(Edited title) GW's rubber stamp.

[rn79870]

The supreme court doesn't look at a case to determine if there are appealable issues. SCOTUS merely rule on whether or not sufficient constitutional grounds exist(for SCOTUS review) in the arguments presented in the filed briefs. The defendant is not entitled to raise new issues at the supreme court level, instead he must argue issues raised on appeal in the court - from the original court of jurisdiction to wit, the military trial.. Therefore, it is conceivable that the defendant suffered throughout the proceeding and was denied effective aid of counsel and that error was compounded throughout the process.

This is where the Presidential review is so necessary. Not that the president has to do it personally, but he has a slew of tools available to him within the DOJ that could have reviewed the case and made recommendations on the the quality of defense the defendant got. Instead, it got (presumably)rubberstamped.

None of this matters whether the defendant deservs to be execuited or not. What matters is that each person facing capital punishment needs to receive the same level of protection a wealthy person would receive. That's part of the constitution you swore to defend and uphold.

[rn79870]

1) Again, your beef should be with the Dem who approved the UCMJ. Not the subsequent CIC's who operated under it.

2) Nope. But humans > animals in my mind. Not down with reincarnation either. Dig the stylin haircut tho.

3) Appropriate amount of time is relative. See my post above. If he spent 6 weeks holed up in his room in a fetal position agonizing over what to do with this assclown, he's wasting time. The legal authority had spoken.

4) See #3.

5) I find it troubling that there's apparently a flaw in the UCMJ. Let's not put that on GWB.

6) See #5. Where have you been all this time? Get crackin'.

7) Then who did? There have been executions since then, so who OK'ed them then? Who?

8) Fair enough. Still ancient history.

Crap, gotta scoot - Will finish lobbing grenades later.

Hugs & kisses.

I agree with your assumption that I was correct in 1 through 6.

7. Nope, 1951 was the last. Wasn't that Truman? That's why I stopped at Ike who came into office in 1952.

[Marenta]

Would you like a copy of my Service contract? I've signed away certain rights available to me, and so did he. We are contracted to the United States Government.. and, unless we actually sign a waiver saying that we revoke them, or that the Government was in dereliction of the contract; then the contract is binding.

We place ourselves under the UCMJ as well as civil authorities for all matters. So, if I went out and robbed a bank, I would be tried by the military and then by the civilian/federal court system as well. So, my sentence would be doubled on top of my military sentence. It's twice as strict, since we are supposed to meet higher standards and be held accountable as such.

[rn79870]

Oh I have no doubt they were within the provisions of the UCMJ. However, I feel that the problems inherent with the military trial system is sufficient to make it unconscionable in the case of a capital crime. We've developed a pretty great legal system behind our Constitution. That's all that stands between us and some third world travesty justice system.

I'd just feel better if that document applied to all citizens, whether or not they were in uniform.

[C-Kwik]

Texacutioner served as the last court of appeal for 153 men and women – and sent 152 of them to their graves. According to his appointment logs, it rarely took more than 30 minutes for Bush to declare "nothing excessive" in those particular sentences.

I'm gonna dredge up this early post in this thread. How does this compare to others? I'm curious as we should quantify it if we are going to pass judgement.

[rn79870]

I guess that was directed towards me. If so, here's my take on it. A person with the right of life and death over an individual should take that as the most solemn act he ever performs. He should spare no expense, time or effort in reviewing, and putting his conscious to rest that this is the correct action. Some may be easier than others, but when he rules on over 150 lives, with an average of 30 minutes spent on each, I find it concerning.

I can't speak for the volume of material he had before him, but my point is he probably spend more time shopping for his last pair of shoes than the 30 minutes he spend reviewing and ruling on the taking of a humans life. To me, this is indicative of a person who doesn't fully appreciate the nature and consequences of his decision. It cheapens life.

