Abraham Lincoln Quote 11/28/07

Morning!

good quote, as a lawyer he would know

Good Morning. I just learned a little knowledge that I had never known.

Good Morning everybody!!

Key word "rebellion," not 19 morons with planes.

great quote!
Thanks for that bit of info too! I learned a little bit from it!

Good morning all!! Great quote, David.

Sam makes a good point. The current Administration (and more often, the pundits) have pointed out that if it was okay Lincoln to "adapt" some constitutional provisions in dire times, should not it be okay for Bush to "adapt" some constitutional freedoms in light of 9/11? Not withstanding the fact that there were many (most?) who vehemently objected to Lincoln's actions at the time, is restricting what we perceive to be constitutional freedoms (perhaps, e.g., actions of the Patriot Act) a reasonable response to 9/11 and the continuing "war on terror?"

good morning.....wasn't quite ready for that read (only half way through my coffee).

David, the problem I see is that the war on terror is never-ending. There is no enemy to defeat, like a country, so it will never be over. There will always be someone who wants to damage us.

In my mind, using that as the justification leaves too open the opportunity to effectively suspend parts of the constitution permanently.

No parts of our Constitution have been or are going to be suspended.
A lot of the hype in the left leaning mainstream media is just that hype.
When you get into the details, there is no denial of any American citizens of our rights and liberties.

This is such an interesting debate. In hindsight, Abraham Lincoln was correct - the union was preserved and that benefits us today. However, if things would have turned out differently, we could have lost the entire foundation on which our country was founded.

One thought that comes out of the debate above is that we don't really know what actions are or are not being taken to fight the war on terror (or perhaps even what the war on terror even means). Because of 1) national security necessity, and 2) the historical White House inclination to protect its real and perceived confidentiality, most of the details really aren't out there for debate. So Keith, I would submit that there really isn't any basis for your statement that actions have impinged on the Constitution, just as there is no basis for arguing that impingement has or will occur (Sam, John). Unfortuately, the public tends to debate things like this based mostly on predisposed biases (right, left, or middle).

Thanks David for the informative piece and the quote....
very well done!!!

Justice Robert H. Jackson, in a speech "Wartime Security and Liberty Under Law" delivered to a large crowd at the University of Buffalo, considered many complex issues involving executive power, including Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. (See "A Commander's Power, A Civilian's Reason: Justice Jackson's Dissent" by John Q. Barrett, Law and Contemporary Problems.)

"I suppose the American people, on whose eternal vigilance liberty ultimately depends, are well agreed that what they want of the courts is that they both preserve liberty and protect security, finding ways to reconcile the two needs so that we do not lose our heritage defending it," Jackson said.

Of course, Justice Jackson then was speaking of the conundrum he faced in his 1944 dissent in Korematsu v. United States, in which he refused to go along with the other justices who upheld the constitutionality of removing and detaining Japanese Americans from the West Coast during WWII. He would later advocate the rule of law in his role as chief U.S. Prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, arguing that any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

John Q. Barrett, professor of law at St. John's University School of Law and the Elizabeth S. Lenna Fellow at the Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, NY, believes Jackson's dissent in the Korematsu case has great meaning for us today. "If it gets absorbed deeply by leaders who wield the vast powers of military command, Jackson's words and his example may offer real hope that wartime leaders will not, simply because they can, act to curtail individual liberty when it poses theoretical risks to ideas of physical and national security."

Wow. Thanks Lisa for that great historical reference and the link. This whole thing is about defining the rights of those confined - do they have a right to a trial, etc. It's interesting to contrast the case of Americans (mainly southerners and collaborators) being held for long periods without trial or charge vs. the current case of foreigners (enemy combatants) being held at Gitmo for long periods without trial or charge. Are they equivalent? Does the Constitution extend to non-Americans? To combatants captured on foreign soil and transferred back to the states (Gitmo is considered US soil even though it physically is in on the Cuban island)? Can we equate the US Civil War with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, with respect to application of habeas corpus?

Michelle - an informed opinion would be welcome from my point of view.

Interesting Spartan. Can you give an example of how the protections in the Bill of Rights have been taken away from us? You can focus on one or all, depending on your time available.

David that is easy,
you cannot walk in your own neighborhood without carrying ID, at the risk of being stopped, picked up, and held for 72 hours with no notice to anyone.
Patriot Bill.

