Defending Our Defenders: Drop the charges, gentlemen.
As many of our readers know, I am an ardent defender of our troops. That is not to say that I blindly defend them. If a soldier truly commits a crime that violates a part of the UCMJ, then they should face the consequences. However when a case—such as the one surrounding 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano—comes to my attention it makes me angry, to say the least.
To give a quick recap of this incident (because the MSM, once again, has dropped the ball; refusing to report on this young Marine) The platoon Lt. Pantano commanded had been ordered to search a suspected terrorist hide-out south of Baghdad last April. After finding weapons, ammunition and bomb-making material in the building, the Marines saw two men fleeing in a sport utility vehicle. The Marines shot out the vehicles tires and took two Iraqi men into custody, ordering them to search for booby traps and secret compartments in the vehicle by ripping out its interior and seats. One of the suspects turned suddenly toward Lt. Pantano. When he ordered them to stop, they kept moving toward him. He thought he was in danger, and fired his weapon, killing both men.
A recent probe conducted by the Marine Corps, led by Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn, came to the conclusion that Lt. Pantano should be cleared of any murder charges. The case rested primarily on the shoulders of the Marine who initially made the accusation that Pantano had murdered two Iraqis in cold blood.
But, Col. Winn points out that the Marine that made those accusations—Sgt. Daniel Coburn—was unreliable.
"The government was not able to produce credible evidence or testimony that the killings were premeditated," Winn wrote. "I think now [Sgt. Coburn] is in a position where he has told his story so many times, in so many versions that he cannot keep his facts straight anymore."
The question is raised why this Marine would make such an accusation. Col. Winn addresses that in the report. Lt. Pantano removed Sgt. Coburn as squad leader weeks before the April 14, 2004, shooting. I will admit that if Sgt. Coburn was holding some sort of a grudge against Lt. Pantano over that removal, he is unworthy of being a Marine.
I have never served in the military, but I know plenty of Marines that would agree with me. Sgt. Coburn would be willing to lie and send a man to prison for the rest of his life, or worse if Lt. Pantano were to receive the death penalty, over a slight such as being removed as a squad leader. Some of the Marines I know would probably welcome five minutes alone in a room with Sgt. Coburn. (I sincerely doubt Sgt. Coburn would be walking out of that room, and most of his meals would be through a straw for the rest of his life.)
Lt. Col. Winn stated that Lt. Pantano should not be cleared of all charges; just the criminal ones of murder and destruction of the Iraqi vehicle. Col. Winn recognized that Lt. Pantano, despite acting properly along the rules of engagement, stated that he showed a lack of discipline in the amount of rounds fired into the Iraqis. Lt. Pantano had also placed a sign over them that read "No better friend, no worse enemy". I will admit that sixty rounds fired into two men is a bit questionable, but I will not raise it; I was not there, and could not make a judgment call on that. The sign (chuckling to myself here) I have no problem with whatsoever. It is true, as any Marine will attest to—they are no greater friend, nor a worse enemy.
But these charges must be dropped. And that decision lies in the hands of Maj. Gen. Richard Huck. Huck received the report on the Friday, and he is going over it to consider the recommendation by Col. Winn. The defense had objected to the choice of Winn as investigating officer, arguing he has no legal experience and made disparaging remarks about defense counsel. It seems, however, that the defense team for Lt. Pantano may have just received a blessing.
Thanks to Lt. Pantano’s mother, a grass-roots effort in support of this young Marine has erupted into a firestorm. (Her website is linked below) Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., drummed up congressional support for Lt. Pantano in April. He even drafted a letter to Pres. Bush requesting that he give support to the Marine. People around the country—like myself—have been watching this unfold. (The complete report can be read on the site below in PDF form.)
http://defendthedefenders.org/
Should Maj. Gen. Huck decide to move forward with all the charges—criminal and "misdemeanor"—a serious travesty will have been committed. This young Marine was given a job to do, which he and his squad did. A pair of Iraqis running out of the building the Marines are searching is beyond suspicious, and what was delivered to the Iraqis was deserved. We cannot put our troops in harm’s way, and expect them to extend "courtesies" beyond what has been mandated. In the field, in a dangerous situation as this one was, it is kill or be killed. Lt. Pantano opted not to be killed. Can the Marines truly blame him? I do not. I agree with his decision. And I support him completely.
Maj. Gen. Huck needs to accept this recommendation, drop the criminal charges, and sentence Lt. Pantano to his administrative punishment for the misdemeanors committed.
