Quantcast

Marine charged in killing of Iraqis

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
What's next? Handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500?

Marine charged in killing of Iraqis
THE WASHINGTON TIMES | 15 Feb | Rowan Scarborough

He is the kind of Marine officer who seems to come off the assembly line, so patriotic that he rejoined the Corps after September 11 and went to Iraq to kill terrorists.

That is why it is so hard for 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano and his family to understand how the Marine Corps could call the platoon leader a murderer. He escaped death in Iraq despite daily patrols and raids in the notorious Sunni Triangle.

Back home at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Lt. Pantano, 33, found out the Corps has filed two premeditated murder charges for shooting two Iraqi insurgents in a dusty, terrorist-infested town near Baghdad. If convicted at a court-martial, he would face the death penalty.

"He is a young, intelligent, charismatic Marine officer and all that that entails," states his mother, Merry K. Gregory Pantano, a New York literary agent, on a Web site she created to raise defense funds. "And yet he is incomprehensibly charged with heinous crimes related to a dangerous military operation that took place in 'the triangle of death.' "

To Lt. Pantano, the two Iraqis who came toward him despite his order in Arabic to stop were mortal enemies. Booby-trapped suicide bombers are killing Iraqis by the score and some have even feigned surrender in order to get close to U.S. soldiers. But the Corps views it as murder and filed charges against him Feb. 1.

The case, announced at Camp Lejeune last week, is already driving passions among Marines who know that a split-second delay in defending oneself can result in death.

"Let's stand together and tell our government that it cannot send our boys to the depths of hell and not expect them to see fire and brimstone," said an e-mailer to Mrs. Pantano's site, DefendtheDefenders.org. "It's called war. Sad, dark, horrible, tragic and, in death, permanent."

Lt. Pantano has retained Charles Gittins, a Marine reserve officer and one of the country's most prominent military defense attorneys.

Mr. Gittins said his client reported the shootings to superiors and remained in combat for weeks afterward. It was not until an enlisted man, whom Mr. Gittins described as "disgruntled" after being relieved from two jobs, complained to commanders that an investigation began.

"Lt. Pantano told everyone who needed to know," Mr. Gittins said. "He told them what he did and why he did it. After that, he served three months in combat. Nobody had any problem with it."

The Corps has presented Lt. Pantano with a document known as a "charge sheet" that officially charges him with two counts of murder.

Despite this, a Marine spokesman at Camp Lejeune said the officer had not yet been accused.

Mr. Gittins on Saturday sent a letter to the base's commanding general demanding that he fire the public affairs officer for putting out erroneous information.

Lt. Pantano, raised in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan, had already served his country as an enlisted Marine when al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center. He eventually rejoined, graduating from officer training at Quantico, Va., and earning a commission.

The married father of two sons took a hefty pay cut, going from the $100,000 salary of a New York stock broker and TV producer, to the pay of a Marine second lieutenant.

"If he has a fault," says his mother on the site, "it is that he is too idealistic and puts moral responsibility and duty to his country and his men before anything else."

Lt. Pantano arrived in Iraq in March 2004, leading a quick-reaction platoon, the kind of unit that is crucial to the U.S. military in its battle against insurgents. Such units receive intelligence reports on hide-outs and arms caches, and must move quickly before the enemy can escape.

"He was in combat every day," Mr. Gittins said. "They were taking serious casualties. In the three weeks before [the shootings] happened, there were over 1,000 [dead and wounded] in his area of operation."

On April 15, commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano's men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano's account.

The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised. If it was booby-trapped, the Iraqis, not Marines, would pay the price.

It was at this point that the Iraqis stopped searching and moved quickly toward Lt. Pantano.

"They start talking in Arabic and turn toward him as if they are going to rush him," Mr. Gittins said. "He says, 'stop.' They don't stop and he kills them. He didn't know what they were doing but they weren't listening to him. He was in fear of his life and he killed them."

The lawyer said it turned out that the men were unarmed and there were no weapons in the SUV.

"They were from a town that was really bad in terms of the insurgency," he said.

Marine Corps prosecutors added two other charges that seem to Lt. Pantano's supporters to be piling on. The Corps charged him with destruction of property for slashing the vehicle tires so they could not be repaired.

And, Mr. Gittins said, he was charged with desecration for posting a sign in English on the SUV that said, "No better friend. No worse enemy" — the slogan for the Iraq war of the 1st Marine Division's commander, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis.

Gen. Mattis got in hot water earlier this month when he said at a conference that "it's fun to shoot some people," referring to Islamic militants.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
If he's a 1st Lt. and he's 33 he's evidently not done very well in the Corps - unless its super hard to get promoted in the Corps these days. I would figure even an average officer would be a pretty senior Captian by 33.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Andyman_1970 said:
If he's a 1st Lt. and he's 33 he's evidently not done very well in the Corps - unless its super hard to get promoted in the Corps these days. I would figure even an average officer would be a pretty senior Captian by 33.
He wasn't in the Marines the whole time...

