Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[cr #1391 to GOPcap] "Yes, it is a constitutional principle, and did not apply to insurrectionists who renounced the very concept."
That's odd. Jefferson Davis was charged, but then the government decided it was unable to prove its charges and dropped the case. They did not have much success outside of military tribunals.
John Harrison Surratt was charged and tried. The government was unable to obtain a conviction and dropped that case as well.
If "innocent until proven guilty" did not apply to insurrectionists, whyever were they set free? Especially that Surratt fellow.
[capitan_refugio #1279] (emphasis added)
To: nolu chanFrom the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell. I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet, so I will limit my comments.
"The Fourth Circuits ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Courts long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the militarys seizure of a citizens property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a design to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property must be entitled to some respect. Id. at 118, 120.
"Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taneys opinion for the Court found the governments defense to be based on rumors which reached the commanding officer. Id. at 133. Mere suspicions of an illegal intention, the Court stated, will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence. Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizens property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself."
It seems that Mitchell is not applicable to the situation of the South in the ACW. By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship. I do not see how they could assert legal protections, if those protections were even applicable, from the document and country they renounced.
1,279 posted on 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF HAMDI V. RUMSFELD MAY BE FOUND AT THE BELOW LINK.
THE QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO IT MAY NOT BE FOUND THERE.
HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
No. 03-6696. Argued April 28, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004
YOU WILL FIND CAPITAN'S QUOTE "From the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision" HERE.
THIS IS THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THIS IS WRITTEN, IN ITS ENTIRETY, BY ATTORNEYS FOR HAMDI.
FINDLAW link to PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT
Whiskeypapa, are you sure that isn't you?
How's about if I don't let you get away with this. We were not discussing slavery. We were not discussing the perpetuation of slavery. You cannot make this about slavery any more than Lincoln could have. We were discussing subjugation of the sovereign people to a metaphysical legal entity, detectable only by its normative aura.
You did not lament the existance of slavers, you lamented the existance of anyone who doesn't toe the federal line, flat-out said that you desired their extinction, and said that anything that was done to bring it about was justified.
Check this out, I'm going to be "Lincolnite for a post."
The idea fo a permanent slave state in North America was repugnant to any civilized person, except Abraham Lincoln, who promised a permanent slave state in North America, but only because he was forced to, and in doing so his words were really quite poetic, in fact the man himself was poetry in motion, and he was repulsed by the notion of a permanent slave state, but he was just too darned complex for you idiots to understand and that is why he promised a permanent slave state in spite of the fact that he found it repugnant because he knew that eventually it would be the death of the permanent slave state that he'd just promised in poetic language because even though he was a racist he wasn't as bad as others and in his time being only a little bit racist was better than being a lot racist and since he had Bill Sherman to kill everyone who disagreed with him in perfectly justified fashion I win ha ha.
FACT.
see previous post.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
in point of fact, NO CIVILIAN was injured there, much less killed.
EVERY SINGLE one of the dead were either Jayhawkers, 5th KS Volunteer Cavalry or a Redleg.
ALL of the dead were MURDERERS/RAPISTS/ROBBERS/ARSONIST, who had committed VERIFIED atrocites against CIVILIANS. EVERY ONE!
you have been LIED TO and made a FOOL of by the LIARS of the REVISIONIST school.
free dixie,sw
please go tell Sirena of this forum that the COLDBLOODED MURDER of her G-G-Grandfather,a CSA PVT soldier late of the 4th SC Cavalry, by the staff of Point Lookout DEATH CAMP was PERFECTLY OK.
but i would suggest that you "stand out of range" when you do so.
btw, in the last 24 hours i've gotten 4 reports from freepers of damnyankee atrocities committed against THEIR families.
"black flag over dixie" appears to be nothing more or less than a regurgitation of lies, propaganda,wishful thinking & nonsense, promulgated by the REVISIONISTS in the hope that they can turn southern eyes away from what was done in the name of the union to their families. there is, to the knowledge of "academic peer reviewers", NOTHING NEW in the book. (and NO i have NOT read the book. i don't buy books that won't pass the "smell test". what i do read are the ORIGIONAL source documents.)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
CIVILIZED nations have followed those precepts, in one form or another, for about 400 years. (you could, i suppose, argue the the union armies were NOT from a civilized nation, but that wouldn't go over well with the unionist loonies here, though most of the CSA descendants would HAPPILY agree.)
free dixie,sw
LOL!!
This is a useful concept. Of course, you are describing precisely what lawyers, ideologues, and presumably control freaks of other varieties so frequently do to innocent people who deserve better.
The intellectual conceit being the plaything of its creators, the result is that the People become the plaything of the manipulators. Quod erat desideratum.
You did not lament the existance of slavers, you lamented the existance of anyone who doesn't toe the federal line, flat-out said that you desired their extinction, and said that anything that was done to bring it about was justified. [Emphasis added.]
This is a useful distinction and a salient point worth repeating.
The morally caustic advocacy of epic violence simply underlines the original outrage.
in point of fact, the VAST MAJORITY of damnyankee atrocities were committed against POWs,"the very poorest of the poor", "hill trash", Roman Catholics, Jews,Indians & Blacks (both free & slave), because the WAR CRIMINALS KNEW that they would NOT be punished for their WAR CRIMES against HELPLESS PEOPLE that has no political power, were UNarmed & had little or no money.
free dixie,sw
particularly, MIStreatment of CSA POWs was ENCOURAGED by a joint resolution of the US Congress.
free dixie,sw
I think LG's just pinged the heart of your position and this only affirms it. You simply cannot justify or fully defend Lincoln under the guise of the Constitution, so rather than concede a fault you take to defending the indefensible and celebrating those who THROW OFF the Constitution in favor of pure military despotism. Stalin would be proud of you.
Wait until he goes into Count Vigo mode:
"Atop a mountain of skulls, I ruled from a throne of blood!!!"
Made a good movie line, really dramatic and all, but it's a shame that anyone would actually advocate that for his own countrymen, over political differences. (They want to rule themselves, as opposed to letting me rule them from a throne of blood, etc. etc.)
Guys like that justify the secessionists morally by the words out of their own mouths, that enliven and reanimate the dry historical vignettes of Sherman burning and salting Georgia.
Even my own dad, an Indiana Hoosier and Lincoln admirer from birth (my great-grandfather -- my dad's maternal grandfather -- actually saw Lincoln on his bier on his way home to Springfield), was dismayed by the idea that American troops would salt the earth of an American state.
He said you could see the path the army took on aerial photographs from the 1930's and 40's -- the salting had damaged the foliage enough that it still showed. (Wonder what Landsat/SPOT imagery would show today?)
You are right to wonder at the kind of mind that did that.
You did it with the attorney arguments in the Prize Cases.
You did it with the dissent in Bollman
You did it with the dissent in Hamdi
Now you're doing it with the petition in Hamdi.
Simply put, it would seem that you are intentionally perpetrating a fraud and hoping that nobody will double check your work to catch it. But we all know that perpetrating frauds is what Stalinists do, so you get caught every single time.
So would Count Vigo.
Yeah, that's right, capitan, I'm talking about you over here. Wanna courtesy ping? Earn it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.