Replies

I'm perplexed. I don't understand why the Marines are hard-over on Pantano. Of all the services the Marines have the best reputation for not pushing garbage.

Now, it could be that they felt it was necessary to take it to an Article 32 but are privately confident that the IO will not recommend prosecution. I was involved in such cases in the Air Force. In fact, I was appointed IO in a few high-visibility cases precisely because the convening authority knew I would call it like I saw it without regard to whether it was a politically correct recommendation (some JAGs who are appointed IOs think it is their job to find a way to prosecute).

Although it was the convening authority, not me, who really made the disposition decision, the convening authority liked having a carefully-written painstakingly analyzed legal investigative report to back up the decision not to prosecute.

Thanks. I too am perplexed. How can a soldier be accused of murder for the reasonable killing of an expected enemy combatant in a combat zone? From what I have learned, the case seems to be pretty straight forward. The Iraqis continued toward Pantano after being warned, in Arabic, to halt. The Iraqis had been at a site that had been suspected of being used by insurgents.

IMO, in a combat zone, there should be no obligation even to offer warning signals. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

So why would anyone (assuming there are no grudges) want to pursue an Article 32 case against Pantano? I have heard that there was an accuser. And why doesn't someone in higher authority step in to end this insanity (assuming there is nothing more to the case)? IMO, Sec Def Rumsfeld or even President Bush should end this asap.