"I was surprised," Lt. Cunningham said, using "death card" to describe the sign. "I told him it was inappropriate. ... It's just unprofessional."
A second Marine - identified only as "Corporal O" - later testified that he helped interrogate the two Iraqi men who had been stopped as they tried to leave a home suspected of being a terrorist hide-out."Corporal O," described as a cook working to be an Arabic linguist, said the men were scared and claimed to be visiting family in the residence. After the shooting, he testified, the men "looked like they were on their knees. They were shot in the backs."
Beloved sent this article to me just a bit ago, he highlighted the above in red and said the following " Most damning evidence I've heard yet against Pantano. Still not much. The Corporal is not a forensics expert. Seems to confirm the stuff about the sign, though.."
Never good to disagree with beloveds nature! :)
Semper inappropriate !
There is nothing inappropriate about this. It is simply a statement of fact.
If every Marine who left a "death card" or "sign" on the enemy after an ambush or firefight before leaving the area - were arrested, Leavenworth's Military Prison would be overcrowded.
I have NO PROBLEM with the sign, if the kill was justified.
Lt. Pantano's Article 32 hearing is focused on Unjustifed, premeditated murder --- not un-PC behavior.
What remains to be learned- was the kill justified..
So far - doesn't look too good for Lt. Pantano..
But we've only heard the witnesses for the Prosecution so far.
Have NO DOUBT, that the Marine Corps will come to the CORRECT judgement... NO DOUBT.
There is too much at risk.
Semper Fi