Tea Party candidate a cold blooded murderer and war criminal

bit_pattern

Unregistered
bit_pattern
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
7,406
Words cannot express my feelings about this :mad:

THE basic facts are undisputed: on April 15, 2004, Ilario Pantano, then a second lieutenant with the US marines, stopped and detained two Iraqi men in a car near Fallujah. The Iraqis were unarmed and the car found to contain no weapons.

Mr Pantano ordered the two men to search the car for a second time and then, with no other US soldiers in view, unloaded a magazine of his M16A4 automatic rifle into them, before reloading and blasting a second magazine at them - some 60 rounds in total.

Over the corpses, he left a placard inscribed with the marine motto: No better friend, No worse enemy.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Click to expand...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/politicians-bloody-background-20101027-173sk.html?autostart=1

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please do not copy & paste lengthy tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead, post a short quote and a link to the other source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you mad that he was charged and brought to trial on the basis of..?:
Defence lawyers highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' accounts and portrayed the main witness, who had been demoted by Mr Pantano, as a soldier with an axe to grind. Forensic evidence was said to conflict with the prosecution case.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like this should be in CTs, not politics.
It also strikes me that he was brought to trial and (right or wrong) justice has been done.
 
Last edited:
I bet you an international tribunal wouldn't have exonerated him. Militaries shouldn't investigate themselves. Ever heard of conflict of interest. Even if he WAS justified in killing unarmed civilians in cold blood, the desecration of the bodies alone should make him unfit to serve office.
 
bit_pattern said:
I bet you an international tribunal wouldn't have exonerated him. Militaries shouldn't investigate themselves. Ever heard of conflict of interest. Even if he WAS justified in killing unarmed civilians in cold blood, the desecration of the bodies alone should make him unfit to serve office.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that some "international tribunal" would have been absolutely impartial. One of the problems with the ICC is that there is a risk of a Political axe to grind making the court subjective. Anyone can go to the ICC and go on a rant. And if the ICC acquits, then you will go in into some CT about how there should be another. It doesnt work that way and subverts the rule of law. Even did he did do it, it's life. You will NEVER get a 100% conviction rate

And the court Martial system has to look at ALL the evidence presented and the officers that make it up are from places other than the incident and do not know the defendant or victims.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
You seem to think that some "international tribunal" would have been absolutely impartial. One of the problems with the ICC is that there is a risk of a Political axe to grind making the court subjective. Anyone can go to the ICC and go on a rant. And if the ICC acquits, then you will go in into some CT about how there should be another. It doesnt work that way and subverts the rule of law. Even did he did do it, it's life. You will NEVER get a 100% conviction rate

And the court Martial system has to look at ALL the evidence presented and the officers that make it up are from places other than the incident and do not know the defendant or victims.
Click to expand...

Not saying I would, but I have serious issues with the idea that these are the sort of whacko's the tea party are putting forward. Like I said, even if he did have just reason for shooting unarmed civvies in the back of the head, the fact he desecrated the bodies should render him unfit for office. That's the story here, not the nature of military tribunals.

Funny though that Alfie thinks holding an opinion on established and undisputed facts is a "conspiracy theory" :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
well you said "militaries shouldn't investigate themselves". The Court Martial system has been effective in reducing crime and deviance in the military

And A.A. Alfie has pointed out that your version of events is inconsistent with the evidence. To quote Gil Grissom from CSI:

The Evidence Never Lies
Click to expand...
 
bit_pattern said:
Funny though that Alfie thinks holding an opinion on established and undisputed facts is a "conspiracy theory" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interestingly the "undisputed facts" were that he went to court and was freed; all charged dropped. Your undisputed fact and evidence were obviously er ... in dispute.

If not, he would rightly be behind bars today.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

:D
 
Matthew Best said:
Is it disputed that he desecrated bodies by leaving a placard on them?
Click to expand...

