Posted on 03/11/2007 3:38:43 PM PDT by RedRover
An Honest Investigation Would Have Cleared Lieutenant Pantano in Iraq (and Other Lessons for the Haditha Hearings)
Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano was an outstanding Marine officer who did his job, including the hard business of killing the enemy, very well.
And then the government told him that he was a murderer.
On February 1, 2005, he was charged with premeditated murder and a host of other charges including dereliction of duty and damaging a terrorist’s car.
Not a single charge should have been made.
The lieutenant had shot and killed two detainees after they made a hostile move toward him. Lieutenant Pantano had warned them to stop in Arabic and English. An honest and fair investigation would have cleared Pantano and sent him back to his platoon.
Instead, a man (whose fitness report said was the best officer of his rank in the battalion) was disgraced, humiliated, and destroyed as a Marine. The emotional pain was greater than anything he’d experienced in combat. “This mental assault,” Lieutenant Pantano writes in his book, Warlord, “came from the NCIS.”
In April 2005, in an Article 32 hearing, Lieutenant Pantano’s lawyers proved that the government’s entire case was built on lies and distortions. The testimony against Lieutenant Pantano was purely vindictive, absolutely ludicrous, and easily demolished in the hearing by his defense attorneys.
The next month, Major General Richard Huck, dismissed all charges against him. With a straight face, the Public Affairs press release concluded, “The best interests of 2nd Lt. Pantano and the government have been served by this process.”
Oh, really?
Only our enemy was served when the government pulled an outstanding officer out of combat. Only our enemy was served when Lieutenant Pantano's men were intimidated and grilled—made to turn over their computers and journals—shaken down and second-guessed in the midst of ambushes, IEDs and mortar attacks.
The Pantano case should have been a devastating embarrassment for the NCIS, perhaps even causing them to reevaluate their methods and mission. Instead, the NCIS "motherf---ers" (as Lieutenant Pantano calls them) have continued their questionable practices in Haditha and other investigations.
Outrageously, the NCIS has even claimed that they helped clear Lieutenant Pantano.
After the final summations in the hearing, a belated autopsy report partially disproved a single prosecution contention.
The government had argued that the two terrorist detainees had been shot in the back. The report, made possible by the field work of a NCIS agent, showed that one detainee--not both--had been shot in the back.
NCIS' claim of helping to clear Pantano has served to cover the agency’s failings. In reality, the autopsy report wasn’t of tremendous significance.
It was the entire case, prepared by the NCIS, that fell apart under scrutiny.
Today, we are only ten days away from the first Article 32 in the Haditha Marines case. The first to get a hearing will be Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Chessani, a Marine who served in the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the first Gulf War in 1991.
No matter the outcome of his Article 32, like Lieutenant Pantano, Lieutenant Colonel Chessani has been destroyed as a Marine.
This seems like a good time to review some lessons learned from the Pantano case.
Lesson 1: NCIS investigators search for guilt, not for truth.
During the Lieutenant Pantano investigation, a corpsman, “Doc” Gobles, was interviewed about the incident. Gobles was one of two witnesses so his testimony was especially valuable.
Gobles told the agent he glimpsed movement before the shooting began. He thought the detainees were trying to flee.
The agent told Gobles he was wrong.
Lesson 2: NCIS does not give a Marine the benefit of the doubt. Agents will, however, believe anything anyone says against a Marine.
The principal witness in the Pantano case was Sergeant Daniel Coburn. His fitreps showed him to be an unstable and unfit Marine whose 13-year career was about to be terminated.
Lieutenant Pantano had relieved Coburn as a squad leader. Others in his platoon heard Coburn say that he hated Pantano and wanted him out of the way. None of this gave the NCIS agents a moment’s pause in taking Coburn’s word that Pantano was a cold-blooded killer.
Coburn’s testimony was easily demolished in court. He was revealed as a fool and a liar under cross-examination. Investigators who were actually seeking the truth would have discovered this for themselves.
Lesson 3: NCIS reports are a one-sided story.
During the investigation in Iraq, NCIS agents were offered negative testimony about Sergeant Coburn and positive testimony about Lieutenant Pantano. Neither was accepted or included in the NCIS report.
This is an excerpt from Lieutenant Pantano’s Article 32 hearing:
[DEFENSE ATTORNEY CHARLIE] GITTINS: So you actually saw the two Iraqi individuals that were in the car; correct?
[SERGEANT JUDD] WORD: Yes.
GITTINS: And you saw them leaning against the wall initially?
WORD: Yes.
