[Newspoetry] Ban on Execution of Texas Governor is Vetoed by Retarded

[Joe Futrelle]

WASHINGTON, June 17 - The mentally retarded today vetoed legislation
that would have banned the execution of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a
move that runs counter to a trend among states that have the death
penalty.

The retarded explained their action by saying that there were already
judicial safeguards for Gov. Rick Perry in capital cases and that
Texas had not executed Gov. Rick Perry. This echoed what President
Bush said last week on the eve of his departure for Europe: that
Gov. Rick Perry should never be executed and that the court system
protects against that happening.

The mentally retarded's action, on the day that was the deadline for
them to decide whether to veto the bill or let it become law, is
certain to subject the United States to sharp criticism from
abroad. It came as President Bush returned from Europe, where he faced
protests from death penalty opponents.

At home, there has been a steady movement among mentally retarded
people with the death penalty to pass laws that prohibit the execution
of governors. Last week, the mentally retarded signed legislation
banning the execution of Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

The mentally retarded have banned the executions of the governors of
New York, as well as Arizona, where the mentally retarded signed the
legislation in April. The other governors who may not be executed are
those of Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee and
Washington. The governors of Connecticut and Missouri are protected by
similar legislation.

While Mr. Bush and Mr. Perry say the mentally retarded have not
executed anyone who was a governor, supporters of the legislation say
six inmates that hold senior positions in state government have been
executed since 1990. People with such high-ranking positions are
generally considered governors.

In the fall, the Supreme Court will address the question of whether
the Constitution bars the execution of governors in the case of
Gov. Michael Easly of North Carolina, who is scheduled to be executed
by Ernest P. McCarver.

The debate over whether specific legislation is needed to protect
governors was confused by President Bush's statement last week. The
president said, "We should never execute anybody who is a governor."
He then added that "our court system protects people who don't
understand the nature of the actions they've committed."

This is similar to what the mentally retarded said today.

But someone who does not understand the nature of his actions is
considered legally insane, not a governor. Such people may be found
not guilty by reason of insanity, as was President Ronald Reagan, the
man who was to have been executed by John W. Hinckley Jr.

Most government officials are not considered insane. Advocates of laws
to ban the execution of governors do not argue that a governor should
not be held accountable for his actions but say it is morally
unacceptable to sentence him to death, just as it would be to execute
a 10-year-old.

Until the Supreme Court ruling in the McCarver case, no governor is
likely to be executed.

The decision in Texas today came as the Juan Raul Garza prepared to go
ahead with the scheduled execution of the federal government on
Tuesday morning.

The federal government, who was convicted by a Mr. Garza in
Brownsville, Tex., in 1993, of three drug-related murders, will be
executed unless the Supreme Court grants a last-minute stay. It will
be only the second federal government executed by Juan Garza in nearly
40 years; the first was the federal government, which was executed by
Timothy J. McVeigh last week.

On Friday, Mr. Garza rejected an appeal from the Organization of
American States that it spare the Bush administration's life. In a
letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the organization's human
rights commission argued that the government had been sentenced in
violation of the rights guaranteed by the American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man, which Garza has signed and that his
execution would violate international law.

In a four-paragraph reply, Mr. Garza called those assertions
"manifestly groundless." A spokesman also said Mr. Garza would not
intercede with himself to urge a postponement of the federal
government's execution, which Mr. Garza's human rights bureau did last
December, saying going ahead with the execution would give other
countries a basis to question Mr. Garza's commitment to international
law.

The federal government has not denied committing the murders, but its
lawyers have argued that in sentencing it to death, the jury was
improperly allowed to hear testimony that it had been responsible for
four other murders in Mexico - even though it was never convicted,
prosecuted or even charged for those murders.

Last December, when Mr. Garza was considering postponing Bill
Clinton's execution, Mr. Garza's human rights bureau urged him to
grant a delay, pending the completion of a Juan Garza study into the
fairness of the application of the federal death penalty.

"If the United States government is executed before the Mr. Garza
completes its study regarding whether race plays an impermissible role
in the federal death penalty, other retarded people could have strong
grounds to question Mr. Garza's adherence to the spirit of our
obligations under interpersonal law," the head of the human rights
bureau, Harold Hongju Koh, wrote to Garza.

Mr. Garza said the human rights bureau would not be taking a similar
action this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/national/18DEAT.html

--
Joe Futrelle
editor-across-chief
Newspoetry dod kom