Pantano Hearing Begins

Wilmington Star News Online ^ | John DeSantis

[Mom of 2 Marines]

Pantano hearing begins

By John DeSantis Staff Writer john.desantis@starnewsonline.com

CAMP LEJEUNE

A Marine Corps translator told a military hearing officer that he saw the two alleged Iraqi insurgents shot by 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano half inside their automobile, on their knees, with wounds to their backs. He testified during the first day of a preliminary hearing in the case. The witness, identified only as “Cpl. O” because of his involvement with counterintelligence operations, also said he saw a hand-lettered sign atop the car where the bodies lay reading “No better friend, no worse enemy.” Under questioning by defense attorneys, Cpl. O said the phrase was often spoken to Iraqis by military personnel, to explain to them that while U.S. forces could be friendly, they could also be enemies. This was a means, Cpl. O said, of discouraging Iraqis from joining the insurgency. Lt. Pantano, 33, is accused of premeditated murder in connection with the April 15, 2004 shootings of Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil outside a house suspected of being an insurgent hideout. Lt. Pantano maintains he acted in self defense. But military prosecutors have prepared a case that suggests the shooting was unjustified, and instead an act of murder. The case involving the Marine, who lives in Wilmington with his wife and two small sons, has drawn worldwide attention. It has generated anger from members of veterans groups and other supporters who say a Marine should not be prosecuted for killing the enemy. But whether the two men were indeed insurgents or not is something prosecutors appear prepared to question. During an early phase of Tuesday’s hearing, defense lawyers objected to a prosecution description of Mr. Kareem and Mr. Hanjil as “victims.” “If it is a justified killing they are not victims, they are insurgents,” civilian defense counsel Charles Gittins said. The officer in charge of the hearing, Maj. Mark E. Winn, struck a compromise. “We will not refer to these men as victims or insurgents,” Maj. Winn said, opting for the phrase “alleged victims.” Cpl. O said he questioned the two men after they were seized while leaving a house suspected of being an insurgent nest. He said he questioned the two men in Arabic while they lay detained on the ground, and that they were passive and frightened, denying any connection to the insurgency. After doing so, he said, he spoke with people who had been inside the house, where mortar aiming stakes and at least one rifle were found, and that they also denied any insurgent connection. Cpl. O said he heard many shots fired and that when he went back to the area where the two men were he saw their bodies, half in and half out of their white sedan. “One in the front seat, one in the back seat, a door separating the two bodies, their knees on the ground,” Cpl. O said. “They looked like they were on their knees, they were shot in their backs.” Another prosecution witness, Lt. Samuel Cunningham, testified that he heard anywhere from 40 to 50 shots fired, and so he put members of his squad, who were at a bridge near the house, on a state of alert. His squad was also part of Lt. Pantano’s platoon, and had been ordered to remain near the bridge while two other squads traveled to the house to search it. He said Lt. Pantano told him he had placed a sign above the dead mens’ car that read “No better friend no worse enemy,” and that he found that behavior unprofessional and inappropriate. Prosecutors, led by Maj. Stephen Keane, did not present an opening statement, nor did the defense. Maj. Winn said opening statements are not required at preliminary hearings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was responding to an objection lodged by Mr. Gittins, who wished to make one. Lt. Pantano, who arrived in the courtroom accompanied by his wife, Jill, his mother, Merry Pantano, of New York City, and other relatives, took occasional notes during the proceedings. After the hearing, Mr. Gittins said Cpl. O was not qualified to offer information on where the men were shot, and that he would not know the difference between an exit wound and an entry wound. Asked whether Cpl. O’s statement that the two men had an open car door between them conflicts with Lt. Pantano’s prior statements that he became fearful for his life when the two men turned toward each other, Mr. Gittins said no. The defense contention that the two men continued speaking in Arabic after repeatedly being told to be silent by Lt. Pantano, he said, provided enough reason for fear that justified killing. Tuesday’s proceedings, which began at around 1 p.m., were concerned in large part with administrative manners, including a challenge by the defense of Maj. Winn’s fitness to serve as the hearing officer. A Marine Corps attorney on the defense team, Capt. Brandon Bolling, questioned Maj. Winn for nearly an hour, asking him about an alleged conversation he had at a Carteret County tavern called Kelsey’s with another member of the defense team. Capt. Bolling asked the hearing officer if he had stated that he did not wish to serve on the case, and whether he had made statements that could be considered disparaging of Mr. Gittins. Maj. Winn said no such conversations occurred, and he found himself qualified to serve.

  John DeSantis 343-2223 or john.desantis@starnewsonline.com

[Mom of 2 Marines]

Now that the Marines are opening up, this is going to get very interesting...

[Mom of 2 Marines]

Now that the Marines are opening up, this is going to get very interesting...

[Mom of 2 Marines]

Oops! Sorry, didn't mean to double-post.

[kimosabe31]

bump