David, I'm not arguing that impingement has or will occur. I'm saying, using that clause to support suspension of any rights because of a "war" on terror could lead to permanent suspension. I don't think the writers of the constitution imagined the possibility of "a war without end" when they drafted that section.

James s F - Um, yes, they hung Booth's landlady. Not sure what that has to do with the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, or anything. Perhaps you can expound.

As for walking in my neighborhood without ID, etc. - the Patriot Act (as far as I know) doesn't change what has been the norm for decades. Is there a particular provision of the Patriot Act that you are aware of that changes these rights?

David I have talked with national guardsmen who rotated thru duties at Gitmo. Not all of the detainees are combatants. Some were swept up and sold to us because they were creditors of Paki intel mucki-mucks. But as they now know who is at Gitmo, they can not be sent home due to 'security risks.'

good quote

John - I'm inclined to agree with you. Wars in the past tended to have discrete enemies and eventually one or the other would be annihilated or concede. The war on terror has no discrete enemy (except al Queda, which is more an umbrella than an actual entity these days). We could theoretically evolve the defintion to include whomever we deem fits the framework, since I doubt any time soon we'll see everyone in the world suddenly subscribe to "don't worry, be happy." There will always be the zealots that see themselves as saviors willing to blow something up.

Still, I'm unclear on what or whether anything has or will be suspended.

Thank you David for such an interesting article. Thought provoking. I miss the way that the Presidents used to speak-with such eloquence.

Lincoln was an intelligent man, and I believe he made the right decision.

James s F. - I've heard similar stories. I suspect we still don't know who most of the people we're holding are.

What about the rights of the average American? Can we still walk the streets without expecting to be tossed away without rights?

Thanks Sharon. Being President is a tough job, especially when before you even take office half the states are saying they are taking their flags and going home.

I have a bit more knowledge now, thank you~

We are not at war and have no current internal rebellion. There is no excuse for limiting our constitutional rights.

If we are not willing to extend our constitutional rights to visitors and other non-citizens of the U.S. then we don't see them as human rights at all. We are free to make slaves of non-citizens and torture them for no reason. I find that totally unacceptable. As an elderly, vulnerable, unarmed citizen of the U.S. I would prefer the risk of terrorists to the risks inherent in losing constitutional rights. What's your choice?

Larry - I don't lose sleep over the risk of a terrorist blowing up my building (though I expect that someone is keeping an eye on this since I work in DC a few blocks from the White House). I also don't lose sleep over the possibility that someone is taking away my constitutional rights (though again I assume someone is paying attention).

I do, however, agree with you about human rights in general. Seems logical that "human" would be cover everyone, citizen or not.

love bits of history - thank you David K.

Abraham Lincoln was, there can be no doubt, an extremely intelligent, passionate and principled man. He was a man upon whom many compromises were forced by circumstances neither of his creation nor his desire.

The fact of slavery which existed throughout his life until his Emancipation Proclamation was not of his design, and he eloquently spoke against it prior to becoming president.

The fact of the division between slave-states and free-states was not of his design, and he, like all Americans of the day, was embroiled in the political tensions that arose over the question of slavery and how it related to the expansion of the Union with the admission of new states.

The Civil War was not Lincoln's idea, the South fired the first shots after his election and declared their secession from the Union, fearing Lincoln would at least isolate the southern slave-states by admitting no new slave-states, or abrogate slavery and ruin their privileges of ownership and their economy based on slave labour.

Lincoln's main concern during the Civil War was preservin the union, not eliminating slavery. He only acted to free all the slaves when it became clear that only by defeating the south could the country be stitched back together.

Many compromises were forced upon him during his presidency, and many of them I'm sure he abhorred even as he enacted them.

This was likely one of those.

Very well said Rory.

GTMO is an indefinite lease from the Cubans. It is not necessarily considered US Soil. There are applications of US law that do not apply there. It is a US military Base and US military Regulations apply there.
If you have difficulty with this point, consider the application of US labor laws to the Contract workers that work on US Military Bases. Corporations are contracted to provide services to the bases and they provide workers to fill many of those services. Many are from the Philippines. However, those laborers in GTMO do not fall under US labor laws. While their pay and benefits are greater than those often found in many of their home countries, they are lower labor standards than would be applied if they were in the US itself.

The Bush Administration does not want to apply either Geneva Conventions or US laws to the Detainees.

Lincoln is talking about the OVERTHROW and DESTRUCTION of the national government. He is talking about SUSPENDING the right of Habeus Corpus given his concern for his current situation and the PRESERVATION of the US Government.

