Posted on 03/24/2005 7:50:02 AM PST by JudgeAdvocate
Marine Corps 1st Lt. Ilario Pantano says he demoted the sergeant who is expected to be the chief witness against the officer, who is charged with murdering two Iraqi insurgents. Lt. Pantano's attorney, Charles Gittins, has labeled Sgt. Daniel L. Coburn a "disgruntled" Marine who had a motive for falsely accusing his client. In his first newspaper interview, Lt. Pantano said he fired Sgt. Coburn as a squad leader after the sergeant made an "unforgivable" mistake last year by failing to clear buildings in an old brick factory in Iraq's Triangle of Death. "He sat the squad down and they were making Gatoraid and the buildings around us are not cleared," Lt. Pantano said. "I literally became furious. I took control of his squad. He had just bottomed out. That was a mistake that was just unforgivable." About 10 days later,...[t]he platoon captured two fleeing Iraqis. As Lt. Pantano forced the Iraqis to search what could have been a booby-trapped car, the two moved toward him, he says. Lt. Pantano emptied two M-16 magazines into the Iraqis in a matter of seconds, but it turned out they were unarmed. Sgt. Coburn complained within the battalion and persuaded a corporal to lodge a complaint in June. On Feb. 1, the Marines charged Lt. Pantano with two counts of premeditated murder... Sgt. Coburn was quoted in the New York Daily News on March 7 as saying "I never had a grudge against" Lt. Pantano. Lt. Pantano said several witnesses will verify that he had to counsel Sgt. Coburn for other problems and that he fired him 10 days before the shooting. Told that Sgt. Coburn said he "never had a grudge," Lt. Pantano said, "I think that's very interesting based on the fact he knows his career has been ended."...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Coburn describes Pantano as a cowboy; Pantano describes Coburn as a disgruntled NCO.
Why not take both of these Marines down to NIS and take a polygraph? Charles Gittens and Major Stackhouse both know that if Lt. Pantano passes and Coburn fails the polygraph, then they could go to the GCMCA under his open door policy and request that the charges be withdrawn. Major Keane should send his witness down to NIS to take a polygraph. If he is telling the truth, then maybe it would save a lot of people time, money, and energy. If he is lying because he is "disgruntled" over being fired, then the Marine Corps should put him under the brig in Charleston.
Rowan, if you follow this blog, then why don't you ask ol' Charley why he hasn't ponied up to the polygrapher down at NIS? If Mr. Gittens answer is, "Well, polygraphs aren't admissible in court and, ah, well you know lawyerese, lawyerese, lawyerese, blankety blank, lawyerese......," then we will know this officer has something to hide. If he says, "He has taken a polygraph. We took him down to a civilian polygrapher who asked him a bunch of questions that aren't really relevant, and he passed the polygraph. Yes, we paid him a great deal of money that we made from defendthedefenders.org, but please disregard the fact that I am a defense attorney and trust me when I tell you that this polygrapher holds the highest ethical standards, yadda, yadda, yadda", then we will know this Marine has something to hide.
But, if his answer is "I am sending my client down to NIS to take a polygraph with a miltary-trained polygrapher, and by the way, this isn't going to merely be an exculpatory polygraph. I won't even be down at the office. I will give the polygraph the opporunity to question my client himself, and I will sign off on his Article 31 rights." Rowan, if he says that, then any naysayers will be convinced in this Marine's innocence.
And, vice versa for Coburn. Major Keane might want to do this for his client to clear up any rumors of this guy being "disgruntled."
If I commit murder, but an eyewitness doesn't report it because I am a great guy, did I still commit a crime? Yes.
If I commit murder and a witness reports it because he doesn't like me, did I still commit a crime? Yes.
If I shoot somebody coming at me after I yell "Stop" in Arabic, but someone in my platoon lies and states on a sworn statement that he saw me shoot them in the back immediately after I told my corpsmen to cut the flexicuffs, did I commit murder? No. And that witness should be strung up.
Hate to sound like Lieutenant Junior Grade Caffey, but "I want the TRUTH!"
Heck, the Corps could do this pay-per-view like Canseco's polygraph, and make some money that could be used to buy OBV's and armor for their HUMVEE's.
Mike Savage is doing a good job tracking this...
Please not that I refer to Sgt. Coburn as Major Keane's client. That was a mistake. Sgt.Coburn would be Major Keane's witness; his client is the United States.
