Talk:Ilario Pantano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I started the Ilario Pantano article, and contributed much of its original contents. I also put a lot of open questions that I though remained to be answered, together with some comments of my own, here on the Talk page. Today I moved those questions and comments to a page of their own, User:Geo Swan/Pantano.

Other wikipedians are now making substantial contributing to the article. But no one is explaining their changes on the talk pages, as one would normally expect them to do. Since I disagree with some of thsoe changes, and have questions about some of the others I would really wanted to see those 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 hence the sub-page of my own page. -- Geo Swan 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Where's the History?

Respectfully, the wikipedia is not for POV discussions. I appreciate that you started this article; however, your own biases shine through. Personal opinion and speculation (such as your 'reasonable interpretation') do a disservice to those who have access to the actual documents and testimony, as well as those actually involved in the case. It would be prudent at this point to step back and allow others with more knowledge on the subject to comment in order to ensure that the situation is reported based on the facts available instead of speculation and conjecture. As an encyclopedia, accuracy within the Wikipedia is important. Those who are in possession of the court documents, testimony transcripts, handwritten statements, and personal interviews with the parties involved are more qualified to expand this entry in a factual and fair way than someone going purely off of press releases and conjecture. I am more than willing to take over the maintenance of this article, and provide documentation to back up the facts I am listing. If there is someone else who has more information and hard documents than I do, I would gladly step aside for them. However, I and my co-blogger are the only bloggers on the internet with the level of information that we possess. Also, there are only 3 journalists with the level of access we have to Pantano and his defense team. Therefore, it stands to reason that we would be qualified to comment on the case.


[edit] Merging Sections

I decided to merge the first four sections under one section (which might be in the need of a new name, but that's what I thought of at first), and make the old ones subsections. They are too short to be their own sections, IMO. If you feel this is wrong, please revert it. Fbv65edel 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation between Pantano and the efforts to give GIs a refresher course in American values and the laws of war following the publicizng of the similar Haditha atrocities

User:Looper5920 removed a section about the Commandant's response to the publicizing of the Haditha atrocities, with the edit summary: "removed entire section as it has nothing to do with Lt Pantano"

I am the person who added that section, and I believe it is related to Pantano. In June 2004 Pantano confessed to committing atrocities. He claimed that he shot the Iraqis because he was alarmed and thought they were going to turn and attack him. But he willing confessed that he slowly and methodically shot them dozens of times, in order "to send a message". Pantano willingly confessed to scrawling a message over their bodies, in order "to send a message". Pantano did not call for body pickup, because he wanted to leave their corpses "to send a message".

The officer in charge of Pantano's article 32 hearing criticized Pantano for his body mutiliation. Personally, I don't understand why Pantano's actions were not condemned as an act of terrorism.

Pantano's actions were widely defended among his fellow serving GIs, the Veteran community, and on the American Right, even though he willingly confessed he violated the laws and customs of war with his corpse desecration.

The wide support Pantano received was a clear warning of the danger that other GIs would commit similar atrocities on a wider scale.

In short I believe there is a firm connection between Pantano and Haditha. I believe it is regratable that a senior officer over-ruled the recommendation of his article 32 hearing that Pantano be held to account for the corpse desecration -- which sounds to me like it sent the message to his fellow Marines that atrocities were OK. -- Geo Swan 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Lt Pantano was not at Haditha. In short I believe there is a firm connection between Pantano and Haditha. You can believe what you want. It just does not belong in this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)
    • I just reviewed your contributions to this article. I see that you are the one who wrote that Pantano served with the 2nd battalian, 2nd Marines. Didn't he serve in the First Marine Division, Mattis's Division? I see you wrote that "no better friend, no worse enemy" was his battalian's motto. Can I ask how you knew this? -- Geo Swan 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared of charges?

