Posted on 12/03/2008 5:58:01 AM PST by RaceBannon
Dec-02-2008 19:46 First Military Execution in 50 Years Delayed Tim King Salem-News.com Veterans advocates say the man's execution based on a signature from President Bush is illegal, and now the courts will take a closer look.
Private Ronald Gray
(SALEM, Ore.) - The first scheduled execution of an Army soldier since 1961 has been delayed, following a decision from a U.S. district court judge who granted a stay in the execution of Pvt. Ronald A. Gray.
We reported on November 23rd 2008, that in spite of the horrific crimes Gray is convicted of committing, his execution based on a signature of President George W. Bush is illegal. Gray was convicted in both civilian and military court, and the state court sentenced Gray to life behind bars.
Veterans advocates say Gray was judged by a 'jury' of his peers who had the death penalty as an option, and the jury elected to give him life sentences. Tim Harrington, a former Marine who works on behalf of other veterans, says the President of the United States over stepped his Constitutional authority by using his executive power to sign the execution order bypassing the conviction and sentence of the people. (see: Veterans Call First Military Execution Approved in 50 Years Illegal)
Harrington and others insist that Congress has the power to dictate and oversee the Navy and land forces, but they do not have the power to change the law of the land and directly over reach the Framers writings.
Gray was scheduled for execution December 10th at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. The order from Judge Richard Rogers signed November 26th, stays the execution to allow Gray and his attorneys to file a habeas corpus petition. This stay of execution will remain in place until a further order of the court is issued, according to a copy of the judge’s order obtained by the Army Times.
Gray was convicted of multiple murders and rapes that took place during the late 1980s in the Fayetteville, North Carolina area when Gray was a specialist with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg.
Gray is the longest-serving inmate on death row at the U.S. military's Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. On July 28th 2008, President Bush approved the order to execute Gray.
It was the first time that a U.S. president approved a military death sentence since 1957. The Army Times reports that the decision came after the nation’s highest courts upheld Gray’s conviction and death sentence, and two petitions to the Supreme Court during the appellate process had been denied.
The last time a military execution took place was April 13th 1961, when John A. Bennett was hanged for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl.
Gray is one of four U.S. service members on the military’s death row at Fort Leavenworth. Another remains under a death sentence but has since been moved to the Marine base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina for ongoing litigation.
he committed murder
he was caught, tried by a civilian court, found guilty and sentenced to life
THEN the Military tried him and gave him the death penalty for the same crime, same dead people, same act
in the civilian world, that is double jeopardy
totally illegal
Since he was sentenced to death, it needed the direct and personal signature of the President
Bush signed it, making it go forward
Attainder is the act of holding you under any pretense, basically, and holding court over you with a separate set of laws that are made up on the spot if need be, with no oversight
It is more complicated than that, Tim will respond with a better answer
but what happened to this kid/guy? He was tried, convicted,sentenced and THEN the military went after him for the same crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
Guilty without benefit of a trial
according to Wiki
The reason this applies to all these cases is the railroading of these guys
In the Pendleton 8 case, it was the refusal to allow in evidence that would have had the government admit they issued orders to these men to do what they did, the refusal to admit the evidence of the autopsy because it showed that these men did not kill that person who was dug up in the manner in which they were forced to sign statements declaring their actions as
IT is a kangaroo court.
While there was a 'trial', it was really a mock trial. No legitimate defense, no legitimate charge, and a known outcome that was assumed from the start
As far as Gray goes, he was already convicted, why in the world should the Military have gone through the trouble of trying him again if not for some sick reason? He was going to be in jail for many years, MANY years
So, why hang him on the charges that got him sentenced already?
Guilt without trial. Lets just hold him because we can.
There is NO WAY he would have been tried a second time in a civilian court for a crime that he was just tried for and convicted of just to get a stronger sentence.
There is NO WAY Larry would have even been charged with Murder in a civilian court.
Johnny Cochran couldn't do that, William Jennings Bryan couldn't do that, and Blackstone would have committed suicide before he'd allow it.
In each case, we had evidence refused to be admitted that would have exonerated them, refused to release classified information that would have proved their stories, and allowed testimony that was coerced against the accused.
It was a court system within a court system.
Outside of civilian jurisdiction and oversight. With no one to report to.
