Lincoln assassinated

[rustbucket]

But since habeas corpus had not been suspended then the comments were made in dicta.

Others say differently, From Wikipedia (caution, it's Wikipedia) [my bold below]:

The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision,[48] on February 20, 2007,[49] which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June 2007. In June 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that the act did suspend habeas and found it unconstitutional.[50]

Except for the fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 mentioned above applied to aliens rather than citizens, it was similar to the act under which Hamdi was denied habeas corpus as an enemy combatant by the Executive Branch of government. Here is what the 2006 act said:

Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.

[DoodleDawg]

Others say differently...

But nobody is saying that the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended. In its arguements the government argued that Hamdi was not provided due process because as an enemy combatant he was not entitled to it, any more than any other prisoner of war was. They did not say he was not provided due process because habeas corpus had been suspended. Nobody in the Bush administration was claiming it was. None of the lower courts were claiming it was suspended.

[rustbucket]

FYI, you are doing a great impression of former poster non-sequitur’s posting style right down to misspelling “arguments” like he used to do. I respected non-seq although we rarely agreed on anything. I learned a lot by refuting his posts, and he sometimes posted useful information.

[DoodleDawg]

FYI, you are doing a great impression of former poster non-sequitur’s posting style right down to misspelling “arguments” like he used to do. I respected non-seq although we rarely agreed on anything. I learned a lot by refuting his posts, and he sometimes posted useful information.

Sorry to disappoint but I post here under my first, and hopefully only, ID. And if argument is the only word I have misspelled in my time here then I'm doing pretty darned good. I promise to make better use of the spellchecker going forward.

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, so contrary to what you said earlier, "defined area" isn't enough. It has to be a state.

Why does it have to be a "state"? And since we are hair splitting definitions like little children, how are you defining the word "State"?

Why? What makes the state the magical level of sovereignty that's denied to any other entity?

I think components of a State can split off. Didn't West Virginia Split off?

That's not a straw man. In words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, that's a joke, son."

It may be a joke, but since it deliberately misstates my position, it is therefore also a strawman.

So let me get this straight. By issuing a piece of paper with some magic words on it, the Americans rebelling against the British crown (something they'd been doing for over a year at that point) were no longer rebels, but instead the British opposing them were now the rebels.

I have just been awestruck by the level of incredible stupidity you just stated in that comment. That is a f***ing masterpiece of stupidity. I dare say I haven't read a comment that approaches that level of sheer dumbness since i've been on this website, and believe you me, there has been plenty of competition for the title.

I'm having a hard time trying to type now because I am laughing so hard at what you just said.

So okay, Genius, The founders of the United States wrote the Declaration. They asserted that it was based on self evident natural law, and presumably they believed in the principles expressed therein.

The British never claimed to believe in the Principles behind the Declaration of Independence. They cannot rebel against them because they never embraced them.

It is *THIS* country which embraced those principles. Therefore, the only country which can rebel against those principles, is this country.

More Accurately, it was the Union under Lincoln which rebelled against the principles expressed in the Declaration.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

"instead the British opposing them were now the rebels." That is f***ing awesome! No, dude, the Union were the ones Rebelling against the founding document. The UNION were the actual Rebels. They Embraced King George III's position!

[DiogenesLamp]

Another interesting case of an apologist who rationalizes irrelevancies and ignores duty and law. It wasn't Lee's job to moralize over the terms of George Custis's will - it was to execute it.

You seem to have such a chip on your shoulder that you take every observation and turn it into an insult. You are so heavily invested in your position that you have a difficult time with objectivity.

[rockrr]

Whereas you have no problem with objectivity at all - you simply never employ it.

[DiogenesLamp]

“You, gentlemen, come here to me and ask for peace on any terms, and yet have no word of condemnation for those who are making war on us. You express great horror of bloodshed, and yet would not lay a straw in the way of those who are organizing in Virginia and elsewhere to capture this city. The rebels attack Fort Sumter, and your citizens attack troops sent to the defense of the Government, and the lives and property in Washington, and yet you would have me break my oath and surrender the Government without a blow. There is no Washington in that — no Jackson in that — no manhood nor honor in that. I have no desire to invade the South; but I must have troops to defend this Capital. Geographically it lies surrounded by the soil of Maryland; and mathematically the necessity exists that they should come over her territory. Our men are not moles, and can’t dig under the earth; they are not birds, and can’t fly through the air. There is no way but to march across, and that they must do. But in doing this there is no need of collision. Keep your rowdies in Baltimore, and there will be no bloodshed. Go home and tell your people that if they will not attack us, we will not attack them; but if they do attack us, we will return it, and that severely.”

One thing about Lincoln, the man was a F***ing genius with pen and paper. That is another beautiful piece of writing by him. Clear. Succinct. Profound, and to the point. Of course, the Confederates had no intention of attacking Washington, but Lincoln cannot be faulted for being prudent.

The actions of southern sympathizing Maryland residents directly threatened the United State capitol. I would call that a state of rebellion.

I think it is as close enough as to make no difference. I think you've proved your point. But I will point out that later Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for the entire Union. Were all the remaining Union states in Rebellion too?

[DiogenesLamp]

Whereas you have no problem with objectivity at all - you simply never employ it.

