Generally the tu quoque fallacy is when one party to the debate accuses the other party of behavior similar to behaviors of the first party. I’m not accusing you of anything - I just offered Rusty an additional perspective on the whole issue of suspension of habeas corpus. You are welcome to view this as a tu quoque if you really really want to, but my point was that is seems inconsistent to get ones panties in a bunch over the actions of one side when it can be demonstrated that the other side engaged in the same behavior.
As an example, I do not point an accusing finger at the confederates regarding treatment of prisoners in POW camps because of the equally wretched performance by the north. I would consider it hypocritical to do so.
If the Behavior of the Confederates was inconsistent with their own Charter of Governance, then they are indeed equally hypocritical. I do not know if this is the case, being unfamiliar with the specifics of their Governing charter. I do not know if it had any safeguards for freedom of speech and such.
I do know that the US Constitution did. The best inference that can be drawn here is that the Confederates were "just as bad", but it still does not justify the Abuses of the Union side.
As an example, I do not point an accusing finger at the confederates regarding treatment of prisoners in POW camps because of the equally wretched performance by the north. I would consider it hypocritical to do so.
I have heard that both sides didn't do due diligence in the treatment of prisoners, but I have always heard that the abuses by the South were far worse. Possibly this was the result of them having fewer resources and more hatred for what they regarded as "invaders."
The whole thing was Ugly, and it is a great tragedy that it ever happened.