I would be interested in examples of Lincoln and FDR's behavior which compares to this administrations.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Lincoln ordered the military to round-up and jail newspaper editors, publishers, and reporters. Lincoln had people jailed without trial in defiance of habeas corpus pleas. Lincoln had one member of Congress forcibly deported from the USA under threat of jail.

FDR established a tribunal for the single purpose of trying and executing German commandoes who landed on the East coast with sabotage plans. They were tried and executed. FDR established concentration camps for American citizens of Japanese descent. Most were held in the concentration camps until after the war's end.

The current administration has jailed 2 American citizens (IIRC) on US soil as enemy combatants but did not suspend habeas corpus and when ordered by the courts (after following the legal appeal process) to charge or release the accused, charged them with crimes. (I think they were both convicted, but I'm not certain.) The enemy combatants held at GTMO are not American citizens nor are they enemy combatants under the Geneva Conventions nor are they on American soil.

Thus far, no substantial evidence has been produced to indicate any physical torture ordered by anybody in the chain of command has occurred. allegations of mistreatment include keeping prisoners awake using various means such as loud music or forcing the enemy combatant to assume uncomfortable positions for periods of time. Psychological stress is commonly employed including verbal harassment and 'water-boarding'. All of the above treatment is routinely administered by American military and clandestine services ON EACH OTHER as part of their training.

I'm not sure whether Al Qaeda's prisoner treatment has undergone the same scrutiny. Folks who have investigated it have a pattern of turning-up dead. But it's probably moot since most of their prisoners are beheaded on camera.

B

Lincoln's situation was completely different. It was dealing with a civil uprising. The folks deported were southern sympathisers who could have rightly been charged with treason and hung.

I am wondering what you think is wrong with executing the German
commando's?

The treatment of Japanese Americans was not our best moment.

The fear of Japanese deviousity was responsible for increasing american loss of planes on the ground on December 7, when the Japanese attacked, as they were parked wing to wing so they would be more easily guarded from Japanese sabatours (sp?), rendering them much more easy to take out with a strafing run.

And finally you have used all of the current administrations public pronouncements to defend their actions.


Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Excusing Lincoln's illegal activities because of his situation is no different from excusing Bush for his. It depends on how one perceives the threat that initiated the actions.

FDR's administration devised a method for trying the German commandos that did not involve the court system. This is equivalent to Bush's setting-up tribunals to try the GTMO detainees.

I don't understand your last sentence. What are you trying to say, exactly?

B

If you used arguements that were different from the Bush administration's to justify their actions I would respect it.

It is kindof like quoting a child molester saying "I do children because I like it".

Probably a bad example.

If you see no difference between the Lincoln situation and now....well, I guess we aren't going to agree.

Now why would the German commandos be tried in our civilian courts? I see no reason for that. They clearly were military personell, right?

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

They were clearly NOT military. Had they been clearly soldiers they'd simply have been put in POW camps. That is the obligation of signatories of the Geneva Conventions. They absolutely could NOT be tried for military operations while under the flag or in the uniform of one of the belligerents.

They were dressed in civilian clothing which according to the Geneva Conventions, removes the obligations of the Geneva Conventions. That is exactly why OSS and British agents in occupied Europe could be legally tortured and executed by the Gestapo, and many were. Those gestapo agents were acting under lawful orders of the period. The Germans captured in the USA were the equivalent of our OSS.

Now, fast-forward to GTMO.

The people being held there were not in uniform nor clearly under the authority of a legally belligerent country. Therefore, they have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva Conventions. They are not citizens of the USA so they have no inherent rights due to citizenship. It becomes the choice of USA how to treat those folks.

That decision concerning the enemy combatants captured overseas has followed a legal path through Congress and the courts and back to the courts again. As it should have done. Additionally, aliens captured in the USA have mostly NOT faced the military tribunal. Mostly they have ended-up in the court system and tried according to the laws of the land.

FDR did NOT follow that path. Illegal enemy combatants that we captured on our shores faced a military court and were executed. End of story and good riddance.

Bot

Captured on our shores. That's key. As far as being illegal combatants, the teeming masses who hate us will see this as us making up rules to suit us.

This particular rule makes excellent sense when large nations, i.e. WW2 powers, are involved, but in the case of Afghanistan., we were up against impoverished, traditionally lightly organized factions, ruled much more by tribal than govt. loyalties.

As I've said before, for them to dress up in uniform and meet us on the open plains for battle would mean their rapid annihilation. Who is going to essentially say, "defeat us at once, imperialist dogs."

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

OMG poor Tom--you couldn't have used a worse example to make your point One of the biggest scofflaws of our OWN Constitution.