Are we Truly concerned for the Preservation of the Functioning of the US Government for the threat of Al Qaida Terrorists at this point?

Do you see how silly the application of Lincoln's use of the Suspension is for our present situation?

The word Suspension itself is relates to a predicating factor or concern. What is that Concern in our present situation.

The word is not 'Revoked' in place of Suspension... Suspension indicates emergency conditions Requiring a "freezing" of action or process until conditions change... It indicates emergency conditions that if otherwise not suspended, those rights would present a dire threat to the Continued Operation of the Constitutional Government of the United States... Lincoln is indicating that there are no other Options to Preserving and Protecting the Government of the US for Collapse. Lincoln is Talking about Suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus so that the Rest of the Constitution and Rights along with the US Government can Be Saved....

Is that what we are talking about here with the "detainees" at GTMO?

Habeus Corpus is not Suspended Just because they are 'Bad Guys' ... Suspected Murderers Embezzlers get their day in court...

Providing Habeus Corpus does not mean "Going easy on Bad Guys" ... It means getting your day in Court...

It is not an American Invention... There is a reason it was included in the US system... It is a basic Right against Tyranny ... It is an act of Fairness and Openness to work against Arbitrary, Unilateral, Dictatorial behavior...

There is more at Stake than the nooks and crannies of US Constitutional interpretation... It is an indication of the Good Faith with which This Nation acts upon the World Stage ...

I don't normally get into politics, but the fact that too many people don't understand the true proliferation of evil people in this world is what makes me want to put what I see, at the forefront of this whole conversation.
Our enemy knows that we will bend over backward to avoid the mistakes of the past round ups for the safety of our country. We are the only country in the world that I know of that freely allows NON zealots to openly display their religion if you will, which states they must kill all who don't conform to that belief. Now you tell me how you fight a war on terror when you openly invite it to your own doorsteps?

I firmly believe that our government who isn't all democrats or republicans and on and on, are doing the best they can to protect us and the democratic way of life all over the globe. I highly suggest that people search through their candidates for up coming offices to truly see where they stand and of what use they will be in a war that is not going away; as it hasn't for thousands of years. True forgiveness is the key to a grander world and as mentioned above that hasn't happen.
I vote for Jesus as he was neutral and DID abide by the laws and government of the land, yet worked to annihilate evil.

Thanks for the thought provoking article.

Thanks David for your insight and clarifications.

The distinction between "suspend the law to save the Union" and "enemy combatants and/or unlucky to be caught in the sweep" seems pretty clear.

I think the "good faith" issue is the biggest concern. I hear the Democratic candidates always talking in terms of "restoring credibility" of the US with the world. Have we lost our credibility, our influence, our "moral high ground" with the world?

There are two reasons the Bush Administration wants to suspend Habeus Corpus. One, They know that their evidence to convict the Detainees is weak. They do not have enough strong evidence to prove who is who and what is what. Providing a Day in Court for all Detainees involves the potential of releasing those who should be not be. The alternative (indefinite detention with out trial) means detaining those who should not be (i.e., the innocent and or non-dangerous).

What is the real level of threat presented by those who might be released? How does that unknown level of threat compare against the known violation of Human Rights against those innocents being held? (if you want to look at it this way: how do those evils balance?)

How does it all fit into the "Big Picture" (What is the level of impact of releasing possible threats compared to what is already out there? What is the impact of the Administration's Policy of Suspension on the Bigger Picture of World Affairs?)

The second Reason is Image... The Bush Administration's Desire to maintain Image. The Administration Fears that backing down or changing course is a Sign of Weakness and that doing so would mean other Policies would be vulnerable to attack.

Thanks for commenting Rose. I do believe that most people realize that there are evil people in the world, but perhaps we have different ways to defne how inclusive is that group. I personally tend not to generalize, and consider there to be individual evil people; those that see their view and their needs to not be only more important than others, but that somehow they have the right to choose when and how to end someone elses life.

I'm confused by what you mean by "We are the only country in the world that I know of that freely allows NON zealots to openly display their religion if you will, which states they must kill all who don't conform to that belief. Now you tell me how you fight a war on terror when you openly invite it to your own doorsteps?" To whom are you referring? What religion states that they must kill all those who don't conform? I'm not aware of any religion that advocates that.

