When Hagee retired, Mattis was passed over for Marine commandant in favor of Conway. If the rumor's true, that fourth star may be lost to him forever.
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
When Lt. Pantano was accused, he asked himself if he should fight. He had volunteered to serve his country. Would going to jail, so that Iraqis knew he was punished, be a service?
He decided to fight, obviously, but it's a really interesting question.
Would the Haditha Marines serve their country by pleading guilty and accepting punishment--even if they know they are innocent?
The reason to raise this question is to try and understand the political nature of the charges against the Marines. I believe that that therein lies the reason for Mattis' actions.
What do you guys think?
Would you ever consider calling Pantano?
Are you saying that Mattis would want a Marine to take one for the team so the Iraqis feel some sort of “payment” for civilian deaths? In return Mattis would go for the shortest jail time possible?
After this AM I am SHOCKED you would ask me a thinker’s question! :)
See I forgot to answer the question...I personally do not feel that a Marine has the burden to carry on a debt or punishment for keeping himself alive and coming back home in hopes of pursuing a “normal” life with his family and good name. He should reap the benefits of what he sows for the USA. It is one thing to die for your country and your beliefs, so if you believe you are not guilty, continue the fight.
In any event, if this case is playing out as I believe it is, then SOMEONE is going to have to fall on a grenade before it's over. And if it's not the Haditha Marines, it's going to have to be Lt. Gen. Mattis.
Ah that stinks.
If it was up to me, I’d volunteer Lt. Gen. Mattis for falling-on-grenade duty.
“Would the Haditha Marines serve their country by pleading guilty and accepting punishment—even if they know they are innocent?”
NO, this would not serve the country’s interest. It may serve certain brass’ interests who have personal stakes in this new direction. Haditha has happened, that bell can’t be unrung. Not standing behind your military personnel sends a huge message to insurgents/terrorists that their methods work. The Haditha Marines have paid dearly already. They have lost their future careers that they invested a lot of blood, sweat and tears in. They have been publicly called murderers, probably can’t walk down the streets without wondering what strangers are thinking, they and their families have been financially burdened, if not broken, live in fear of the future, so probably aren’t making many plans. They’ve been publicly “flogged” before a day in court.
One of the accused young men in the Duke rape case made a wise prediction about the day he dies. He said, paraphrased, when I die, it will be noted that one of three men accused in the Duke LaCrosse Rape case died today. He will live with that title the rest of his life even though he was proclaimed innocent. The Haditha Marines can probably relate to this sentiment.
They’ve done their time for killing women and children in Iraq. They should be released from this process. The media, politicians, and most of the public have moved on. Spending several years or life in jail will serve noones interests. If these actions had been premeditated, I could understand them having to pay a further price by being locked up. This is a ROE issue. This was their training for clearing a house during combat.
Jude, is there anything specific in COIN doctrine about punishment, or removal, of troops who have been perceived as acting counter to the best interest of the COIN operation? Irrespective of guilt or innocence, a single soldier could jeopardize an entire mission if the local populace believes he or she is a criminal yet nothing is done.
KaPow....no biggie for a LT GEN to take a loss....I personally would admire him more if he did so and he has a fat bank roll to live off the rest of his life. He’s lived his career but I know he wants the big bird title.
I know the Lt General has already reached full bird, but you know what I mean...he wants his star jewelry.
When Hagee retired, Mattis was passed over for Marine commandant in favor of Conway. If the rumor's true, that fourth star may be lost to him forever.
Well too bad I am not on his advancement board because I like what he said.
Well, it could just be a rumor. I think people were surprised that Conway was chosen over Mattis.
Girlene: NO, this would not serve the country’s interest. [] Haditha has happened, that bell can’t be unrung.
I would concur with Girlene. Pleading guilty, really, won't satisfy the bloodlust from the insurgents. The damage has already been done.
One of the accused young men in the Duke rape case made a wise prediction about the day he dies. He said, paraphrased, when I die, it will be noted that one of three men accused in the Duke LaCrosse Rape case died today. He will live with that title the rest of his life even though he was proclaimed innocent. The Haditha Marines can probably relate to this sentiment.
There's a critical difference between the Duke LAX case and the Haditha Marines. The Duke LAX case had no business being presented because there was no evidence an assault had even taken place, and the students had almost rock-solid alibis. In such a situation, you pretty much have no choice but to stand and fight. The Haditha Marines, on the other hand, indisputably killed civilians. The question is not whether they committed the underlying act, but whether they did so with a guilty mental state. Haditha is much trickier, because the conclusion largely hinges on a question of criminal intent versus lawful use of force. It's a much closer question, so the question of a plea is a utilitarian one - balancing their odds of acquittal (which are pretty good, but too close for my comfort) against the potential sentence (which would be fairly steep).
This was their training for clearing a house during combat.
This is a very important point - one which the defense would be well-served to consider making the center-piece of their defense. While in hindsight, it is clear that Haditha is an unmitigated disaster, a very good case can be made that they acted consistent with their training.
If I remember correctly, that was the exact reason why the Marine Special Force that allegedly attacked civilians in Afghanistan recently were removed from the area.
Suppose you were in a position of power over the Haditha Marines.
One night, President Bush calls you and says, "Those Marines in Haditha set us back in Iraq and in the WOT. I don't care if they're guilty or not, they have to be locked up so the Iraqis know we're on their side. If we don't take action, we could lose in Iraq."
What would you do?
Do you mean, suppose I represented them?
"I don't care if they're guilty or not, they have to be locked up so the Iraqis know we're on their side."
If I were the attorney for the accused, I'd have a duty to them and them alone. All other needs are secondary to their best interests. So, frankly, my answer to anyone who asked would be, "Sir, with all due respect, my duty is to protect the interests of my clients. I can't consider the needs of anyone else without violating my ethical duty. So, I must respectfully say that this cannot be a concern of mine."
On the other hand, I would tell the client that the handwriting is on the wall, and it looks like there's going to be a full-court press and he may not be able to win. Under such a circumstance, a plea should be considered - but the politics of the situation cannot otherwise influence the attorney.
“I would concur with Girlene.”
Jude24, well, I do declare, we have some agreement! I have seperated out this sentence above so you can copy and paste in all your replies to me. Just teasin’ ya. :-)
I was looking for a thread that Captains Journal had written about Marines’ room clearing training. The jist was that the Marines have no other training when it comes to “taking a house” and clearing it. I’ll keep looking. Anyway, during this process, I found a series of Captains Journal blogs I thought you might find interesting. Here is an excerpt from one that in my mind is quite relevant to the discussions about ROE, counterinsurgencies and Haditha.: http://www.captainsjournal.com/
....”Setting up the choice between Luttwak and FM 3-24 [counterinsurgency Field Manual] as the only alternatives is false. There is a middle ground that avoids intentional collateral damage while also encouraging robust offensive operations against the enemy. Security is more important in a counterinsurgency than winning hearts and minds. If the population knows that the U.S. forces will not shoot into a home (from which fire is coming) for fear of collateral damage, then they can never stand up to the insurgents, and the choice is clear. The U.S. cannot or will not protect them and they must submit to the insurgents. The presence of insurgents in their home or neighborhood becomes de facto security strictly because of the ROE.”....
The Captains Journal website is very thoughtful and thought provoking. He has written a lot about ROE and the fallout in the field with the latest versions. Now it looks like he’s tackling Counterinsurgencies and Just War issues.
Woops, met to also include you, Red, in the previous post to jude24. Sorry I took so long to reply - busy times.
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.