The article intro states he was clear of all charges. Yet reading the article, it appears this is not the case. Rather, the charges were dropped after it was determined there was no case for the murder charge (it was felt there was a case for conduct unbecoming of an officer but this was not persued for whatever reason). These are of course two different outcomes and we need to be clear on which one is the truth Nil Einne 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lt Colonel Winn (then Major Winn), the officer who headed Pantano's article 32 hearing, recommended the murder charge be dropped. He remained critical of Pantano for "desecrating" his victim's bodies, and recommended that Pantano be formally held to account for this act. General Huck, who commanded Pantano's Division, chose to follow Winn's recommendation that the Murder charge be dropped, and chose to ignore his recommendation that Pantano be held responsible for the body desecration. It seems the officer who authorizes an article 32 hearing has the authority to igmore its recommendations, and he or she doesn't have to offer a justification for doing so.
What reason could Huck have had? I've wondered if a CO can ignore the recommendation for a court-martial for morale reasons. Would it have reduced the Morale of his Division if Pantano was tried for a crime that was widely repeated by other GIs in his Division?
The article on Horace Mann, his Prep School, also says he "was cleared of all charges". When I disputed that, contributors to the Horace Mann school, some of whom seemed to be Alunmi, argued that saying Pantano was "cleared" was a fair way to characterize Huck choosing to ignore Winn's recommendation about Pantano's body desecration. Go figure.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert -- see talk

[[User:81.132.51.161] added Pantano to the category Iraq war crimes. When doing so they added this edit summary:

"added 'category: iraq_war_crimes', which contains a list of articles related to war crimes or 'alleged' war crimes regardless of court verdicts.(pre-emptive explaination for the editor who deletes it"

Later that day User:Looper5920 reverted that addition, with the edit summary:

"External links - removed completely inappropriate "War Crimes" tag....Pantano was found innocent...please stop adding this."

Maybe Looper5920 didn't notice the edit summary, and this explains why he or she didn't address 81's edit summary here on the talk page.

I'd like Looper5920 to address the point 81 made -- that the category was for articles related to war crimes or 'alleged' war crimes regardless of court verdicts.

I'd like Looper5920 to tell us when Pantano was found innocent. I followed his case closely. His case didn't get to the court martial stage. Major Winn, the officer who was in charge of his article 32 hearing, recommended the murder charge be dropped, for insufficient evidence. May I suggest it is misleading to describe this as being "found innocent"?

I'd like to remind Looper5920 that Winn also recommended that Winn be held accountable for desecrating his prisoners bodies. I do not believe this is consistent with a description that he was "found innocent".

As near as I can tell, from press reports, most of the hearing was devoted to beating up on the whistle-blower, and that, at no point, did the hearing address the statement Pantano gave to naval investigators, before he got lawyered up. In that statement he bragged, over and over again, that he had decided to use maximum violence "in order to send a message". He told the naval investigators he had decided this long ahead of time, and he had instructed his platoon to do likewise.

If Iraqi rebels, or Afghan rebels, use violence to terrify civilians, to send a them a message, we classify that as terrorism. I dispute Looper5920's assertion that it is "completely inappropriate" to consider whether Pantano's addmission that he too planned to terrify civilians puts him into the category of self-confessed terrorists.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute it all you want. Show me where he was convicted of a war crime and then we'll talk. It is not an assertion that is yours to make.--Looper5920 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Looper accompanied this note with an reversion. I left him or her a note on his talk page And he or she replied, on their talk page, with a note that cites wp:blp as their authority for the reversion.
wp:blp is a meaningful argument. I think what we need is to acquire a complete copy of his statement to the CID, and put the whole statement up on the wikisource. Then readers can read his aggressive bragging and misplaced pride in using maximum violence "to send a message" for themselves, and reach their own conclusion on his conduct.
I continue to think it is highly misleading to say he was "found innocent".
Back when his hearing was imminent I read several newspaper article that contained extensive quotes from his orginal June 2004 statement. I found his confessions of premeditated plan to use violence to send a message highly chilling.
But those articles have all passed down the internet's memory hole. I'd welcome advice as to how to acquire a copy of his statement for wikisource. Presumably his statement must have been publically available for those newspapers to quote from it. FWIW, I am not an American, so I believe the path of submitting a FOIA request is closed to me. But, if any American wikipedians want to submit one, I will chip in on the $50 fee.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the relevant policy that applies here. Categorizing Pantano under War Crimes violates the BLP directions on use of categories — see example "criminals", which equates to "war crimes". In addition, Pantano is not a "public figure", so privacy and "do no harm" have top priority. — ERcheck (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innocent?

