Replies

"Third, even if they were guilty of all the things you allege, it would take a courtroom of some sort to convict them and assign a punishment. Milroy gave them no such courtroom nor even a military tribunal and tended to assign "punishments" that were cruel and unusual by medieval standards let alone today - things like hanging people by slip knots in doorways and staging "accidental" shootings of a guy's wife. There was even one case where Milroy ordered his men to take a couple civilians prisoner, transfer them to a town up the road, and give them into the custody of a man named Moses Pittman, who was then permitted to do with them as he pleased (i.e. torture them) and dispose of them as he saw fit. Pittman was a union sympathizer who had been providing aid to Milroy and this was his "reward" from the general!"

Martial law is a wartime necessity in areas where the civil administration has broken down. It displaces what ever civil law might have existed, prior to the area becoming a war zone. The resident civilians, as explained in Dow answer not to "the civil law of the invaded country ... not the civil law of the conquering country ... [but to] military law - the law of war."

If General Milroy told them to turn in their guns, shut up, and to cease giving aid to the enemy, and they violated that order, it is pretty much in the hands of the General to decide how to respond. His word was law. No lesser civil court had jurisdiction, and the USSC was not about to get involved in a martial law issue (ref. Luther v. Borden).

I don't know what Mr. Moses Pittman's history was, but his actions may have amounted to reprisal for prior abuse. Who knows? You have not presented sufficient information.

"Burning families out of their homes in the middle of winter is "prudent intelligence," capitan? Your Stalinist qualities are showing again."

Allegations made with providing any background. the prudent intelligence" comment referred to identifying potential guerrillas. But burning partisan's homes, if that is what they were, certainly tends to suppress dissent.

"Whether it was or not, executing civilians without any formal procedure and in a manner that is bizarrely cruel and unusual simply isn't justified or justifiable."

It is called "summary execution." If the so-called civilians were partisans, guerrillas, or spies, summary execution was appropriate. You have not provided enough information to affirm or deny their status.

Martial law is a wartime necessity in areas where the civil administration has broken down.

You're making excuses for criminals, tyrants, and murderers, capitan. What Milroy did is indefensible. As to the free reign you ascribe to martial law, the Supreme Court has said very clearly otherwise while also denouncing your goofy and contrived renderings about this so-called doctrine of necessity:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. (Ex Parte Milligan)

If General Milroy told them to turn in their guns, shut up, and to cease giving aid to the enemy, and they violated that order, it is pretty much in the hands of the General to decide how to respond.

Bullsh*t. The court says the Constitution's protections apply "AT ALL TIMES AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES." Exactly what do you not understand about that, capitan?

His word was law.

Contrived Stalinist bullsh*t.

I don't know what Mr. Moses Pittman's history was, but his actions may have amounted to reprisal for prior abuse.

So you think it's okay to reward a crony by giving him a bunch of prisoners and essentially saying "they're yours to torture as you please. Have fun!" As I said, contrived Stalinist bullsh*t and you are full of it tonight.

Who knows?

As if it somehow matters whether he was wronged by somebody else? MILROY GAVE HIM TWO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS AND TOLD HIM TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY TORTURE AS HE PLEASED. Do you not see the inherent and inescapable wrong in that act, capitan? Do you view human life as some disposable convenience like that abortionist senator of yours? Did your mother forget to teach you that taking the lives of other people is wrong?

You have not presented sufficient information.

Bullsh^t. I gave you a full citation of where to find the thing in the national archives and a detailed summary of what it contains.

But burning partisan's homes, if that is what they were, certainly tends to suppress dissent.

It sure does, Stalin boy, and that is precisely what is so fundamentally UNAMERICAN about it!

It is called "summary execution."

No capitan. It's called a crime against humanity. It's called Stalinism. And it is simply indefensible no matter the circumstances, time, or place. Hanging an unconvicted innocent from a door frame with a slip knot is pure evil. Staging an execution scene against an unconvicted innocent to look like an accident is pure evil. Handing unconvicted prisoners over to a crony so that they can be tortured to death and mutilated is pure evil. If you cannot comprehend that simple fact then you have no right or basis to pass any moral judgment whatsoever upon the south, upon the victims of Robert Milroy's abuses, upon the confederacy, or upon any member of this forum. As far as I'm concerned you can rot in hell with Generals Milroy, Sherman, and the false god of Lincoln to which you practice your idolatrous and blasphemous religion of tyranny.