Has Your Congressman Forsaken Lt. Pantano?

American Daily ^ | 3/14/2005 | Dave Gibson

[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!

[conshack]

Shooting enemy combatants in the back would be from the John F. Kerry code of military justice

Does that mean that Lt Potano should run for the senate? Or President?

[conshack]

Does that mean that Lt Potano should run for the senate? Or President?................


AND be awarded the Silver Star with a "V" for valor?

[kimosabe31]

Actually, it isn't in this country, unless you're arguing that international law (the Geneva Convention) abrogates US sovereignty.

Kraut spies caught on US soil during WWII were executed.

[Robert Drobot]

Support Bump!!!

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Poohbah]

Kraut spies caught on US soil during WWII were executed.

After a trial. Summary execution without a trial of anyone is not legal under US law. It is, however, legal under the Geneva Convention. So, are you arguing that the Geneva Convention trumps US sovereignty?

[Poohbah]

Would there be any theoretical situation where military law or procedure can be deviated from?

Yes. However, the FIRST thing that has to happen is that the results have to be positive--and there will still be a serious investigation. Two dead possible jihadis who cannot be questioned is not a positive outcome of violating orders.

[Poohbah]

My big concern here is with the troops being subjected to criminal charges for actions they take in a combat environment.

Being in combat did not exempt me from the requirement to obey orders. Indeed, the reason the military is so anal about obeying orders is because discipline is the only thing maintaining the barest minimum of control over events on the battlefield.

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.

Bottom line: nobody knows. Funny thing about shooting someone: you can't question stiffs after you've killed them. (BTW, Pantano, by his own admission, fired 60 rounds on BURST across a period of at least 40 seconds. Looks like he has some impulese control issues.)

It also pi$$es me off that so many armchair generals and lawyers want to hang this guy for killing two TERRORISTS.

It pi$$es me off that so many armchair generals and lawyers want to call this guy a hero for endangering his own men and denying access to whatever intel these two had because they get their notions of what war is and how it works from reading Sgt. Rock comic books.

[campfollower]

You do wonder why the media didn't pick up on the old "exploding rice in the butt" strategy for war heroes.

Thanks...funny.

[campfollower]

Just to be clear on my position: Before I go all nutty, I'll wait for the Marine's investigation into this incident.

From my experience covering Article 32s as a reporter for a military paper (I'm a civilian dependent), justice is usually served UNLESS Congressmen become involved and it becomes a political circus.

Let the system work and hope the uninformed, un-inculcated congressional staffer weenies STAY OUT of the process.

[colorado tanker]

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?

It doesn't.

Self-defense is the key issue in the case that the Art. 32 hearing and the general court, if it gets that far, will have to sort out.

His story, as I understand it, is that the terrorists made some sudden moves while searching the car and failed to respond to orders, making him think they were preparing to use some kind of weapon left in the car.

The prosecution will emphasize the fact that he uncuffed the terrorists to put them in the car, shot them from behind and fired a high number of rounds into them.

The reports I've read indicate there are two witnesses who saw the whole thing, Pantano and the NCO who is the accusing witness. An awful lot will come down to who presents as the more believable witness, something we don't know.

There is so much uncertainty and risk for both sides, my prediction is there will be a plea bargain at some point.

[Kretek]

Well, I trust the Corps, and its investigators, more than I do the media. I hope it all shakes out for the best.

[colorado tanker]

For all the good-natured ribbing I've given jarheads over the years, I trust the Corps, too. They're good people. :-)

[JudgeAdvocate]

Ding, Ding, Ding.....We have a winner.....NC Congressman Walter B. Jones has decided that there should be no investigation and that the charges against Pantano be dropped ASAFP.

http://jones.house.gov/html/release.cfm?id=288

House Resolution 167 will declare House of Representative support for Lt. Ilario Pantano because continuing with these charges will cause Marines to second-guess themselves in combat. Personally, if a Marine or Soldier was pondering whether he should shoot two people in the back "execution style" as the RTO stated happened, then I WOULD want a Marine to second guess himself.

The problem is, the way this Article 32 investigation is being portrayed in the media, Marines and Soldiers will think that they cannot shoot two people coming at them, which would be 100% legal. I understand and appreciate this Representative's support of this Marine, but this is not an issue that should be put up for public debate.

Congress wondered why the evidence collected during the Abu Ghrabe 15-6 investigation was not given to Congress earlier. This is exactly the reason why. You get Congress involved, and it turns into a big CF.

