User:Geo Swan/Pantano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Moved from Talk:Ilario Pantano
Originally, I put these comments on Talk:Ilario Pantano. Other wikipedians started contributing to that article. But they weren't explaining their changes on the talk pages, as one would normally expect them to do. Since I disagreed with some of their changes I really wanted to see their explanations, and enter into a dialogue about them.
It occurred to me that the size of my comments and questions was intimidating other contributors from using the Talk page so I moved them here, to a sub-page of my own page. -- Geo Swan 14:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sections that could be expanded
Sections that could be expanded include:
[edit] Lt Pantano's June 2004 statement to military investigators
Reporters seem to have access to Lt Pantano's June 2004 statement to military investigators. It would be good to have a link to a transcript of this statement. Or failing that, to a summary with more detailed snippets than the report from the Winston-Salem paper I linked to.
Kit Jarrell: I may have a copy of this. I'll check my files and get back to you.
[edit] The platoon's Arabic speaker
Lt Pantano's platoon contained an Arabic speaker. There were no men in the compound during the platoon's raid. But there were some women. The Arabic speaking Marine testified at the article 32 hearing that the women told him that the two captives were relatives of theirs, paying a family visit, and that they had no ties to the resistance forces. Of course one could argue that this is third party information.
[edit] The post-mortem results
For a year the official line was that the bodies of the Iraqis could not be exhumed, in order to perform a post mortem, because they were buried in an area where it wasn't safe for US forces to penetrate. Press reports of the article 32 hearing say post mortem results were offered. The claim that safety concerns precluded an exhumation always seemed fishy to me. Perhaps it seemed fishy to Major Winn, the presiding officer, as well? None of the press reports I read offered any more details than that the post mortem results were not inconsistent with Lt Pantano's (subsequent) account. However, me reading of the quotes from his June 2004 statement it sounds like he acknowledged shooting them when they were facing away from him. More specifically,, the quotes seem to state that they were on their knees, facing their vehicle, and that he shot them when they turned their torsos to face one another.
Was the MO who performed the post mortem able to estimate the angles at which the bullets hit the cpatives? How many hit them in the back? How many hit them in the side? How many did the track reveal had been fired when the bodies were lying on the ground? How many did the track suggest they were fired when they were advancing on him?
So, in addition to a link to a transcipt, or official summary of his statement of June 2004, it would be desirable to link to the report of the post mortem, or a meaningful summary thereof.
Kit Jarrell: I may also have a copy of this. I do seem to remember that the report stated that there were bullet holes in the car doors, and the entry wounds on the men were in the front and side.
[edit] Politicization of the judicial process
Merry Pantano, Lt Pantano's mother, is a professional publicist. After charges were dropped she thanked the press for the support it had shown her son. She attributed the dropping of the charges to their support. Is this correct? Was the USMC judiciary influenced by the widespread support she rallied? That is not supposed to happen.
Kit Jarrell: What Merry was referring to, without being overt about it, is the role that the blogger media played in the case. Yes, the press was involved, but aside from a very few conservative-leaning journalists, the press was actually rather critical of Pantano's actions. A huge breaking point in the case came when Coburn and Hopkins started posting comments on my blog, and Hopkins went onto several other blogs as well. Due to his being exposed (he posted under a pseudonym but left his email address), he received a great deal of negative attention about his remarks within the blogosphere. I was contacted by Steve Fishman, who wrote the New York Magazine article. Fishman used the information I gave him in his interview of Coburn. Even though the information was not published in the article, it was used in the Article 32 hearing.
[edit] Major Winn's criticism of Sergeant Coburn
Sergeant Coburn was very heavily cricitcized for speaking to the press. All the parties were told to avoid speaking to the press. The hearing was adjourned following this criticism. For a time it seemed that Sergeant Coburn was going to face contempt charges, or reasonable equivalent. The hearing recommenced when Sergeant Coburn was offered immunity. His subsequent testimony was, unsurprisingly, equivocal.
