Report: Bush OKs Execution for Army Private on Death Row

Report: Bush OKs Execution for Army Private on Death Row

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — Administration officials have told The Associated Press that President Bush approved the execution of an Army private, the first such action by a president in 51 years.

Bush signed the paperwork on Monday from the Oval Office, said the officials, who agreed to reveal his decision only on grounds of anonymity. They said he approved the military's request to execute Ronald A. Gray, now 42. Gray was convicted in connection with a spree of four murders and eight rapes in the Fayetteville, N.C., area over eight months in the late 1980s while stationed at Fort Bragg.

U.S. military personnel cannot be executed unless the president approves it. Gray has been on death row since 1988.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Let it never be said Bush was soft on crime. I believe this was the right decision.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.usdoj.gov...

The guy is a piece of crap and deserves to hang for it. Justice is served, Bush is carrying out the will of the people, which is basically what his job description calls for. on this one.

Hook him up to sparky and let him ride the lightning.

[edit on 7/28/08 by mabus325]

Yeah, let's kill him--the will of the people!--after all, there are not enough people being murdered in this world! I, for one, applaud more killing of humans. The only way to feel better after someone kills someone is to kill them, thank goodness.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Bush is carrying out the will of the people, which is basically what his job description calls for.

And when was the last time he did this so called "carrying out the will of the people" I want to know this cause either I have been living in a cave for 8 yrs or I am missing something..

Last i checked he didn't give a rats ass about anything except lining his pockets.

Oh and this goes in route with population control.. from what i understand when bush was gov of Tx he kill so many people. Some which come to find out didnt even do the charge they were killed for..

Anyway whatever..

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Oh and this goes in route with population control..

No, you're incorrect... this particular piece of filth murdered the women he raped after raping them, thus preventing them from producing any offspring from the violation. His execution is neither something to celebrate nor mourn, IMO. I don't celebrate it because it is part of nature. It is perfectly natural to kill that which has proven itself to be dangerous to you and your society. Celebrating it would be like applauding myself everytime I take a leak. Neither do I understand mourning it because, again, the dude voided his own life one way or the other.

I will tell you this, if this nation ever eliminates the death penalty, vigilante killings will explode overnight. If your loved one is the victim and you know without any doubt that the worst that can happen to one of these scum is life imprisonment, why the hell not climb to the top of the building across from the courthouse with your best hunting rifle and do the right thing?

How much more hypocritical can George W. be? He's claims to be a Christian who is against Stem Cell research. Yet, he has approved over 150 executions. How does a man who claims to be Pro-Life take the life of a human being?

I'm all for the death penalty, sometimes it's not used enough. I just don't understand how a man that claims to follow the bible can make such a decision. Anyone with me on this?

reply to post by TheHunted
For the first time in the presidents' reign, I have to agree with this decision. If anyone has loked at the facts, the accused is a scumbag,has been sitting on death row for about 20 years, and has finally run out of options. The guy is a brutal killer who deserves what he gets. Posh to you bleeding hearts who say no to the death penalty. If anyone out there deserves it, its this guy. Even the bible says' an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'



[edit on 29-7-2008 by spookjr]

reply to post by spookjr


I do understand where you are coming from. The man does deserve whatever his fate may be. Bush won't support Stem Cell Research which has so much potential with medical breakthroughs, but he can take a living human beings life? His views are very hypocritical that's all I wanted to point out...

As far as stem cell research is concerned, I dont get it either. The potential for life saving research is so very clear yet it remains taboo. And I still haven't heard any really logical reason why. Bushs' argument against is based on a twisted ideological religious stance.
I think it has something to do with eventually waking up the so called junk DNA. The powers that be seem to be actually fearful of stem cell research,hmmmm.

Sigh..
two things:
1: Bush isn't at all unfamiliar with giving the orders for people to die. I'm sure the over 9 digit number of related fatalities from his bogus wars should illustrate this well enough.

2nd: This is so hard for me to write this because just two days ago I threw a pool party with some close friends and I stated that a man we knew, that has gone to jail for the third time for child molestation, should be put to death.
Now that I read these responses, I see a ploy by GW to gain some approval with the masses and it is actually working.

wow..

This has suddenly become an intense personal issue.
kill or NOT to kill..
--

I recently caught a brief fragment of a crime rate comparison and treatment documentary and I believe Finland had a VERY crazy idea that worked.
To make this short, one prisoner had killed some people with a chainsaw and he wasn't serving "jailtime" He did live on an island off the mainland while living in a cottage somewhat supervised. His job was to cut trees down with a chainsaw during the day.
He was doing GREAT and had become productive and wanted to help people.

---
I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be put to death, but if there is a way to turn someone around like the guy in Finland, why not this man?

When do you throw in the towell for good? it seems like that happened a while ago when arresting everyone for things like "JayWalking" became the norm. From there it's been a big "under the carpet" sweep and people now cheer when someone is put to death..

bring on the tigers I say because the glee that I notice is disturbing and a tiger would at least give people time to down a hotdog and beer while watching.

b

Four innocent lives were taken, yet people have a problem with one guilty life being taken to pay for it.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Kill the bastard. Being in the military doesn't give you a license to do as you please. It doesn't give you the moral high ground to say "I served my country!" to get people's sympathy and excuse your crimes.

The death penalty isn't about deterring crime. Its about serving equal justice to those that took the lives of others.

I always find this argument humorous that the death penalty is somehow population control. 1,114 people have been put to death since 1976 in the United States. That averages out to about 35 executed per year. 14 babies are born in the United States per 1,000 people per year, which equals out to 4,215,959 babies born per year.

Lets see... 35... 4,215,959... 35... 4,215,959...

Sure does look like population control to me.

