I just finished reading Ilario Pantano's Warlord, recanting his Odyssey through the Marine Corps legal system after a shitbird Sergeant named David Coburn decided to make up a story about Pantano murdering some Iraqi civilians. Pantano had a great career in the Marine Corps before he was railroaded. My main questions after reading the story are:
Why did the Division Legal Office and NCIS believe the story of a disgruntled shitbird Sgt like Coburn over all the other statements and press for an Article 32 hearing? Why did NCIS suppress some statements? The division legal officer was probably a clone of the same idiot division legal Colonel who told me to coerce a statement out of a witness, to which I told him to go to hell. Luckily I had a LtCol who also told him to go to hell.
Why did the NCIS withhold the multitude of witness testimony that was in favor of Pantano's story and only use shitbird testimony that was shredded by the defense during the Art 32 hearing? This was a criminal act by NCIS and I doubt they were held accountable for it (but they tried to hide their stupidity by holding up discovery). They basically ruined Pantano's career by their actions and got away with it without any repercussions. Not quite the shining professionals we're shown on TV, are they?
After it was all over, an autopsy of the Iraqis shot during the incident collaborated Pantano's story, but by that time the Marine Corps had already lost a great officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment