Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (269802)	1/23/2006 4:55:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1571401

US military issues new execution regulations By Alan Elsner 1 hour, 55 minutes ago In a little-noticed move, the U.S. Army has issued new regulations governing the death penalty, raising speculation that the military might be preparing for its first execution since 1961. "This publication is a major revision," said the document issued January 17 and signed by Sandra Riley, administrative assistant to the secretary of the Army. "This regulation establishes responsibilities and updates policy and procedures for carrying out a sentence of death as imposed by general courts-martial or military tribunals," the document said. There are currently six men on military death row in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. One, Dwight Loving, is believed to be the leading candidate for execution. "We're worried these new regulations might be a sign they are getting ready for an execution," said David Elliot of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Loving, an Army private stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, was convicted of murdering two taxicab drivers in 1988. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld his sentence in 1996. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejected his latest appeal last month. It is unclear what, if any, legal resources, he has left at his disposal. The execution would have to be approved by President George W. Bush to go ahead. In the last military execution to take place, Army Pvt. John Bennett, convicted of the 1955 rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl, was hanged at Fort Leavenworth on April 19, 1961. Two servicemen were sentenced to death last year. Sgt. Hasan Akbar was convicted of killing two military officers in Kuwait in 2003 during the opening days of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A jury also sentenced Senior Airman Andrew Witt for stabbing to death his wife and another airman. Most of the changes in the new regulations were technical, clarifying the role of various officers in the execution procedure. However, one change would make it possible for executions to take place at sites other than Fort Leavenworth. "This new regulation appears to allow officials at appropriate levels with appropriate coordination to determine the location of an execution on a case-by-case basis," said Sheldon Smith, an Army public affairs specialist, in an e-mail to Reuters. Anti-death penalty activists said this theoretically opened the way for foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who might in the future be sentenced to death by military commissions, to be executed at the prison. Currently, 10 Guantanamo Bay detainees have been charged with various offenses, but none of these are capital cases.

To: tejek who wrote (269802)	1/23/2006 5:24:29 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571401

Ted, I don't think anyone can be trusted with nukes but when the US refuses to resign treaties that prevent their proliferation even though we have more nukes than we know what to do with, its should strike people that its a mite hypocritical to demand that others not acquire them......don't you think? I already agreed with JCP. We first need to work with Russia and bring our nuclear arsenal down by a significant amount. But the number of nukes isn't an issue here. It's now the willingness to use it, or at least the willingness to sell it to those who will use it. When the Iranian president is on the record saying that the Holocaust never happened and Israel should be wiped off the map, do you think he should be entrusted with a nuke? And if everyone who has a nuke is basically a hypocrite, then who's responsible for making sure Iran doesn't get one? The non-nuclear nations like Canada and Switzerland? Tenchusatsu