Major Winn is not a lawyer. The press reported his criticism of Sergeant Coburn very widely, but did not report any criticism of Lieutenant Pantano for his statements to the press. Did Major Winn criticize Lieutenant Pantano for his more extensive interviews, which preceded Sergeant Coburns? IANAL, but was it legit for Lieutenant Pantano's lawyer to slag Sergeant Coburn in the press. I had google news alerts on their names, and there was an avalanche of article quoting his lawyer and his mother calling Coburn a bad marine, who was accusing Pantano out of spite because he was disgruntled over a demotion.
Kit Jarrell: Pantano was not barred from making any statements to the press. In this case, his statements to the press actually saved him. Coburn couldn't stand the thought of being maligned on blogs, and couldn't seem to stop himself from commenting quite forcefully against Pantano. In the end, his many comments and versions of the story are what turned the tide of the case. Gittins drawing attention to that was not slanderous or libelous, because there was truth to back the statements, and the proof was readily available on the internet. Again, I'm not a lawyer either, so take that as you will.
[edit] deeply unbalanced press reports
I personally found it shocking how unbalanced the press reports were. Very few reporters seem to have consulted Lieutenant Pantano's June 2004 statement. Most seem to have merely cribbed from the press releases of Mrs Pantano and Charles Gittins. I think this should also be reported in the article -- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Kit Jarrell: Actually, if you actually look at the sheer volume of press that the case got, you'll notice a distinct shift to the idea that Pantano was guilty.
[edit] Aspects of the case that are not disputed
Some wikipedia contributors, in other articles, have written as if certain aspects of the case are in dispute, but which are acknowledged by both the prosecution and Lieutenant Pantano's defense.
[edit] Unarmed Iraqis
It is not disputed that the Iraqis were unarmed. Their bodies had been searched for weapons when they were detained. Navy Corpsman Gobles had already searched their vehicle for weapons. Lieutenant Pantano's defense has never disputed this. After they were shot it was clear they had not accessed cleverly hidden weapons. This is not in dispute. One right wing source I read a couple of months ago, claimed, without citing any references, that the Iraqis were not really unarmed because there was a box of nails in the trunk of their car, which could have been purchased to form part of an IED.
[edit] The cache of arms and bomb-making factory
I would like to see a more complete list of what was found in that cache of arms. The list I saw was:
- 3 AK-47 rifles.
- 10 magazines for AK-47 rifles.
- bulletproof vests
- 1 flare gun.
- "mortar-aiming" stakes.
- unspecified bomb-making material.
I know that because of the general lawless that remains in Iraq each Iraqi household was allowed to possess a single AK-47 rifle. It sounds like this compound was a multiple family compound, so the presence of multiple rifles, and their magazines, would not, I believe, constitute an arms cache, in and of themselves.
What are "mortar-aiming stakes"? Mortars bombs were fired from a tube, last time I looked.
I would like to know what those bomb-making materials were. Frankly, there have been numerous occasions when DoD spokesmen have offered highly deceitful spin. So, unless I see a fuller list, I will continue to consider the possibility that these bomb-making materials might be relatively innocuous dual use items, such as a box of nails or screws, like any home carpenter would have in their home workshop.
If possession of bullet-proof vests are proscribed, I would like to know the official penalty for possession of them. I presume it is not a summary battlefield execution.
Press reports said that the opposition fighters use a flare gun to signal the moment an ambush should begin. I can't think of a use an ordinary civilian would make of flare gun, unless they were a smokejumper or ship's captain. So what is the penalty for possession of unauthorized flare-gun?
Note: None of these weapons or suspicious items were in the possession of the captives Lieutenant Pantano killed.
[edit] Whether Lieutenant Pantano actually killed the Iraqis
At least one wikipedia contributor was unaware that Lieutenant Pantano acknowledged killing the Iraqis. And, when several other wikipedians tried to set him straight, he promised to continue modify the wikipedia to suggest whether doubt existed that Lieutenant Pantano was the shooter, even though he has acknowledged it in his June 2004 statement, and in every interview he gave. Kit Jarrell: At no time did Pantano ever deny shooting the Iraqis, in interviews with the press or in conversations with me.