To the contrary. It is through objectivity that I have arrived at my current position. Formerly I had yours.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the Southern states had the right to leave. And the rest of the states had the right to sit there and watch them take every bit of federal property they could get they hands on without compensation, walk away from obligations like the federal debt or international obligations, and cut off much of the country from access to the sea via the Mississippi. That doesn't seem fair to me. One side's rights are a lot more attractive than the other side's.

My recollection is that they had sent a delegation to discuss these very issues. Lincoln changed his mind about meeting them and sent them away.

How are you going to negotiate terms if one side refuses to negotiate?

And the other side has no right to disagree that there were offenses against them or that the compact had been broken or anything in their own defense. Again, seems like one side has a whole lot better rights than the other side. Must suck to be them.

I think the issues you mentioned above should have been dealt with forthrightly, but again, It is my recollection that there was an attempt to do this, but Lincoln was having none of it.

You can't reject efforts to arrive at a fair cost and then blame people for not trying to pay it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The former. Especially Baltimore.

Enough has been pointed out that I regard the point as having been made. Lincoln had the Authority under the Constitution to suspend Habeas Corpus in case of Rebellion, and what was happening in Baltimore could fairly be called a Rebellion.

It still doesn't explain why he suspended it in all the other states later. Was the entire Union in rebellion too?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, of course, but as Hamilton and Jay said above, habeas corpus may not be suspended except by Congress. Many other founders, ratifiers, the Supreme Court, a previous president, etc., held the same view, as you no doubt know.

Silly me. I looked in the Constitution for suspension of Habeas Corpus and discovered that it was indeed in there. After you pointed out that the power to do so was that of Congress, I went back and looked. Yup. It is listed under the powers of Congress, not the executive.

So Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus *WAS* an illegal act, because it wasn't one of his enumerated powers.

I suppose the Union apologists will say he didn't have time to consult congress. He needed to take immediate action because of the rapidity of events. Perhaps not initially, but surely within a week he could have sought for and got a vote on the issue. I would think suspension of rights could have been moved to the top of Congress's agenda.

[DiogenesLamp]

I surely do not. I do recognize that my acceptance of his suspension of habeas corpus actions as being justifiable and necessary to the defense of our nation isn’t as widely accepted.

I have some sympathy for this argument. Lincoln said it is never wise to risk a body for a limb and he acknowledged having bent the rules a bit because it was necessary.

I suppose that not even the fact that the confederate congress gave explicit power to davis - and that davis repeatedly used it - doesn’t cut any ice with that crowd.

That's a tu quoque argument that doesn't justify the abuses of a different government under a different charter. The US Constitution stipulates the rules for the US Government, not the Confederate one.

[DoodleDawg]

It still doesn't explain why he suspended it in all the other states later. Was the entire Union in rebellion too?

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in April 1861 was limited to the Baltimore area alone, where the unrest was occurring. Link

Later, wider suspensions of habeas corpus came later after the congressional vote. And as the Supreme Court ruled in 1865 in many cases the suspension was not warranted.

[DoodleDawg]

My recollection is that they had sent a delegation to discuss these very issues. Lincoln changed his mind about meeting them and sent them away.

After the fact. The southern states left first and walked away from obligations and with anything they could get their hands on. So even if the delegation had been there to discuss paying for anything, and there was nothing in the letter of introduction Davis sent Lincoln that indicates they were, what leverage did Lincoln have to get fair value? It'd be like if I demanded you sign your car over to me and say I'll pay you fair value for it. You're at the mercy of whatever I consider fair. So you ask how do you negotiate when one side won't and I would reply how do you negotiate when you have no leverage to gain anything?

I think the issues you mentioned above should have been dealt with forthrightly, but again, It is my recollection that there was an attempt to do this, but Lincoln was having none of it

Shouldn't the issues have been settled before leaving? Otherwise how can both sides protect their own interests?

[rockrr]

Show me the great dispassionate objectivity demonstrated in #285 LOL. Liberal Projection™ is usually exercised by liberals.

BTW: You neglected to speak to the actual point: Was Lee’s primary obligation to carry out the terms of Custis’s will or interject his own “sensibilities” into an interpretation of what was the best use of the resources of the estate?

[rockrr]

It is through objectivity that I have arrived at my current position. Formerly I had yours.

Good to know. My daddy taught me never try to reason someone out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.

[donaldo]

Clinton Rossiter on Lincoln - “The Martyred Christ of Democracy’s Passion Play.” Very good.

[rockrr]

Generally the tu quoque fallacy is when one party to the debate accuses the other party of behavior similar to behaviors of the first party. I’m not accusing you of anything - I just offered Rusty an additional perspective on the whole issue of suspension of habeas corpus. You are welcome to view this as a tu quoque if you really really want to, but my point was that is seems inconsistent to get ones panties in a bunch over the actions of one side when it can be demonstrated that the other side engaged in the same behavior.

As an example, I do not point an accusing finger at the confederates regarding treatment of prisoners in POW camps because of the equally wretched performance by the north. I would consider it hypocritical to do so.

[donaldo]

Lincoln shot at Ford’s Theater, Kennedy killed in a Lincoln made by Ford Motor Company. Other coincidences (and only coincidences) are in link below. This is the most exhaustive list I’ve ever seen.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation08.html