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.
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.