Awesome article

David - I have to say that you seem to have really captured the essence of the issue. The obvious fear is that we release someone that then turns around and leads the next major attack on US soil. What is the risk? I have no idea. It seems unlikely to me that we have someone locked up would be capable of this, other than those who we do know are capable of doing it because we have evidence showing that they do. But, of course, we're not talking about the big names because if we have enough evidence to put to trial anyone it is on the big names. So we're really just talking about the unknowns who are primarily being held because we don't want to take a chance of releasing them back to the opposition. At this point, how much of a risk would it be?

Also, I don't think the Bush administration (and many others) think they are violating anybody's human rights. For one, they argue that no one there is innocent, as all were supposedly swept up from the field of battle (which probably includes all of Iraq and Afghanistan, not necessarily just those in the act of shooting at our troops). Also, my guess is that the Administration would argue that we are treating the detainees better than any treatment any of our POWs would ever expect (ask John McCain). [Of course, this excludes any "waterboarding" or other extreme coercion being used - or not used - depending on who you ask.]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the image point. This is the difference being strong enough to do great harm (e.g., having a martial arts black belt) and being strong enough to avoid doing great harm despite your physical ability to do so. Between "to err is weakness" vs "to admit error is strength."

Great historical perspective on current events.

good quote

David K.,

\\\\being strong enough to avoid doing great harm despite your physical ability to do so.////

Excellent expression of this concept! And great article! It does not surprise me because I've been aware of the Lincoln decision for some time. And Lincoln clearly had what could be termed and "uprising" where a separate government was in the process of being installed within the United States area!

Nothing even remotely similar exists today. And Bush is certainly not strong enough to acknowledge error, to make changes as conditions indicate or to put the American people first in all ways. Carter was a strong enough person to risk and loose the presidency by staying in the White House even though he wasn't necessarily the greatest president, he showed a true strength that Bush and many others have lacked!

As far as Gitmo is concerned, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld figured they could get those people down there and coerce, beat, torture or use any method necessary to get all the information out of those people to hang them. Then they got a little too much publicity and opposition to pursue it like they used "renditions" elsewhere. Now they could not show weakness by changing anything and the detainees pay the price.

I have learned a lot by reading through this discussion- it is very interesting to apply Lincoln's words to what is happening today.

Thank you for this article David I appreaciate this.

David Evans,

Appreciate your explanatory comments and historical information relating to this article! While I feel that Lincoln clearly had the constitution on his side in the matter, I was not there at the time to know the problems the habeas writ could conceivably cause in that situation, and would have the defer to the judgment of Lincoln.

The balance of Lincolns quoted reasoning is not necessarily one which elicits such ready agreement. I cannot conceive of the idea that had such action defied the constitution it would have been worth it. I don't know how many time you can give up part of the foundation on which the nation was built and still have the same nation. And to tell that to the person who died for that protection and right, is tantamount to spitting on their graves! Kind of like, "thanks for dying for that right, sucker, but it wasn't really worth that much!"

You know, give up the right to habeas corpus one time, the right to have privacy in your communications next time and eventually the right to free press and the right to vote and you've just changed from the United States of America to the Communist States of America!

Rose,

Thanks for your contribution to this information! Well written and informative!

David, I like the quote!

Interesting...

Thanks that's very interesting particularly to me.

Interesting quote & discussion! I hope to come back & read more.

Lincoln was not an arbitrary man and I am sure he did what he thought best - but time and history make those determinations and his exit due to an assassin's bullet did not allow him to rectify and explain himself to later generations. I have often wondered if he had lived if there would have been a reconciliation connected to the surrender rather than the free-for-all allowed by the almost leaderless Congress.

I wish today's leaders could use words like he did.

:O\

:O\

Donna,

It is my understanding that both Lincoln and Johnson wanted a reconciliation. That is why Johnson fired Stanton, the secretary of war. He opposed reconciliation so vehemently that he would have made it impossible. We know what that engendered and occupied too much time with, leaving Johnson a weak and ineffective leader following the impeachment.

This article is good information, as long as there are no comparisons drawn to the threatened suspension of habeas corpus today. The Civil War was a very different circumstance than the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. The two cannot be contrasted in today's terms.

"I don't know how many time you can give up part of the foundation on which the nation was built and still have the same nation."

Exactly right, James. The ends don't always justify the means. We can't "save America" by torturing people, or illegal wiretapping, or throwing habeus corpus out the window. Too often, this leads to further actions like those recently undertaken in Pakistan, and I really don't think that's the way the United States should be heading.

