You must really hate the WWII vets that shot Germans out of uniform or in our uniforms on sight.
Why do you say that? Everyone is entitled to due process. Due process may sometimes be a bullet. I note that the Germans were not detained indefinitely and tortured, unlike these “unlawful combatants”. It takes a very special person to torture another human being or hold them forever.
ETA: The accounts I recall were of Coast Guardsmen apprehending Germans coming ashore. IIRC, they were tried. Do you have any other accounts? As for Germans caught in non-German uniforms, could they not be shot summarily? Again, any real accounts of such shootings?
Actually, there were Germans who were detained indefinitely. Unless, of course, you contend that the US new the war in Europe would end on May 8th 1945.
There are many accounts of Germans being shot summarily. Especially during the Battle of the Bulge. Hell, we shot Germans on D-Day because there was no place to keep them prisoner.
And Germans captured in the US from U-boats, especially sabateurs were treated as enemy combatants.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002026795&er=deny
Hell, in the US we detained people indefinitely, scratch that CITIZENS of this country indefinitely because of their heritage. Do you honestly think the Roosevelt administration had any reservations about detaining actual enemy combatants indefinitely?
[QUOTE=Submariner]The Emancipation Proclamation “freed” slaves only in areas the Union did not oontrol. Where the Union controlled (including the border states that did not secede), folks kept their slaves to the end of the conflict. (My wife’s folks in Kentucky kept their slaves until 1865.) Lincoln did eviscerate the Constitution: he suspended habeas corpus while courts were open (subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court), imprisoned Northern dissenters in military prisons without due process (including newspaper editors and owners as well as destroying their presses), initiated a naval blockade (an act of war at international law) without a declaration of war, etc.
This makes you chuckle?
[QUOTE]
To keep the scope managable, do you know why the Empancipaiton Proclamation did not free slaves in the states that remained in the Union?
And you will not get any argument from me on the topic of Lincoln expanding the power of the president.
Speaking of Patrick Henry…the “Give me liberty or give me death” line of his speech was (to me) not the line with the greatest meaning. Two sentences prior to that was “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Sometimes, history misses the point…
They lost my vote and I will tell you why. You may agree or disagree, I don’t really care.
First, a person with a gun or bomb trying to kill you is your enemy. You can make up names like “unlawful combatant” all day long, but they are still the enemy.
With the War on Drugs" they gave us property confiscation intended to be used on the drug cartels. Now it is used on everyone. Of course no one likes a drug dealer, but a kid with marijuana in his car is overstepping in my opinion.
Now we have all these Patriot Act laws supposedly to be used to track terrorists. The problem is there are no safeguards for American Citizens and you can bet you a$$ they will be used well past the intent of the law.
No one has the right to suspend “Habeas Corpus” for American Citizens and if they do they are enemies to the Constitution they took an oath to protect. Well guess what just happened on October 17th, 2006?
I have a new term, “Unlawful Politicians”. That’s my .02 cents. MV out!
It would have been a taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring compensation to the owners; Lincoln did not want to pay.
“Unlawful politicians”.
The image that comes to mind is a groundhog-like creature poking its head out of a “continuation of government” bunker.
This is why I chuckle. Libros and Constitution party folks love to dislike Lincoln and point the not freeing any slaves in Union states. Then say in the next breath he had no regard for the Constitution.
The plain and simple fact of the matter is it would have been unconstitutional to do so.
Check the LOC site, see the 13th & 14th Amendmentments and their dates:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdoxmainpg.html
You’ll also find the Bill of Rights has a preamble that makes it pretty plain what the FF wanted. Nice ammo when dealing with an anti-gunner since most folks don’t even know it’s there.
I would rather not spend my life in ignorance. Would you please explain to me what you are saying?
Hit the link the the Library of Congress site and read the Constitution and it’s amendments. You can copy them to your hard drive if you like.
You may recall the slavery was written into the Constitution, the “fraction” of a man thing that so-called civil rights folks get wrong all the time. The Founders did not think slaves should not be counted as citizens and therefore slaves should not directly contribute to the number of reps in the US House.