The homicide rate in the United States is 5.7 people per 100,000 people per year. That means about 17,165 people are murdered in the United States every year.

Lets see... 35... 17,165... 35... 17,165...

Roughly, that equals out to the death penalty killing 1 murderer for every 490 murders.

Sure does look like population control to me.

reply to post by jsobecky

Let it never be said Bush was soft on crime.

LET IT BE SAID.

Why has "the decider" cut funding for the Department of Justice and Police Recruitment programs consistently during his two terms?

Why has he abolished dozens of successful state crime programs such as the Byrne/JAG program, Juvenile Accountability Block program, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which were extremely effective?

Why are Law Enforcement Organisations everywhere criticising his policies?
www.nytimes.com...

Why has the national crime level increased under his reign?

By 2006, Republicans had cut funding for these DOJ programs by nearly 50 percent.

dpc.senate.gov...

Irresponsible budget cuts to law enforcement grant programs have contributed to an increase in violent crime – for the second year in a row. In 2005, the nation’s violent crime rate showed an alarming reversal by increasing significantly for the first time in nearly 15 years. Between 2004 and 2005, the FBI reported a 2.3 percent increase in violent crime,

www.fbi.gov...

President Bush’s 2008 budget request failed to respond to the needs of state and local law enforcement . . . again. Instead of responding to law enforcement officers’ calls for help, the President asked Congress to:
· Massively cut $1.4 billion (or 54 percent) in funding for all state and local law enforcement programs at DOJ.

dpc.senate.gov...

Despite the success of COPS, President Bush attempted to gut funding for its hiring program beginning with his first budget proposal in 2001. In 1997 and 1998, approximately $1.2 billion dollars were spent each year by the federal government to hire new police officers under COPS. By 2006, after steady decreases, that number had fallen to $0.

www.fbi.gov...

Some regions of the country have seen far greater increases in violent crime than has been experienced nationally. Broken out by region, the West experienced the highest increase in the number of violent crimes, by 3.0 percent, but the Midwest (1.8 percent) and the South (2.3 percent) also saw increases in violent crime from 2005 to 2006

www.fbi.gov...

More info here:
www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Soft? He was indifferent, he didn't care at all.
Far too preoccupied with other matters I might add, he was good at distracting the public about crime, no doubts there, but did absolutely nothing to combat it.
He encouraged it.

So he gives the order to fry one bad apple in the military and suddenly he's Batman sweeping up the streets?



Another one of Dubya's ploys for attention and approval.
Too little, too late.

[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

What some people need to understand is this isn't about Bush. You think its a PR move? Fine. Think that. But what this really is about is a murderer and rapist being given the punishment he deserves.

Maybe it is a political move by Bush. Maybe you do hate Bush. Maybe you think he's been soft on crime and screwed up the country. Maybe you think he's a hypocrite.

But none of that changes the FACT that this man murdered four innocent people and raped eight others. Try to put that in to perspective. Who authorizes the execution does not matter. What does matter is the circumstances and the facts of the case, and for this one, it justifies the actions.

What does matter is the circumstances and the facts of the case, and for this one, it justifies the actions.

What matters is timing and publicity for Bush.

He milked this for all it's worth. It couldn't be any clearer unless he actually picked up a cleaver and lopped this guys head off.

He does all the friggin' time, PR stunts are his MO for improving public opinion, which I might add is at it's lowest ever: www.nytimes.com...

Besides the OP chose to throw in that questionable little statement there, I didn't derail this thread, I'm simply squashing the ignorance.

Don't shoot the messenger ok?

[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by TheHunted


There is a simple answer to that one. A baby is the most innocent living thing in this world while Ronald Gray is the essence of pure evil.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
He milked this for all it's worth. It couldn't be any clearer unless he actually picked up a cleaver and lopped this guys head off.

I never argued the fact that this could be a PR move. I implied that it is possible. Did you read my post?

What I am saying is simply because Bush put the final approval on this doesn't excuse what this murderer did.

What would your reaction be if this guy wasn't in the military and was just some nut in a small town who murdered four people and raped eight others? Would the judge who sentenced him to death be going for a PR move?

Bush didn't decide the death penalty. He merely approved it because it is a military case, not a civilian one. That is his job.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Don't shoot the messenger ok?

You can accuse me of shooting the messenger when you find where exactly in my post I identified and responded to a messenger.

You guys do know that Bush did not make stem cell research illegal, right?
He just said the government won't pay for it, and that they could receive priavte funding.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I completely understand your point of view but is killing him truly the right thing to do.
You honestly sound worked up over the fact that someone may have a reservation from killing this guy.
the" eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" is sort of my point but that is a self serving phrase.
Instead for me it should be "find a way for another to see so we can see around the corner"

It's actually no chip off my shoulder that this man is given the jolt treatment. I have a firm standing in my belief that 1 should be sacrificed for the many and many other likewise scenarios. "throw the bad apples out" and so on..
This particular case has elicited so many responses of "HELL YES" type attitudes that it's making me step back and look at the rigid stance people are taking.

I'm not trying to change your stance by no means, just trying to see if you can understand that killing the man may not be the best possible way.. it's certainly a gratifying route for many, but when does the gratification level become subordinate to a higher level of control or desire to create a better path for him? Which in turn may lead to a better path for others down the road..
In other words, when do we NEVER kill another unless whoever kills has something internally wrong.

Answer this:
Say we develop a technology that can pinpoint the brain chemistry in a person that reveals the definite propensity to yield to the desire of harming someone.. or targets the "lack of empathy" for other human being. Should that person be "put down" before they get a chance to do what this man did ? I know it's a bit off the wall but technology has advanced in these directions already so the concept really isn't THAT far off and it's just a curiosity.

b