The suspension of habeus corpus was wrong when Lincoln did it, and it's just as wrong for Bush to do it.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.


[from the national archives webpage].

old Abe is more of a hollow plaster saint than a god...

Lloyd, some of those who worked for Lincoln found ways to push the envelope. Hopefully the new Kennedy authored book aboput Robert Smalls includes Admiral Dupont's decision to declare any slave who had helped serve the insurrection (building bulwarks, serving chow, growing the crops used to feed the soldiers, holding horses reins of a confederates mount, etc) was to be declared contraband, since both the south and the fugitive slave act declared this being to be 'property' and therefore subject to being held by the union and NOT returned to the owner until the war was over. This allowed many slaves even within federal territory to escape to union lines and be emancipated

David,
Thank you for your very enlighting article.
At this point in time, our leaders are beating the democracy drum, not for our nation but for those nations with resources we deem essential for our existence, while our own civil liberties are being stripped away in bulk.
Suspension of habeus corpus is just the beginning of a process, which has been underway for some time now. Why isn't it more apparent that throwing our rights away will not make us safer, just the opposite. If we continue to be silent while the madmen at our helm skillfully make waste out of the basic core of our Constitution, then we only have ourselves to blame.

thanks so much, i really enjoy your articles

Great quote! Thanks for posting, David.

I understand arguing for something in trying times. I do not, and have not, ever heard a compelling reason why anyone should be denied a fair trial. Period. The bit above is a beautiful piece of prose as Lincoln was apt to provide - it also fails to provide a justification other than the unsubstantiated (at least here) assertion that the constitution would fall if this law were not suspended.

Why?

I enjoyed the article as well as the discussion. I do not understand everything I know about it. It seems that "Liberty" brings inherant risk. We enjoy freedoms that put us at risk. Lincoln felt he was saving the union by suspending habeaus corpus. I think he was wrong, I think Bush is wrong. We can't continue to use our military to diffuse "percieved threats" our form of government means that we have to take chances with our security whether at a mall or a church or on an airplane. We may have beat up on the Taliban in Afghanistan, slowed or crippled the spread of terrorist groups. Afghanistan is right now experiencieng its best bumper crop of poppies. More americans have been destroyed by the effect of this drug than were killed or injured in 9/11 and the Iraq war combined. Yet we have a sense that somehow we have overcome a serious threat to our country. In keeping with the philosophy of destroying what might destroy us why havent we laid waste to the countries that export the worlds most dangerous drugs to our citizens. Why do we not suspend basic provisions of the constitution to insure victory in a drug war. Because it is bad business? The rules exist to protect the rights of all of us, even those who wish to do us harm. They prevent the kind of zealousness that has destroyed society's throughout history. Being free has its risks, changeing the rules changes the risk. it does'nt reduce or remove the risk. My .2 cents

Very interesting quote!

Some people's actions are frowned upon at the initial stage, but are praised in years to come. Such was the case with some of Lincoln's actions. Now a historical figure, the bearded president was the epitome of controversy in his day.
Help me get a publishing deal with a 10 rating and a comment. I comment back.

The question seems to be can you maintain the US standard of the right to a trial (and to be told what the charges are) while suspending some of those rights. Clearly the Civil War does not equate to today's situation. But where Lincoln clearly suspended habeas corpus, has Bush? The people in question are enemy combatants, not American citizens, so would American laws apply to them. Some of the comments have suggested they do not (and typically do not apply to military installations in general). Other commenters suggest that human rights should by definition apply to all humans. But is habeas corpus a human right? Fair and humane treatment would seem to be, but the right to be charged and tried if you are essentially a POW? Does anyone have any further insight into this question?

Stephanie - I think Lincoln was saying that if the south seceded (and further, they won the war), then the Constitution would thereby be no longer valid (since the "union" would no longer exist). Hence, suspend hb temporarily until the north could get the situation under control and the union be preserved.

Socialized healthcare is more of a threat to our civil liberties and God given Constitutional rights than any war we are fighting on terror.

It also strikes me that his suspension of hb could have simply been a resource issue. Both sides were getting people killed left and right. The north in particular wasn't doing so well early on in the war. So they were scrapping to get every able man they could (no women in the military then) to fight. Which didn't leave a whole lot of resources and time left over to be guarding and trying prisoners.

So perhaps he did it because he didn't have the time to worry about individually charging and trying people during what was a pretty all consuming part of his presidency (day 1 to just before his assassination).

