# Marine Lieut. charged with murder for killing Iraqi's



## ginshun (Mar 1, 2005)

Time magazine story

 I am sure that some of you have already heard of this.  It is the case of Marine 2nd Lieut. Ilario Pantano.  As the story goes, he was in a combat situation, when he shot and killed two Iraqi's, who turned out to be unarmed. Now he is being charged with two counts of pre-medidtated murder.

 I was just wondering what some people on here thought of this situation, and the way it is being handled.

 IMO, this is just plain ridiculous.  These guys are in a war zone for gods sake!  People are getting killed every day, all around them.  Now they have to worry about stuff like this.

 Lt. Pantano and several other soldiers that were there say that the two Iraqi's both turned and started toward him, and that he yelled for them to stop in there language.  When they didn't, he shot them.  Now the Time article that I linked to said that he shot them in the back, so I am not sure how that works.  I don't really know what to believe.  What I do know is that he says he felt threatened by them and other soldiers confirmed that his actions were the same as theirs would have been.  That is enough in my book.

 I also know that I wouldn't want to be in the situation of the soldiers that are still over there right now.  Now they not only have to worry about whether or not the next person they meet might kill them, but now they have to worry about going to prison too if they misjudge that situation.


----------



## kid (Mar 1, 2005)

you know what if i was in hostile territory and someone was walking twords me and didn't comply whith a show of being unarmed.  It's my responsibility to protect myself and my fellows.  He had to act or not act and possibly face worse conditions.


----------



## kid (Mar 1, 2005)

Something esle happened this is just a cover for whatever really happened.  I mean it is absolutly rediculous this guy is being told that he did something wrong, something else happened and this was thrown infront to distract the main problem whatever that may be.  Anyone agree?  Disagree?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 1, 2005)

American soldiers have been held to high standards of accountability in combat for a very long time -- and have upheld them in most cases.


----------



## kid (Mar 1, 2005)

the standards you are talking about are almost the same laws of engagement a police officer has.  the big differnce is that a cop ain't at a war.  especially one he doesn't belong at.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 1, 2005)

An unfortunate tale. Is he being used as a scapegoat? Perhaps.

He had the two in handcuffs. He took the handcuffs off.

I don't know much, but that seems odd.



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> "The single biggest problem with the Iraq operation is that the military is at war but the nation is not," says an officer. A former Marine colonel who served for 27 years says the Marine Corps "always values its reputation and image. They want to act and be known as the good guys. They are very mindful of how they are perceived both domestically and overseas,


----------



## Rynocerous (Mar 2, 2005)

kid said:
			
		

> the standards you are talking about are almost the same laws of engagement a police officer has. the big differnce is that a cop ain't at a war. especially one he doesn't belong at.


Actually the standards are definately different, and the fact that these soldiers are fighting where they don't belong is a matter of opinion. Yours as a civilian is tainted by the media and propaganda that is ongoing every day. Any police officer would also argue the fact that they aren't at war. They are constantly at "war" with crime, just as the military is at war with terrorism. They have a very dangerous job and I have nothing but respect for any man in uniform.

Cheers,

Rynocerous


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2005)

I dont know all the details of this, as really no one here does.

Putting the pieces together, as I have heard them, readin the article, this is the situation in my head...

The Marine was in a "Hot Spot" and saw a vehicle fleeing the area. It was stopped, and two Civilians were ordered to show they had no weapons in the vehicle. They did so, but then they turned on the marine.

The article says after that: "What happened next cost both Iraqis their lives"

But does not specify what that was.

In this situation, based on the information presented in that article, I'm sorry to say I would have shot them as well.

I mean, In a WAR ZONE, when everyone you see can potentially be an enemy combatant, if someone acts like an enemy, you NEED to act. If you do not, and they are in fact an enemy, you risk not only losing your life, but the lives of your friends and fellow soldiers.

*It is ok to hold our soldiers to a standard of conduct.* In fact, it is neccessary. His actions afterwords were certainly questioable.  But what happens if we start second guessing them, and pressing charges everytime one of them discharges their weapon, is that we create a situation where the Soldier has to think about wether he is going to be courtmartialed if he acts, or if he is going to be killed along with his teammates if he fails to act... and that hesitation WILL lead to our soilders being killed in greater numbers. 

The fact of the matter is this: if you are a non-combatant and asked to do somthing, you comply. You dont make sudden movents, act like you have a weapon, argue, etc... This is nothing unusual, they say the same thing here about confrontations with law enforcement. 