How would I know?
But even if he is guilty of that indiscretion, does that somehow make him guilty of being a "cold blooded murderer and war criminal" as the emotive OP would have us believe? Hardly. :)
 
While his actions could certainly be considered "conduct unbecoming an officer", I'm hesitant to apply the label "cold-blooded murderer" without more evidence. However, were I a voter in North Carolina, I would certainly be less likely to vote for him after hearing about his conduct during the war.
 
bit_pattern said:
I bet you an international tribunal wouldn't have exonerated him. Militaries shouldn't investigate themselves. Ever heard of conflict of interest. Even if he WAS justified in killing unarmed civilians in cold blood, the desecration of the bodies alone should make him unfit to serve office.
Click to expand...

So you're upset that the verdict didn't agree with your version of the "truth"?
 
Unabogie said:
Just taking a stab at it, I think he's upset the guy killed two unarmed human beings by shooting them 60 times, desecrated their bodies, and then got nominated as a Teahadist.
Click to expand...

Eeeeexcept he didn't, because he'd be in prison if there was actual evidence that he had done that.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Eeeeexcept he didn't, because he'd be in prison if there was actual evidence that he had done that.
Click to expand...

He did all of those things. The defense prevailed because they showed that the men may not have been "innocent", and I never claimed they were. He was acquitted of murder and that may have been the correct verdict, since we have a system based on reasonable doubt. But the basic facts: he shot them 60 times, they were unarmed, and he left a "calling card" on their bodies are not disputed.
 
Unabogie said:
He did all of those things. The defense prevailed because they showed that the men may not have been "innocent", and I never claimed they were. He was acquitted of murder and that may have been the correct verdict, since we have a system based on reasonable doubt. But the basic facts: he shot them 60 times, they were unarmed, and he left a "calling card" on their bodies are not disputed.
Click to expand...

Um. Yes, yes those facts are disputed.

Did you read the part that A.A.Alfie (someone with whom I have agreed so few times before you can count them on one hand) that the sequence of events given is inconsistent with the evidence. If anything like the story told to the tribunal by the douche with a grudge were true like, you know, unloading two clips into unarmed civilians, then the guy would have been found guilty.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Um. Yes, yes those facts are disputed.

Did you read the part that A.A.Alfie (someone with whom I have agreed so few times before you can count them on one hand) that the sequence of events given is inconsistent with the evidence. If anything like the story told to the tribunal by the douche with a grudge were true like, you know, unloading two clips into unarmed civilians, then the guy would have been found guilty.
Click to expand...

No, which part do you claim is disputed? Murder requires premeditated intent with no mitigating circumstances. That this may not have been murder. But the facts are not in dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilario_Pantano#April_15th_Incident

When Pantano learned that the compound contained weapons, he ordered Sergeant Daniel Coburn and Corpsman George Gobles to watch for enemies. He then released the captives from their bonds so they could search the vehicle again more thoroughly. 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.[7] According to Pantano, during the search of the vehicle he felt the Iraqis posed a threat to him. They were talking and Pantano believed they were conspiring together. When they both turned to face each other he shouted "Stop!" in both Arabic and English, and when they did not stop, he shot them. He later stated: "I then changed magazines and continued to fire until the second magazine was empty...I had made a decision that when I was firing I was going to send a message to these Iraqis and others that when we say, 'No better friend, No worse enemy,' we mean it. I had fired both magazines into the men, hitting them with about 80 percent of my rounds."[7]
Click to expand...
Again, these facts are not in dispute. They were in custody, he untied them, then shot them 60 times. They were not armed at the time they were shot. He then left a card on their bodies.

ETA: Just to get specific here. Are you claiming any of the following?


  1. Pantano did not shoot them 60 times.
  2. They were in fact armed.
  3. He did not leave a card on their bodies after shooting them.
 
Last edited:
I rather agree with Bit Pattern and Unabogie on this one. The guy is definitely unfit to serve in Congress.
 
bit_pattern said:
Like I said, even if he did have just reason for shooting unarmed civvies in the back of the head, the fact he desecrated the bodies should render him unfit for office.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but if he had sufficient reason, then he's not a cold-blooded murderer and war criminal, which is what you accused him of being. You made a statement of fact about him, a statement that you can't actually back up.

Funny though that Alfie thinks holding an opinion on established and undisputed facts is a "conspiracy theory" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But it's not an established fact that he's a cold-blooded murderer and a war criminal. To the extent that anything has been established about that issue, it's that he's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom