Fire Lt. Pantano's accusers

ME: "Interesting declarative presupposition of guilt."

YOU: ""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."

The tone and tenor of your comments in this thread and others on this subject indicate you do, indeed, assign guilt--now. That is a fact.

ME: "We don't want warriors that obey orders. . .we want warriors to obey lawful orders (there is a difference)."

YOU: "ROEs are lawful orders."

What does that have to do with what I said? And besides, you are not actually correct, as LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict)" are lawful, whereas ROE (Rules of Engagement)" are not necessarily so.

One day you can do this, the next day you can't, does that mean you behaved unlawfully the previous day? No. It merely means the "rules" have been modified but the legality of your action (in accordance with LOAC) remain unchanged.

Again, and you know this (or should know this), you obey lawful orders---regardless of ROE. Period. You have the duty and obligation to ignore ROE that are unlawful. You do NOT merely follow orders. You follow lawful orders.

You are expected to think and to behave lawfully, and if that means not following orders or stepping outside ROE, so be it, and you will be cleared of any wrongdoing.

The tone and tenor of your comments in this thread and others on this subject indicate you do, indeed, assign guilt--now. That is a fact.

I'm inclined to believe that there's a strong probability of guilt for a few reasons, specifically:

1. The USMC is not in the habit of doing these investigations for giggles.

2. The accused hired Charles Gittin, which is the military equivalent of an accused celebrity hiring Mark Geragos.

3. Gittin is conducting his defense in the court of public opinion, and not the court of law. (When defense attorneys spend more time pounding the table than they do pounding law books and prosecution witnesses, it's a sign that either the defense case is weak, or that the defense attorney is incompetent.)

But I'm perfectly willing to accept the outcome of the investigation, whatever it is.

DEFEND THE DEFENDERS
By Michelle Malkin · February 14, 2005 09:47 PM
Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough had a troubling story in today's paper about a Marine who may face the death penalty for killing two Iraqi insurgents in the heat of battle in a terrorist-infested town near Baghdad.

The young Marine is 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, and his defenders say that:

[T]he two Iraqis who came toward him despite his order in Arabic to stop were mortal enemies. Booby-trapped suicide bombers are killing Iraqis by the score and some have even feigned surrender in order to get close to U.S. soldiers. But the Corps views it as murder and filed charges against him Feb. 1. ..
... Lt. Pantano has retained Charles Gittins, a Marine reserve officer and one of the country's most prominent military defense attorneys.

Mr. Gittins said his client reported the shootings to superiors and remained in combat for weeks afterward. It was not until an enlisted man, whom Mr. Gittins described as "disgruntled" after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began.

"Lt. Pantano told everyone who needed to know," Mr. Gittins said. "He told them what he did and why he did it. After that, he served three months in combat. Nobody had any problem with it."

The Corps has presented Lt. Pantano with a document known as a "charge sheet" that officially charges him with two counts of murder.

Despite this, a Marine spokesman at Camp Lejeune said the officer had not yet been accused. Mr. Gittins on Saturday sent a letter to the base's commanding general demanding that he fire the public affairs officer for putting out erroneous information.

Lt. Pantano, raised in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, had already served his country as an enlisted Marine when al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center. He eventually rejoined, graduating from officer training at Quantico, Va., and earning a commission.

The married father of two sons took a hefty pay cut, going from the $100,000 salary of a New York stock broker and TV producer, to the pay of a Marine second lieutenant.

"If he has a fault," says his mother on the site, "it is that he is too idealistic and puts moral responsibility and duty to his country and his men before anything else."

Pantano's mom's website is Defend the Defenders. Read through all of it and judge for yourselves, especially the letters from other Marines Pantano has served with in combat.

(Update 2/15 7:25 am EST: Unfortunately, the Defend the Defenders site has gone down, probably because it exceeded its bandwith limit.)

More coverage of Pantano's case here and here.

Pantano's plight is especially relevant in light of Easongate/Eason's Fables/Eason-quiddick. Pantano's mom writes:

As America rallies behind the rhetoric, the talk of “bringing terrorists to justice” must be translated into action. Fighting men and women with wills of steel are in dark corners of the world getting their hands dirty where “the rubber meets the road” so policy can become a reality. These men and women are placed in harms way and are required to make split-second, life or death decisions – decisions that could cost them their own lives.
DefendtheDefenders.org stands behind the man who puts his life on the line again and again, who makes life or death decisions in the blazing heat, exhaustion, fear and confusion of war while conducting combat operations intended to capture or kill the enemy and as a result of his actions in combat becomes the subject of an investigation or even formal charges.

Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano charged with murder
Filed under: Justice/Prosecuting , War on Terror by John Behan @ 11:40 pm
I note here, in the WashTimes, that Marine 2d Lt. Ilario Pantano has been charged with two counts of murder in the killing of two Iraqis.

My interest in this case arises for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that I am a prosecutor by day. As a result, I grapple daily with when to charge individuals, and what to charge them; I am acutely aware of the havoc that can be wreaked on lives after I decide to indict an individual. As a result, I’m always mindful of the need to be sure of someone’s culpability before proceeding with prosecution.

From the facts of the Pantano matter as related in the media, I have serious questions about this potential prosecution:

Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March 2004, leading a quick-reaction platoon, the kind of unit that is crucial to the U.S. military in its battle against insurgents. Such units receive intelligence reports on hide-outs and arms caches, and must move quickly before the enemy can escape.

“He was in combat every day,” Mr. Gittins (Pantano’s attorney) said. “They were taking serious casualties. In the three weeks before [the shootings] happened, there were over 1,000 [dead and wounded] in his area of operation.”

On April 15, commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano’s men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano’s account.

The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised. If it was booby-trapped, the Iraqis, not Marines, would pay the price.

It was at this point that the Iraqis stopped searching and moved quickly toward Lt. Pantano.

“They start talking in Arabic and turn toward him as if they are going to rush him,” Mr. Gittins said. “He says, ’stop.’ They don’t stop and he kills them. He didn’t know what they were doing but they weren’t listening to him. He was in fear of his life and he killed them.”

The lawyer said it turned out that the men were unarmed and there were no weapons in the SUV.

“They were from a town that was really bad in terms of the insurgency,” he said.

Okay, it needs to be said that I’m not a military prosecutor. Also, let’s acknowledge that there are likely facts that are not related in the few paragraphs above.

However, on the face of this, the prosecution looks absurd, especially when you consider that this young 2d Lieutenant may face the death penalty for these “crimes.” Listen, I’ve charged people with the death penalty, and I’ve had a jury come back with a death verdict. It’s not a Sunday afternoon tea, and it’s not an action to take lightly. I can’t imagine what aggravating facts could have been left out that would call for a sentence of death. I just can’t imagine….

Folks, we’re talking about enemy combatants, smack in the middle of a war zone.

Read this description of Pantano:

Lt. Pantano, raised in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, had already served his country as an enlisted Marine when al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center. He eventually rejoined, graduating from officer training at Quantico, Va., and earning a commission.

The married father of two sons took a hefty pay cut, going from the $100,000 salary of a New York stock broker and TV producer, to the pay of a Marine second lieutenant.

“If he has a fault,” says his mother on the site, “it is that he is too idealistic and puts moral responsibility and duty to his country and his men before anything else.”

Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March 2004, leading a quick-reaction platoon, the kind of unit that is crucial to the U.S. military in its battle against insurgents. Such units receive intelligence reports on hide-outs and arms caches, and must move quickly before the enemy can escape.

“He was in combat every day,” Mr. Gittins said. “They were taking serious casualties. In the three weeks before [the shootings] happened, there were over 1,000 [dead and wounded] in his area of operation.”

You won’t see me saying too many good things about defense attorneys, but it seems like good news that Pantano has “one of the country’s most prominent military defense attorneys” defending him. His mother has also been very active in support of her son; take a look at Defend The Defenders, her site.

Michelle Malkin and Powerline are also actively blogging this story.

UPDATE: More commentary from Prince Pundit, and Opinion Bug. Opinion Bug asks for the thoughts of a man who has been in Lt. Pantano’s shoes: LTC Allen B. West. It’s powerful stuff.

A Combat Marine Charged With Murder—LTC (R) Allen B West Responds
Filed under: Iraq— Tim @ 10:16 pm
I’ve asked LTC (R) Allen B West for his thoughts on the Marine charged with killing two Iraqi’s while searching a terrorist hideout. LTC (R) Allen B West is a man who has been there and knows. His article is powerful and thought provoking:

***

Well, Tim, with what I know right now, it seems very ironic to me to charge someone with premeditated murder during war. I thought that when you sit and plan a military operation and carry out that plan…well that is premeditated.

Perhaps we should go back and charge Sam Houston and his Texans with premeditated murder since they planned to attack Santa Anna and his Mexican army at San Jacinto during their siesta. What would 60 minutes or CNN say about that if they had a war correspondent at the scene? Let us not forget that any raid carried out should be considered such as well. Perhaps we should go back and arrest the Soldiers from the famed Battle of Mogadishu, after all it was a planned attack. No, I have a better one, go dig up King Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae who carried out a night raid against the Persians while they slept, attempting to kill Xerxes himself. I am pretty sure that our media would label that a planned assassination attempt against a Head of State.