I understand that Mike Savage interviewed Pantano a couple of days ago. Do you have the transcripts for it?
I agree. Especially in the heated atmosphere of Iraq. It's one thing to keep an eye out for an insurgent, but to have to keep the other eye out for JAG's looking over one's shoulder, is "above and beyond".
Questions for Pantano:
Were the two Iraqis you shot walking towards you?
Yes or no.
Did you shoot those two Iraqis in the back?
Yes or no.
Before you ordered those two Iraqis to be uncuffed, did you form the intent to kill them?
Yes or no.
Questions for Coburn:
Did Pantano shoot those Iraqis in the back?
Yes or no.
Were those two Iraqis walking towards Pantano before he shot them?
Yes or no.
Pretty bright line case. If he formed the intent to shoot them before he ordered them uncuffed, then he committed murder. Bottom line. Read MCO 3461. When they are in cuffs, they are assumed to be EPW's and you can't even so much as insult them, let alone shoot them in the back in cold blood.
If they were coming at him, then his actions were completely reasonable and lawful.
Seems to me that it's one or the other.
As a Marine Corps combat veteran of Viet Nam who "walked point" in 1969 & 1970, I support Lt. Pantano 110%.
Until someone has had to put themselves in a combat situation facing an enemy that would sooner blow themselves up as look at you people have no idea.
I encountered the enemy on a daily basis and believe you me if it came down to them or me and my fellow Marines; well let's just say that, I and my fellow Marines came home and the enemy didn't!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Kelly,
I respectfully ask, how many gooks did you uncuff so they could go back into the hooch and look for boobytraps?
How many zipperheads did you tie up, then execute?
And, how many little dink babies' skulls did you buttstroke with your M-16 A1 because you didn't want waste the round?
Once again, I don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to find your left and right limits of your sense of right and wrong.
And I will tell you that I also have been in combat. I didn't have as dangerous a mission as you, but I can tell you that I would never shoot somebody who was in restraints, even if they were the enemy. If I did, then I know that I would be in violation of the regulation, and I certainly wouldn't go whining to O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Stone Phillips, and Time magazine about it when charges were preferred against me.
I would hope that I would have the integrity to get up on the stand at my Article 32 like LTC (R) Allen West and say, "I know what I did [violated the regulation] (I wouldn't characterize it as "wrong"), but I would walk through hell with a can of gasoline for my men."
Pantano's either lying or telling the truth. Sounds like whatever it is, you don't care, let him go either way. Am I wrong about that?
I'm not so ignorant where I see only one side of the issue. Don't you have any faith or loyalty to the Corps as an institution?
"I respectfully ask, how many gooks did you uncuff so they could go back into the hooch and look for boobytraps?"
NONE!
"How many zipperheads did you tie up, then execute?"
NONE!
"And, how many little dink babies' skulls did you buttstroke with your M-16 A1 because you didn't want waste the round?"
NONE!
But I will never, never, never judge a fellow Marine, Sailor, Airman or Soldier unless there is blatant murder involved!
Now I have said all I am going to say on this subject!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Again, either the MSM, politicians and all Americans are going to allow these American Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines to WIN THIS WAR or then just bring every swinging dick home! PERIOD!
"Pantano's either lying or telling the truth. Sounds like whatever it is, you don't care, let him go either way. Am I wrong about that?"
Don't even start to put words in my mouth!
Pantano's investigation should have never gone this far.
He was in a live or die combat situation and unless YOU have ever been in that situation YOU don't have a friggin' clue.
I HAVE and I say HE DID THE RIGHT THING!
I wouldn't have gone through that car myself either.
Let the idiots go through it and if they try to pull something wrong then END IT!
Better them than me and my fellow Marines.
Good day!
kelly,
Thank you for your response. Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion. In fact, you probably have more of a right to say something about this topic than most of the people who have read this thread.
If Lt. Pantano ordered his men to uncuff those prisoners with the intent to shoot them in the back because he was tweaked that they had bomb making materials in the house, then that was an execution and would qualify under your definition of blatant murder. (Sgt. Coburn's story)
If he ordered his men to uncuff those prisoners so they could look for boobytraps, then that was stupid, but not murder if they were coming at him. (Lt. Pantano's story)
But, I am not going to fault the Corps for investigating this report of alleged misconduct.