[edit] Lieutenant Pantano did not order the Iraqis to stop advancing on him
This is the most serious failing of most of the press reports. Most press accounts report that the Iraqis were advancing on Lieutenant Pantano in an alarming manner, and that before he shot them he warned them to stop. Some press accounts say he warned them to stop advancing on him twice. His June 2004 made clear that they weren't advancing on him. His statement says he was standing 10 feet behind them. If they had risen to their feet, and started to advance on him in an alarming manner, he would hardly have time to warn them twice before they had traversed that ten foot distance.
What the quotes from his June 2004 statement make clear was that they were talking to one another in Arabic, and that his orders to "stop" were meant to get them to stop talking to one another. IMO this is one of the reasons why it is so unfortunate the charges were dropped, and the prosecution was not in position to explore his behaviour more fully. IMO it is completely unreasonable to expect them to know what he meant when he ordered them to stop. -- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Desecration of the body
Lieutenant Pantano acknowledged, in his June 2004 statement, that he fired an entire 30 bullet magazine into his captives, and when it was exhausted he replaced it with a second magazine, which he also emptied emptied into his captives bodies. Readers who are aware that a modern assult rifle, on full-auto, can empty a magazine in about three seconds should be aware that Lieutenant Pantano said, in his statement, that his rifle was set to a mode of operation where each trigger-pull fired three bullets. So, in order to empty two magazines he would have had to pull the trigger twenty, count them twenty times. So, the large number of bullets fired was definitely not the result of a momentary panic reaction.
Further, Lieutenant Pantano explained his motives. He fired that many bullets "to send a message". He said that he had decided, in advance, that he would take an opportunity "to send a message".
Major Winn used the word "desecration" in his description of Lieutenant Pantano's behaviour.
[edit] The vehicle had already been searched
The vehicle had already been searched. Lieutenant Pantano ordered the Iraqis (how?) to search the vehicle all over again.
[edit] No better friend, no worse enemy
It is not disputed that Lieutenant Pantano wrote a sign that said "No better friend, no worse enemy", and placed it above the bodies of his dead captives. He was planning to leave the sign there, and leave the bodies to be found by the Iraqis relatives, friends and neighbours. But another junior officer convinced him the sign was a mistake, and he should remove the sign. -- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WTF was he thinking?
IMO, Lieutenant Pantano's story absolutely does not make sense. There are a number of aspects that does not make sense.
[edit] You are going to trust suspected opposition fighters to do a search?
Lieutenant Pantano is told, by radio, that his platoon has found arms in the compound. Apparently he decided this meant their vehicle needed to be searched again, because he suspects his captives of ties with the opposition. Hello! How is this possibly a good idea?
If they really were members of the opposition, and possibly ready to martyr themselves, if the car did contain a hidden bomb, what was to stop them from activating it, and taking Lieutenant Pantano with them? How far would you want to be from a car-bomb? More than ten feet, wouldn't you say?
If disassembling the vehicle's interior was the plan, was he planning to let them use wrenches, screwdrivers? That doesn't seem like a good idea.
Similarly, if there was a hidden compartment, where they had hidden a knife, pistol, or hand grenade, giving them access to the vehicle seems a really bad idea.
Suppose it contained incriminating papers, allowing them access to the vehicle provided them with an opportunity to hide, throw away, or destroy those papers.
Duh!
[edit] How did he expect them to understand him?
In his statement Lieutenant Pantano said he explained to the Iraqis to search the vehicle "using hand signals" I would argue that this is completely unreasonable. I would argue that it is completely unreasonabl to argue one could rely on hand signals to explain to someone who didn't speak your language to "search a vehicle". What exactly did he want them to do, anyhow? Did he want them to disassemble the components of the passenger compartment? Take out the carpet, seats, all that stuff that falls under the seat? How do you tell someone to do something like that, "using hand signals?"
Given that it is unreasonable to expect them to understand what he wanted them to do with the car, of course they would be asking each other what he wanted them to do. I think the more he yelled at them, the more desperate they would become. I think this is true whether they were completely innocent or if they were, in fact, resistance fighters.
[edit] He said he couldn't see their hands?
One of the justifications Lieutenant Pantano gave for the feeling of alarm that prompted him to shoot his captives was that he couldn't see their hands. Well, it was Lieutenant Pantano who decided where they should stand, and that they shoud be facing away from him.