If we toss our soldiers in jail everytime someone does not, and we react, we will, effectivly cripple our military. Feel how you do about the conflict, but IMO, if we do that, we may as well all hand our belongings over and chop our own heads off, because there will be NO ONE to protect us when they come for us, as everyone in the military will be in jail and/or dead.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> He had the two in handcuffs. He took the handcuffs off.
> 
> I don't know much, but that seems odd.


 No, not really.  Think about it for a second.

 Two suspected insurgants, and a possibly booby trapped car.

 Are YOU gonna lift the seat cusions, or back off and make THEM? 

 I know which *I* would choose.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 3, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But what happens if we start second guessing them, and pressing charges everytime one of them discharges their weapon...


 Thankfully, however, we're not pressing charges everytime soldiers discharge weapons.  This is one charge (or set of charges?) against one Marine Lieutenant.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 3, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Thankfully, however, we're not pressing charges everytime soldiers discharge weapons. This is one charge (or set of charges?) against one Marine Lieutenant.


Uh huh.

*Just one this time.*

And what happens the next time this occurs?  Do we ignore it?  There is a REASON the legal system has somthing called "Precedent"... 

It might be more realistic to call this not "one charge" but perhaps "The FIRST Charge"

But we will have to wait and see, wont we?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 3, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> And what happens the next time this occurs? Do we ignore it? There is a REASON the legal system has somthing called "Precedent"...


 You're right; and if the charges are shown to lack merit, the precedent will be set accordingly.  If the Lieutenant was shown to have committed murder, then charges will likely continue to be filed when American servicemen commit murder.  As they should be.

 You may remember that Americans *have* committed murder in war, and been charged and tried for it.  This has not resulted in charges being filed every time an American soldier discharges his or her weapon.


----------



## kid (Mar 3, 2005)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> Actually the standards are definately different, and the fact that these soldiers are fighting where they don't belong is a matter of opinion. Yours as a civilian is tainted by the media and propaganda that is ongoing every day. Any police officer would also argue the fact that they aren't at war. They are constantly at "war" with crime, just as the military is at war with terrorism. They have a very dangerous job and I have nothing but respect for any man in uniform.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rynocerous


I dont know what to say.  Besides do you aggree with the war?  Me personaly i like peace.  Now that doesn't seem very likely, but war is definately a step in the opposite direction.

Also you and i are only allowed to read what they want us to read.  That does not mean its the truth.  If you beleive that an American soldier shot and killed two civilians.  What the hell were they doing infront of the gun anyways.  Its common sense to anyone to avoid potentially dangerous situations.  Its plain stupidity not to realize this in a war zone.

Its differnt to be in a war and to fight crime.  A cop goes home to a family, a comfortabe place, after his/her shift.  Is that what a soldier gets to do?  I comend all law enforcement but they are not at war. 



Kid


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 4, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> You may remember that Americans *have* committed murder in war, and been charged and tried for it. This has not resulted in charges being filed every time an American soldier discharges his or her weapon.


 I agree with this.  However, from the information presented in that article, (and yes, I did say that the FACT is that none of us know what really happened)  *from what was presented*, the Marine acted in a manner consistant with the actions REQUIRED in a combat situation.  As an infantry soldier, THIS is what *I* was trained to do... I spoke to a friend of mine who fought in Iraq with the Army Rangers the first time around, he said that is exactly what he would have done... Now granted the word of 1 serviceman "onsite" claimed that the Marine acted in the wrong, but 2 others say he did not... so who knows.

 My fear is that this trial, regardless of the outcome, will set a precident that  "if you fire, you may be charged" and it will cause our servicemen to hesitate, or even Fear to protect themselves,  and cost  many more lives than this already has... as I stated before, if a person, innocent or not, acts like a hostile in a combat zone, the NEED to be treated as one, without fear of reprisal if they are innocent.

 Imagine YOUR horror if I walked up to you, swung my fist but stopped short of your face, and your "martial training" kicked in and you popped me in the face and I sued you for assault... because I didnt ACTUALLY do anything, I was "innocent"... 

 Same Same, in my mind.  I think this action is dangerous.  If this soldier out and out walked up to any old Iraqi and said "Hey You" and then blew him away, Then yes, the soldier deserves to be locked away, or whatever punishment they see fit for him, but AS THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US, that does not, on the surface, appear to be the case... And if it doesn't to us, that most likely means it also does not to the average Gi Joe over there... ask yourself whats going thru his/her head after hearing about this?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 4, 2005)

Or, 

playing devil's advocate ... 

I had the suspected insurgents in custody, detained and restrained. I removed the restraints and shot them. I can argue, that they turned on me aggressively, and had to shoot in self-defense.

Now, I agree, that I don't know that I would want to poking around the stopped vehilce if there might be explosives inside. But, I would think the United States military might have, somewhere, the proper tool for searching vehicles for explosives. 

