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
O Lord, hear my prayer.
Very descriptive and apropo!
It still astounds me that Murtha has run with this scam, gotten away with it, was reelected, and now is leading the charge to get out of Iraq. It was good to read attys for Lt. Col. Chessani go after Murtha, even bringing up Abscam.
Great idea...post a new prayer daily!
Get to work on your "MWR Yard of the Month"!
Michael, one of the few angels that I remember mentioned in the Bible. He was designated the protector and defender of Israel. A powerful angel.
Off the subject, I heard a representative, Steve Buyer, use the same phrase attributed to Frank Wuterich at Haditha. When describing the firings/resignations for the snaffu over Walter Reed, Rep. Buyer mentioned it was a matter of "Shoot first, ask questions later", or something close. Buyer was a JAG in Desert Storm. Pretty common phrase; guess it depends on who uses it and when.
My Pantano piece was picked up by the prestigious and powerful pinkpanther syndicate!
It's up at Conservative Thoughts.
I didn't know that the paperback of Warlord was coming out. Good timing! Hope the lieutenant goes back on TV to promote it. With the hearings coming up, he could be a powerful voice for the Haditha Marines.
I found it interesting that Lt Gen Mattis endorsed the book. Isn't he holding all the marbles right now?
In another case, Gen Mattis is due to make a decision regarding Lt. Nathan Phan. There were devastating criticisms of NCIS during that Article 32. It's interesting that Gen Mattis spoke well of a book that was so honestly critical of NCIS.
“Pantano’s story is a tough, gritty, no-holds-barred saga of war by one who knows what it’s like to be caught in a crossfire.” – Oliver L. North Host of War Stories on Fox News Channel
“Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.” – J. N. Mattis, Major General, U.S. Marines Commanding General’s Message to All Hands, March 2003
“Every tenth page of Warlord should be stamped ‘this is not a work of fiction.’ Some men run from a fight, some hold their own; Ilario is the rare hero that runs to a fight. He is one tough mother!” – James Carville New York Times bestselling author, political strategist, and former U.S. Marine
The publisher is being just a little misleading. (You have to watch those jokers, I'm telling you!)
Read it and passed the book on to my son.
Ah ha...they shouldn't have put it under the comments/reviews. It's not saying much for me falling for the tricks of the trade!:)
Just a little lamb among the wolves. ;)
I thought it was pretty remarkable. Wish I knew how was viewed by Powers That Be in the Corps.
Ah. The commander was ticked because he wasn't in the loop with CID. (He felt dissed.) Got it. Then in a separate instance, he had the command influence to not only register a complaint, but ensure a punishment. That would suck.
I hope this does not go on much in the military. It would hamper getting true justice within the UCMJ. I'm also hoping in the Haditha case, enough eyeballs are on all the players since it's a pretty high profile case. NCIS is the one I worry about since they don't seem to be under military court jurisdiction.
What's up with Major General Huck? It seems that Pantano is implicating Huck as being the primary reason that charges were brought against him. (ref. the passage you quoted from his book.)
In the Haditha case, the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines had been temporarily attached to the 2nd Marine Division under Maj. Gen. Huck at the time the incident happened in Nov. 2005. Reporting made it sound that Huck retired early (June, 2006) as fallout for not investigating the incident before Times got involved. (Huck is still assigned as an Assistant Deputy at Marine Corps headquarters.)
So was he too gung-ho getting NCIS involved and getting charges preferred in the Pantano case, but not gung-ho enough in the Haditha? Didn't know if this had been discussed before.
Thanks
You're right. We haven't really noted the Huck connection. Your description of his predicament sounds all too real.
Red, I'm trying to get some of these players straight. According to published articles, the chain of events/commanders in the aftermath of Haditha are:
Kilo Company commander, McConnell informs superiors of civilian deaths. McConnell's lawyer says, "There was never a hint whatsoever that these kids did anything improper. Not one."
Chessani, the Marines' battalion commander, informs his superior, the regimental commander Col. Stephen W. Davis, about the civilian casualties, Davis says no investigation needed. (I think Chessani visits the area that day or the next.)
Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, the division commander, learns about the casualties that day; says he believed that they were the result of a roadside bomb and the ensuing gunbattle. Visits the area 3 days later and briefed. Doesn't recall no. of Iraqis killed, but does recall discussing Marines clearing houses following the IED attack.
Chessani authorizes $38K in payments to families in Dec. 2005 for first 2 houses. (My comment - this is probably 15 deaths at $2.5K each and 2 injuries at $1.5K each.)
Times questions military in Feb, Huck and Davis ignore, but , then a battalion operations officer and a battalion executive officer suggest an investigation to Chessani. Chessani replies, "My men are not murderers."
Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli orders Army Col. Gregory Watt, to do an investigation. Watt concurs with Marines, but suggests NCIS do their own investigation. And the rest is history.
So, Maj. Samuel H. Carrasco and a battalion executive officer are responsible for getting this whole thing started. Then Army Col. Watt decides NCIS should get involved.
Chessani is charged, McConnell is charged, Huck and Davis are not. Where do 1st Lt. Grayson and Capt. Stone fit in this picture?
Thanks
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.