The Bunny ;)
As many of our readers know, I am an ardent defender of our troops. That is not to say that I blindly defend them. If a soldier truly commits a crime that violates a part of the UCMJ, then they should face the consequences. However when a case—such as the one surrounding 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano—comes to my attention it makes me angry, to say the least.
To give a quick recap of this incident (because the MSM, once again, has dropped the ball; refusing to report on this young Marine) The platoon Lt. Pantano commanded had been ordered to search a suspected terrorist hide-out south of Baghdad last April. After finding weapons, ammunition and bomb-making material in the building, the Marines saw two men fleeing in a sport utility vehicle. The Marines shot out the vehicles tires and took two Iraqi men into custody, ordering them to search for booby traps and secret compartments in the vehicle by ripping out its interior and seats. One of the suspects turned suddenly toward Lt. Pantano. When he ordered them to stop, they kept moving toward him. He thought he was in danger, and fired his weapon, killing both men.
A recent probe conducted by the Marine Corps, led by Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn, came to the conclusion that Lt. Pantano should be cleared of any murder charges. The case rested primarily on the shoulders of the Marine who initially made the accusation that Pantano had murdered two Iraqis in cold blood.
But, Col. Winn points out that the Marine that made those accusations—Sgt. Daniel Coburn—was unreliable.
"The government was not able to produce credible evidence or testimony that the killings were premeditated," Winn wrote. "I think now [Sgt. Coburn] is in a position where he has told his story so many times, in so many versions that he cannot keep his facts straight anymore."
The question is raised why this Marine would make such an accusation. Col. Winn addresses that in the report. Lt. Pantano removed Sgt. Coburn as squad leader weeks before the April 14, 2004, shooting. I will admit that if Sgt. Coburn was holding some sort of a grudge against Lt. Pantano over that removal, he is unworthy of being a Marine.
I have never served in the military, but I know plenty of Marines that would agree with me. Sgt. Coburn would be willing to lie and send a man to prison for the rest of his life, or worse if Lt. Pantano were to receive the death penalty, over a slight such as being removed as a squad leader. Some of the Marines I know would probably welcome five minutes alone in a room with Sgt. Coburn. (I sincerely doubt Sgt. Coburn would be walking out of that room, and most of his meals would be through a straw for the rest of his life.)
Lt. Col. Winn stated that Lt. Pantano should not be cleared of all charges; just the criminal ones of murder and destruction of the Iraqi vehicle. Col. Winn recognized that Lt. Pantano, despite acting properly along the rules of engagement, stated that he showed a lack of discipline in the amount of rounds fired into the Iraqis. Lt. Pantano had also placed a sign over them that read "No better friend, no worse enemy". I will admit that sixty rounds fired into two men is a bit questionable, but I will not raise it; I was not there, and could not make a judgment call on that. The sign (chuckling to myself here) I have no problem with whatsoever. It is true, as any Marine will attest to—they are no greater friend, nor a worse enemy.
But these charges must be dropped. And that decision lies in the hands of Maj. Gen. Richard Huck. Huck received the report on the Friday, and he is going over it to consider the recommendation by Col. Winn. The defense had objected to the choice of Winn as investigating officer, arguing he has no legal experience and made disparaging remarks about defense counsel. It seems, however, that the defense team for Lt. Pantano may have just received a blessing.
Thanks to Lt. Pantano’s mother, a grass-roots effort in support of this young Marine has erupted into a firestorm. (Her website is linked below) Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., drummed up congressional support for Lt. Pantano in April. He even drafted a letter to Pres. Bush requesting that he give support to the Marine. People around the country—like myself—have been watching this unfold. (The complete report can be read on the site below in PDF form.)
http://defendthedefenders.org/
Should Maj. Gen. Huck decide to move forward with all the charges—criminal and "misdemeanor"—a serious travesty will have been committed. This young Marine was given a job to do, which he and his squad did. A pair of Iraqis running out of the building the Marines are searching is beyond suspicious, and what was delivered to the Iraqis was deserved. We cannot put our troops in harm’s way, and expect them to extend "courtesies" beyond what has been mandated. In the field, in a dangerous situation as this one was, it is kill or be killed. Lt. Pantano opted not to be killed. Can the Marines truly blame him? I do not. I agree with his decision. And I support him completely.
Maj. Gen. Huck needs to accept this recommendation, drop the criminal charges, and sentence Lt. Pantano to his administrative punishment for the misdemeanors committed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home