GITTINS: And then you saw them run to the vehicle?
WORD: Yes.
GITTINS: You personally saw that with your own two eyes?
WORD: Yes.
GITTINS: And then they got in the vehicle and they drove away?
WORD: Yes.
GITTINS: And what was your conclusion about what they were trying to do at that time?
WORD: They were trying to get out of there.
GITTINS: Would you want to go to combat with Lieutenant Pantano again?
WORD: I would go to combat with him any day.
GITTINS: Were you interviewed by NCIS before you gave your testimony at some other point?
WORD: Yes, I was, several times.
GITTINS: For how long did NCIS interview you?
WORD: One time, it was just a quick briefing. They just wanted to know about Lieutenant Pantano s character. And the second time they interviewed me, they wanted to go through the details of what happened that day.
GITTINS: When they interviewed you about Lieutenant Pantano’s character, did you tell them the things that you told me today?
WORD: Yes, I did.
GITTINS: Did they ask you to create a sworn statement at that time?
WORD: They asked me to. The NCIS guy said he was going to type it up and bring it back for me to sign, but he never did.
GITTINS: So he never brought you anything to sign?
WORD: No.
…
GITTINS: Did they ask any questions about Sergeant Coburn’s character?
WORD: No, they did not.
GITTINS: So all they wanted to know was about Lieutenant Pantano’s character?
WORD: Yes.
Lesson 4: The NCIS is unfit to investigate Marines and evaluate their decisions in combat.
Away from his platoon (who would later suffer KIA, to the lieutenant’s helpless horror), Pantano describes what he felt:
I was sick in spirit, almost nauseous. I just couldn’t believe that after wasting those two f----s on the canal road this could possibly be happening. Was I supposed to let them kill me?
Now there were NCIS agents here to question my character? It hurt. It really hurt—worse than any physical pain I’d ever suffered. I had to turn in my M-16. They were taking it with them. And I wasn’t sure why. Something about tests. I felt stripped, weak, and naked without that weapon. It had saved my life in Latafiyah, all along the Zulu perimeter, and in Fallujah.
Now they’d seized it from me. What if there was a big QRF? What if my former platoon stepped deep into the ambush s--- and we had to send every spare Marine who could shoot a rifle to save them? What would I shoot?
The priceless irony of course was that the dirty, beat-up 9 mm Beretta pistol I was issued to replace my M-16 had come hot off the thigh of Lance Corporal Simental. The soft-faced boy, always quick to help, had kept Easy Company’s communications running until he had been blown up by an IED. He had lost his leg, so he wouldn’t be needing a pistol anymore.
It got worse. Back in the states, in the battalion XO’s office, Lieutenant Pantano read the charges against him. As he writes in Warlord:
The charges went on and on for two pages of articles 109, 118, and 133. Words like “... with premeditation, murder ... by means of shooting him with an M16A4 service rifle . . .”
I looked up, my eyes running with tears. I had to shake my head to clear the disbelief and went back to reading.
“... on or about 15 April 2004, willfully and wrongfully damage an automobile by slashing four (4) tires, smashing headlights and taillights, and smashing the rear window, of an aggregate value of less than $500.00.”
“Sir, they are charging me—” I had to take another breath. “They are charging me for disabling a bomber's car? Sir, they ... five hundred dollars ... Sir ... Do they. . . ?”
Another breath and an internal scramble to regain my composure.
“Sir, do they know how many Marines these things kill every day? What's happening here? Has anyone told them there is a war going on out there?”
My voice was now more outrage than disbelief.
“Ilario. I'm sorry.” [Major Dixon said]
Then he added, “Get a lawyer.”
Lesson 5: NCIS, and prosecutions based on their investigations, is not helping us win in Iraq.
The NCIS’ investigation of Lieutenant Pantano cost him his career and dragged a hero of the Iraq war through the mud. He and his family can never totally recover from it.
As Charlie Gittins said in his summation at the hearing, “The worst thing that could have happened to Lieutenant Pantano is that he was removed from his platoon. That was a punishment beyond words, because he was in combat with a platoon that loved him, that he loved, that he promised the families that he was going to bring their boys back.”
In the final analysis, the investigation and prosecution cost America an outstanding officer and Marine who was helping us win the war in Iraq.
The prosecution of the Haditha Marines multiplies that cost by eight.
David Allender
Defend Our Marines
Thank you for this posting and for all your grand work!
God Bless Our Marines!
Agree completely with the "5 lessons" regarding the NCIS....A shame what we are putting some of our brave men through....