Okay, Stud. I have been in that situation. Finger on the trigger, weapon of safe and pointed at the target, all I have to do is move my index finger 1/4 an inch and instant death.......it was one of my own guys......luckily, I followed what I was taught and didn't shoot him. At the time, I thought he was the enemy and it was either kill or be killed.
You were infantry. Which one of the 5 S's when dealing with EPW's says unsecure them so they can go back to their vehicle and search for boobytraps? When those terrorists were in handcuffs, Pantano was in the "speed to the rear" phase.
Apparently, Coburn's recitation of what he saw indicates that he was not in a "live or die" situation. That is the whole purpose of the investigation.
Now, if you would like to get back on track with initial suggestion. Stay with me here, Kelly. Why not have them go down and take a polygraph?
Do you think it would be better to not investigate, even though somebody reported an execution? Nothing to see here...Nothing happened......forget about this statement from the RTO.......Move along......
The truth will set him free....or it will convict him, depending on who's telling the truth.
I listened a bit to it on the radio. The lieutenant is very well spoken. Transcripts may be available through Savage's web site.
I don't think it matters which direction they were walking/running in. If they disobeyed an order to halt, then the marine has an obligation (not just a right) to shoot.
I personally don't give a damn how many terrorists our guys kill. The more the better. There's potentially 50-100 million out there that are going to have to die before the appetite for terror subsides. Is the JAG going to do an article 32 on each one? If that's the plan, I would strongly favor closing the JAG and NIS offices and transferring those "shiney" pants bastards into combat units.
As for the dumb SOB Coburn, he'd probably be dead by now if he hadn't had a good platoon leader like Pantano looking out for his ass.
Why stupid? Would you have searched the vehicle yourself or ordered your marines to search it?
You sound like you're former Medical Corps. Just go back to your living room, sit back, turn on Platoon and do your Rah impressions saying, "The only thing that can kill Bahns........is Bahns. (Spelling in the phonetic).
Which one is it, were they running away or were they coming right at him or were they turned towards each other?
Riddle me this, Batman, what if he shot them in the back while they were still cuffed. Would that be murder?
By the way, JAG isn't doing an Article 32 on each and every killing in Iraq. But, I will humor you. Unless you are in Kuwait, the term REMF, or "shiney pants" doesn't apply. If you were over there, then you would understand that nobody is safe. So guess what, JAG is pretty much a combat unit. And, another thing, they do not prefer charges. Commanders prefer charges. JAG's advise; Commanders decide. So, who should you be vetting against? An infantry commander, perhaps? Do you know anything about the way the military justice system works?
Do you know Coburn? I don't, but you seem to know him well enough to refer to his mother in a most derogatory manner. Can you tell me about him?
Now, the purpose of my post was to discuss the possibility of a polygraph. Would you care to comment on that one? I noticed that you picked out some very irrelevant parts of my post, yet, you would not comment on the crux of the post, which is why not send them down for a polygraph?
You can get back to me on that one.
Why stupid? Would you have searched the vehicle yourself or ordered your marines to search it?
No, I would have "sped" the terrorists to the rear after I had them in cuffs and let the interrogators do what the taxpayers are paying them to do, which is gather intel.
That way, I would not have violated Article 52 of the Geneva Convention by making my prisoners perform dangerous labor.
And, since I already placed my Corpsman in harms way by making him search the vehicle (is that really the Corpsman's job?), then if I had any inclination that the vehicle was boobytrapped, then I would probably get my engineers to blow the thing up after I cordoned it off.
The last thing I would do, is allow a couple of terrorists to tool around in the very vehicle that I thought was an IED while I stood 10 feet away. That just doesn't seem to be the smartest thing in the world to do. Especially, when I've been trained to "speed" the prisoner to the rear. Especially, when I've been trained that it is unlawful for me to force my prisoners to perform dangerous labor.
But, I'm willing to give the Lt. the benefit of the doubt and say that his motives might not be sinister. His methods might simply be stupid.
But, I've heard him on Dateline. I've read the Time articles. He's pretty smart. And, this is why the Lt's story doesn't add up....because he is not stupid. This is why it sounds like he formed the intent to kill them before he had them uncuffed. Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, he saw South Park a few times and thought, "I can shoot anything as long as a scream, the coming right for us!" before I pull the trigger.
That is why when you have a witness that says he saw them shoot the Iraqis in cold blood while they were facing the vehicle that there has to be an Article 32.
Are we clear?
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.