As for the piling on of charges, cry me a river. That happens in the civilian world all the time too. It's wrong and unethical, and I don't know why judges let prosecutors do it, but they do. That's not a raw deal, it's just the same one everyone gets...
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
I dont see any point in punishing him, it was a ****ing mistake... they didnt convict b-52 pilots for killing civilians in WWII when it was foggy out and they missed their targets...
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
mack said:
they didnt convict b-52 pilots for killing civilians in WWII when it was foggy out and they missed their targets...
Probably because the B-52 wasn't in use during WW2.....

I feel for your parents.
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,499
2,805
N8 said:
Maybe he meant B-25's...
Maybe.
Then again, the Allies (understandably) targeted civilians in WW2 so no charges would be filed regardless of weather conditions.
 

mack

Turbo Monkey
Feb 26, 2003
3,674
0
Colorado
Yes, i meant B-25, sorry.


Maybe I should read more WWII magazines because we didnt cover aircraft types in my history class... :rolleyes:
 

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
War sucks, but it is war, after all. If you're going to send soldiers to a place where every local is a potential enemy, and then try them for murder when they kill someone who appears to be a threat, why bother giving them guns?

I absolutely disagree with Bush's war on Iraq, but that doesn't change the fact that young men are over there in constant danger. Soldiers have to be allowed to make their own decisions in perceived life-threatening situations or they have to be pulled out.
 

TheInedibleHulk

Turbo Monkey
May 26, 2004
1,886
0
Colorado
If he did in fact think he was in danger then I obviously don't think he should be charged, but considering the tone of this report, I would say the writer is probably not giving you all the facts. It's an editorial piece, not news. It gave almost no details about the incident. If it was really as clear cut as he made it out to be, it would never had been an issue.
 
Jan 13, 2005
66
0
When I was growing up, I was told to not walk toward the Law Enforcement Officers without their permission, especially when they are conducting a search of a potentially dangerous situation. Maybe things are taught differently in Iraq.

Then again, Iraq had such a crappy legal systems that they probably had no respect for LEO's, even if they meant well and were there to protect the people.

Punishing this Marine is simply idiotic and only serves the purpose of public relations. WE have Iraqi Insurgents killing their own people to intimidate them from coorporating with the American troops were brought them a working infrastructure, and here we are have these military courts trying to make an example of a Marine who did what many of us would have done in that type of situation. Simply unbelieveable.
 

jon cross

Monkey
Jan 27, 2004
159
0
Banner Elk, NC
There's more to the story here.

While at first I was with you guys- why should we punish a Marine for defending his men when he felt threatened? But, as I understand the situation, his men are the ones bringing him up on charges and calling for the Article 32 investigation. Apparently the men were cuffed when they were shot- which is a really blatant violation of the Geneva Convention rules, as they would be legally POWs. At this point it's much to soon to be judging the man, as there is much that isn't known.

Also, he is a Mustang. He enlisted and was a Sargeant during the first Gulf war. He reinlisted for the current conflict and was sent to officer school- it's not like he was an E4 for a decade.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
jon cross said:
There's more to the story here.

While at first I was with you guys- why should we punish a Marine for defending his men when he felt threatened? But, as I understand the situation, his men are the ones bringing him up on charges and calling for the Article 32 investigation. Apparently the men were cuffed when they were shot- which is a really blatant violation of the Geneva Convention rules, as they would be legally POWs. At this point it's much to soon to be judging the man, as there is much that isn't known.

Also, he is a Mustang. He enlisted and was a Sargeant during the first Gulf war. He reinlisted for the current conflict and was sent to officer school- it's not like he was an E4 for a decade.
I agree. This story seems a bit incomplete. If he killed them the way described, I doubt charges would have been filed. I have a feeling that if I had a gun pointed at my by a police officer and then rushed at him and he shot me, it would be investigated but never prosecuted. Same deal here.

And yes, I was also taught to sometimes be wary around law enforcement. Like if you're pulled over, just put your hands on the wheel, don't go digging around for your insurance yet.
 

bmxr

Monkey
Jan 29, 2004
195
0
Marietta, GA
JRogers said:
I agree. This story seems a bit incomplete. If he killed them the way described, I doubt charges would have been filed. I have a feeling that if I had a gun pointed at my by a police officer and then rushed at him and he shot me, it would be investigated but never prosecuted. Same deal here.

And yes, I was also taught to sometimes be wary around law enforcement. Like if you're pulled over, just put your hands on the wheel, don't go digging around for your insurance yet.
I keep my license and registration under the seat. What's wrong with that? :nuts:
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Well, here's my take on it:

We don't know the facts, but there's one thing that's striking.

The publicity started only AFTER he was charged; therefore, the charges were not some high-pressure media thing. Apparently, the Marine Corps saw fit, on its own, both to investigate and to levy charges afterward. That IS interesting.

IF it happened as described above, I'd not think it would be something that they'd prosecute...he was presented with a potential threat (quite clearly) but it's sure possible that a disgruntled Marine could have twisted it around to make it seem sinister.

I frankly have faith that the Marines aren't out to persecute (and prosecute) innocent people just to save face. Of all the branches of the service, I think the USMC would be the last to do it.