[Jager]

RN your missing the point AZ iss making,

I read your posts as saying I hate bush doesnt spend more time considering executions, and since you dont know how long bush spent mulling over this soldiers clemency, you drag up his actions in texas,

texas.. a state, one of those all due rights and procedures civilian controlled 12 man juries and multiple appeals.... so in essence your taking apples and comparing them to an orange, a single orange.ie152 executions of civilians on death row versus 1 execution under the UMCJ...

that is about as baselessly ridiculous as you can possibly get. your data doesnt add up, you cant even answer the easy question why should the president second guess the JAG branch and the UMCJ. especially when its not 1 murder or 2, but add a few rapes on top.

Im happy the guys gone, and that bush spent his incredibly busy time focusing on other issues then what this dirtbag convicted in 1988 was worth.

lastly if the guy was convicted in 1988, why didnt he appeal under George daddy or maybe clinton? they could have given him clemency or signed off on his death... no his file had to go through the system 20 years of working on it before the case was finally all exhausted.

as a person who loves debate and politics, i cannot believe you presented such terribly tenuous points and tried to string them together like that, come on RN, thats so biased your the only one saying it.

oh and shoes the preseident has a shopper who takes care of all clothing choices and purchases for him, so he generally pops open the closet and grabs the set with the suit hes gonna wear. (or so they say)

[Marenta]

I'm sorry to say, but it would've taken me less than 2 seconds to decide to put a bullet in his brain when he came back from doing what he was doing. True, I am not "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" however, killing him off is more mercy from me than I would like to show him. Because, trust me, if I actually had it my way, he'd be tortured, and you wouldn't even want to know how.

[rn79870]

And Marenta that's my fear with the appointment procedure for panel members. Without the right to voir dire a potential member, how can a defendant be sure that he gets a fair and impartial trial? What if the CA picked 5 people that s/he knew had your philosophy? What if s/he picked 5 who would automatically vote not guilty? Is that really fair?

Don't mistake that I'm saying he should get off on this. I'd feel better if he was executed after the President had had the DOJ fully investigate the matter for unanswered constitutional issues.

[Marenta]

Well, then is your lack of faith then with the fact that the Military's justice system didn't do right by him, the fact that President Bush didn't spend more time reviewing the case, or the fact that the DoJ didn't have the right to prosecute him?

[rn79870]

RN your missing the point AZ iss making,

I read your posts as saying I hate bush doesnt spend more time considering executions, and since you dont know how long bush spent mulling over this soldiers clemency, you drag up his actions in texas,

texas.. a state, one of those all due rights and procedures civilian controlled 12 man juries and multiple appeals.... so in essence your taking apples and comparing them to an orange, a single orange.ie152 executions of civilians on death row versus 1 execution under the UMCJ...

First of all, don't mistake my disdain for the job Busk has done as hate for the man. 2 different things entirely.

He has established a practice of spending about 30 minutes reviewing cases he ruled on. My point is that 30 minutes is not sufficient to read more than about 10 pages out of probably thousands.

that is about as baselessly ridiculous as you can possibly get. your data doesnt add up, you cant even answer the easy question why should the president second guess the JAG branch and the UMCJ. especially when its not 1 murder or 2, but add a few rapes on top.

The president should "second guess" the system becasue that is what the law requires.

Im happy the guys gone, and that bush spent his incredibly busy time focusing on other issues then what this dirtbag convicted in 1988 was worth.

Well, I hate to tell you, but he's not gone.

lastly if the guy was convicted in 1988, why didnt he appeal under George daddy or maybe clinton? they could have given him clemency or signed off on his death... no his file had to go through the system 20 years of working on it before the case was finally all exhausted.

You don't understand the process. He isn't allowed the same appeal rights a civilian defendant is allowed. Why didn't he act under Clinton or GHWB? Who knows.

as a person who loves debate and politics, i cannot believe you presented such terribly tenuous points and tried to string them together like that, come on RN, thats so biased your the only one saying it.

Trust me, I'm not alone on this. Go visit Amnesty international. Go visit Death watch. Google it. I'm merely one here saying it.

oh and shoes the preseident has a shopper who takes care of all clothing choices and purchases for him, so he generally pops open the closet and grabs the set with the suit hes gonna wear. (or so they say)

It's an analogy. Not a fact. But, I did say "the last shoes he picked out" didn't I?