[edit] Why both Iraqis?
If, for the sake of argument, it made sense to have Iraqis search the vehicle, why assign the task to both Iraqis? He could have kept the bounds on one Iraqi, and assigned the other to perform the "search". Then they couldn't collaborate in an attack. He could have left the Iraqis hands free, and bound their feet. -- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Open questions
Some of the limited number of press accounts that did not merely repeat the distortions produced by Pantano's mother and lawyer reported
[edit] trophy photos
Some of the press accounts say that Lieutenant Pantano took trophy photos. Some say he posed the bodies, and then took trophy pohtos.
Kit Jarrell: There is no evidence to substantiate this that I am aware of.
[edit] One reasonable interpretation
Lieutenant Pantano told the military investigators he wanted "to send a message". He told the BBC that his job was "to export violence, all over the world, to make sure 911 doesn't happen again." His media for sending that message was body desecration. When brutal regimes use terror to control their populations, by torturing suspects, killing them, or making them disappear, they don't really care whether their suspects are actually guilty. Brutal regimes are willing to torture or kill suspects just because they have done something that has allowed a cloud of suspicion to fall over them. Determining who is actually a member of the resistance is difficult. Terrorizing the populace, so that they were so fearful that no one would do anything, even by accident, that would allow a cloud of suspicion to fall on them, is a lot easier.
One could argue that what Lieutenant Pantano meant by "export violence" was something like the surgical strike that the Israelis did in the mid-80s, where they launched a single surprise attack that destroyed Iraq's first and only, incomplete, nuclear power plant. That is one possible interpretation. It is an interpretation that requires a chain of assumptions that is not required for the interpretation that Lieutenant Pantano's intention was to terrorize the general Iraqi populace. To carry out this intention it is not necessary that the victims be proven, beyond a doubt, to have been opposition fighters. But doesn't this interpretation require Lieutenant Pantano to have been a dishonorable person? It is important to remember that he has openly acknowledged desecrating his captives bodies -- a dishonorable act.
Kit Jarrell: He did not "openly acknowledge desecrating his captives[sic] bodies". He openly acknowledged placing a sign on them that Major Winn found to be desecrating. There's a very big difference. You are saying Pantano knew that placing this sign was desecration, and did it anyway - and you're stating this as fact. What actually happened was that Pantano made a judgment call that to some looks like no big deal and to others, including Major Winn, looks like "desecration". See the difference? I personally don't have a problem with the sign at all. Neither do a lot of other veterans like me. A few do. So what? It's not my call to make - and it's not yours either.
You're also insinuating that his actions were carried out against two people who may have been innocent. The fact that they were terrorist sympathizers, at the least, was proven. The fact that they were insurgents themselves was also pretty plain. However, the media was very selective (and mistaken) about what it reported. This can be seen from reading media reports and then reading the actual, handwritten statements and court documents. If you're purely going on information from the media, it's no wonder it's incorrect. Also, something else you need to realize is that while Merry Pantano is a publicist, she's still a mother. Her "version" of events means nothing. it's second-hand. The only "versions" that anyone should be paying attention to are Pantano's, Gobles', and Coburn's. JUST in those three people, you have 9 versions - five of them Coburn's. Pantano has minor changes in his story, but as someone who's interviewed a lot of people about their combat experiences, I can tell you that's normal. Coburn, on the other hand, started out with the story that Pantano had gone into a house and shot the whole place up. His versions changed from there. Are you really going to tell me in all truth that you feel this is strong enough to go to trial with? Hardly.
[edit] Justice for Iraqis
I know this interpretation is POV. I don't know how to express it in the actual wikipedia articles.
I would remind other contributors that American servicement are immuse from actions under Iraqi justice. The Iraqi victim's family can't sue him. Iraqi prosecutors can't lay charges on him. He is only subject to American justice, even though the incident occurred in Iraq.
I can understand how a military commander might be tempted to dismiss charges, even if he saw merit in the prosecutions charges, if he thought a court martial, or more particularly a conviction, would be bad for discipline or morale.
I don't know enough about the UCMJ to know whether a military commander is supposed to dismiss charges under those conditions. But, even if he or she is, in a case like Lieutenant Pantano's I think this was a terrible mistake.