In this situation, the best tool for looking for explosives is a detained Iraqi? Our military budget really is way too high, if this is true.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would think the United States military might have, somewhere, the proper tool for searching vehicles for explosives.


Yeah..they're called Marines. There aren't enough EOD guys in the known universe to check every suspicious vehicle, package etc over there.....


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, I would think the United States military might have, somewhere, the proper tool for searching vehicles for explosives.





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah..they're called Marines.


Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Which against beg the question, why take the hand restraints off of the detained suspects?

If you pulled me over, hand cuffed me, would you take the handcuffs off and have me open the trunk of my vehicle?

I don't know that I am terribly comfortable with a murder charge in this situation, but from my inexperienced point of view, something doesn't seem right.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. Which against beg the question, why take the hand restraints off of the detained suspects?
> 
> If you pulled me over, hand cuffed me, would you take the handcuffs off and have me open the trunk of my vehicle?
> 
> I don't know that I am terribly comfortable with a murder charge in this situation, but from my inexperienced point of view, something doesn't seem right.


The way the military trains it...you DO have the BG check the vehicle (was trained that way prior to Bosnia deployment) because either a) He hesitates or refuses to open the area that has the bomb. b)He does blow the bomb but at least it isnt in his intended target area c) He decides to fight or flee instead of checking his own vehicle.

If I think that opening the hood could possibly trigger a device, Im going to have YOU open it, not ME.

This is combat...civilian concepts of LEO type procedures do not always apply. The goal isnt to arrest here, I think people are confusing combat and law enforcement these days.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

In this technique, you maintain close observation of the subject and deal with his actions according to the rules of engagement. If the guy made a sudden move and I thought he was going to trigger a car bomb, blasting me and my men to hell...Id smoke him sure as shootin.

Is this what happened here? I dont know. I would only have had 1 subject released from restraints to check the vehicle. Why they all were? I dont know, I would have to ask. If some of his own men question his actions then maybe there is something going on....guess we'll have to wait for details.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think people are confusing combat and law enforcement these days.


I appreciate the differences between combat and civilian law enforcement. And I understand why military procedure may be what it is.

Still.. having the people restrained, and then removing the restraints, for whatever reason, sure looks like I am presenting myself with the opportunity to shoot the SOB's. 

You remember the scene from old westerns ... the villian strips the townspeople of weapons, then baits them to run, maybe firing some bullets at their feet. When someone runs, the villian shoots him in the back. Sure, its a caricature, but that image is a pervasive as Wile E. Coyote hanging in the air for two seconds before gravity kicks in.

And I really wish you could stop talking down to me. I am not a police officer, I have never served in the military. But that does not mean I do not understand the responsibilities of those positions are.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2005)

After reading the Time piece a little more thoroughly, im leaning towards it being a "good shoot". In a combat situation where you have a vehicle fleeing the zone, you dont have the luxury of LEO techniques like detain and wait for EOD. You have the BG (personally I would have only had 1 BG check but this guys in a war zone Ill give him a little latitude), check the vehicle in case its booby trapped. That way hes the booby that gets trapped not me. The BG starts acting "hinky" wont follow commands (given in his own language) and makes a sudden move....seems pretty simple to me. If they were cops theyd be up for murder, but this is War and they are Marines.

If you stop the car and initially restrain the occupants until you decide what to do....then you decide to have them search the car....you have to remove the restraints.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 4, 2005)

It is a shady case, all around.  Based on what I have read about it the guy seems justifed in his actions.  

 One thing that I am sure of, is that whatever the outcome, it sends the message to current troops that they need to hesitate and think twice about there actions, even in the middle of a war zone.

 That is the wrong message IMHO.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 10, 2005)

I heard some more on this last night. Apperently the guy who is the accuser in this case is a guy under the Lt.'s command, that was demoted for poor performance.  He also didn't file the complaint/accusation until two months after the incident happened.


  Shadier and shadier.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 18, 2005)

Senator Walter Jones of North Carolina has set forth house resolution 167, calling for the US government to drop all charges against Lt. Pantano. 

Here is a link to H.R. 167

 (it is in PDF format)

 It is short and to the point. Please take the time to read through it, and if you agree call your congressmand and tell him/her to support it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

Oh, just FYI--a Navy SEAL Lieutenant, "Lieutenant L." is on trail in San Diego for the death of a man he and his Team arrested (fair enough--he deserved it, most likely), hooded, beat with their fists and with rifle barrels, then turned over to the CIA at the most famous Baghdad prison.

The CIA apparently chained this guy's wrists behind him, then hung the wrist-chain from a wall hook about eight feet off the ground so that his arms were twisted backwards and up, and continued to beat him. That's how they found him, dead, next morning.