The way the UCMJ works (and for that matter, any of the American court systems), you cannot be found to be innocent. It's just not a possible outcome. An Article 32 hearing corresponds very closely to a civilian criminal Grand Jury proceeding, the outcome of which is either no charges being filed (in either proceeding), or a recommendation for courtsmartial from the Article 32 or the filing of charges by the Grand Jury. No one is ever declared innocent in either (and they are not declared guilty or not guilty, either.) This case didn't go to trial (which also would not have found him innocent, only guilty or not guilty), so Pantano should be granted the presumption of innocence of the murder allegations. htom 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article 32 hearing did recommend he be held accountable for the body desecration -- Major Winn used the term body desecration -- so I find it disturbing how often well-meaning but misinformed wikipedians write that Pantano was "cleared of all charges". Geo Swan 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be better to say something like ... no billed on the murder charges, and the remaining charge was dropped by the prosecution ... but that's at best a very long way of saying cleared. htom 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "...remaining charge dropped by the prosecution..." is an accurate description.
A General Richard Huck was the C.O. of the 2nd Marine Division. (Pantano platoon was in the 2nd Marine Division, but had been assigned to reinforce the 1st Marine Division.) Huck authorized the article 32 hearing, and Major Winn -- a non-lawyer -- reported back to Huck, recommending punishment for the body desecration. Which Huck ignored. Huck wasn't part of the Prosecution. Neither was Winn.
As I understand US military law, Huck doesn't need to explain why he ignored the recommendation. As I understand US military law, Huck would not have been abusing his authority if he ignored article 32 hearing recommendations if he thought punishment, or further prosecution would be bad for the morale, or trigger unwelcome diplomatic repercussions. IANAL. I may have got this part wrong. But I think "...remaining charge dropped by the prosecution..." is quite inaccurate.
Stephen Green, the psycho who was the triggerman of the gang of GIs that murdered the family of the teenage girl, then raped and murdered her, had already been discharged. He was still able to be charged, in civilian court. Does this mean Pantano is not fully in the clear?
Pantano's initial sworn statement to Naval investigators was at odds with his later account on many key points. My reading of the excerpts from his initial sworn statement, that some MSM newspapers quoted, at length, was that the statement supported even more serious charges than murder.
I'd like to put the full text of Pantano's June 2004 statement to naval investigators up on wikisource. I'd be grateful if anyone knows how to track down that statement. I'll put it up even if it has to be manually transcribed, because I think it is important if readers are to understand the whole story.
Cheers! Geo Swan 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet threats?

The article says "On February 17, 2005, it was reported that Ms. Pantano's site went down, and a parallel site with a similar name went up. It was reported that the parallel site contained threats against Pantano, and his family; that it contained a video simulating Pantano being decapitated. Retired Marines are reported to have volunteered to stand a security watch over Pantano's home." So, who reported these things? Currently all we have is an unsourced claim. — Red XIV (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Googling a bit, the Washington Times. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050216-115952-3599r.htm htom 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captives searching their own vehicle?

In the April 15th incident section, it says "According to a statement Lieutenant Pantano made to military investigators in June 2004, he then used hand signals to order the captives to search the vehicle again." This must be incorrect -- captives being ordered to search their own vehicle!? More likely Pantano searched the vehicle, but because the June 2004 statment is unreferrenced, I can't check on this. Simply deleting this sentence would only further confuse the event description. This section needs help. If the statement is indeed true, it needs to be better explained. Noca2plus (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)