I would suggest that, to your average, reasonable Iraqi, who knows enough about democracy to understand President Bush's promises to help Iraq become democratic, an incident like this would pierce whatever confidence they had in his promise, and let it all drain away. It is a case with enough evidence against him that it just screams "there must be a fair trial". -- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
-- Geo Swan 20:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Kit Jarrell: This entire viewpoint shows a misunderstanding of not only the UCMJ, but the laws of war as the U.S. is expected to adhere to (which, by the way, terrorists do not). Major Winn did his job by dismissing the charges. I have a copy of his full report, and in it he explains that Coburn, as the star witness, is just not credible. You cannot send someone to court-martial when the chief witness against him is a proven liar. It just cannot be done.
As for Winn being "tempted" to dismiss charges so he wouldn't lower morale, well. Let me explain something. The fact that Pantano was charged at all is what lowered the morale. Pantano being court-martialed wouldn't have made that much of a difference. The fact that the charges were dropped didn't bring the confidence back up, either. The fact remains that for every American soldier carrying a weapon in Iraq, they have been told loud and clear that not only do they have to worry about an enemy shooting at them and trying to blow them up, but they have to worry about someone who is not in the military and who has never seen combat, trying to tell them that the actions they took under duress were somehow "questionable". Obviously, there are exceptions, but it is a rare one when an American soldier doesn't conduct himself according to the laws of war. Pantano's literally perfect service record, the fact that Coburn told 5 different versions of events, and the fact that the only other person they could get for a character witness against Pantano was a guy who came in last in his class of 192 after being rated poorly by Pantano himself...all of this adds up to charges being dropped.
Regardless of how you personally feel about the case - and it is obvious that you feel Pantano was guilty of murder - the fact remains that he was cleared and all charges were dropped. An encyclopedia article stating that Pantano was cleared but that he should have really gone to court-martial isn't exactly fair, is it? What if I put something on OJ Simpson's article saying "He wasn't convicted, but he was definitely guilty." Do I personally think he's guilty? Of course. Would I put that into a Wikipedia article? No.
"Justice for Iraqis"? Why should Pantano be expected to stand under Iraqi law for this? Do you know the applicable sections of Iraqi law for this case? Do you have any idea what punishments could be faced, if any? Is it your position that the men he shot were innocent? Come on. By the way - the Arabic interpreter was a cook who was learning to become an Arabic interpreter.
There was a fair trial, and Pantano was cleared. Something you need to understand about the Marine Corps - they don't cover things like you may think. The Marines hold their people to standard far higher than most people realize. I know Marines personally that did something as simple as have a girl in their barracks room when it wasn't allowed. They were reduced in rank and sent back from being overseas, removed from the duty they were on. Something like Pantano's case is not something they would have covered up.
At any rate, if you want to talk about this further, you an email me. I'm not looking to simply debate the points, but if you want to learn what really happened and why Pantano truly is innocent, then feel free. I can tell you in honesty there are few people out there with the access to people in the case that I have had, and there is no blogger out there with more information than I have. I watched the case closely from the outside and later from the inside. I know what I'm talking about.
[edit] Additional Information
Rather than re-write everything that I've already said in articles on my blog, please allow me to list them here.
Analysis of Corporal O's testimony - you'll notice several things missing; most notably that he never actually saw the shooting itself. before and after does not count as during. Also, please note in that article that Corporal O admits that not only do ALL insurgents deny being insurgents (making the fact that they denied it irrelevant), but that the house they came out of is where these weapons and paraphernalia was found. Your assertion that the weapons were at no time in the possession of the "captives" is quite misleading. They didn't have it ON them - but it was in the house they were just inside.
This story by ABC News mentions Corporal O as being a cook in training to be a linguist.
This article explains one of the five versions of the incident that Coburn gave. As you can see, it's quite different from the one he was trying to sell everyone else.
This article talks about the "autopsy" that an Iraqi doctor claimed to have done, showing only one wound in the men. Obviously this ended up being untrue.
This is an article detailing the first part of Coburn's testimony. It's very important that you pay attention to the facts in that article. The guy is very clearly lying.