The 13th and 14th Amendments abolish slavery. Had Lincoln freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation (prior to the Constitution being amended) it would have been unconstitutional.
That’s why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did.
However, I think I need to restate something I’ve posted somewhere above. Laws need to be written with your worst case president in mind, not the best case. If you don’t mind the Patriot Act under Bush but would freak out if Hilary Clinton was elected, it’s a bad law. Make sense?
“That’s why I chuckle when I hear folks saying how bad Lincoln was and the unconstitutional things he did.”
If I understand your argument, he respected one element while ignoring many others and that makes him OK? I respect many traffic laws but I sometimes exceed the speed limit. Do you think that will get me out of a ticket next time I’m pulled over?
M_P
Nope. Just not as bad as folks like to paint him.
It’s just that the overwelming majority of people who carp about slaves not being freed from the boarder states need to be better informed. I for one was not taught the Constitutional issue in school either.
I am now motivated to do some research on Habeas Corpus and I’ll get back with you guys, since I may actually have some time this weekend. I know FDR did some pretty strong things, so did Truman in the name of national security. Just like Lincoln.
IIRC their actions ended with the conflicts they were in, but like I said I’ll get back to you.
Wow I’ve never thought of it like that. That does make sense Thanks.
Lincoln still considered the Southern states part of the "perpetual Union"and, thus, under the jurisdiction of the federal goverment and US Constitution. If it were unconstitutional for him to free them in the states that had not seceded and in the occupied ares of the states which had seceded, how would it be possible to contitutionally free then in the unoccupied areas of the states which had seceded?
Do you have a link to someone who has written more extensively on your theory?
My theory???
Did you read the darn 13th & 14th Amendments? If not please read it and get back with me. Otherwise a conversation really won’t amount to much.
Yes, I have read them numerous times. They had not been ratified as of the date of the Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves in the unoccupied South. If freeing them was unconstitutional, how could he do it?
How did he do it, Martial Law - that is if you contend Lincoln thought the south was still part of the union. Our military was engaged in an active conflict after all.
But you’re tap dancing.
IIRC, the 13th & 14th Amendments were ratified in 1865, well after the Civil War, so freeing slaves in boarder states would have been unconstitutional. The point is crystal clear and not open to debate. The amendments passed in 1865 and the Emancipation Proclamation was Jan 1st 1863. It’s a fact and not open to debate and not a matter of opinion.
Dred Scott (ca. 1795 – September 17, 1858) was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet had lived, while slaves, in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and parts of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott, stating that slaves were property, and the court would not deprive slave owners of their property without due process of law according to the Fifth Amendment.
BTW, what is an “active conflict” ? I searched the constitution in vain for that term. There is power in Congress to “declare war” but that wasn’t done in the 1860’s.
You’re still tap dancing. Did you search the Constitution in vain for the sections on slavery? Freeing slaves prior to 1865 would have been unconstitutional.
BTW, in an “active conflict” the president has much more power to deal with problems. As in martial law. The “War of Southern Aggression” started with a state militia firing upon a US Army installation. And the Constitution CLEARLY states the president is commander and chief of the Army, Navy and Militias. America was attacked at Fort Sumter.
The absolute bottom line that you librarian types do not want to acknowledge is the Civil War root cause with slavery. It is morally wrong and was opposite the ideals laid forth in the Constitution and other founding documents.
If I’m going to do that research into Habeas Corpus I’ll have to stop sparing with you for in bit. BTW, conceding a point (which you seem unwilling to do) does not mean you loose the debate. But when I come back we’ll be doing some Hebeas Corpus 202. Study up!
Here’s a good one on Lincoln:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
Here’s another one:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm
In the recently enacted Military Commissions Act, Congress acceded to President Bush’s request to remove the power of federal courts to consider petitions for writ of habeas by foreign citizens held by U.S. officials on suspicion of having committed acts of terrorism.
Key phase – FOREIGN CITIZENS
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16911
I suggest the group read this, it has a great break down of the act and defines “unlawful combatants”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Scope_of_the_Act
The Wikipedia link is a good one. You’d think a guy could find the test of the actual law everyone is up in arms about. I’ll be back.