Could it have just been expediency?

Keith - you'll have to expand on that one. How is socialized healthcare a threat to our civil liberties and our human-written constitutional rights? And are you talking about Europe, since we don't have socialized healthcare in the US?

David E, Guantanamo was a concession from the Spanish whom we defeated in the Spanish-American War. Guantanamo was never in Cuban hands.

In any case, the Cuban Revolution in 1959 abrogated the previous government's agreement with the US.

Back to the main point, Lincoln was right to seek Congressional approval to suspend habeus corpus in that specific instance: the Civil War. Bush did not seek Congressional approval before seeking to suspend that right (and many others) in the Military Commissions Act. We are not currently, nor at any time in living memory, under threat of rebillion nor invasion.

Keith Kalish - Up here in Canada we have had socialized medicine since I was a small child. My parents knew well the difference between trying to raise a family without socialized medicine and with it.

We also have no equivalent to the "Patriot Act" in Canada.

I would suggest we are a good deal freer for both of those differences. I would also suggest that, since you have not lived in a country with socialized medicine, that you have no idea what you are talkiing about.

My point is that this discussion never explained how letting people have a fair trial threatened the constitution. I'm sure that he was trying to infer a relationship; I'm just not convinced one existed.

As for resources, the North free population was 22 million while the soldier population 2.2 million (I assume total over the course of the war, when many were only in service for a year or less) while in the South, with a free population of 5.5 million, they fielded an army of more than a million.

I find the "resource" argument also somewhat weak.

Don't get me wrong; I have a profound respect for Lincoln and his struggle through arguably the most challenging chapter of US history. That doesn't mean he couldn't make mistakes, whether he was pushed into it or just decided to. No one is perfect.

nice

"I think Lincoln was saying that if the south seceded (and further, they won the war), then the Constitution would thereby be no longer valid (since the "union" would no longer exist). Hence, suspend hb temporarily until the north could get the situation under control and the union be preserved."

Kinda, but not really. The South had already seceded, and Lincoln suspended habeas corpus so he could round up and jail people who lived in states that were still in the Union.

It meant people were arrested for rioting, but also for things like criticizing the President or the government in general, encouraging people not to volunteer for military service, or calling for an end to the war. Wanting anything other than victory for the Union was considered treasonous.

At first the suspensions only applied to limited areas, but eventually Lincoln made it nation-wide, and eventually over 10,000 people were arrested and held, unable to exercise one of the most fundamental human rights in any democratic society.

I think using the war as justification to throw human rights out the window is bogus, since Lincoln also considered war to be the only possible answer to secession. The Confederates weren't trying to overthrow the US government, they were trying to create their own country with their own government.

A few years later, President Grant suspended habeas corpus, too. He didn't have a war to use an excuse, but I guess it was the best idea he could come up with to go after the Klan.

It is my belief that there really isn't a justification for suspending habeas corpus. Truth, justice, the side of good - none of these shrink from the light of day. I have never heard a compelling reason why an entity says someone has done something wrong but shouldn't have to explain it in a court of law. No one should be incarcerated without legal proof of misdeed, else corruption and misuse follow - in fact, I can see no need for it at all unless misuse is intended.

I've been thinking more about your resources comment, David. In a war, the people most likely to be involved are (a) the poor and (b) the principled (i.e. those that believe strongly in what the war's about). I see no reason to expect a shortage of lawyers in either case.

Thanks Wil for your additional perspective. It always helps to have as many of the facts as possible in order to have an informed discussion.

Stephanie - I can't disagree with you there. I can't imagine a situation where it would be okay to jail someone without having to tell them why or give them an opportunity to prove their innocence (isn't it supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" anyway).

Stephanie - good point about the lawyers. There certainly isn't a shortage of them these days.

James,
Thank you for your added background on Cuba and GTMO, but I think you are getting technical with labels and I'm not sure for what reason...
I said 'Cubans'... Meaning the people who live in Cuba, under whichever Government that may be... The lease was set up with the Post Spanish-American War Government of the 'Republic of Cuba' not the Spanish...
The Current Cuban Government indeed does not recognize the previous GTMO lease treaties of 1903 and 1934 as Valid...
I hope that helps clarify further...
In any event, the Point is that GTMO is not considered 'US Soil' ...

Regarding Bush, his Administration, and Human Rights - No he/they wouldn't consider the situation at GTMO to be a Human Rights Violation, But they wouldn't would they. That is just another Defect among many he/they have shown themselves to have.

