Posted on 03/14/2005 3:21:14 PM PST by Archon of the East
I am frustrated over the lack of action being taken on the part of our so-called conservative politicians, on behalf of Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano. The courageous Marine is facing the death penalty, if convicted of killing two Iraqi terrorists. If our elected officials are willing to send our young men and women into harm's way--they better be just as willing to protect them...We have to demand it!
Lt. Pantano is facing a court-martial and a possible date with the executioner. His crime?...He shot and killed two Iraqi terrorists. The two fled from a house where weapons and bomb-making materials were found. Pantano ordered the men to stop, they then turned and began walking toward him (many U.S. soldiers have been killed by suicide-bombers in just this manner). He shouted at them in Arabic, they continued to come towards him and he fired. Several months later, a disgruntled subordinate of Lt. Pantano's came forward with the bogus charges.
I can only imagine the daily horrors we would now be facing, if the American World War II veterans had faced such politically-correct scrutiny. We would all be goose-stepping right now. Well, not all of us--much of my family would be lampshades.
A few days ago, I phoned my own Congresswoman, to see what action she was planning to help Lt. Pantano return to a normal life. Certainly, the self-described "conservative" Rep. Thelma Drake (R-VA) who sits on the powerful House Armed Services Committee, would not allow Pantano to hang for simply doing his job! I voted for Drake because I believed her campaign promises to support the war effort and protect our troops...What a sucker I am!
I initially spoke with one of Drake's staffers (Claire Wulf). Ms. Wulf had no idea who Lt. Ilario Pantano was and was completely unaware of the case. After I filled her in on the situation, I was informed that Rep. Drake was very busy and that Congressional pardons are very difficult to secure. Ms. Wulf said: "Well, we get several requests for pardons and I can tell you--a Congressional pardon is quite rare."
I let Ms. Wulf know that it was even more "rare" for a soldier to be charged with murder, for killing the enemy!
I was eventually handed-off to another staffer (Tyler Brown) attached to Drake's Washington office. Mr. Brown was just as clueless as his local counterpart. Alas, my comments ended up in the vast abyss of Rep. Drake's voicemail. No one ever returned my messages. My so-called "conservative" Congresswoman is taking the same interest in the painful saga of Lt. Pantano which President Bush has taken...They simply don't care!
I know that Rep. Drake is not alone in her ignorance. I have yet to hear one Congressman or Senator speak out on behalf of the Marine Lt.
No wonder recruitment is down!
Excuse me but these guys are in a WAR ZONE. I understand that they had information that there were morters and IED's in the house that they were raiding(which proved true). Sure, send in the PFC to check the vehicles.
I survived my year in Vietnam by not giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt.
The Lieutenant didn't do himself any favors by emptying two clips into the guys though.
This is executive branch business and Congress isn't going to mess with it unless there's an opportunity to get on TV.
Ping
Assuming he's truthful that he was fearful of attack by the terrorists, it seems to me the more proper charge would be disregarding standing orders and SOP's.
He was committing a felony, and people died when they weren't supposed to. That's "felony murder" right there.
Assuming he's truthful that he was fearful of attack by the terrorists,
Said fear having been caused solely by his own irresponsible actions.
it seems to me the more proper charge would be disregarding standing orders and SOP's.
Which amount to committing a felony, and the deaths directly consequent to committing said felony become two counts of murder.
This, by the way, is why you have a right to remain silent.
I don't follow your claim that Pantano committed a felony. Are you saying uncuffing the terrorists and telling them to search the car is a felony? What felony is that?
My understanding from the press reports is Pantano is charged with intentional murder, not with felony murder.
Poobah has already tried and convicted this guy. It seems like some folks here think we are dealing with petty street thugs here that may have a knife in their possession. They forget that these guys are in a WAR ZONE and the nature if a lot of this WAR is terrrorism and gurilla(sp) warfare. We have lost several fine military people due to oversights and potentially using a PC approach in dealing with these terrorists. The two terrorists were fleeing a house that contained morters and IED's. You don't suppose they were plumbers fixing a leak for the property owner do you?
I also surmise that none of the posters that have already convicted this guy have served a day in a combat zone either. It's easy to try, convict and execute somebody for a WARTIME "Crime" when you haven't even a remote clue of combat operations.
It would be a stretch to even find this guy guilty of derelection of duty.
Congratulations, you've shown that you do not understand how the law works.
Once he disobeyed his orders, he was committing a felony. Once that happens, you lose the protection of "self defense."
I don't follow your claim that Pantano committed a felony.
"Failure to obey order or regulation" is a court martial offense per Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That's a felony.
Are you saying uncuffing the terrorists and telling them to search the car is a felony?
