Posted on 02/15/2005 2:24:48 AM PST by AliVeritas
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343444/posts
Posted here, Fisked at Post #3.
Why are FReepers so quick to demand that the military justice system ignore reports of criminal activity?
I haven't seen anyone make a ridiculous demand like that. I have, however, seen a press release from a supposedly impartial spokesman tailored to paint the Marine as guilty, discourage Americans from supporting him, and prompt other Marines to hesitate in performing their duty. There's no reason the Marine Corps can't perform an investigation without some irresponsible spokesman deviating from the standard form of press release and stabbing his fellow Marines in the back, just so he can see his name in the papers.
This time things are different. Eason Jordan just found out about it, and his running dog lackey, Peter Arnett, demonstrated that we can even go back to earlier wars, identify "newsies" and others who were bad actors, and pull their plugs.
When there has been actual crime, Vietnam vets can make sure everybody gets a fair trial and that the "newsies" get beaten down as necessary. They all lie through their teeth anyway, and some of them invent this stuff. There is a suspicion that this particular situation is an example of that sort of thing.
To an outsider some of this resistance may look like we are supporting the commission of crimes. In some cases where there seems to be a dispute between the ranks, some of our officer class who post here and in various Blogs ALWAYS take the position that the enlisted personnel must be guilty, and some of our enlisted class will always take the position that the officers are exclusively responsible until demonstrated otherwise in an open court!
Still, in both cases we are going to make sure these men and women get defended and that the legal processes are managed fairly.
This didn't go on during the Nam. That's one of the reasons why the Democrats ended up running someone like John Kerry in this last election.
I thought that the investigation was over and that murder charges had been filed?
Sorry, there is something lacking in this story. I didn't
hear why the charges were brought or by who. That my friends
is a big hole in this affair.
I can only hope that this young man didn't do anything wrong
but there is nothing in the story above to make me want to
stand for him or stand against him at this point.
Need to know a lot more about the case before I would be
willing to get on either band wagon.
I hope you never serve on a jury.
Calm down folks. Formal charges have not been filed and will not be filed until an investigation is completed. At that time a hearing will be held and the accused charged.
Formal allegations have been filed and the accused advised of those allegations. Don't fault the Marine Corp for what they are doing. Once the allegations are formally filed the Marine Corp has no choice but to proceed as regs. require.
My opinion -- The investigation will find the allegations without merit.
A court martial can find the defendant guilty or not
guilty. If this Marine is innocent the best way to
prove it is military court procedures.
This puts the matter to rest.
Interesting declarative presupposition of guilt.
No, the military justice system goes into action based on a report of criminal activity; the purpose of the military justice system is to determine whether said report is actually fact.
Waiting for the results of the investigation.
I am content to do that. Farah wants a guaranteed verdict of innocent.
We don't want warriors that obey orders. . .we want warriors to obey lawful orders (there is a difference).
ROEs are lawful orders.
One more time, for the record: you are utterly ignorant of the Marine Corps, what it is, what it does, and how it does what it does. The public affairs officer said nothing of what you desperately wish him to have said.
If the USA keeps up nonsense like this, they are not going to find anyone to fight their wars!
I sensed over the weekend, when I first read about LT Pantano, that the story would have strong staying power.
Battlefield investigation only.
I have to agree with you...........let the system work, and the truth will come out....if he is innocent, he will be found innocent.......
I don't see how your point flows logically into the notion that suspected criminal behavior should be ignored.
Marine's charges set 'terrible precedent'
Lt. Col. West's lawyer sees similarity to case he defended
Posted: February 12, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
Noting similarities to the case of an Army officer he defended more than one year ago, a U.S. military lawyer says Marine commanders should have the courage to dismiss charges against a lieutenant who could face the death penalty for killing two insurgent terrorists in Iraq.
Pantano addressing officers of TBS (The Basic School), October 2003
Neal A. Puckett, who represented Lt. Col. Allen B. West, told WorldNetDaily the case of Second Lieutenant Ilario G. Pantano could set a dangerous precedent.
Pantano, charged Feb. 1 with premeditated murder in connection with the April 15, 2004, shooting incident, claims one of the men he shot appeared to be preparing to attack the Marines or detonate nearby explosives.
"It sets a terrible precedent for Marines, who have to make life-or-death decisions in the field, facing terrorists who follow no rules or laws of war," Puckett said in an e-mailed response.