David K,
I could easily make the argument that ALL rights be suspended because there was a chance that public safety would be imperiled because of drinking drivers. Would you stand for that? How about suspension to all rights of privacy to prevent contaminated Heroin from reaching addicts? Would you consider it just fine to suspend the right of Habeas to prevent anyone who acts out anger from being a parent, or pet owner, would you consider the suspicion that some one might abuse a vicious dog grounds to jail that person without the right to defend himself?

The war on Terror is little more than the war on Drugs, or the War on Crime, or the War on Poverty. To the best of my knowledge we have not won any of those wars, and are not likely to, but we could imprison all potential poor people, all potential criminals and all potential drug users. It would make the USA a nation of Prisoners, and the Nation itself the Prison.

David Evans. THE PRISON AT GUANTANAMO, AND THE REST OF THE BASE ARE IN FACT IN THE SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ARE THEREFORE LEGALLY AND MORALLY AND ETHICALLY US TERRITORY. Just as you have the right to a home you lease from a landlord, and the obligation to obey the law within that home the United States has both the right and obligation to govern GUANTANAMO and GITMO as if they were WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES.

Karl - I don't think anyone would consider the examples you give as reaching a level where a consideration of habeas corpus suspension would even be entertained. It's a pretty hard sell even for the situation Lincoln faced, and he met with a great deal of backlash for that decision (and rightly so).

As for the "War on Terror," it effectively is the "bumper sticker" slogan that John Edwards received a lot of flack over. It provides a catchy little catch-phrase to hang all other activities on, kind of like al Queda being tied to every terrorist event even when the link is no more than the perpetrators were "inspired" by al Queda. To me the label reflects more a rallying tool rather than actual action, though I don't want to minimize the real, hard work that is being done by many many people in the (broadly defined) intelligence community. Still, your point about the "War on [fill in the blank]" is absolutely of concern - we seem to be better at labeling these things for PR purposes than actually "winning" the wars. [see my previous article and comments about defining what "winning" means]

Karl, I entirely agree that laws ought to be applied at GTMO and that the base and the prison be Legally and Morally and Ethically obligated uphold all those laws. There are in fact regulations that require the US military to observe all US laws and Regulations wherever they are located in the world, including environmental regulations such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for new constructions.

But I disagree that GTMO is treated as "Sovereign US Soil" ...
Leeway is taken and advantage is made of a general Fuzzy area...
If nothing else "out of sight-out of mind" acts more strongly than anything else...
As I had said, US Military laws and Regulations are the primary rule at GTMO...

I Should Clarify that I absolutely agree that US Laws should be entirely enforced at GTMO... But the fact that the Supreme Court had to Rule on the issue means that it was not entirely clear or obvious or settled before they ruled... (Thus the Leeway and Gray area the Bush Administration was taking advantage of)...

Were it actually considered US Soil, there would be no question if US laws applied there... It would be a 'no brainer' as it were ... What need for the Supreme Court to hear the case? (Though they have shown that they certainly need that sort of special 'help')

The Bush administration has shown that they do not respect even Supreme Court rulings and will continue to weasel their way out of them if they can find one...

I do not know what to make of US Labor Laws in regard to Contract Laborers (foreigners hired to work on US Bases through Contractors such as Kvaerner). Are they being treated by US Labor Laws as if they were in US itself? I have the strong sense that they are indeed Not, but of course they do not have strong Advocates pushing for their Rights.

Out of Sight-out of Mind...

I spoke with a soldier who worked on the base in 2003 while at GTMO. And as of that date, appropriately applied Human Rights would be a stretch in describing the situation there at the prison. Unfortunately, as happened at Abu Grahaib in Iraq, it seems there was sense of allowing the soldiers to take their anger and feelings about 911 out on the prisoners. I do not fault the soldiers for having anger or feelings, but I do fault the command structure for allowing soldiers to be put in a situation where they could feed and act out on those feelings. I feel that the US Soldiers themselves were poorly served by putting them in those situations without proper restraint.

Karl and David Evans

I'm less worried about the official designation of Gitmo as US soil or otherwise. My own personal feeling (not legally informed) is closer to Karl's statement, that Gitmo, and all property controlled by the US should conform to US laws.

