
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 15, 2005 Line in the SandBy Mrs GreyhawkRowan Scarborough, in The Washington Times, reports on a Marine officer accused of murder: 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. Of course it turns out that they were unarmed and there were no weapons in the car. Lt. Pantano states he did not know that at the time. Pantano reported this event to his superiors and continued to serve in combat in the area for an additional 3 months. Prince Pundit posts excerpts from Pantano's performace report. These will read differently to military insiders than to those that are unfamiliar with the key words and phrases used. ?Lieutenant?s Pantano progression as a young platoon commander and leader has been impressive.? he has dedicated himself to subordinate development resulting in the weakest platoon becoming one that is often the Company?s main effort. With a calm demeanor that speaks of confidence, Lieutenant Pantano has led his platoon into urban combat in Latafiyah, and he has also conducted convention operations in Falluja and Zaidon Province, Iraq. He is a proficient communicator, who should be promoted with peers. A proven warrior, Lieutenant Pantano is a Marine that I would proudly serve in combat with at any time. Pantano's lawyer says that the investigation was prompted by a complaint from an enlisted man that he refers to as "disgruntled". There are several unanswered questions. Is a Marine officer being second guessed for a split second decision that he made to protect his life and the lives of his men? Why is General Richard Huck pressing charges when, at the time of the incident, it was investigated and cleared? Why did he let Lt Pantano stay in the field and only bring charges upon his return to the US? This happened in April 2004. Why did General Richard Huck wait until February 1, 2005? And who is this "disgruntled? enlisted man? Is he disgruntled or an eyewitness? We have one side of this story and I hope for the sake of our military and for this Marine that this becomes a clear cut case with no grey areas. If not, one thing is certain, the line drawn in the sand will become less visible to our troops. These sort of charges could set a new precedent for our troops that could leave them confused and less productive and possibly get them killed. Pantano?s mother has established a web site Defend the Defenders.org with all the details. There is a great deal of information posted as well as supporting comments from fellow Marines and their families. Unfortunately getting to it has been very difficult since the site has exceeded its allotted bandwidth. I suppose in a way that is a good sign. Here is a cache page of Defend the Defenders.org and here's their latest news. Don't miss (retired) Lt. Col. Allen B West, comments on this at Opinion Bug. He's a highly-decorated U.S. Army officer who coerced an Iraqi into providing information that foiled a planned attack on U.S. soldiers and also faced court martial for his actions. For an opinion close to mine, read Lex. Other bloggers covering the story: Rosemary at My Newz N Ideas UPDATEFBI probing threat against accused Marine Posted by Mrs Greyhawk / February 15, 2005 3:14 PM | Permalink 5 TrackBacksThe blogosphere is buzzing this morning with talk of the Marine who was charged with murder in the killing of two Iraqis. Before we get to the blogosphere, I wanted to point out this column by Joseph Farah in WorldNetDaily, in which Farah demands that... Read More I see that Bill O’Reilly has picked up the story and aired a segment tonight with Lt. Pantano’s Attorney, Charles Gittins. Bill is not happy and he is “troubled” by it and plans to “keep an eye on it.” Bill’s... Read More The Mudville Gazette now has the story, as do PowerLine and Michelle Malkin. Tammy Bruce evidently interviewed 2nd Lt. Pantano's mother and has a link to Defend the Defenders, but since Tammy's page is not dated, I can't tell when this happened. Read More Blackfive weighs in. His concern is the effect it will have on the soldiers and Marines who are fighting in the field: Read More I've been waiting for more news to come out on this case before commenting on it, because it just seems too ridiculous. But according to all the information available so far, the Marine Corps has lost its freaking mind. Read More 11 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Your response to this is very encouraging to me. Without information, assuming that someone is innocent is as foolish as assuming someone is guilty. I read your blog and Smash and Blackfive and whether it's those troops refusing to go on their convoy thingy or even Eason Jordan, I can expect that someone is going to say, "We don't have enough information."
There's been something bothering me about all this ever since I read the initial story yesterday, and I think I finally found it. When the terrorists turned from the vehicle and moved towards (rushed, whatever you want to call it) Lt. Pantano, it's almost as if they knew our rules of engagement might not let him shoot. While that's not as troubling as the "murder" assertions against a split-second decision, it's still troubling that they are (again and still) using our own rules and sense of morality against us.
Utilizing the term premeditated in a War Zone is ludicrous.
Read the finess reports closely. They are an example of the report every 2nd LT would like to receive. What happened? Need more info!
Didn't one of the editors of the Washington Times write "T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."?
I am wondering if this was not complicated by complaints by the family members of the dead men. On of the things that I find interesting is the "destruction of property" charges. This would seem to indicate that someone was concerned about the damage inflicted on the vehicle, post shooting.
It may well be that there was a "disgruntled" service member who made a complaint, but I imagine this may have been coupled with a civilians complaint on the episode to move forward. it is most likely that one or both of these complaints languished at different levels or offices until they were brought together and, with corraborating complaints, false or otherwise, prompted an investigation.
Other political issues, such as the identification and relation of the Iraqis shot to some tribal entity of power or influence, may have prompted the delayed review of the incident.
Just thinking through the process and what other incidents have occurred and how they were managed.
I can't help to wonder if this is a byproduct of Abu Ghraib. It seems to me an investigation, ok, but a charge of murder?
I'm also a little concerned about the report that the IZs had been zip-tied prior to being released to search their own vehicle. If this is true, it means that they should have been searched, and that the 2LT therefore knew they weren't armed/wearing suicide belts. With his platoon all around him, not quite sure where his self-defense justification stands.
Additionally, what was to be learned by having the IZs search their own vehicle?
It's not a no-brainer, either way. It deserves looking into. Marines and troops are getting court martialed for abuses - what's the morale hit if an officer is accused by a troop and it doesn't go anywhere formal? Even if his accuser is disgruntled, it doesn't mean he is lying.
A formal process will air this all out.
It extremely bothers me that we ask our hero's to put their lives on the line and then question there actions when they feel threatened. For us here at home to judge a soldier's judgment will only make then question their own actions and put them at an even greater risk.
There is a new World Net Daily story out with new info.
http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/02/update-on-ilario-pantano.html
It's a mix of good and bad news for Pantano -- a Navy witness corroborates his claim that the Iraqis refused his order to stop, but claims that the Iraqis were moving away from him, not toward him.
The best part of the new info is that the accuser's claim of a cold-blooded execution seems to be contradicted by Pantano's and the Navy man's accounts.
--GB
The problem with this entire issue is that the mojority of readers immediately jump to the defense of the Lieutenant. Have you thought that these charges may actually be true?
While the terrorists are absolutely willing to die for their cause, their MO tends to be blowing themselves up...not rushing a Marine, forcing him to kill them and face murder charges. Your heroic Lieutenant dismissed the majority of his men, had their cuffs removed, ordered them to search their vehicle (already completed by his Marines), and unloaded 60 rounds of 5.56mm rounds into two unarmed men in a vehicle. He actually had to change magazines. Sound heroic to you? Oh yeah...then he stuffed the bodies into the trunk and posted a sign on them. He then turned to his few witnesses and "recommended" that they stay silent. So yes...he passed muster on the original investigation. But when his men could no longer bear the weight of this secret, they reported the Lieutenant. That is why he faces these charges today.
That is what you will find out at the court martial.