Stop, does anyone hear what I hear, well I hear laughter, laughter coming from the radical Islamic terrorists who have us so confused and turning upon our own Warriors in an unsatiable lust for perceived justice. Question, who was the last Islamic terrorist, I refuse to use the PC word “insurgent” to be charged in Islamic court for firing an RPG at a convoy of fuel trucks? Or how about setting up a IED attack that ends up killing civilians as well? What about the guys that planned a suicide bomb attack on an American dining hall? Excuse me but I had to turn down the laughter sounds. Nah, they feel that killing us in anyway required is pretty ok.

As always, I do not submit to wanton violence but as I told my Men in Taji, unleash controlled response and purposeful resolve in the face of the enemy. Never back down from a fight and assert yourself as being in charge, even if he ambushes you. We have locked horns with an enemy that defines warfare in a totally different manner. First of all you must understand Islam to realize that it is politic-religious in its nature. How do you fight an enemy that believes that in a “Jihad” his death will bring forth a great reward in paradise? Well, simply, you must have the commitment to enable that reward for him. Instead, we are looking for everyway to negate toughness because we are afraid of others not liking us, or even worse, promotions.

Now, I do not have the full story but when did we become so self-righteous, or afraid, that we are now so willing to imprison our own Soldiers and Marines? Young men and women that are daily placing lives on the line around the world. Remember in WWII when German Paratroopers jumped in behind American lines donning US uniforms they were summarily executed on site when captured!

This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, if this continues who will answer the call to defend this Nation, Michael Moore? Howard Dean? Dennis Kucinich? Al Sharpton? Or those that follow their lead?

Ok, for those that are confused, war is premeditated killing and has been so since the first caveman picked up a rock and pounded in the head of another. What we are displaying is a weakness that will eventually destroy the very framework of this American society. There was a pretty good quote from the film, “Troy” when Brad Pitt’s character Achilles stated, “War is about old Men talking and young Men dying". However true, but now this war seems to be about old Men talking, posturing and young Men dying and being sacrificed, while sacrificing for the greater Nation. Honestly, it makes me ill and I wish I could be back there with them, if even as a slick sleeve Private.

America, no we are not barbaric, cruel, and insane killers (no matter what those that sit on the sidelines and heckle say) but we are committed men and women that serve this Country to the best of our abilities. If we continue on this glide path, out of fear…I hate when everyone says My Lai, Vietnam, and everything else as a media scare tactic…we are going to inevitably lose. And if we lose this fight, then my daughters and many other American children will grow up in a world of fear, terror.

I do not know the specifics about 2LT Ilario Pantano but he is an American and a combat Marine. Unless his offense was so heinous and unnecessary to his prescribed orders, I stand with him. Let’s stop the laughter, either get serious or get out but stop sacrificing and killing the young men if you do not want to WIN!

Regards to America and all Americans, LTC (R) Allen B West

Marine Charged With Murder For Defending Himself
Rosemary at My Newz ‘n Ideas has brought to my attention the story of Marine 2ndLt Ilario Pantano. It seems that Lt. Pantano shot and killed two Iraqis last April and now last week he was charged with murder.

Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times has an article today that outlines the story. In part it reads:

To Lt. Pantano, the two Iraqis who came toward him despite his order in Arabic to stop were mortal enemies. Booby-trapped suicide bombers are killing Iraqis by the score and some have even feigned surrender in order to get close to U.S. soldiers. But the Corps views it as murder and filed charges against him Feb. 1.

On April 15, commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano's men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano's account.

The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised. If it was booby-trapped, the Iraqis, not Marines, would pay the price.

It was at this point that the Iraqis stopped searching and moved quickly toward Lt. Pantano.

"They start talking in Arabic and turn toward him as if they are going to rush him," Mr. Gittins (his attorney) said. "He says, 'stop.' They don't stop and he kills them. He didn't know what they were doing but they weren't listening to him. He was in fear of his life and he killed them."

Of course it turns out that they were unarmed and there were no weapons in the car, however, Lt. Pantano did not know that at the time. Pantano reported this event to his superiors and continued to serve in combat in the area for an additional 3 months.

His fitness report for that time period shows that no one thought twice about the incident:

His Company Commander states:

“Lieutenant’s Pantano progression as a young platoon commander and leader has been impressive.… he has dedicated himself to subordinate development resulting in the weakest platoon becoming one that is often the Company’s main effort. With a calm demeanor that speaks of confidence, Lieutenant Pantano has led his platoon into urban combat in Latafiyah, and he has also conducted convention operations in Falluja and Zaidon Province, Iraq. He is a proficient communicator, who should be promoted with peers. A proven warrior, Lieutenant Pantano is a Marine that I would proudly serve in combat with at any time.

