Posted on 03/14/2005 3:21:14 PM PST by Archon of the East
Again, you are wrong; Lt. Pantano is prior enlisted, and he was a sniper in Desert Storm. So he doesn't have the "I'm just a dumb second looie" defense available.
Most distressing news.
Indeed, your felony murder theory is just plain nutty. If you have any evidence Pantano actually has been charged with felony murder as distinct from deliberate murder, pleas provide the link.
"Felony stupid" is not a crime, but you knew that.
If you have any evidence Lt. Pantano has been charged with violating Art. 92, please provide the link.
I agree with you that Lt. Pantano showed poor judgment and poor leadership in combat. He should not again be put in command of troops in combat. If it can be shown that Lt. Pantano violated a direct order or a published standing order of his unit, he could be subject to court-martial for violating that order. Do you have any evidence Lt. Pantano violated an order? Gotta link? If not, if he violated principals of his training or SOP's, non-judicial punishment would be appropriate.
If you want to lecture on the law, take the LSAT and attend a good law school.
From what I've read, I agree. If this thing goes to trial, which I doubt, it looks like it will come down to who the jury believes, Lt. Pantano or the NCO who claims Lt. Pantano was not acting in self defense.
No congresscritter worth the name is going to interfere in a UCMJ action. Nor should they. The time for them to intervene is either before or after. If the facts and testimony are as I've seen them, Pantano's in good shape with the board. Watch & be prepared to act, but don't panic.
A reminder poohbah...Lt Pantano is NOT charged with "felony uncuffing prisoners" or reckless endangerment of his men. He is charged with premeditated murder of two enemy combatants out of uniform...the traditional method of handling spies and espionage agents.
Absent Lt. Pantano's illegal (and incredibly stupid) act, the chain of events collapses. Bottom line: Lt. Pantano was responsible for safeguarding those intelligence assets, and they wound up dead because he deliberately failed to do so.
"Felony stupid" is not a crime, but you knew that.
Actually, given that Lt. Pantano's seniors had special trust and confidence in his fidelity, patriotism, and ability, it is. I've known of officers who got court-martialed and convicted for "felony stupid" (losing classified material, et cetera).
If it can be shown that Lt. Pantano violated a direct order or a published standing order of his unit, he could be subject to court-martial for violating that order.
And court-martialed for the two deaths that proceeded directly from violating orders.
When (a) orders are disobeyed (and they were by Pantano's own statement) and people wind up dead because of same (which they did), the USMC doesn't content itself with a handslap for disobeying orders.
Do you have any evidence Lt. Pantano violated an order?
Marine Corps Order 1640.3F, "Procedures for the Transfer of Marine Corps Prisoners" comes to mind.
This stuff is drilled into your head at Quantico, and in boot camp. You do not allow a prisoner to be unsecured.
Actually, it isn't in this country, unless you're arguing that international law (the Geneva Convention) abrogates US sovereignty.
The reason he's charged with first-degree murder is that Pantano committed felonies (multiple) that caused the deaths.
On that, we agree.
As to the rest, you could not back up any of your assertions with evidence or supporting links. You are all hat and no cattle. Or should I say, all talk but no law.
Would there be any theoretical situation where military law or procedure can be deviated from?
The Article 32 investigation will be completed. The IO will formulate his recommendation(s) and the GCM authority will render his decision on a course of action.
We are not privy to all the facts. And neither is the press nor Momma Patano.
Bump!
I seriously doubt this case will get to a GCM. These kinds of cases usually settle.
If, as has been reported, the two prisoners were fleeing at the time Lt. Pantano shot them in the back, how does that support his theory of self-defense?
Please note that the definion of self-defense which I am most familiar with is that given in People (of Michigan) vs. Riddle, not the UCMJ's or any other jurisdictions'.
Seems to me he's being charged with murder which is definitely a Courts-Martial offense.
Maybe a little levity to answer your question...
Shooting enemy combatants in the back would be from the John F. Kerry code of military justice.
Wait. That's not funny.
Agree. My big concern here is with the troops being subjected to criminal charges for actions they take in a combat environment. To the best of my knowledge, nobody is denying that these were two terrorists(insurgents, for the PC types), yet this guy is still facing murder charges. It also pi$$es me off that so many armchair generals and lawyers want to hang this guy for killing two TERRORISTS.
I hope this guy walks.
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.