But it's not torture!


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2005)

What does that have to do with this thread? A little trollish there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

Whoops, my mistake. The fact that a Navy lieutenant has been charged with murder for killing an Iraqi has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that a Marine lieutenant has been charged with murder for killing an Iraqi.

If it did, why, that might show some pattern in our military...fortunately, the Marines are in no way connected to the Navy, and killing one Iraqi has nothing to do with killing another Iraqi, and murder is a totally different crime than...hey, wait a minute...than murder?

Clearly, just another of my leaps of logic.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2005)

Two totally different situations...the Marine was in the middle of an active battlefield situation dealing with what he perceived of as a hostile threat. The SEALS had a prisoner in a secure location.

It would be like equating me shooting somebody on the street when he came out of a car with what I though was a gun in his hand (even if it turned out to be a cell phone) to me beating a suspect to death in the station trying to get a confession. Apples and Oranges.

Bringing in an entirely different example, totally outside of the scope of this conversation, with an obviously inflammatory "tone" designed to incite an argument is troll behavior IMO.

If the bridge fits.....


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If it did, why, that might show some pattern in our military...


Well, honestly, you would need to show a demonstrable connection running deeper than the fact that both soldiers operate under the same CIC in order to illustrate a significant connection. 

I agree, this is irrelevant. Different circumstances, different commands, different operations, really.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 23, 2005)

Its an attempt to take every "bad" thing done by a serviceman and equate it to a systematic problem.

If I were to take crime stats. catagorized by race and make a judgement statement about that entire race based on those stats, what would you call me?


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 23, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1032357,00.html?promoid=rss_world
> 
> I was just wondering what some people on here thought of this situation, and the way it is being handled.
> 
> IMO, this is just plain ridiculous. These guys are in a war zone for gods sake! People are getting killed every day, all around them. Now they have to worry about stuff like this.


 Couldn't agree more......charging someone in a war zone with murder is kind of like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 23, 2005)

1. Yes--why should we pay attention to that wacky UCMJ, or those simply ABSURD Geneva Accords?

2. Uh...maybe they're both charged with the same thing? And, uh...maybe both accusations have to do with violating the same sections of the UCMJ, and suggest being kinda out-of-control?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

OK...why dont you start a "SEALS Charged with murder" thread then?

This one was about if a Marine, in battle, made a justifiable shooting of somebody he believed was a threat. Not about a SEAL who killed a prisoner during interrogation. Apples and Oranges (again)


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Yes--why should we pay attention to that wacky UCMJ, or those simply ABSURD Geneva Accords?
> 
> 2. Uh...maybe they're both charged with the same thing? And, uh...maybe both accusations have to do with violating the same sections of the UCMJ, and suggest being kinda out-of-control?


 
 First off, you can't connect two crimes just because they both invoved murder charges brought against military personel.  There is absolutly no connection between the two, and IMO there is no pattern.  Its like connecting someone shot by a cop in a roadside incident, and someone else killed by a cop from a different department durring an interogation.  Does that show that cops like killing people?  No, it doesn't, and connecting he situation that you mentioned with the one that this thread is about, is very faulty logic at best.

 And how about a link to the case you are talking about?  I would actaully like to read some facts of the case, as opposed to taking your version of events at face value.  Just because you seem like taking sides agaist our military doesn't mean everyone does.

 I short, if you have something to say about Lt. Pantano's case, either for him or against him, then feel free, but don't just throw out random torture  allegations against a different person and try to connect the two to try and make him and our military in general out to be the bad guys.

 If the case you are talking about is actually one that you are interested in, and have interst in discussing, then start a thread about it.


----------



## ninjaboyelroy (Mar 24, 2005)

While I have no opinions one way or the other on the specific story referred to in the original thread, i do take issue with the charecterization of Iraq being a "war zone".

The war is over. Saddam is in custody.

The current situation is not a war but, for want of better terms, peacekeeping/making/nation building as well as dealing with an extremely nasty insurgency situation.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

Maybe you are right, and it is not technically a "war zone"  but for all intensive purposes it is.  Especially seeing as how more Americans have died since the war "ended" than did while it was still going on.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

Independent of whether these individuals commited murder, the idea that people in a war zone should _never_ be charged with murder is the kind of idea that leads directly to atrocity, to mass murder, and to genocide.  

 You don't have to be a historian to know this -- I would think that flipping through a grade-school history book, or even occasionally landing on the History Channel, would teach you that.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

Did anyone say that soldiers in a war zone should never be charged with murder?  I don't think I did.

 This thread is about a specific case, where a guy is getting a raw deal.  The more you look into it the more it is plain to see.  I am not saying that soldiers are incapable of making bad decisions.  I am saying that this guy didn't.