In each of the three cases, there was little investigation while it was under the radar screen of the media, and only when a sitting congressman got involved by running his mouth, did people pay attention to the facts of the case.
Also, in Haditha, there were officers involved directly, while the Iron Triangle and Hamdania only had junior NCO’s, all under the age of 24.
The Military court martial system took these men, accused them, treated them as guilty before trial, and demanded settlements from them all before trial.
The concept of attainder is what was being emphasized by our team in all these cases. While it does not sound like the pure definition according to Wiki, it is truly attainder under any other understanding.
It is a guilt before innocence trial, one where the outcome is preordained.
If only a sitting congressman had accused the men of the Pendleton 8, we would have had an audience. The men of Haditha should ironically be grateful to the dishonorable Jack Murtha, for if he never slandered them, they would have been railroaded in silence with no positive media coming out at all.
QED. Thank you Chief Justice. And your law degree is from Post Toasties?
The Military UCMJ applies to all active duty personnel. If a civilian court wishes to try him, also, that means nothing.
Double jeopardy means that you are tried and found innocent (or acquitted), then tried again for the same crime because more evidence came out later.
This may be double jeopardy, but it is not a bill of attainder. The bill of attainder is a legislative act and the second trial was a judicial act.
I recall that two Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King in a state trial. Then came the riots. Then came the federal government and retried the cops for beating Rodney King. They were convicted and sent to prison.
Yet the Military felt it necessary to take this man back in, try him, convict him, and then sentence him to death.
That is double jeopardy.
thank you for your input, but he was not active duty
remove your foot from your mouth now.
Attainder is not an act of legislation, please look it up
on different charges, too
Attainder is a condition. A bill of attainder is a legislative act (prohibited by Art I, Section 9). In your post you referenced ‘Bill of Attainder’.
He was active duty when he committed the crimes. Was he active duty when he was arrested and prosecuted by the civilian authority?
I ask because my understanding was that if you committed a civil crime, that the civilian authority got their shot at you first. They could prosecute, or decline to prosecute at their whim, and once they had done one or the other, then the military got their opportunity to do so. It wasn’t considered double jeopardy if you were prosecuted by both because one was prosecution under civil law, and the other was prosecution under the UCMJ.
If he committed the crimes and was prosecuted by civil authority while active duty, then yes, the military had every right to try him again - at least under my understanding above. If he committed the crimes while active duty, but wasn’t arrested and prosecuted by civil authority until after he got out, then I don’t believe (personal opinion there) that the military authority had the right to prosecute him again.
The
American Military Legacy of Attainder
John Lackland (1199 - 1216) was an evil king. As ruler of England John was tyrannical, cruel, and unjust. King John was a rapacious man who robbed craftsmen of tools needed to make a living, imprisoned men refusing them a trial, and slaughtered his people to steal land (note King John’s last name: “Lackland”).
King John’s rule incited revolt. The king was summoned to a meadow on the Thames called Runnymede. There King John was confronted and forced to sign his name and affix his seal to MAGNA CARTA or GREAT CHARTER (15 June 1215). Magna Carta—the people’s edict—commanded King John to obey the laws of his land, and stop his murders and thievery.
King Edward III (1327 - 1377), obedient to Magna Carta, spared the life of Edmond, earl of Kent, by reversing a peacetime court-martial order of death.
Edward correctly judged peacetime courts-martial punishment attainder , and by extension ruled the court-martial death sentence premeditated murder by attainder.
Magna Carta forbid the king from murdering, imprisoning, or punishing any free man in any way without first the lawful permission of what we know today as a JURY.
Tim Harrington’s research into the issue of attainder as it relates to the scheduled, premeditate murder of Ronald Gray discovered that Army JAGs wanted Dwight Loving to be murdered with Gray. Tim became suspicious learning that only Gray faced lethal injection, and that Loving’s murder was postponed.
Tim wanted to know why Loving’s murder was put off.
Reading the Supreme Court opinions on the Loving case it becomes clear King George took Loving’s murder off the table motivated out of fear the president as commander in chief was sure to face his own Runnymede confrontation if the Loving decision was closely inspected. (Read Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Stevens)
In their Loving writings, the Supremes actively solicit the question going to the constitutionality of peacetime courts-martial inflicting punishment on U.S. Citizens. This question of attainder remains untested in any federal court. By way of examining this question much of what’s been reported on these JAG HUNTER and JAGMIRE pages regarding the american military legacy of attainder would be reviewed, collected, and offered in argument.
