1. There was no "court marshal" (sic). There was an article 32 investigation conducted, after which the conveneing authority decided there was insufficient evidence to go to a court martial. That's exactly the same as a grand jury refusing to return a bill of indictment because of insufficient evidence. In America, we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
2. The statement against Lieutenant Pantano was judged not credible because it came from a Sergeant who had previously been disciplined by Pantano, and had been heard bragging about his plan to get even.
3. Sixty rounds of "heavy artillery?" Lieutenant Panatno was armed with an M-16A2, which fires a 5.56 mm round. That's about the same size as a .22 LR round. He squeezed the rigger only twenty times to fire sixty rounds. You know as much about what constitutes artillery as you do about the military justice system.
4. In no way, shape, or form did these men qualify as POWs. The Geneva Protocols have very strict definitions of who constitutes a POW, and suspected enemy forces unter temporary apprehension and interrogation so not qualify until such time as a decision is made to permanently detain them.
5. The fact that they were unarmed is inconsequential. Enemy forces can be engaged at any time until they are in the act of surrendering or are rendered incapacitated. (The one exception is downed aircrew, who cannot be engaged until they are on the ground.) Lieutenant Pantano reported that the two men started advancing on him, so he engaged them. That was perfectly acceptable under the Rules of Engagement in effect, and is also substantiated by the autopsy results that clearly indicate the men were not shot from the back. The fact that these two men had just exited a building in which was found a large cache of weapons and ammunition proves that Pantano did nothing more than eliminate two of the bad guys.
Perhaps having decorated veterans in your family doesn't qualify you as an expert in military matters?
More information about formatting options