 A couple of things just smell bad in this case.  The fact that the only one making accusations of wrongdoing was a guy who Lt. Pantano demoted a couple months earlier.  The fact that Lt. Pantano was given an excellent evaluation and recommended for promotion a couple of months AFTER the accusations were made.  The whole case is just a crock IMO, and in a lot of other peoples too.

 All opinions are welcome, if you disagree with me, by all means say so, but lets keep the discussion limited to the case at hand.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Did anyone say that soldiers in a war zone should never be charged with murder?


 Actually, yes:



			
				RRouuselot said:
			
		

> charging someone in a war zone with murder is kind of like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, yes:


   Thanks for misquoting me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

1. You were quoted accurately, and in context: you're arguing about interpretation.

2. Simple connection: excessive force, employed in ways that lead to a death.

3. Listen up: please show me where I said anything, "to try and make him and our military in general out to be the bad guys." That's your fantasy, not mine.

The absurd notion that soldiers cannot be guilty of such murder, given their situation, is directly contradicted by the Geneva Accords, the Nuremberg Trials, and the present UCMJ.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Simple connection: excessive force, employed in ways that lead to a death.
> 
> 3. Listen up: please show me where I said anything, "to try and make him and our military in general out to be the bad guys." That's your fantasy, not mine.
> 
> The absurd notion that soldiers cannot be guilty of such murder, given their situation, is directly contradicted by the Geneva Accords, the Nuremberg Trials, and the present UCMJ.


 
 2.  I think that the whole point of Lt. Pantano's case in that in his opinion, and also in the opinion of his supporters (myself included) what he did wasn't excessive force.  It was the force that was called for in his situation.  I doubt that someone who beat to death a man in shackles could argue the same thing, but who knows.

 3.  This is just semantics, you bringing up a totally unrealated incident one in which you claim a member of the military beat a person to death for no reason, is where I got this idea from.  To me it seemed like an attempt to vilify the military in general.  Perhaps I misinterpreted your intentions, but I doubt it.

 And once again, I will point out that I never meant to imply that soldiers could do no wrong, just that I don't think this particular one did anything that was not justified, given the situation he was in as I understand it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Thanks for misquoting me.


 Actually, I quoted you exactly.

 How else do you think your quote should have been interpreted?  Do you think speeding tickets _should_ be handed out at the Indy 500, and that some people in a war zone _should_, under some circumstances, be charged for murder?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

Axly, "ginshun," I'm not claiming any such thing. The Navy brought the charges, as they did in the other case.

But I'd be curious to know what you'd call it when a group of SEALs grab somebody out of a house, throw a hood over his head and drag him to their base, beat the helpless prisoner for a while, then turn him over to the CIA at the local prison, and they chain him up so that he's hanging from a wall with both arms twisted up and back behind him--and in the morning, the guy's dead.

What would that be, exactly?

I get pretty sick and tired of these constant, "you must hate America," comments. I could pretty much assure you that I've been in this country a helluva lot longer than you, and I like to think that I've done as much for my country as you ever have, but don't let me stop the Mikey Savagism.

But you do have a point, since as a wacky radical I tend to be opposed to murder. Go figure.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, I quoted you exactly.
> 
> How else do you think your quote should have been interpreted?  Do you think speeding tickets _should_ be handed out at the Indy 500, and that some people in a war zone _should_, under some circumstances, be charged for murder?


 Maybe I should have said misunderstanding my comment and then quoting it out of context. 
    You obviously tried to take my sarcastic comment and use it for your own benefit.
 Do I think nobody should never be charged with murder in a war zone? No, there are most definitely some cases where they should be.

   Just out of curiosity do you think we should charge bomber pilots and their crews from WWII, Korean, and Vietnam wars with murder since they killed literally millions of innocent men, women and children?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Try as you might Robert, your point is being made in the wrong place. There is no connection, besides somebody being dead, between these cases. Its like comparing the recent school shootings in Mn. to a gas station robbery/killing in the same town because the subjucts were both Native Americans.

What is the similarity between these cases besides charges being filed against US servicemen? In what way is a Marine shooting somebody because he thought they were a threat (even if they in fact were unarmed) and a SEAL beating a prisoner to death? Unless you are implying that you believe that Lt. Pantano killed these men just because he could. If thats the case show your proof.

Personally I just think you enjoy stirring up an argument, which is fine if others choose to take it up with you. At least keep it on the thread topic. If the title were "US soldiers keep killing Iraqi's", it would be a different story.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Maybe I should have said misunderstanding my comment and then quoting it out of context.


 It was quoted exactly within context.  You sarcastically stated, categorically, that charging people with murder in times of war was, categorically, like charging people with speeding at an auto race.



			
				RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Do I think nobody should never be charged with murder in a war zone? No, there are most definitely some cases where they should be.


 This is the first time you've suggested anything of the sort.



			
				RRouselot said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity do you think we should charge bomber pilots and their crews from WWII, Korean, and Vietnam wars with murder since they killed literally millions of innocent men, women and children?


 No, I don't.  And I don't think the question is even slightly relevant.  Nowhere in this discussion has anyone suggested that all kinds of killing in warfare is murder, nor that all people who practiced it are should be charged with murder, regardless of whether those acts should have been carried out.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 1)It was quoted exactly within context. You sarcastically stated, categorically, that charging people with murder in times of war was, categorically, like charging people with speeding at an auto race.
> 
> 
> 2) This is the first time you've suggested anything of the sort.
> ...


     1)Was it? Thanks for clarifying what I am thinking for me.what would I do without. Obviously sarcasm is lost on you.

     2)And?????

*3)*This reminds me of the line from Tom Cruises movie *Collateral*.. *10, 000 people are killed in **Rwanda** and you dont care. I off one fat Angelino and you throw a hissy fit


*  In the BIG picture a loss of life is a loss of life and can never be brought back.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This is the first time you've suggested anything of the sort.


Also, dont forget that just because someone does not talk about somthing, does not mean they dont believe it.

Ive never said we should give food to the homless, but It doesnt mean I dont, wouldnt, or havn't.

Just food for thought. (no pun intended)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

Actually, the defense's claim in the, "Lieutenant L.," case is that the death happened in CIA custody, and they should be the ones accused of murder.

I also have no idea whether Lt. Pantano should even have been charged, let alone convicted. I'm assuming that he wasn't charged just for the hell of it...but I haven't seen the evidence, and I wasn't there.

However, I don't see what the big logical leap is about: same war, same basic charge, same branch of service, same time frame, same context of Bush Administration encouraging torture, illegal detention, etc.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Did you even read what happened with Lt. Pantano?

As to the "same branch of service" statement. Im waiting for the Marines here to flip over being called the Navy.......(The Branches of Service: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard...SEALS are Navy)


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

Here try reading this one..

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20050225.shtml




> "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."
> 
> 
> Theodore Roosevelt, 1903


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Here try reading this one..
> 
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20050225.shtml


 Excellent article.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

http://www.defendthedefenders.org/quotes.html



> An Incidental Defense for Ilario Pantano
> By MARINE OFFICER
> I would like to take a few minutes to present my own defense for a man named Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, who has recently been accused of pre- meditated murder in a combat zone, better known as Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 25, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> 1)Was it? Thanks for clarifying what I am thinking for me.what would I do without. Obviously sarcasm is lost on you.


 I can't clarify what you're thinking, but what you stated was clear for everyone to see. Your sarcasm clearly wasn't lost, since I used the word "sarcastically" in my description -- do try to keep up with the conversation, please



			
				RRouuselot said:
			
		

> 2)And?????


 *And*, up until now, your only comments on the situation were a sarcastic comment about how no one in a time of war should be charged with murder. Without doing the mind-reading you accused me of above, it would be difficult to determine any other position.



			
				RRouuselot said:
			
		

> _3)_This reminds me of the line from Tom Cruises movie _Collateral_.. _10, 000 people are killed in __Rwanda__ and you dont care. I off one fat Angelino and you throw a hissy fit_


 It's interesting how you would compare a looting, murdering genocide to aerial warfare which has not been clearly declared a violation of international law; and moreover, how the offhanded brutal line of a murderer in a Hollywood film suffices for your response to a topic you brought up which was already irrelevant to the thread at hand.

 It all becomes clear to me, however -- you've been a troll from the very beginning with your sarcastic comment about murder and speed tickets.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It all becomes clear to me, however -- you've been a troll from the very beginning with your sarcastic comment about murder and speed tickets.


 Nope, not a troll but if you think I am then you don't need to respond to my posts.

   Actually I think quite the opposite is true. I think you are the "troll" since you are the one that has picked issue with every comment I made and cant seem to move on.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Axly, in a rational society Curtis LeMay's *** would've been in jail for the Tokyo Fire raids of 1944, war or no war....and so would've been some Brit asses, for what they did to Dresden.

Of course, we don't have one of those societies. But if I see one, I'm moving there immediately.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

What about that Lt. Pantano though huh? What a murdering ******* he is huh?


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, in a rational society Curtis LeMay's *** would've been in jail for the Tokyo Fire raids of 1944, war or no war....and so would've been some Brit asses, for what they did to Dresden.
> 
> Of course, we don't have one of those societies. But if I see one, I'm moving there immediately.


   True, LeMay had no real target except "targets of opportunity". He knowingly killed countless of thousands of civilians. 



 If I am not mistaken the British Gen. in charge of the RAF was nicknamed The Butcher. Do a GOOGLE search for "Butcher Harris.

 Among one of the most controversial commanders in World War II is Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, Marshal of the Royal Air Force and Commander-in-Chief of the RAF Bomber Command from 1942 to 1945. *Known as the Butcher or the Bomber, he commanded a relentless area-bombing offensive against Germany.* *This systematic destruction of German cities caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians, and has been attacked on moral and ethical grounds. Much of the attack is directed against Sir Arthur Harris himself. Should he be lauded as a hero, who played a large part in helping Britain to secure its victory or reviled as a war criminal, a mass murderer?*

 Arthur Harris was born on 13 Apr 1892, the son of an Indian Civil Service official. Young Harris left school at the age of 16 and traveled across half the world to Rhodesia where he took on a variety of jobs from gold mining to farming. When World War 1 came in 1914, he joined the Rhodesia Regiment in German South-West Africa as a bugler and fought in the campaign. After Africa, he returned to England and joined the Royal Flying Corps. He was posted to France where he served on the Western Front until he returned to England late in 1917. Promoted to major in 1918, he was given command of a home defence squadron (no. 44) where he was well known as a pioneer in night flying. He was granted a permanent commission in the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1919. 

 In post-war RAF, he served in several countries, including India and Iraq where he took command of several bomber squadrons. He returned to Britain at the end of 1924 and assumed command of 58 Squadron. In his command of the squadron from 1925 to 1927, he made many improvements in the squadrons navigational methods and in night bombing. It was around this time that the prominence of air power in future wars began to surface with General Gulio Douhet in Italy, and in the United States, General Billy Mitchell, propounding theories that an enemy could be bombed into submission with little help from the army and the navy. 

 Between 1930 and 1933 Harris was employed in staff duties in Egypt and took command of 210 Squadron, a flying boat unit based at Pembroke Dock on his return. In 1933, he was appointed as Deputy Director of Operations and Intelligence and was promoted to the rank of Group Captain. In the same year, Hitler came into power in Germany. Germany withdrew from the Geneva Conference and the League of Nations and Britain prepared for the possibility of war in five to eight years time. 

 Such was the political situation in England when Harris was appointed as Deputy Director of Plans in the Air Ministry in 1934. In this position, he was able to influence air policy. In the same year, the Air Ministry Bombing Committee was set up with the role of bomber operations being defined as counter-offensive. However, with Hitler in power and the possibility of war increasing, plans began to be drawn up for the xpansion of Britains bombing force, in part to counter Hitlers claim that the German Luftwaffes could match the air power of the RAF. In 1937, Harris, on being promoted to Air Commodore took command of the newly formed No. 4 Group of Bomber Command. He remained in the post until July of the next year when he was posted overseas to Palestine and Transjordan, tasked with helping the Army keep civil order between the Arabs and the Jews. He returned yet again to England in 1939 on a spell of sick leave. 

 Britain declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939. Harris then had command of the No. 5 Group of the Bomber Command. In Feb 1942, he was chosen to succeed AM Sir Richard Peirse as the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command. Under Harris dynamic leadership and single-minded pursuit, the Bomber Command rapidly expanded. He turned around what was a poorly equipped force and poorly trained aircrew with a record of dropping bombs which missed their targets, into a highly efficient force. Harris was convinced that strategic bombing on a large scale would cause the collapse of the German industry and break the morale of the German people and ultimately bring about Germanys defeat. His conviction was given impetus with the Casablanca Directive, drawn up by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in Jan 1943, which gave him the authority to go on a sustained assault on German cities. 

 Major urban areas such as Hamburg and the industrial cities of Ruhr came under the Bombers attacks between 1943 and 1945. Night attacks on Hamburg killed more than 41,000 people. In the closing months of the war, Dresden, one of the few remaining large, built up but unbombed city was singled out. It was the attack on this medieval city in Feb 1945 that attracted the most criticism. Dresden was of minor industrial significance but was crammed with refugees. Estimated death toll varies from 35,000 to 135,000. On 16 Apr 1945, with the end of the war in sight, the Chiefs of Staff announced the ending of area bombing. Germany surrendered unconditionally on 7 May 1945.