To the complete dismay and upset of all the command racketeers involved, Gray’s execution serves just as well to inform the Supremes as Loving’s going to the important question of attainder.
Repeating here some of what we know for the sake of expediency, those Star Chamber hearings William Winthrop describes as courts-martial, in time of peace, are simply instruments of tyranny by attainder. Courts-martial refuse military men jury trials and stripped them of all constitutional protections other U.S. Citizens enjoy in self-defense.
In a court-martial the only living thing is guilt!
Courts-martial are British imports. Congress did not create the court-martial used in America.
The Constitution outlaws courts-martial as it outlaws acts of attainder.
Congress is forbidden from replacing juries with military commanders in deciding the outcomes of criminal cases!
For the record, King George’s command to murder Ronald Gray is an unlawful order and must be disobeyed. Further it is noted that subordinate command racketeers perjure their oaths in defense of the Constitution. Not a single lawyer, federal lawmaker, federal judge, no flag officer is on the record condemning Gray’s scheduled murder as an act of attainder.
Sticking a needle into Ronald Gray’s arm is like lighting a match to the Constitution. Gray’s participation is merely incidental.
Here endth the lesson!
Copyright © 2008 The JAG HUNTER
It is exactly the same as the Michael Vick trial. He was convicted by Federal authorities (where the Constitution authorizes outlawing dog fighting is a whole different question), and then was charged under state law. Did you have an issue with that as well? Double Jeopardy only applies in a single jurisdiction to a single actus reus - the JAG Corps could not have prosecuted for murder, lost, and then prosecuted for manslaughter. Because the Feds did not yet apply any jeopardy to his act, no estoppel applies.
“Double jeopardy means that you are tried and found innocent (or acquitted), then tried again for the same crime because more evidence came out later.”
Well, not exactly - double jeopardy is not limited to your synopsis above.
There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:
* being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
* retrial after a conviction
* being punished multiple times for the same offense
Basically, you can’t be tried again after a trial, on the same event, unless the new charge (a) has an additional element not included in the prior trial and (b) does not require one of the elements from the prior trial. It’s complicated to explain, but those 2 steps taken together are meant to define a “new” charge, so as to prevent being re-charged and re-tried for the same crime.
It is a limited doctrine. One big limit/loophole is the ‘separate sovereigns’ exception, which is implicated here.
(from Wikipedia) The ‘separate sovereigns’ exception to double jeopardy arises from the unique nature of the American federal system, in which states are considered to be sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the federal government. Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act. For example, Timothy McVeigh was executed by the federal government for murdering eight federal employees with a bomb, but could also have been tried in state court for murdering numerous other persons in the same explosion. Furthermore, the ‘separate sovereigns’ rule allows two states to prosecute for the same criminal act. For example, if a man stood in New York and shot and killed a man standing over the border in Connecticut, both New York and Connecticut could charge the shooter with murder. (reference: United States v. Claiborne, 92 F.Supp.2d 503 (E.D.Va.); tandem state-federal prosecutions not prohibited under “sovereign rule”)
That was what I said. Double jeopardy does not address the state vs. military jurisdiction.
Gray was convicted of multiple murders and rapes that took place during the late 1980s in the Fayetteville, North Carolina area when Gray was a specialist with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg.
The jurisdiction has to do with when the crimes were committed.
my foot is now planted in your...
The glee with which he throws the peasants on the bus sickens me. Can't wait until he gets his half-witted, smug patrician self back to Crawdad.
It was Bush senior who instituted that action. (What is it with that family?)
Yet further proof that America would be poorly served even by letting another Bush into the White House just to clean toilets.
It took me a while to grasp it myself, so I’ll spoon feed you here
Was he caught, tried, and convicted and sentenced for the murders and rapes?
THe answer is yes
So, where in the Constitution does it allow Military courts to take posession of this man, re accuse him of the same identical crimes to the same identical people, repeat the trial, repeat the conviction, and then increase the sentence to something so dramitic as to cost him his life?
Show me the clause, or article, or paragraph in the Constitution where that is allowed.
I’ll wait...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.