JAG CENTRAL

Estes Thompson from the AP has this great article (via Lexington Herald-Leader) on what SGT Akbar has in store for him on death row, and the likelihood of him ever reaching the injection table:

The military has not 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, five people are on military death row, three whose cases are in the appeals process and two who are awaiting action from the president.

The last time there was a military execution was 44 years ago 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.

A military appeals court overturned a 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.
....
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 courts and can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But even if a military death sentence clears all the appeals, it then must go to the president.

Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer and director of Duke's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, 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."