 In the six years of the Bomber Command (three and a half of them under Harris command), it despatched at least 297,663 sorties by night and 66,851 by day and dropped almost one million tons of bombs. It is estimated *that Harriss bombing campaign killed 500,000 German civilians, injured another 1 million and destroyed 3 million homes. Harris argued that the attacks on the German cities were justified as they helped to shorten the war and saved numerous allied lives. This argument did not quell his critics. British civilian victims of German bombs were estimated to be about 60,000 compared with 500,000 German victims of British bombs. Criticism and hostility towards Harris grew with the passage of time. There were critics who were against any bombings of civilians at all and there were those who thought that bombing of German cities was justified in the early part of the war but that it should be switched to precision bombing of selected targets in the later years. *

 There was yet another group of critics who critised the operational conduct of the campaign. The Bomber Command also suffered heavy losses - about 55,000 aircrew were killed, most of them officers and NCOs with 40,000 aircrew deaths attributable to the period under Harriss command. Questions have been raised as to whether the results justify the sacrifices made by the aircrew. 

 On the other hand, those who try to take a more objective stand may well point that the widescale bombing of German cities did not begin with Harris but with the two Commanders-in-Chiefs who preceded him, ACM Charles Portal and AM Richard Peirse. Although Harris himself had a firm belief in the bombing of German cities, it was those further up the ranks, including the War Cabinet, who gave him the tacit approval, and who should shoulder the blame.

 Although Harris was promoted Air Marshal at the end of the war in 1945, he was not made a peer unlike the other high commanders of the war. Politicians, including Churchill did not want to be too closely linked with the Bomber Command. Some felt that he had been made a scapegoat of political expediency. Harris retired from the RAF in 1946 and left for his beloved South Africa where he ran a shipping business until he returned to England in 1953. He was offered a peerage belatedly in 1953 but he accepted only a baronetcy. He died in 1984 at the age of 91.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Please point out exactly where it was that I described Lt. Pantaro as a murderer, or even suggested that. I simply said--rather clearly, I believe--that the exigencies of war did not justify everything.

As for, "Bomber," Harris, yes, I'd forgotten. Emotionally speaking, I have some trouble with feeling all that bad for German civilians...but what the RAF and our own Air Force did in Dresden, nothing justifies.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2005)

For once I wasnt directing a statement at you :shrug:. Just trying to keep on topic.

BTW was the Lt. justified?? Or if "justified" isnt a perfect fit, was he "criminal"?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2005)

I don't know; and neither do you, because we weren't there. 

What I do know is that the knee-jerk reaction of, "he didn't do anything wrong because it's a war," is wrong--as wrong as would be the knee-jerk reaction of, "he must have done something wrong, he's a soldier," if I had said any such of a stupid thing.

What I suspect is that something was way off, or neither of these lieutenants would be on trial--because other things being equal, the military does tend to take care of its own and to cover its ***.

But something political might've happened, especially in Lt. Pantano's case--and it looks rather as though in the "Lt. L," case going on in San Diego, something damn sure political did happen--the CIA was involved. Here, the whole torture thing is deeply implicated--guy died in Abu Gharib prison, the circumstances involved beating a torturing a helpless prisoner (evil guy, it seems, but a helpless prisoner all the same), and then there the whole, "independent contractor," nonsense.

But we don't know.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 26, 2005)

Of course none of us "know". If thats the standard around here 99% of the threads in the study should only be 2 posts long. Since when did we need to "know" anything to a certainty around here to discuss an issue? 

Let it suffice to say that my opinion is..."Based on the information Ive read so far, I dont believe Lt. Pantano did anything criminal. Or indeed anything "wrong" considering the situation he was in and the job he was trained/expected to do." 

Lt. Pantano's case has nothing to do with "torture" though. It has to do with judging a "shoot/no shoot" decision. From the information given so far it appears a Sgt. in the Lt.s platoon (who had an axe to grind with the Lt. over promotion issues I believe), made an issue over this incident up the chain of command.

As the author of one of the articles I linked said. This isnt a case of lining up enemy POW's in front of a trench and gunning them down. 2 enemy caught fleeing from a bomb making shop, advance on a Marine holding them at gunpoint, they refuse to stop when ordered (in their own language BTW) and get shot down. I predict that he will be found not guilty, but the career of a promising Marine is going to be crippled either way.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2005)

Uh...kinda not at all my point.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 26, 2005)

I know its not...somehow you want to link this event to the death of a POW at the hands of a Navy SEAL. I still dont understand the connection.


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

UPDATE: CHARGES DROPPED!

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050527-121257-4988r.htm


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 1, 2005)

Thank goodness. Do you think they could have destroyed moral any more with that absurd nonsense?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 1, 2005)

Marines killing people??? What has the world come to?


----------



## ginshun (Jun 1, 2005)

Yes, I also heard yesterday that the charges had been dropped, although I have not really looked into it yet.

 Good to hear though.


----------