The key question, however, is not so much whether it is US soil or not, because the detainees are not US citizens (with a rare exception or two that I believe have since been moved). Therefore, the laws governing human rights come into play in addition to extension of US laws to non-US people. So in general while we should (in my opinion) extend basic civil protections to non-US citizens, either within the US or at Gitmo, it seems that we also have an obligation to meet or exceed the protections provided by international treaties. Not to mention the fact that we often claim the higher moral ground, which means that we should treat everyone better than we might expect them to do to us.

Overall, I think we treat the detainees at Gitmo pretty well. My personal concern (not including, of course, any torture techniques that may or may not have been employed on a few of them), is the fact that most of these people have been held for up to 7 years with no charges, no trials, and no opportunity to defend themselves or even "serve their time." POWs have been held in all wars, but they also generally have been released at the end of that war - or at some interim point before the end of the war.

Given that, as Karl points out, the war on terror will likely never have an end, doesn't it make sense that we should do something with the detainees rather than keep them there in prison forever? If they were shooting at us on the battlefield, try them and punish them according to traditional law. If we haven't figured out after 7 years that they did something worth a trial and incarceration, than deport them back to their home countries. "Suspension" of habeas corpus implies a time limit. 7 years seems like more than limit enough.

David Evans

Our comments overlapped, so I didn't see your comment about what the soldier there in 2003 told you. Therefore, it seems my comment that detainees are being treated well at Gitmo may have been overly optimistic or naive.

Having said that, my guess is that a lot of things have changed since 2003. Much more public scrutiny has been given to the situation at Gitmo, so I would hope (again, perhaps naively) that the abuses you allude to no longer occur.

Again though, a lot of time has passed since 2003 and before. Are we so incompetent that we can't figure out whether these people are a danger and either try them or let them go?

David, I agreed with your previous comment as well,
but yes, it was not quite stellar there as of 2003, and also yes, likely it has improved. I do not believe it ever was quite as bad as the Abu Grahaib situation I mentioned, but there was an AP story of a Department of Defense lawyer or Legal assistant that more recently had similar conversations with off duty soldiers, and the tone was just as disturbing. After two AP news stories about it, the Pentagon Issued a gag order and I have not heard about it since. So, I don't know exactly what to say about it at this point. Only, I am very skeptical about most of what the military says about the issue.

But I agree with your point that as of 2007, why is a "day in court" still not offered?

Keith,

\\\\ Socialized healthcare is more of a threat to our civil liberties and God given Constitutional rights than any war we are fighting on terror.////

How so? Perhaps you could write a full article explaining just what rights and freedoms socialized health care would jeopardize and how. I'm afraid I don't see the connection but if you could connect the dots, or at least put the dots in, it would be nice!

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing....

nice quote

David E, 11/29

I make the distinction between Spanish and Cuban to show that Guantanamo was NEVER in Cuban hands and is not, nor ever has been, sovereign Cuban territory.

Because the land passed directly from the Spanish to the Americans, it (Guantanamo) can only be viewed as American territory. It is, therefore, subject to American law. Any Cuban "agreement" was under duress due to American dominance.

This is exactly the case with our other overseas possessions: Guam, Saipan, and various other lands.

Hi All

Your Bush is not no Lincoln.

Quote from Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com:
We interrupt the normal flow of natural health information today to bring you an urgent message about free speech and "thought crimes" in America. The U.S. Senate is about to pass a law that would criminalize merely thinking thoughts in support of the U.S. Constitution, or against the war on Iraq, or against any government office (including the FDA). All across the internet, top bloggers, authors and commentators are expressing their deep concerns about this new "anti-terrorism" law and how it could plunge America into police state tyranny.



Here's a MUST-SEE video featuring a recent lecture by Naomi Wolfe. You must watch this if you care about your freedom! It's an extraordinary look at how history is repeating itself in America today. Click this link to view it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc



This is a frightening time in America today. You are witnessing and living through the downfall of a free nation and the rise of a fascist state superpower. Read the first story below to inform yourself now about what's really happening to our freedoms and Constitutional rights in America today. This is no conspiracy theory, it's a genuine U.S. Senate bill that's about to be voted on!

Bonnie - Definitely agree that Bush is not Lincoln, though I think he believes he is.

Regarding the House and Senate bills, I have read the bill and don't see any cause for concern. I don't see anything in it that would criminalize thinking or acting to support the constitution, disagreeing with the administration on Iraq, or disagreeing with anything any government office is doing. Perhaps you can point out the specific pieces of the bill that you are concerned about.