Combat Marines Defend Pantano

Well I have read Time Magazines article on this case and now I can make up my mind, I support him unless new information surfaces, there seems to be a disgruntled soldier involved.

The question is why did the Marine Corps even push the issue?

This guy is a patriot, look at what he gave up to join his beloved marines and took an 80% pay cut to do so.......and he showed no likeness to even be a murderer and he warned the Iraqis twice......



A U.S. Marine being investigated for murdering Iraqi citizens has received strong support from his fellow combat soldiers and officers who believe the charges are bogus.


A special investigative hearing will soon be held about the actions of Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano relating to the deaths of two Iraqi during combat in Fallujah in April of 2004.


Time magazine recently noted, "[This] trial will be one of the most closely watched of any to come out of the Iraq war."


Sometime in the next couple of months, Lt. Pantano will appear before a Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 32 investigating officer at Camp Lejeune, N.C. At issue: are there reasonable grounds to believe Pantano committed the offenses of a pair of premeditated murders on April 15, 2004 while serving as a platoon commander in Iraq?


As he did as an infantry platoon commander in Iraq, Pantano will be fighting for his life, this time in a military courtroom, not the bloody streets of Iraq where Marines have been engaged in the worst kind of close-in urban warfare.

Combat Marines Defend Pantano PART 1


Combat Marines Defend Pantano PART 2



Some other links

Marine's charges set 'terrible precedent'


And if you want to see how some treat our soldiers and what they do just look at some of the replies in this thread, it will make you hurl.

Marine sacrifices his life for others in grenade blast



[edit on 3-3-2005 by edsinger]

Its a shame that our military forces fight so hard only to be fought against by their own countrymen in the courts. I back him no matter what he did, whether he did the "crime" or not. HE was on the battlefield in the heat of battle not the rest of us.

Originally posted by PtballDan
Its a shame that our military forces fight so hard only to be fought against by their own countrymen in the courts. I back him no matter what he did, whether he did the "crime" or not. HE was on the battlefield in the heat of battle not the rest of us.

So you will support him even if it is true that he Murdered a civilian in cold blood, typical... You're saying the End justifies the Means right? Hitler said that too....

Doesnt matter to me, he is a US soldier and i trust that he commited what he did under certain cirumstances and reacted correctly.

So let me get this straight, one man kills some Iraqi's on the BATTLEFIELD and is being tried for murder or what not,
Theoretically who should be put on trial for the murder of all the OTHER innocent Iraqi's in bombings and so forth...

this man isnt even on the battlefields, he's either in his nice cosy whitehouse office, or on his RANCH in texas...



'' A Texan village phoned, they want their idiot back ''

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
this man isnt even on the battlefields, he's either in his nice cosy whitehouse office, or on his RANCH in texas...

'' A Texan village phoned, they want their idiot back ''

NO its people with attitudes like this that allow these modern day lynchings to even occur, I would even bet that you have not looked into the details of this case.

"A Massachusetts village phoned, we don't want our traitor back"

Something really smells about the case. I smell a liberal senator somewhere in all this BS. This guy was cleared days after the original action. It was a good shoot. It isn't like the marines to re-open a closed issue, especially for a "bad" sgt pissed off at his Lt.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Something really smells about the case. I smell a liberal senator somewhere in all this BS. This guy was cleared days after the original action. It was a good shoot. It isn't like the marines to re-open a closed issue, especially for a "bad" sgt pissed off at his Lt.

Oh stop with the "its the liberals!"
This is simply to prove his incocence or guilt.
The news hyped it up (what a suprise huh) and turned it into yet again another politcal tool.
Same thing is happening over here, people being used to gain support for the party....
BTW paint, if you trust the any american soldier to never make a crime since they are now robots who dont commit crimes or get affected by human emotions like anger or get fatigue then go ask you local recruiter , "why are the MP's in the military?"

They all makes crimes everyone can and some do, but do the research into this case and I think you will recognize that it is a scam, and yes a liberal-turdblossom senator looking to raise some clout could be behind it because you can bet your ass it isn't John McCain doing it.

Yeah I am makeing that point Ed thanks for answering it...even though it wasnt directed to you...but thanks anyhow.
Because one member of a party makes an alegation doesnt mean the party sides with them.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah I am makeing that point Ed thanks for answering it...even though it wasnt directed to you...but thanks anyhow.
Because one member of a party makes an alegation doesnt mean the party sides with them.

In all honesty, I was serious, the 'turdblossom' folks are reknown for this type of crap.

War crimes are committed on both sides of an engagement in war. The victors and the defeated have had and probably will continue to have war criminals on each side.