[rn79870]

Well, then is your lack of faith then with the fact that the Military's justice system didn't do right by him, the fact that President Bush didn't spend more time reviewing the case, or the fact that the DoJ didn't have the right to prosecute him?

Not so. The UCMJ obviously had the right. And I suppose your comment about lack of faith in the military justice system, when it comes to capital cases, is valid.

The matter isn't whether it did right by him, we'll never know now. The matter is insuring the system does right by all those who come in the future. I'm not asking for anything more than what a civilian defendant gets, and in this case, I feel GW didn't give the matter the attention it deserved. I would feel much better it he announced that after a DOJ review, lasting x days, the matter is being affirmed.

[Marenta]

Not so. The UCMJ obviously had the right. And I suppose your comment about lack of faith in the military justice system, when it comes to capital cases, is valid.

The matter isn't whether it did right by him, we'll never know now. The matter is insuring the system does right by all those who come in the future. I'm not asking for anything more than what a civilian defendant gets, and in this case, I feel GW didn't give the matter the attention it deserved. I would feel much better it he announced that after a DOJ review, lasting x days, the matter is being affirmed.

I would have to say that, yes, if personnel in the military were considered civilian they would deserve a fair case by due trial.

And, he got a fair case by due trial by military standards, seeing as how militarily wise, we are held to a strange off-beat standard.

And, do keep in mind that the Supreme Court is "technically" the DoJ's head in all civil matters. Now, I'm sure that if the President really wanted to, in a state of war or impose marshal law, could overrule the Supreme Court's decision on cases, but that would be unprecedented and would be a term killer for said CIC.

However, keep in mind that the President is a MILITARY CIC, and he is the CO of all things MILITARY as well. So, while we all have to play nice and get along in the DoD, even though we hate each other sometimes, he alone is our commander, and it is his duty to make the call to send us to our deaths, bring us home, and in this case make a final ruling on a sentence.

I do, however, agree that he should have probably spent more time going over the case than what he did. But, you do not have the case file, and if you had, you might have spent only 30 minutes like he did. Remember, all somebody has to do is imagine one of their children being put in that position and it's signed, sealed, and delivered. Do not think that he made the decision with callousness, because the brevity of taking somebody's life is no small matter, and I'm sure that he will always think about it, just like he thinks about all the soldiers that have died since he's taken office, and the people that died on 9/11. Any rational human would feel emotion in that position, do not take him as a snake and think that he would not feel the same as you would; but, do not mistake the fact that he is also sworn to do that job and it is his duty to do so.

[srellim234]

I would normally feel that way, too, but the DOJ probably would not have done him right either. Look at what a stellar performance they've done under Bush. One politically motivated controversy after another. As a citizen I have very little faith in the DOJ right now. I'd like to see the DOJ get back to working for the law and the Constitution and less for the political agenda.

I'm going to ask a question because I simply don't have the knowledge or expertise so I'll defer to those of you who are a lot more well-versed in the intricacies of law than me:

How independent could we make the DOJ and would that be desireable?

I could pose this question in a new thread if you think it warrants serious discussion.

Modified by srellim234 at 8:59 PM 8/1/2008
Modified by srellim234 at 9:00 PM 8/1/2008

[Jager]

First of all, don't mistake my disdain for the job Busk has done as hate for the man. 2 different things entirely.

my apologies there should be another word there that reads "i hate that bush doesnt spent more time. " ie not that you hate him but his choice of time.

Quote »The president should "second guess" the system becasue that is what the law requires.[/quote]the law requires him to read a summary and decide if the courts did their job or fouled up something obvious ie theres evidence and it wasnt allowed to be submitted, or if extenuating circumstances permit or require him to say no to the death penalty, not to be the guys lawyer.

Quote »Well, I hate to tell you, but he's not gone.[/quote]thats ok, hes gonna pay for his crime and hes not seeing the light of day outside a prison, its a win for me.