Thanks for the ping....
The bank has asked that we not send them donations directly, so, Please send any personal checks or money orders to:
Pendleton 8 Defense Fund
38 Madison Road
Dennis,Ma.02638
Donations may be mailed directly to this address. Please include the full name of the charity on the check or money order:
Pendleton 8 Defense Fund
Additional charities for these men, and information directly from their families can be found at:
Cpl. Robert Pennington
http://www.defendrob.com
PFC John Jodka
http://www.innocentmarine.com
Tyler Jackson
http://www.fightingfortyler.com
Cpl. Marshall Magincalda
http://WWW.BRINGMAGICHOME.ORG
Cpl. Trent Thomas
http://www.defensefundformyhero.com
Lance Cpl Jerry Shumate
http://friendsofjerry.blogspot.com/
Other sites supporting the men:
http://www.defendthetruth.com
http://www.warrior-fund.org
Great job, RedRover!
So, this sounds like NCIS comes up with a premise, then goes about selecting the evidence that will prove this premise. IOW, they may not look at all the facts of the case, just those that fit their premise.
What about confessions? Did NCIS claim that Pantano had confessed to premeditated murder when in Iraq?
The WaPo covered the Pantano case and had every reason to caution its readers about the NCIS Haditha report. They did not. Our watchdog media, indeed.
Great article detailing how the NCIS does not work in the best interest of our soldiers. I can't wait to see if the Haditha residents actually testify or just have "sworn statements".
Excellent article, Red. Thanks for posting it and the ping.
Thank you
I have come to the conclusion that the Administration itself is willfully backing these spurious "Star Chamber" exercises ... primarily to keep the International Criminal Court, which we aren't a party to...but are "cooperating" with...OUT of our hair.
It is a temporary political expedient...appeasement of the globalist entity...
The head of the ICC even alludes to the US record of self-prosecuting so as to justify his decision to refrain from exercising their jurisdiction to commence war crime trials. That being said, good, honest men should have their rights protected in full...especially those who have pledged and sacrificed their all...and no amount of national interest in appeasing the globalists should enter into the equation at all.
This is a classic case of why I have lost a lot of respect for W and his top echelons. They really don't stand on core CONSTITUTIONAL principles. And no matter how it may temprorarily appear...I can only conclued that they aren't really looking out for us...they have other, globalist, fish to fry.
The refraining from signing the ICC was a mere temporary tactical position in my judgment. I honestly don't think that W would ever agree with Ronald Reagan, when he said in his farewell address:
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.
And God Bless onyx!
What options are open to the CIC and SecDef in these situations?
That is EXACTLY what attorney Jonathan Turley said in the Petty Officer Daniel King case (back in 2001).
You can read his entire statement at the link. Here's a sample:
In my opinion, the NCIS is the most abusive police organization in this country. After numerous scandals and congressional inquiries, the NCIS continues to routinely violate the rights of sailors and Marines and continues to operate outside of the restrictions of either constitutional or professional standards. This case is perhaps the most egregious example of the NCIS culture and practices. However, it is not unique.
Ironically, the unconstitutional and abusive tactics used by the NCIS in this case not only undermined any legal case but defeated any legitimate search for the truth. After triggering an espionage investigation, NCIS agents found that they had no evidence and no spy. Rather than admit to a colossal blunder, these agents continued to interrogate a sailor for 19 and 20 hour sessions for 29 days. When no evidence was available to support their catastrophic misjudgment, they sought to create evidence. The NCIS manufactured a theory of espionage without foundation and then took steps to compel statements to support that theory.
And lest anyone think Turley is just a liberal weenie spouting off, read the statements of two JAGs (Lt. Robert A. Bailey and Lt Matthew S. Freedus) on the King Case at this link.
Traditionally, the President doesn't interfere with the process, but may issue a pardon (as in the Calley case) after the convening authority has reached a verdict. (That is, of course, if charges aren't dismissed by Gen Mattis after each Article 32).
The Sec Def may manuever behind the scenes, and express the President's will, but has no constitutional authority.
Regarding the NCIS, no one has ever shown any inclination to reform the agency. There was an opportunity after the USS Iowa turret fiasco, but the only change seems to have been a name change: from NIS to NCIS.
But will the JAG officers and associates related to this Haditha set of cases carefully examine what happened to this Lt., and seek the high ground of honor or will they smear and continue to drag more honorable Marines through the mud to satisfy some need to seek convictions on false alleged charges.
Thanks for the continue list of references and other feedback.
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.