Jump to content

Is the Marine Corps P.C.?


Recommended Posts

Is the Marine Corps P.C.?

Mona Charen

February 25, 2005

Second Lt. Ilario Pantano was making a six-figure income as an energy trader with Goldman Sachs in New York when the World Trade Center was attacked. Pantano had friends who worked in the twin towers and friends among the firefighters who perished trying to save them.

This Marine veteran, who had already served his country in the first Gulf War, set aside his career (which also included work in film and television), kissed his wife and two children goodbye, and headed to Quantico, Va., for officer training school.

A Marine Corps colleague asked, "How many guys do you know (who) would drop 100 grand a year to go sleep in fighting holes in the nasty mud and dust for -- what -- 25 grand a year?"

There are a few -- and the rest of us owe them more than we can possibly express -- which is why it is shocking to learn that Pantano may now be facing murder charges.

In April 2004, American and Iraqi troops were under constant terrorist attack in the Sunni Triangle. Hundreds were being killed and wounded. Weapons of choice for the insurgents included roadside bombs, booby-trapped vehicles and animals, combatants disguised as women and suicide attackers feigning surrender before blowing themselves up.

The Washington Times reports that on April 15, 2004, "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 (Iraqis) 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." (Presumably so that any booby traps would not kill U.S. Marines.)

After a few minutes, the two suspected insurgents stopped searching and began to move quickly toward Lt. Pantano. Pantano's lawyer explained that "they started talking in Arabic and turned toward him as if they were going to rush him." Pantano shouted at them in Arabic to stop. They did not. He shot and killed both of them. He then placed a sign on the SUV repeating the slogan of Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, "No better friend; No worse Enemy."

Investigation later revealed that the vehicle held no explosives or weapons. By this time, Pantano had participated in the battle of Fallujah. A superior officer evaluated him as an "accomplished infantry leader. His actions during the fighting in Fallujah and Al Zaidon highlighted a solid understanding of tactics and an ability to anticipate the enemy. Leads from the front always and balances his aggressive style with true concern for the welfare of his Marines. Exceptional communication skills for a 2nd Lt. Organized, aggressive, focused and driven. Ready for increased responsibility. Retain, promote, and assign to challenging assignments."

Except that he now waits in Camp Lejeune, N.C., while the Marine Corps considers whether to indict him for murder in the case of those Iraqi SUV drivers -- charges that could carry a sentence of death. He has also been advised that he may face charges of "desecration" for placing the sign on the SUV. A Marine Corps spokesman estimated that a decision on whether Pantano faces a general court martial will be forthcoming in late March or early April.

Obviously, the United States cannot turn a blind eye to war crimes. If a soldier lines up civilians in front of a pit, My Lai style, and massacres them, he would richly deserve (and every self-respecting American would demand) a court martial. But good Lord, by what possible standard can this be called murder?

Pantano was in the middle of a war zone, not a vacation in the Riviera. He had been dodging ambushes and booby traps for weeks. He'd seen his comrades killed and maimed. Perhaps he acted too hastily in shooting those Iraqis. But a murder charge? Has the Marine Corps gone P.C.?

Pantano's parents have created a Web site for those who would like to help their son and others like him.  "DefendtheDefenders.org stands behind the man who puts his life on the line again and again, who makes life or death decisions in the blazing heat, exhaustion, fear and confusion of war while conducting combat operations ... (and later) becomes the subject ... of formal charges."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Reilly may be taking it a little too far, but some newspapers are being sympothetic to the guy that wanted to assassinate Bush.


Too Many in the U.S. Media are Anti-Military...

Friday, February 25, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly

CBS News says a Fallujah Marine will not be formally charged, but charges have been leveled against a Muslim American who the government says wanted to kill President Bush. And that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

You remember this tape a corporal in the Marines shooting a wounded Iraqi combatant in a Fallujah mosque. Some human rights groups immediately condemned the Marine. The elite media pretty much ignored him. But “The Factor” said the shooting appeared justified.

Now I formed my opinion after seeing the tape and hearing the Marine yell out "he's blanking faking." And our investigation showed that other members of his squad have backed him up. They all felt threatened.

Now "Talking Points" is happy this young Marine reportedly will not be court martialed, although he still might be punished by the [Marine] Corps. I believe soldiers in combat must be given the benefit of the doubt. And there was plenty of doubt in this case. The U.S. military must be allowed to fight the war on terror without second guessing by anti-war people.

Oversight's necessary. We all know that. But so is the benefit of the doubt.

Compare that situation to Abu Ali (search), a 25-year-old Virginia man who the FBI believes was working with Al Qaeda and who is now charged with conspiring to kill President Bush.

Ali was arrested in Saudi Arabia. He says he was tortured there. And his case is engendering some sympathy. So let's put this in perspective. The young Marine — pretty much ignored by the elite media. But Abu Ali gets editorials today in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The Times says, "What we can say now is that [Ali's] case seems to be another demonstration of what has gone wrong in the federal war on terror."

So what we have now is the benefit of the doubt for Ali and silence for the Marine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I believe the American print press has lost perspective.

Let's look at this at Ali guy for a minute. He attended a militant Islamic school in Alexandria, Virginia. He then went to Saudi Arabia to study. FBI agent Tim Saubcheck (search) has testified under oath that Ali has participated in jihad training. A search of Ali's home found documents praising the 9/11 attacks and audiotapes in Arabic promoting violent jihad and the killing of Jews.

Now I'm not going convict this Abu Ali on “The Factor”, but this stuff is pretty damning. Contrast that to the Marine who obviously felt he was in danger by his own words on tape.

The point here is that too many in the U.S. media are anti-military and sympathetic to suspected terrorists. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...