Quote »You don't understand the process. He isn't allowed the same appeal rights a civilian defendant is allowed. Why didn't he act under Clinton or GHWB? Who knows. [/quote]the military has a seperate set of rules its part of swearing the oath. You become a second class citizen with less rights and more responsibilities in order to serve your country. Want that changed? Ask your congressmen/women, that is something the president CANNOT override just because he wants to. thats a congressional issue. lets keep the ball in the right court and make sure we dont expect our presidents to overstep their bounds that far.

Quote » Trust me, I'm not alone on this. Go visit Amnesty international. Go visit Death watch. Google it. I'm merely one here saying it.[/quote]yeah and your point is that you dislike the death penalty, im all for it for people who have committed egregious crimes and cannot be rehabilitated or whose monstrosity precludes spending my taxes on keeping him around for 60 years. he had 20 years to argue his case its not like he got railroaded. He got his shots based on his previous oaths and promises to our country.

my main point is that looking at civilian death penalty cases in texas who have afforded all the rights we have as we are civilians is NOT comparable to any military death penalty, so his 152 executions who had full due process appeals wris, filings certs, hearings etc cant be used in the same context (which is what you are coming across as doing at least to me) as a military execution. especially when arguing that the military guy didnt get fair civilian due process as seems that you are.

hence the stringing together facts that are tenuous at best. your logic isnt adding up, and its really coming across as biased. its unfair to sign the guy to die , because he didnt spend time (we dont know what time he spent in this case) and comparing them to texas executions.

as to the shoes....

30 minutes is not alot per se, but for a civilian death penalty, ie for people who have exhausted at least 15 judges and 4 levels of state and federal courts and then the appeals courts for each level then supreme court (so more like 50+ judges total) id say the cases are generally rather spent at that point. its not like they were railroaded either most likely, they filed every appeal and gangplank filing if they were half smart.

so listening to his AG and their advisers and then meeting with the defense attorney possibly is all a formality. texas doesnt pardon people unless a judge demands it, its just how texas holds capital crimes, alabama and florida are the same.

[AZhitman]

7. Nope, 1951 was the last. Wasn't that Truman? That's why I stopped at Ike who came into office in 1952.

Really? Then why does your OP say:

Members of the U.S. military have been executed throughout history, but just 10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951 when the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's modern-day legal system, was enacted into law.

[AZhitman]

To me, this is indicative of a person who doesn't fully appreciate the nature and consequences of his decision. It cheapens life.

I say the same thing about pro-choice'rs - especially those who have never had children.

Why are we giving a convicted murderer and rapist 20 years of appeals and added life, and complaining about a 30-minute final review of his case (which is just a technicality anyway), when hundreds of thousands of unborn kids get less than 10 seconds of "review time" from THEIR final reviewer?

Perhaps because the shltbag we're discussing in this thread has more value than the child who may someday grow up to cure cancer, bring world peace, or develop the world's next renewable energy source?

Piss on him. I'd put my energy towards productive members of society.

30 minutes was 29.9 minutes too long.

[AZhitman]

He has established a practice of spending about 30 minutes reviewing cases he ruled on. My point is that 30 minutes is not sufficient to read more than about 10 pages out of probably thousands.

And again, I say, why should it take him longer than that?

He consulted with the "experts". Presidents do it all the time, for FAR weightier issues.

Quit swinging at the softballs and focus on the high heat I'm hurling.

Hey, batta batta batta.....

[AZhitman]

I wonder if Bob would still be following the "Amnest International" line if Exhibit A of the report GWB reviewed was a videotaped testimony from the convicted explaining how he raped and killed his victims.

Just because it takes one person 3 pages and 3 days to realize they're confused doesn't mean the POTUS can't make a decision in far less time.

[rn79870]

Sorry, Bob didn't follow anybody's line. In fact, He said he didn't object to the penalty as long as certain safeguards were in place. One of those safeguards appears missing, at least, when you look in GW's eyes, you don't see any signs of intelligent life, therefore, little chance of meaningful review - therefore, a safeguard is totally missing.