The only people who have any relevant statements to make are Pantano, the Corpsman, and the Radio Operator. They were there. Congressman Jones was not. They will have the opportunity to present their testimony at the Article 32.

Now, Jones' district includes the city of Swansboro, home of Camp Lejeune. I wonder why he is making this case a public spectacle, and not allowing the Marine Corps to do their job, which according to the Rules of Court Martial 303 is to conduct an investigation into this misconduct. I recommend that we revisit Representative Jones when it comes time for his reelection and see how much he uses this Resolution on the stump. He is missing the forest for this one tree. I wonder if he is good friends with Charles Gittens?

Now, let's say for instance this goes to a GCM and Pantano is convicted, THEN I would agree that the time would be right to pass this resolution. Ask for clemency because this Marine thought that he was doing the right thing.

But, trying this case in the media and in Congress before we even get to the Article 32 is bad for Pantano and the Armed Services. Its bad for the Corps and Army because Marines and Soldiers think they cannot do something that they would legally be able to do, i.e. shoot somebody they perceive as a threat. Its bad for Pantano because the Command and the trial counsel are only going to entrench themselves and present an airtight case, if they have one.

We'll see what shakes out at the 32.

[campfollower]

Next thing you know, the congressman will be asking about steroid use.

I agree. Let the Marines handle this. Any officers on the panel/board whatever will want to see justice served.

Keep the press and the Congress at bay. They only mess things up.

[Mom of 2 Marines]

"The stories I have read suggest that he did this in case the vehicle was booby trapped. Was this not legitimate action?"

It would appear that Pantano was standing only a few feet away from the vehicle as it was search. Had these guys been ready to detonate it, Pantano would have been fried with them.

[USMC Texasmom]

I have just stumbled across this web site. And I do agree with you. My son enlisted a year ago in the Marines and if I knew what I know now. I would have tried harder to get him to go to college. This people are out there fighting and the only thing Congress wants to do is ignore it. That is completely BS and that need to stand up for those men and women. I don't see the enemy go on trial for beheading those contractors. Let them do there job and the world would be a better place. Stand up for them or let someone else in Congress that well.

[Archon of the East]

My prayers are with you and your brave son. As you have noticed there are many differing opinions on this thread, most of which suggest let the Marines take care of the issue. That is fine by me and now that it out of the press we can do that. But I'll be damned if I don't offer support to one of Brave young men when papers like the NYT, WaPO, LA times and others are making public issues of military matters. That is where I part company with others on this thread. This is a different kind of war with tactics never before seen in combat except for maybe using public opinion thru propaganda that we saw in Viet Nam backed by communist front groups here in America.

[JudgeAdvocate]

But I'll be damned if I don't offer support to one of Brave young men when papers like the NYT, WaPO, LA times and others are making public issues of military matters. Who is the one that ran to the MSM when charges were preferred? 1. Was it the Marine Corps? 2. Did the MSM hear about the case and start reporting? 3. Did Lt. Pantano's defense team go on Fox News, Dateline, and Time Magazine, to further their strategy of attempting to manipulate public opinion? Personally, I've seen only a few articles from the MSM with a negative bias towards the accused. Most are from conservative publications taking issue with the Corps for its decision to allow charges to be preferred against Pantano. Now, the Apache helicopter pilot/gunner, and the Marine in Fallujah seem to be victims of negative reporting. I think that I heard the Pentagon correspondent for NBC call the terrorists fighting from the Mosque in Fallujah "unarmed" about 30 times. And, he seemed to harp on the fact that this Marine killed 3 other "unarmed" insurgents before he shot the ill-fated one that was captured on tape. Well, that correspondent needs to cop a clue and understand that in the grey area, the Corps will back its Marines. Pantano's case is very different. So, check yourself and the facts before you start blaming the MSM for Pantano's woes. He's the one that went to them.

[Archon of the East]

Fine, you are right about this case not getting much MSM attention, however when you let the press into the game and you see what they and our traitorous Senators like Kennedy did with other issues in the war, I'm sorry but that lets the public in the game also. There was no way I was going to keep quite, and potentially let him hung out to dry as I'm sure it's been done before. If he really did commit a crime then I'm he will be convicted but given the pressure from around the globe and here within I want make sure that he is not made an example of. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and realize that this was getting more attention around the original post date. Also I do realize that congress has no direct influence in the matter but they can let it be known to keep it clean.