Yes, because in doing so, Pantano disobeyed orders intended (primarily) to safeguard his Marines and (secondarily) the lives of the prisoners (the USMC doesn't safeguard prisoners out of mere kindness; they merely view them as sources of intelligence information, and dead men tell no tales).
What felony is that?
I didn't realize that there were so many FReepers who expect the military to be a place to practice anarchy. But I will explain things, once again, in the hope that it will sink in.
He disobeyed orders that were drilled into his head in boot camp, risked the lives of his Marines, and denied intelligence to his chain of command. Sorry, bubba, that's felony stupid, it's felony murder, and I'm absolutely amazed that people think that obeying orders is optional in the military.
On the other hand, Poobah is right that Pantano should never have uncuffed the terrorists and sent them back into their car. It's just so basic that once you've secured your prisoners you keep them cuffed and under control until you've evac'd them and turned them over to the unit collecting them in the rear. Who knows how many orders and SOP's he violated. And what if the car had been rigged for suicide bombing and when the perps went back to the car they blew away Lt. Pantano and most of his unit???
On the other hand showing bad judgment and violating standing orders isn't a felony that I know of. I agree with you that in a combat situation allowance has to be made for the "fog of war" and the stress Lt. Pantano was under.
One of my pet peeves is prosecutorial overcharging. IMHO it is an abuse of the prosecutor's powers. But it's so commonplace that it won't end soon. They do this to try to force plea bargains. Sometimes it backfires, resulting in resentment against the prosecution and leading to acquittal.
Somebody needs to assist you in interpreting Military Law. If there was any offense committed, it would likely be an Article 15 offense, that of derelection of duty, which, in itself is doubtful in this situation.
Without regard to the facts of the case, which we shouldn't be trying to discern here anyway...
Wouldn't interference in the investigation and eventual court-martial on the part of either the Congress or the SecDef be construed as undue command influence? And wouldn't that almost necessarily taint the court-martial?
Bottom line, as both of you have said...is to let the military handle this the way they have been for a couple of hundred years.
Actually, Pantano tried and convicted himself with his own statements. That's why we have the right to remain silent.
It seems like some folks here think we are dealing with petty street thugs here that may have a knife in their possession.
Not me, bubba. That's why I would not have the prisoners unsecured and in a position to obtain their 72 virgins by popping off a vehicle bomb--which is exactly the position Pantano managed to put himself in.
They forget that these guys are in a WAR ZONE and the nature if a lot of this WAR is terrrorism and gurilla(sp) warfare.
Again, I keep that firmly in mind, which is why my first priority would be to secure the prisoners and not give them the opportunity to grab weapons or set off a vehicular IED.
We have lost several fine military people due to oversights and potentially using a PC approach in dealing with these terrorists.
Hyperbole alert.
Name names, and explain, in detail, how "oversights and potentially using a PC approach in dealing with these terrorists" led to each death.
The two terrorists were fleeing a house that contained morters and IED's.
That doesn't change the orders for handling prisoners.
You don't suppose they were plumbers fixing a leak for the property owner do you?
Not at all, which is why I'd secure the prisoners and not give them the opportunity to either grab weapons and shoot at me, or possibly detonate a suspected vehicular IED.
I also surmise that none of the posters that have already convicted this guy have served a day in a combat zone either.
Wrong. I was killing Islamists while the rest of America was afraid that the evil, nasty Republicans were going to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
It's easy to try, convict and execute somebody for a WARTIME "Crime" when you haven't even a remote clue of combat operations.
Been there, done that, wore the t-shirt. Pantano f***ed up bigtime. He's lucky he was mistaken about the vehicle having weapons or explosives in it (it didn't), because the bad guys would've had access to weapons or to a detonator.
It would be a stretch to even find this guy guilty of derelection of duty.
Would you say the same thing if the vehicle had been an IED that detonated solely because Pantano had allowed the prisoners to access it and set it off?
Thank you 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub.
One also has to take into account that this was a 2nd Lt, not a seasoned combat officer. He likely had little military experience and even more minimal combat experience.
I have to stress again that we have lost a number of soldiers in Iraq due to terrorists being treated as non-combatants(who in actuality are combatants). Also have to agree that there may have been some bad judgements made here, but none that rise to the guy being charged with murder.
Let's see...
Pantano disobeyed orders (note the plural).
Now, flipping through the UCMJ, the offense that matches that description of events is...
Article 92. And it's a court-martial offense...
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
(OOPSIE! "Dereliction of duty" is NOT an Article 15 offense!)
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Multiple counts, BTW, tend to actually go to court-martial.
I believe so. I'd like to see justice take its course.
Any sympathy for the Marines who may die for want of whatever information was in the heads of those terrorists?
On the other hand showing bad judgment and violating standing orders isn't a felony that I know of.
Violating orders is a felony, especially when people end up dead because of it.
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.