There's 37 articles on my site about the Pantano case, including exclusive interviews, a sneak peek of the New York Magazine article that I received before it was published, and documents. Feel free to read them all. I'm checking into whether I can post all of the documents I have. At the time they were given, I was asked not to share them with the public, although I could refer to them and use them in articles.
If I get clearance, you'll be first to know.
[edit] Thanks for the replies
Thanks for the replies. Thanks for the information.
Yes, I spent quite a bit of time reading Euphoria Reality, and following some of the links I found there. And I am looking forward to reading all 37 of the threads about Ilario Pantano.
[edit] Thanks for the willingness to share the documents and other info
Thanks for the willingness to share the documents and other information you came across. I am looking forward to reading them, or the ones that you determine you are free to release. If you know of where one can download the text of the statements the NCIS took in June 2004, or the text of the post-mortem, that is where I would start.
[edit] Actually, I don't know if he is innocent or guilty of murder
I don't think my mind is made up about the murder accusation. The way I see it there are a range of interpretations to consider.
One interpretation of what we know of Lieutenant Pantano's shooting is that he was surprised that they started to behave in a way that alarmed him, and that he really did think they represented an immediate risk that justified deadly force. I have trouble with this interpretation because some of the actions he made just don't make sense if one accepts it.
At the other extreme is the interpretation that when Lieutenant Pantano learned the compound his men were searching contained weapons he decided to act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner and convict his suspects of being terrorists, and administer a summary battlefield execution.
And there are other interpretations that falls in between. One interpretation of what we know of Lieutenant Pantano's shooting is that he thought he was following his rules of engagement, and he thought that he was exercising good judgement, and that he was surprised when he started to perceive his captives behaving in a way that alarmed him. When he started to see them as representing an immediate risk, he gave them a warning, as much of a warning as could be expected under the circumstances, and then used the deadly force he felt was justified.
Another interpretation is that when he learned the compound his men were searching contained weapons he decided to act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner and convict his suspects of being terrorists, and administer a summary battlefield execution. If one considers this interpretation a lot of his choices, which wouldn't otherwise make sense start to make sense.
Then there are a bunch of interpretations that fall in between the other two. Like that Pantano made some risky, unprofessional choices because he was spoiling for a fight, spoiling for an opportunity to teach some Iraqis a deadly lesson. He wasn't ruthless enough to shoot captives without a triggering excuse. Like in the movies, might he have taken risks to tempt the Iraqis to give him an excuse to shoot them.
Those interpretations that fall between those two extremes -- I can imagine a range of consciousness on Lieutenant Pantano's part of how risky his choices were.
Maybe there are interpretations that explain the facts I have disposal to, that haven't occurred to me.
You have access to more information than I do. I don't think I have enough information to dismiss any of those interpretations. But, once you share that other information of yours, maybe I will be ablt to come closer to a firm conclusion.
[edit] Co-operation
I saw your comments on Talk:Ilario Pantano. If you thought I was claiming some kind of ownership over the Ilario Pantano article then I confused you. I know that, without regard to whether I created an article, or think I know more about it than other people, I don't own it. I know I have to be prepared to live with other people's edits, if they can back them up, and if they stay civil, and stay within the wikipedia guidelines, even if that means an interpretation I favor ends up on the cutting room floor.
I think that it is quite possible for people with goodwill to have widely differing views, and still respect one another. A lot of people go to the internet to find people who agree with them. Others got to the internet to try to convert people to their point of view, to find people who disagree with them, in order to mock them. I like finding people who disagree with me, who will enter into a civil dialogue, because the people who disagree with me are going to be the people I am most likely to learn something from. I try my best to consider other people's point of view, no matter how shocking.
I gather that is not your experience with those who disagree with you on Euphoric Reality. I hope your experience with dissenting views will be different here on the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
I apologize if I came across as less than friendly. I came under a lot of fire for my posts at Euphoric Reality, as I'm sure you noticed while there. Being a political/military blogger is definitely not all roses. ;)
That being said, I'm more than willing to share whatever I can. I'm always up for intelligent and cooperative discourse. =)
--Kit Jarrell 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
