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 ...
Proof positive you are a loser, dirtbag, s#*tbird!
Perhaps you didn't read this little statement at the bottom before you posted your last rant:
NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
Seems like you violated all three of these. You know when I can tell that I beat somebody in a debate? When they resort to profanity, name-calling, and violent threats.
And, you are getting way off my point here. I don't want to hook up everybody to polygraphs. Just these two Marines. That's all. It's a very good tool to get the truth out. After that, we can continue our little debate over the Geneva Convention.
But, is your point that we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions when conducting military operations in Middle Eastern countries?
You know, we had a few MP's who didn't follow the Geneva Conventions with regards to how we treat prisoners. So, does that justify Bin Laden ordering 4 civilian airliners to be highjacked and flown into 2 civilian objects killing thousands of innocent non-combatants?
Actually, you do NOT allow the prisoners to search their own vehicle, especially if you think it's a bomb--one of 'em might decide to set it off and take you and your platoon with him.
Lt. Pantano was, at best, extremely stupid. And, unlike most Ell-tees, he's prior enlisted, so he doesn't have the "I'm a newbie dumb$hit" excuse.
They have to be close enough to supervise the prisoners and make sure that they don't try to grab weapons, so they're going to be inside the lethal radius.
There's a reason this is never done. If the vehicle is THAT dangerous, have EOD blow it up for you.
Pantano's actions were felony-grade stupidity.
Poohbah,
I've read your theory about this being felony murder on earlier posts, and I think the idea is:
Larry, Curly, and Moe conspire to rob a bank. They think that once they brandish the guns, then they can get the money without popping off a shot. However, on the day of the robbery, Curly goes crazy and shoots the bank teller when she wouldn't open the safe. Larry and Moe are guilty of felony murder because the killing was performed during the commission of a felony.
I know it works in the civilian world, but I think Major Keane would find it most difficult to try to explain that concept to a panel of Marine officers.
Pantano committed a violation of the 1996 War Crimes act when he made his prisoners perform dangerous labor. This is a felony. And, let's say he's telling the truth and he shot these guys when they were coming at him. That would be felony murder?
But, I think once he uncuffs them, they have an obligation to remain "prisoners" and once they come at him, they give up their protected status.
And, if Major Keane goes on the felony murder theory, then he will lose the panel. When you start to go legalese on these guys, they are going to shut down. You can't confuse them.
It's a simple case, did he form the intent to kill them when he ordered them to be uncuffed? The facts indicate the possibility that he was so enraged when he got the report about the weapons that he ordered his command group to act as "his guardian angels and take posts facing away from him," so they wouldn't see what they were doing before he shot them in the back. Then, he yells CUFF! (Stop in Arabic), and unloads two magazines into their bodies, which would take approximately 40 freaking seconds because his M-16 was not fully automatic and they haven't been for a while. It was on three round bursts. Since they weren't coming at him and his intent to kill them was formed while they were in a protected status, in flexicuffs, then he premeditated their murder. It would be the same as him walking up to them while they were cuffed and shooting them in the head.
The corpsman says in his statement that he saw them fleeing away from Pantano. How can they do that when there is a big vehicle in front of them and their back is to Pantano? He also says that on that day, Pantano stated that they were fleeing. Gittens says they were coming towards him. Pantano's statement on 12 June 2004 states nothing of the kind. He states that they "turned toward each other." That's when he decided they were making a move and he shot them. Well, everybody, which one is it?
The only statement that has not changed is the RTO's statement, which apparently has not been "released" (or maybe "leaked" by the defense) to the media. Nobody knows what Coburn's statement says. C'mon Star-News and Mike Savage. Where's that statement?
That's why the Corps should offer a polygraph to both parties. I'd like to see the reaction of the parties when you ask them if they are willing to go down to NIS and take a poly. Reminds me of King Solomon and the women fighting over the two babies. You'll be able to tell by the answer who is telling the truth.
If Pantano's telling the truth and had taken a polygraph to prove it, then the Corps should have given him the benefit of the doubt before he started popping off to everyone in the MSM.
Now, even if he is not lying, then he should be court-martial'd for the failure to protect his prisoners from the dangers of combat to send a message that you don't uncuff prisoners to make them perform dangerous labor. It is a violation of Article 52 and MCO 3461. You should exercise your other options, such as blowing the thing up.
I think he should be strung up for all the statements he's made against the Corps, which would be in violation of Article 133 because these statements have caused others to view the Corps in a most negative way. You give up your freedom of speech when you join the military. It can be limited, as well as your freedom of religion, and your freedom to associate, and your right to privacy. About the only thing you retain is right to remain silent, your right to an attorney, and your right to a fair trial. Nobody can force you to make a statement. Any infantry officer learns that in their Military Justice classes. Pantano should have exercised his rights under Article 31.
I would add a 133 charge for all these statements, then go all over the web and find all these people that have posted their blogs condemning the Marine Corps. His trying of this case in the media has had a most detrimental effect on how others view the services.
And personally, I think Charge II is completely ridiculous regarding unlawfully damaging the vehicles under Article 109, UCMJ. I would hope that the Article 32 officer would recommend its dismissal. It is going to be a red herring for the defense to harp on and might confuse the panel.
SVB
That should be "King Solomon and the two women fighting over the baby".......my lexdysia is getting the best of me.
SVB
Points taken.
If I remember correctly my friend (see, I didn’t call you a-hole this time…I’m learning Jim Rob) we were discussing the applicability of the Geneva Conventions when you asked the question:
But, is your point that we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions when conducting military operations in Middle Eastern countries?
