DeNada
05-05-2005, 06:16 PM
** I'm posting this because it relates some of the process of military appeals. It's not just death sentences that get the automatic appeal. Anything over 10 years goes to the particular service branch's court of appeals and then to the Military Court of Appeals for all service branches. **
May 02, 2005 (from Army Times)
Akbar may never face execution
By Estes Thompson
Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. — Relatives of those killed in Sgt. Hasan Akbar’s grenade attack on his comrades say he deserved a jury’s death sentence, but experts in military law said Friday it’s hardly a certainty the execution will ever happen.
The military hasn’t executed one of its own since 1961, while states have put scores of civilian killers to their deaths. Experts say the key difference in military justice is the role of the president, who unlike a governor, must take an active role in signing off when a service member gets the ultimate punishment.
“It is unique to the military justice system that there has to be an affirmative approval by the president of the United States,” said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington. “Clearly, there’s no rush to judgment.”
Currently, there are five people on military death row, three whose cases are in the appeals process and two who are awaiting action from the president.
Fidell pointed out that even though current President Bush and past President Clinton came from states that had active records of executions, neither have put their name to a military execution.
The last time that happened was in 1961 when President Kennedy signed off on the hanging of Army Pfc. John A. Bennett for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.
Akbar was sentenced to die Thursday for killing Capt. Chris Seifert, 27, and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, in a March 2003 attack on the 101st Airborne Division at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait in the early days of the Iraq war.
Prosecutors said Akbar launched the surprise attack because he was concerned about U.S. troops killing fellow Muslims in the Iraq war.
Defense lawyers argued Akbar was too mentally ill to plan the attack, but they never disputed he was the one who threw grenades into troop tents and fired on soldiers in the ensuing chaos.
A 15-member military panel deliberated seven hours, including time spend reconsidering, before returning with a sentence of death, which these days is administered by lethal injection.
Relatives of Akbar’s victims said they thought it was appropriate.
“Nothing can undo the irreparable damage he has caused,” said Tammie Eslinger, Stone’s fiancé. “But today, I will find comfort in knowing that justice has been served.”
Theresa Seifert, widow of Chris Seifert, said she and her family were satisfied with the death sentence and pointed out that the victims “will not be returning into the arms of those who loved them.”
Maj. Shawn Phillips, who suffered a thigh injury and was among 14 soldiers wounded in the attack, said Akbar “went to an extreme that is totally unacceptable in our culture and our Army. It wasn’t an accident. I’m really happy our justice system came through.”
While the 34-year-old Akbar sits on the military’s death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., his punishment still could be years away. He is afforded automatic appeals to two military appeals courts and can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A military appeals court overturned the previous military death sentence, given to Sgt. William Kreutzer for killing an officer and wounding 18 other soldiers when he fired on a formation of 1,300 troops at Fort Bragg in 1995.
But even if a military death sentence clears all the appeals, it then must go to the president, and an uncertain approval.
Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer and director of Duke’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security,WONDER IF WE CAN GET HIM TO PARTICIPATE HERE?) said there appears to be strong pressure for presidents not to approve military executions.
“The president, regardless of his political party, senses that to approve the execution of a member of the military is almost to make a political statement,” Silliman said. “There is more benefit than risk in not approving it.”
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
May 02, 2005 (from Army Times)
Akbar may never face execution
By Estes Thompson
Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. — Relatives of those killed in Sgt. Hasan Akbar’s grenade attack on his comrades say he deserved a jury’s death sentence, but experts in military law said Friday it’s hardly a certainty the execution will ever happen.
The military hasn’t executed one of its own since 1961, while states have put scores of civilian killers to their deaths. Experts say the key difference in military justice is the role of the president, who unlike a governor, must take an active role in signing off when a service member gets the ultimate punishment.
“It is unique to the military justice system that there has to be an affirmative approval by the president of the United States,” said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington. “Clearly, there’s no rush to judgment.”
Currently, there are five people on military death row, three whose cases are in the appeals process and two who are awaiting action from the president.
Fidell pointed out that even though current President Bush and past President Clinton came from states that had active records of executions, neither have put their name to a military execution.
The last time that happened was in 1961 when President Kennedy signed off on the hanging of Army Pfc. John A. Bennett for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.
Akbar was sentenced to die Thursday for killing Capt. Chris Seifert, 27, and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, 40, in a March 2003 attack on the 101st Airborne Division at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait in the early days of the Iraq war.
Prosecutors said Akbar launched the surprise attack because he was concerned about U.S. troops killing fellow Muslims in the Iraq war.
Defense lawyers argued Akbar was too mentally ill to plan the attack, but they never disputed he was the one who threw grenades into troop tents and fired on soldiers in the ensuing chaos.
A 15-member military panel deliberated seven hours, including time spend reconsidering, before returning with a sentence of death, which these days is administered by lethal injection.
Relatives of Akbar’s victims said they thought it was appropriate.
“Nothing can undo the irreparable damage he has caused,” said Tammie Eslinger, Stone’s fiancé. “But today, I will find comfort in knowing that justice has been served.”
Theresa Seifert, widow of Chris Seifert, said she and her family were satisfied with the death sentence and pointed out that the victims “will not be returning into the arms of those who loved them.”
Maj. Shawn Phillips, who suffered a thigh injury and was among 14 soldiers wounded in the attack, said Akbar “went to an extreme that is totally unacceptable in our culture and our Army. It wasn’t an accident. I’m really happy our justice system came through.”
While the 34-year-old Akbar sits on the military’s death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., his punishment still could be years away. He is afforded automatic appeals to two military appeals courts and can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A military appeals court overturned the previous military death sentence, given to Sgt. William Kreutzer for killing an officer and wounding 18 other soldiers when he fired on a formation of 1,300 troops at Fort Bragg in 1995.
But even if a military death sentence clears all the appeals, it then must go to the president, and an uncertain approval.
Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer and director of Duke’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security,WONDER IF WE CAN GET HIM TO PARTICIPATE HERE?) said there appears to be strong pressure for presidents not to approve military executions.
“The president, regardless of his political party, senses that to approve the execution of a member of the military is almost to make a political statement,” Silliman said. “There is more benefit than risk in not approving it.”
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.