Noting that the combat incident was investigated at the time, clearing anyone of wrongdoing, Puckett said it "defies logic" that the case should be re-opened the following year with criminal charges.
Puckett said Marines now apparently must fear prosecutors as well as terrorists.
"Monday morning quarterbacking, in the absence of any evidence of criminal intent on the part of a trained Marine officer, is just the wrong way to run a war," he said.
"If the officer made a mistake, that should end the matter. Mistakes are made in war. It sounds like Marine prosecutors are trying to justify their jobs by creating a case where there should not be one."
Puckett said the "more ominous possibility" is that outside political pressure is causing military brass to turn against their young leaders.
"That's just wrong," he said. "I think most veterans would agree."
'What's he supposed to do?'
According to news reports yesterday, Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division, convened an investigation to determine if the 33-year-old Pantano should stand trial, but no further details were released.
Charles Gittins, Pantano's civilian attorney, said, however, the Marine has been formally charged with murder and has "made it pretty firmly clear that he is not guilty."
The platoon Pantano commanded had been ordered to search a suspected terrorist hide-out south of Baghdad last April. After finding weapons, ammunition and bomb-making material in the building, the Marines saw two men fleeing in a sport utility vehicle, Gittins said, according to the wire report.
The Marines shot out the vehicles tires and took two Iraqi men into custody, ordering them to search for booby traps and secret compartments in the vehicle by ripping out its interior and seats, Gittins told Reuters.
Then, according to Gittins, one of the suspects turned suddenly toward Pantano "as if to attack." When Pantano ordered them to stop, they kept moving toward him, Gittins said.
Pantano "thought he was in danger and he fired and he killed them and that's what we do to terrorists who don't listen to orders. ... It's a combat situation, kill or be killed," the attorney told Reuters.
Fearing the two suspects might have been attempting to detonate explosives remotely, Pantano shot them, Gittins said.
"What's he supposed to do, wait until he's standing in the inferno?" the attorney added.
After the incident, Pantano served three more months in Iraq then returned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina at the end of his tour of duty.
Possible outcomes to the case, say Marine investigators, are that Pantano could be court-martialed, disciplined administratively or have the charges dropped.
'Lives of my men'
As WorldNetDaily reported West was charged with aggravated assault after a 2003 incident in which he took charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi policeman believed to be withholding information about a planned ambush of West and his unit.
Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman's head, not harming him – but scaring him. The policeman immediately disclosed the information, leading to the arrest of two Iraqis and cessation of attacks on West's 4th Infantry Division battalion.
But Army prosecutors said West's actions had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although he faced a wide range of possible outcomes – from no disciplinary action to a sentence of up to eight years in prison – he ultimately was fined $5,000.
At a hearing in late 2003, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again.
"If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can," he said.
'Who is my son?'
Merry Pantano, the accused Marine's mother, has created a website titled "Defend the Defenders" to tell her son's story and raise money for his defense.
"Who is my son?" she asks on the website:
He is a young, intelligent, charismatic Marine officer and all that that entails. And yet he is incomprehensibly charged with heinous crimes related to a dangerous military operation that took place in "the triangle of death" just south of Baghdad.
It was during the peak of insurgent violence in mid April of 2004, with hundreds of fellow Marines and soldiers being killed and wounded throughout the "Sunni Triangle." Terrorists, captured while trying to recover a vehicle used in an earlier attack on the Marines, had given detailed information about a supply of weapons and terrorist hideout that my son and his platoon were hastily dispatched to search. Their search revealed weapons, ammunition, mortar equipment, bomb-making material and two fleeing terrorists.
In an ensuing search of the terrorists' vehicle, my son, concerned for his safety and the safety of his men shot them both in self defense and then disabled their vehicle so it could not be used in further attacks. He and his men went on to fight with distinction and honor in Falluja and the surrounding areas and, when possible, aided in the reconstruction effort. Months later, the government began an investigation that only now, 10 months after the fact, alleges an evil intent which is at polar opposite of my son's character and principles.
Marines urge patience in accused-officer case
Corps says it understands outrage
over possibility of death penalty
Posted: February 15, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
Americans outraged at the murder charges against a Marine who claims he killed two insurgent terrorists in Iraq in self-defense should have confidence in the military justice system, insists a Marine Corps spokesman.
Ilario Pantano and family (defendthedefenders.org)
Maj. Matt Morgan of Camp Lejeune, N.C., told WorldNetDaily he understands why the public is rallying behind 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano after news of his case broke Friday.