My point is: we certainly should NOT abide by the Geneva Conventions in any war with an enemy that is not a signer of the Geneva Conventions and/or does not abide be the same. The war on terror is a war against an enemy that serves a “demonic cult” not an overtly supportive foreign nation signitor (sp?) to the Geneva Convention. Admittedly several arab dictatorships covertly support terrorist activities big time. However, the enemy combatants do not wear the uniform of any nation and they certainly do not abide by the Geneva Conventions…ex: the crucifixion of the civilian US contractors at Fallujah. They dress as natives of the nation they are terrorizing in order to blend in; i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. As such, they are spies, espionage agents, subversives, etc…not entitled to the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions, not entitled to POW status...entitled ONLY to be executed when captured. This has always been the case.
Only in the war on terror has their been an attempt by you overzealous lawyer types to enlarge the market for your services by extending Geneva Convention protections to islamofascist vermin hiding behind women and children and by so doing, undermining the morale of our combat troops and jeopardizing the outcome of the entire war.
As such, the JAG office which cannot see the forest for the trees performs the function of imbedded “islamofascist commissar” within our own military…a practice that needs to be crushed immediately.
My advice to you JAG…retire from the service and go into ambulance chasing, tobacco company suing, fire arms manufacturer suing or some other productive line of work.
Marine corp platoon leaders do not have luxery of leisure time to sit around boning up on all the legal "malarky" created by shiney pants JAG lawyers.
Wrong again JAG. It matters NOT what direction the prisoners were headed in. As long as they disobeyed the order to halt, Lt Pantano HAD to shoot. Combat is not a girl scout marshmellow roast like sitting behind a JAG lawyer desk. Disobeying an order to "halt" is an act of suicide.
Not so JAG. I think I speak for most critics on this BLOG when I say the US Marine corp is the finest military organization on the entire planet in spite of it's malignant JAG lawyers who want to referee/monitor the combat actions of our marine corp fighters making sure they "play fair" and conciously or unconciously keeping the world safe for the demonic islamofascist enemy.
I'm sure there are exceptions within the JAG office, but you do not seem to be one of them. At best you come across like a supercilious recent law school graduate with a need to gain a sense of importance by helping "screw over" a real marine.
Our Marines are under lawful orders to follow the GCs. If this Lt. didn't, then his ass is grass and it should be.
And before you go throwing REMF around, my MOS was 0313 which meant I didn't have much chance to be in the rear with the gear. Yes, I've been shot at and yes I've shot back. However, every single swinging d*** who caught one of my rounds was a combatant.
You may not like the rules our people are fighting under. Quite honestly I don't like them much either. But, they are the rules. If this guy wasted a couple of EPWs who weren't resisting or trying to escape he deserves a long prison stretch.
Frankly, ordering suspected enemy to search their own vehicle for an IED sounds major league stupid to me. This former LCPL sure as hell wouldn't want an LT who did anything that dumb being in charge of my young ass in some far off foreign land.
My last point may be lost on you, but I'll make it anyway. The American military has very stringent rules for a reason. If they aren't followed, then all we have to defend us is an armed mob. We simply cannot allow discipline to break down. It's dangerous for our servicepeople, and if you think about it it's even more dangerous for our nation.
I'm not taking one side or the other here. That's why we have trials. Lt. Pantano will have every opportunity to make his case in an open court under the UCMJ. I'm going to wait and see what happens then before I decide one way or the other.
I think you should give our system a chance to work before you go slamming another member of this forum who has voluntarily chosen to strap on a uniform, no matter what his MOS may be.
Insulting him or her as the case may be does a disservice not only to this forum and yourself, but the entire military of this country.
That's just my two cents.
L
Finally, an intelligent statement on your part and one I agree with.
It is going to be a red herring for the defense to harp on and might confuse the panel.
Confuse the panel?? I think the panel will accurately interpret this absurd charge as additional evidence the JAG office is seeking to crucify Lt Pantano to symbolize its power and intimidate combat marines in the performance of their duty that JAG commisars are looking over their shoulder.
Thanks Lurker. You just made my case. Thanks for your service to our country. May Gods Grace be with you.
Did I say something about the JAG lawyers responsible for these charges that was untrue?
Marine corp platoon leaders do not have luxery of leisure time to sit around boning up on all the legal "malarky" created by shiney pants JAG lawyers.
Actually, they do learn military justice and Article 31 of the UCMJ. They learn it at Quantico, which is someplace that you will never be.
Welcome back, Kimosabe. Looks like the week off did you some good.
"Did I say something about the JAG lawyers responsible for these charges that was untrue?"
That statement shows your ignorance about the military justice system. Judge Advocates do not prefer charges. Commanders prefer charges. So, your beef should be with someone in Lt. Pantano's chain of command, a combat Marine.
You've wasted a great deal of time railing on the JAG Corps when your issues are better placed with combat veteran commanders.
And as for your theory on military lawyers trumping up charges to justify their own existence, this really shows your ignorance. Yeah, I'm sure Major Keane is having a great time at Lejeune being lead counsel on this one. Do you know how much work a case like this will be? I'm sure that he would rather be home with his wife and kids. And then, even if you win, you're still the bad guy. Sounds like something every Judge Advocate would like to do.
And why are you so angry? I'll bet that you've been convicted at a court-martial.
I am a conservative. You're rhetorical indicates that you are a radical right-wing nutcase.
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.