This marine claims self defense. Yet another marine has come forward and said otherwise. Now that marine is already labeled as 'disgruntled', simply for stating something he believes to be true. If he has evidence that shows that it was not in self defense then it should be heard.

Just because the marine is a US soldier does not automatically excempt him from war crime tribunals. Let the evidence speak for itself, when the case goes to court.

If he is guilty then he should pay, if he is innocent then he will be exonerated.

Phae

Originally posted by Phaethor

If he is guilty then he should pay, if he is innocent then he will be exonerated.

Phae

Have you actually read the information available in this case? If he is guilty then he will be found so......But I highly doubt he was....

disgruntled? Did you read why this other marine was disgruntled?

Originally posted by edsinger
Have you actually read the information available in this case?

Yes I have. I read dozens of pages, including the reports by the marine that made the accusations. The Lt. had the Navy Corpman do a Full Search of the vehicle, then he released the two Iraqis from their bindings and had the two Iraqis research the vehicle and only shot them after the Navy Corpman and the other Marine had turned around.

Originally posted by edsinger
If he is guilty then he will be found so......But I highly doubt he was....

I wasn't there, You weren't there. These two Marines, a Navy Corpman and the two dead Iraqis were. One of them, or more know the Truth. In any case he may have violated at least one or more of the Principles of the Law of War in using force. That is for the courts to decide. Without them the Truth will not come to light.

Originally posted by edsinger
disgruntled? Did you read why this other marine was disgruntled?

I assume you are referring to having his Lt. shoot two unarmed detained prisoners without provication, then place a sign on the vehicle descicrating the site of their deaths? I know you'll say he had provication. Its the word of one Marine against the word of another Marine.

Remember! Semper Fi - Always Faithful. We should be able to believe that the Truth will Prevail. Again, If he is guilty He should Pay! If he is Innocent he will be exonerated.

Phae

the only way to prove this one way or another is to have unbiased eyewitnesses- something that would be utterly impossible in Iraq at the moment. the only other possibility of proof is to have the bodies of the individuals killed and track the path of the bullets through their bodies, this will tell if the men were in the position he said they were when he fired his weapon. if they were in the situation they are said to have been in, there is no reason they should have turned their backs to the marine yelling at them and faced each other except to make it at least seem as though they were a threat in some way. in that case, a marine can't make the distinction between them acting and actually threatening, so, in that case, it's my opinion, and prolly the military's as well, that he was in the right to shoot. the problem facing the investigative team should be - "is the rest of the story correct?" i don't doubt it is, but it should be investigated just as it wopuld be if it happened on a street corner in Dallas.

Well he had no had combat deaths in his squad even though he was in a rough area, he was harsh on his men and yet the reason he was is plain and the results of casualties among his men bear this out,


as for the desecration, well he had just killed to Iraqi's, the bullseye on him and his men had to be addressed and the way he did it although tacky was very effective I bet...

Until the guy that was mad at him spoke up

Look I don't know either way but I smell a witch hunt.

Wonder if he would have been better with a drum head court martial.....

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I have read Time Magazines article on this case and now I can make up my mind, I support him unless new information surfaces, there seems to be a disgruntled soldier involved.

Indeed, its suspicious that this marine came forward only when he was passed over.

However, is it unreasonable to think that he kept his mouth shut, out of loyalty to his comrades, and then when pantano 'betrayed him' he figured he had no reason to continue to remain quite?

Pantano can be executed for this. It seems a strange charge to make up over a slight. It also seems quite beleivable. Pantano told the other to take up positions that resulted in their backs being to the scene. Pantano claims that he fired when the guy turned to him, but he was shot only in the back no? I am not entirely clear on that.

The question is why did the Marine Corps even push the issue?

Because they are honourable perhaps? The charge is murder, not 'being jumpy'or even 'shooting first and asking questions later'. The suspect was unarmed. Pantano felt safe enough to have the others not watch the situation. More damningly, the suspect wasin cuffs, and pantano uncuffed him and had him go to the car. It certainly warrants investigation, especially with the other soldiers statements. The Military would be remiss to dismiss the charges. Its no small thing. These men are supposed to be soldiers, not savages.

This guy is a patriot,

irrelevant, as is the rest. Benedict Arnold was a great patriot once. Hardly excuses the great traitor.

He shot two unarmed guys in the back, guys who had already surrendered.
I have a hard time seeing that as a heroic action.

Originally posted by PtballDan
Doesnt matter to me, he is a US soldier and i trust that he commited what he did under certain cirumstances and reacted correctly.

I never thought you would stumble into that so blindly. Thank you for illustrating my point for me better then I ever could