His Battalion Commander, the reviewing Officer then noted:

“Concur with RS (Reporting Senior). Lt Pantano’s performance during the reporting period has been noteworthy and established his reputation as an accomplished infantry leader. His actions during the fighting in Falluja and Al Zaidon highlighted a solid understanding of tactics and an ability to anticipate the enemy. Leads form the front always and balances his aggressive style with true concern for the welfare of his Marines. Exceptional communication skills for a 2ndLt. Organized, aggressive, focused and driven. Ready for increased responsibility. Retain, promote and assign to challenging assignments.” (Emphasis added.)

So what happened? It was not until a "disgruntled” enlisted man, after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began. Today a Marine officer is being second guessed for a split second decision that he made to protect his life and the lives of this men.

Pantano’s mother has established a web site Defend the Defenders.org with all the details. There is a great deal of information posted as well as supporting comments from fellow Marines and their families.

Rosemary has several posts here and here and here.

Actually, I'm knowledgable enough about the Marines to know that you are not representative of them. I have occasionally come across others like you, who portray themselves as Vets from one branch or another. The favorite branch being the Marines. They hate American civilians, and paint their supposed brothers in arms as lacking the strength of character needed to resist the criminal acts we put them in the position to commit. I know better. You are an exception, if you ever really were in the Marines. Maj. Morgan, who chose to turn on a fellow Marine for his own gain, is another exception. Lt. Pantano may or not be an exception. Those of you who assume he's guilty just because he's a Marine, are the exceptions. Those of you who hate American civilians who support the troops even more than you hate civilians who don't, are the exceptions. I don't have to be a Marine to know that. When you attack the integrity of our armed forces, you're not attacking me directly, but you are attacking my family. When you portray yourself as having some unspoken authority to speak ill of Marines on their behalf, I'd just like to know how that makes you any different from John Kerry.

They hate American civilians,

With good reason.

and paint their supposed brothers in arms as lacking the strength of character needed to resist the criminal acts we put them in the position to commit.

Actually, I'm just the opposite. I do understand that a very few s**tbirds make it through training and serve in combat. But they are the exception. And when they're found, they're given their due. And that's good for the Corps.

Those of you who assume he's guilty just because he's a Marine,

I'm assuming he's guilty because of his lawyer. Gittin is the Mark Geragos of the military lawyer community--hiring him is about the same as confessing, it's just a lot more expensive.

Maj. Morgan, who chose to turn on a fellow Marine for his own gain, is another exception.

Maj. Morgan did no such thing. He answered questions from WorldNutDaily. He answered them honestly. (That, generally, is the first mistake Marines make in dealing with the press. "No comment" is a far better strategy for dealing with agenda-driven hacks posing as reporters, no matter what their alleged agaenda.) He has had his words twisted to support your political agenda. Your doing so is why I despise you.

Hey, Poo, just a quick one:

"I'm assuming he's guilty because of his lawyer. Gittin is the Mark Geragos of the military lawyer community--hiring him is about the same as confessing, it's just a lot more expensive."

Soooo. . .retain a talented hired gun/snake for your defense and you are guilty, and conversely, hire a no-name and quickly find yourself guilty. Not a fair choice, now is it?

Is that what I am hearing?

I tell ya, if I am ever accused of a crime you can bet your last bit of bandwidth that I will hire the best snake I can find. Guilty or not, and in your world I am guilty if I hire a talented/good/sneaky lawyer.

Supposition of guilt because of who your lawyer is, well, that is unfair. IMHO, ALL defense lawyers have questionable character, so according to you, we should convict those that hire the best defense talent. I see you base the question of guilt or innocence on your feelings (nice lib word) about the defense lawyer---not on facts related to guilt or innocence. Difficult situation for anyone standing trial if you are on the jury; "Well, according to Poo, I will not hire this guy, as he is too good and uses too many supposed sneaky underhanded tricks, that means because Poo is on the jury, he will convict me because of my lawyer, not on issues of guilt or innocence."

"Gittins, a Marine reserve" couldn't help but attempt to defend his client by smearing his accuser.

He did it in the West case, too. He likes to accuse NCOs of all manner of perfidy.

Incidentally, if this sergeant was really as inept as Gittins claims, no one in their right mind would make him a radio operator.

An incompetent sergeant can get his squad killed. An incompetent radioman can get his entire platoon killed.

A couple of posts later someone pointed out that Gittins is the same guy that screwed up West's defense as well.

Trials are, IIRC, held in courtrooms, not in the press, and Gittin's a little too much in love with talking to WND.

Either activate this guy Gittins, or get him out of there and bring in a lawyer. When there's a death penalty involved our soldiers deserve better than a clownshow.

Thank you; you got the point.

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.