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