President Lincoln, Hebeas Corpus, President Bush, and the War on terror

Given all of the controversy surrounding President Bush's actions to defend the country from the prospect of another devestating terror attack on the United States, I was wondering what others think of the following measures taken by past wartime Presidents in an effort to defend the nation during perilous times. The following measures were very controversial at the time of their implementation and yet, the United States still did not turn into the facsist police state that some people today contend is happening Under Bush's watch.


On April 27th, 1861, President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in some parts of the U.S. His actions were prompted by civil uprising and threat of Mayland seceding from the Union.

In the early 1870's, President Grant also suspended Habeas Corpus in 9 South Carolina counties in action against th Klu Lux Klan.

During the time When President Lincoln exercised the suspention (during the civil war), many people, including the opposition party, were against it. Wikipedia says this:

The Democrats, hoping to make setbacks in the war a top campaign issue, waited until late summer to nominate a candidate. Their platform was heavily influenced by the Peace wing of the party, calling the war a "failure." Wikipedia link 1

Despite objection to these actions at the time that history proves to be unwarrented, the President does have legal and constitutional authorithy to suspend Habeas Corpus under certain circumstances. Artical 1 section 9 of the U.S. constitution says this:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Another Issue to consider is the signing of Executive Order 9066 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that forced approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent into internment camps soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese-Americans Internment Camps

President Roosevelt later overturned executive Order 9066 and the last of the camps closed in March of 1946...about 6 mounths after Japan surrendered.

These two Presidents, one Republican and one Liberal Democrat, did what they thought was nessecary and best for the nation when they made the above mentioned decisions.

Again, the purpose of this tread is to discuss what others think of the measures taken by past wartime Presidents when faced with a vicious enemy bent on our destruction in light of the fact that the country turned out well in the end and secondly, why should President Bush be treated as harshly as he is when considering the fact that Lincolnn and Roosevelets critics were also proved to be wrong in the long run.



[edit on 15-8-2006 by War_Monger]

War_Monger, I think it is quite telling that you quoted a passage about war detractors as if it were somehow related to your point on mass arrests. It gives me the impression that you're selling the standard party package- the whole Republican platform, not just the parts that you can back up.

Originally posted by War_Monger
The following measures were very controversial at the time of their implementation and yet, the United States still did not turn into the facsist police state that some people today contend is happening Under Bush's watch.

What if I were to suggest that those past instances DID turn the US into a police state by setting the dangerous precedents which now lead some to support new abuses under the Bush administration?

It is important to recognize the pattern developing here. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because their were hostile armies inside of the United States, which is allowable, but he did not order mass arrests.

Then came WWII and there were mass internments. If you're brown, you're goin' down. There was no rebellion or invasion, this was clearly illegal. At least they weren't doing it secretly and torturing innocent people.

Now we get to the war on terror. Far more than Habeas Corpus is being violated. The government can collect evidence on you without warrants, get an order to arrest you from a secret court, hold you indefinately without bringing charges, torture you themselves or hand you over to an intelligence service even nastier than our own if they like, and if they hold you for 5 years, even though they've known you were innocent for half of that time, you don't even get so much as an oops out of them. Last month Canada finally managed to save a guy from us who we'd been holding since 9/12/01- after almost 5 years of wrongful imprisonment, beatings, and malicious strip searches for the unthinkable crime of deserting the Algerian Airforce and requesting political assylum in Canada, never having any specific suspicions that he'd committed any crime, they just throw him out of here and hope that nobody notices.


There is no legitimate reason to suspend our constitution, period. We'd see this country burn down around us before we surrendered our rights to some foreign dictator and I think we'd be right to.
So where did this sad, strange notion come from that as long as it wasn't the enemy's idea, that we should shred that sacred document ourselves before we watch even one building burn down?

Right now it's a temporary measure to stop Islamic terrorists, but there isn't anywhere in the Patriot Act that says it only applies to Islamic terrorists. Like income taxes it will just somehow manage to stick around and it will expand, as is the nature of the government's sins.
In 20 years they'll be using these same mechanisms against street gangs, drug dealers, organized crime, etc etc. And obviously you say good... until you're the suspect, then the presumption of guilt is going to make you pretty sore.

You've got to remember that out in the real world, a lot of messed up, repugnant crap happens everyday. A police officer once attempted to rape my mother; she kicked his butt, filed a complaint and went to the papers. The police protected the officer and my family had to move after repeated prowling around our home and cars following my mother around, not to mention a first class slander job they did by releasing documents on her that they had no right to release. In the course of doing some research and talking with an attorney my mother became aware that people who make problems for that particular police department tend to have accidents a few years down the road.

In 20 years, what happened to my mom will look like nothing. What would have happened if the cops had been able to go into our house without our knowledge completely legally, dig through whatever they want, arrest us indefinately on suspicion of being suspicious even if the search didn't turn up anything, and hand us over to the feds to be warehoused for a few years without mandatory review until somebody just sort of decided that it suited them to see what our story was? Sound far fetched? It should. It should be the last thing that a reasonable, intelligent, stable person should ever think could possibly happen to them. So why isn't it?