"Americans have seen what is in the press, and they have a tendency to support the Marines," he said. "On the other side of that, completely unconnected, there is something called the law of war, and it is possible for a Marine to violate that. To say you can't second-guess a Marine -- well, every Marine who deploys has the experience that anything they do can be second-guessed."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Pantano, 33, was charged Feb. 1 with premeditated murder in connection with an April 15, 2004, shooting incident. He claims one of the men he shot appeared to be preparing to attack his platoon or detonate nearby explosives.
"I just believe that it's important for Americans to have faith in the judicial process and understand that Lt. Pantano is presumed innocent and will continue to be so unless determined otherwise," Morgan said.
Pantano's attorney Charles Gittins, however, told WND his client is "very angry."
"He feels like he's been betrayed," Gittins said. "What has to be annoying is that he reported to his superiors very shortly thereafter that he killed these two Iraqis."
Nobody took him out of combat duty, the attorney emphasized.
"They didn't mind him out there dodging bullets for three months after this happened," Gittins said, adding it was only after returning to the U.S. that Pantano was charged.
Sunni Triangle
The Marine officer, who arrived in Iraq in March 2004, led a quick-reaction platoon that responded to intelligence reports on weapons caches and hide-outs in the volatile "Sunni Triangle," where suicide bombers feigning surrender and booby-trapped bodies and vehicles often threaten U.S. soldiers. In the April incident, the platoon stopped two men who fled in an SUV from a hide-out where weapons were discovered. Pantano said the two men came toward him despite his command in Arabic to stop.
An Article 32 hearing -- a pretrial hearing -- tentatively is scheduled for the end of the second week of March, Morgan said.
The Marine Corps spokesman contends it's inaccurate to say Pantano has been "charged." "Formal allegations" have been filed, he said, which should not be equated with a criminal indictment.
In an Article 32 investigation -- required in any case in which a court martial is under consideration -- a presiding officer hears the prosecution, allows the defense to cross-examine and present its evidence, then makes a recommendation to the presiding authority -- in this instance Maj. Gen. Richard Huck.
Huck would then have a full range of punitive options, from a general court martial -- the equivalent of a felony trial -- to dismissal.
Gittins, a Marine reserve, questions the thoroughness of the investigation that led to the charges, asserting that while his client has a track record of outstanding character and credibility, the accuser is suspect.
"There's reason to believe he might not be a big fan of Lt. Pantano," Gittins said.
He described the accuser as a sergeant who holds the position of radio man, a non-leadership position that indicates he's been put in a place where he can do the least harm.
"No one actually went and looked at the lack-of-credibility issues," he said. "There is no evidence of any investigation."
'Things that need to be done'
Pantano, who grew up in New York City, served in the 1991 Gulf War at age 19. Then, moved by the 9-11 attacks, he gave up a lucrative stock-broker position and set aside his film-making company to re-enlist.
A friend, James Rafferty, told the New York Times the Sept. 11 attacks brought Pantano "to the realization that he is a Marine and there are things that need to be done so that stuff like this doesn't happen again. It would be hard to sit back and not be a part of that."
Rafferty added, "I think he felt like his brothers are going to fight for our freedom, and if he still can, then he will."
Gittins pointed out that the leadership in Iraq stood behind Pantano after the April incident.
"People making the decisions are sitting in air-conditioned offices of Camp Lejeune, not on the battlefield," he said.
The issue, said Gittins, is how the military defines self-defense.
"There is no question my guy intended to kill them," he said. "Is that murder or lawful killing in the normal process of war? "
A Marine, he said, has both the right and obligation of self-defense if he comes upon a situation in which he is threatened.
"My threshhold for self-defense might be higher or lower," the lawyer said. "But we should not be in the business of second-guessing."
Gittins believes the case will have a damaging effect on recruiting and morale.
"Every Marine knows that a Marine has been charged with premediated murder," he said. "If it causes them to hesitate for one second because they worry about being second-guessed, that is criminal neglect on the part of Marine Corps leadership. We should not suffer one casualty because they are worried about being second-guessed."
Marine Corps spokesman Morgan said he cannot discuss the facts of the case but noted the specific rules of engagment in operation during that time in the Sunni Triangle are crucial to determining whether Pantano violated the military code of justice or legitimately engaged in self-defense.
The thresholds vary from location to location and conflict to conflict, Morgan stated.
"Our Marines in that province are guided by a different set of rules than our Marines who are guarding armories here in the United States," he explained.
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.