US military at the time had (and still has) the authority to pursue and engage hostiles. 3 rounds or 30 makes little difference. Dead is dead. That should be the action in question.

I don't think premeditation will trump the circumstance. Imo the shootings appear justified.

[ASA Vet]

The Marines disabled the car by shooting the tires, then handcuffed the Iraqis.
After hearing weapons were found in the house, Pantano had the cuffs removed and ordered the Iraqis
to search the SUV, fearing the vehicle could be booby-trapped.

Here will be much of the case against the Lt.

[verity]

"Lt. Pantano committed no crime worthy of any UCMJ action. Had his CO been something other than a PC-controlled wuss, he would have listened to both sides of the story and told Coburn to get the h*ll out of his office and never return."

Have you ever had a command? Have you ever been directly involved in Military Justice procedures other than receiving an Article 15?
You have absolutely no idea of the LT's guilt or innocence because you have not been made privy to the information that the Article 32 investigation is obtaining. Thus, whatever you conclude is based exclusively on assumptions and you know what they say about assumptions.

And I withdraw my apology. You are ignorant in the connotative sense.

[verity]

Sorry to learn of your LOD injury. I am happy to learn you have successfully rehabbed.

Title 10 of the United States Code is the basis for the existence of the UCMJ. Sometimes people forget that the military is not a separate part of the Government.

Your last statement "Imo the shootings appear justified" is intellectually honest because you are qualifying your statement as your personal opinion and not adjudicated fact.

The comprehensive Article 32 investigation has not yet been concluded. It may or may not provide facts of which none of us are yet aware.

[DustyMoment]

And I withdraw my apology. You are ignorant in the connotative sense.

Thank you!

I know very well what I have read on this site and, yes, I have had a command. The evidence against the LT. is that he defended himself in the face of menacing and threatening actions by captured enemy combatants. He ordered those combatants to cease and desist and to stop, in their own language, at least once before firing at them.

The allegations against the Lt. were filed by a disgruntled member of his command (Coburn) whom the Lt. had to discipline on at least one occasion and, if memory serves correctly, relieved him of his duties.

It doesn't take an article 32 for a real commander to listen to both sides of the story and determine that there is no there, there. These are undisputed facts. It is BS like this that has cost the military a number of fine men and women rather than eliminating the slugs who resent the careers of men like Lt. Pantano.

Finally, my veteran friend, I will end this by noting that it was you who resorted to name calling and accusations as opposed to defending your position.

[Bon mots]

He was sent there to kill people and break things. That is what he did.

Give him a medal. Leave him alone!

[verity]

The Article 32 investigation has not been concluded. Neither you nor I know all the facts. Having conducted Article 32's, it has been my experience that much information surfaces during the course of an investigation.

You are suggesting that a "real commander" would rely exclusively on the "he said/he said" nature of the story upon which to base a decision. However, you fail to consider the possibility that the information he had and to which you are not privy may have been sufficiently conflicting to warrant going to the GCM authority.

You manifest the symptoms of a disgruntled individual whose opinions are less than objectively conceived. Therefore, continuing any discussion with you would be counterproductive.