Why? We'll be bankrupt. The terrorists are “leveraging” us into fiscal oblivion. We must begin to “fight” smart.

posted by War_Monger

“ . . the controversy over President Bush's actions to defend the country from another terror attack on the United States, I wonder what others think of the following measures taken by past wartime Presidents in an effort to defend the nation during perilous times.

On April 27th, 1861, President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in some parts of the U.S. His actions were prompted by civil uprising and threat of Maryland seceding from the Union. [Edited by Don W]

Right off the bat, I think any analogy between Lincoln and Bush43 is a reach, a strain. Nine Eleven Event is chicken feed to what Lincoln faced. This is not even apples and oranges, this is gnats and elephants. That won’t fly with me. IMO, you’ve explained it well enough W/M.

In the early 1870's, President Grant also suspended Habeas Corpus in 9 South Carolina counties in action against th Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan was America’s first multi-state terrorist organization. History proved Grant was correct in trying to suppress the KKK. The Union coddled those racists gangsters who knew how to pull decent peoples strings to their everlasting shame and disgrace. So-called decent folks tolerated wrongs inflicted on blacks they would never have tolerated if done to whites.

Let’s not forget during most of that reign of terror happened under the approving eye of the local Christian churches. For a 100 years! Say Hello, clergymen. Where are you?

The President does have constitutional authority to suspend Habeas Corpus. Article 1 section 9 of the U.S. constitution says this: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

I do not believe Bush43 can claim either of those conditions obtained “ . . rebellion or invasion . . “ in 2001 or in 2006. That’s the difference in Bush43 and Lincoln. Bush43 is a wanna-be but can’t be. Lincoln was a had-t0-be and did!

Another Issue is the signing of Executive Order 9066 by President Roosevelt that forced approximately 112,000 people of Japanese descent into internment camps soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt later overturned executive Order 9066 . .

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to designate parts of the country as "military areas" from which any and all persons might be excluded . . the relocation program, in which 110,000 men, women and children were sent to what were in essence prison camps . . “the old saying goes, In wartime, law is silent . . “ In the Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) case, the Court upheld the legitimacy of a curfew, but evaded ruling on the implications of relocation. In the Korematsu v. United States case, the Supreme Court faced the issue whether loyal citizens could be summarily relocated to detention camps solely on the basis of their race. A majority with Justice Black's that -military necessity- justified the relocation.

Justice Murphy's dissent dealt with what he termed a "legalization of racism." I dissent, he said, therefore from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

Again, the purpose of this tread is to discuss what others think of the measures taken by past wartime Presidents and secondly, why should President Bush be treated as harshly as he is when considering the fact that Lincoln and Roosevelt critics were also proved to be wrong in the long run.

Didn’t your mother ever tell you W/M, “two wrongs do not make a right?” Haven’t you heard it said, “those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it?” There were other things Lincoln did you have not mentioned, but it is generally accepted that if Maryland had seceded, thereby forcing the removal of the capital, that European nations would have flocked to support the South which was their main source of cotton, the 19th century’s equal to today’s oil.

Lincoln alone faced a revolt of nearly overwhelming proportions. Himself a 39% popular vote president, he was faced with a singular moment in our nations’s history. I fault him not. The only parallel to Lincoln is George Washington. Co-founders of the Republic.

FDR. You should know that I rank FDR next to God. He is my icon. I am a child of the New Deal. But, he did wrong. FDR did something not consistent with either his political acumen or his benevolent concerns for the downtrodden.

I put his mistake to be the fault of too many adverse things taking place around the world. FDR did not want one more piece of bad news. One substantial act of sabotage by one person of Japanese descent could have been disastrous to the war effort. Hong Kong fell Dec. 18, 1941. Wake Island fell Dec. 21, 1941. Bataan was under heavy attack and surrender was imminent. It came on April 3. MacArthur was ordered to Australia. The Doolittle raid on Japan was yet to come April 18, 1942. This is the context in which FDR let himself slip. He was wrong. He stumbled, my hero is human after all!

However one may feel towards Bush43 and the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay the unlawful renditions, Abu Ghraib, the quagmire in Iraq, the slipping back in Afghan, and the most recent Attila the Hun type attack on Lebanon. It has been 1,120 days since the Nine Eleven Event and Bush43 cannot claim to be acting under the exigencies of the moment.

He needs to go to Congress. A long time ago. He cannot continue to claim the same “unlimited” powers he could get away with if used intelligently thoughtfully and with discretion for a few days, or weeks, and maybe a moth or so, but now, more than three years after the fact, he is still acting in the same authoritarian way.

To paraphrase the late Senator Bentsen, when debating with Dan Quayle, but now to Bush43, “You sir, are no Lincoln, you sir, are no Roosevelt.”

Bush43 is an undeniable autocrat. And because of his demonstrated love of the rich and famous, a plutocrat. He has made more serious blunders in foreign policy than anyone since Franklin Pierce or Herbert Hoover. IMO.



[edit on 8/16/2006 by donwhite]

WOn't happen. Sorry, Bush will keep dumping Trillions into Halliburton until only Bush and his friends will have money and the rest will be broke.