Why are we giving a convicted murderer and rapist 20 years of appeals and added life, and complaining about a 30-minute final review of his case (which is just a technicality anyway), when hundreds of thousands of unborn kids get less than 10 seconds of "review time" from THEIR final reviewer?

You're clouding this issue with new unrelated issues.

[AZhitman]

You're clouding this issue with new unrelated issues.

Can't help it.

Someone has to to keep this thread interesting while you keep dodging the facts.



FWIW, you brought up the "30-minute review"...

I'm just pointing out how hypocritical is to:

- Demand someone who you refer to as an "idiot" to overrule "experts"...- Demand a lengthy "review" of a life/death decision in one case but not others...- Claim GWB is the only POTUS to sign a UCMJ death warrant, when he's not...

[rn79870]

I'm just pointing out how hypocritical is to:

- Demand someone who you refer to as an "idiot" to overrule "experts"...

Perhaps that's why I suggested he use the DOJ. I'm sure they are capable.And, they have the tools available.

- Demand a lengthy "review" of a life/death decision in one case but not others...

He only signed 1. As far as Texas goes, that's got to be on his conscious.

- Claim GWB is the only POTUS to sign a UCMJ death warrant, when he's not...

Never claimed that. Claimed he's the first since 1951, hence the list of presidents you and I discussed starting with Ike and Ending with Bill.

Common big guy, keep focused here.

[AZhitman]

Never claimed that. Claimed he's the first since 1951, hence the list of presidents you and I discussed starting with Ike and Ending with Bill.

Common big guy, keep focused here.

YES YOU DID.

Really? Then why does your OP say:

Members of the U.S. military have been executed throughout history, but just 10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951 when the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's modern-day legal system, was enacted into law.

If you claimed he's the FIRST since 1951, then your OP can't be correct, i which case you're wrong, which I already knew.

"10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951."

My focus is fine - I find errors for a living.

[rn79870]

YES YOU DID.

If you claimed he's the FIRST since 1951, then your OP can't be correct, i which case you're wrong, which I already knew.

"10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951."

My focus is fine - I find errors for a living.

From my OP...President Bush on Monday approved the execution of an Army private, the first time in over a half-century that a president has affirmed a death sentence for a member of the U.S. military.

Actually, after a search, there is conflicting data on that issue.

I did find this...

President Kennedy was the last president to stare down this life-or-death decision. On Feb. 12, 1962, Kennedy commuted the death sentence of Jimmie Henderson, a Navy seaman, to confinement for life

So at worst, my timeline is off by 10 years. Kenney's the man.

I'll look a little deeper into this.

[Marenta]

President Kennedy was the last president to stare down this life-or-death decision. On Feb. 12, 1962, Kennedy commuted the death sentence of Jimmie Henderson, a Navy seaman, to confinement for life

I wouldn't call confinement for life really "death" persay, but I would call it something close to it. Kind of like.. purgatory. Or, Martha Stewart's linen closet.

[rn79870]

And if there was a true "life without" I'd be a much stronger opponent. As it is, I just draw a line a little further up the scale than many others.

[AZhitman]

Actually, after a search, there is conflicting data on that issue.

I'll look a little deeper into this.

I won't hold my breath - It took us 3 pages to get this far.

[smockers83]

Someone--not sure who, just remember reading it--said something about reading 3 pages in 30 minutes awhile back...if it takes you 30 minutes to read 3 pages, my god. But to read 3 pages and come to a conclusion in 30 minutes, what's the big deal? It shouldn't take no more than 10 minutes to read and comprehend it, 20 minutes to make a decision isn't too bad. Are we supposed to mull it over for 3 hours? If that's way you want it, nothing would get done.

[AZhitman]

It took Bob 3 pages to realize he posted contradictory stories in the OP... I think he might be jealous of GWB's speedreading.

[wingFeather]

I see the title of the thread has changed