War time conditions have never been recognized as a basis to usurp the power of another branch of government in violation of the separation of powers. The Supreme Court recently reiterated this principle in the Hamdi case:
We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989) (it was “the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty”); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426 (1934) (The war power “is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties”). Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions. See St. Cyr, 533 U.S., at 301 (“At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest”). Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.
Davis also suspended the writ.
Wrong. The Confederate Congress suspended the writ in limited designations, allowing Davis to detain persons there on federal counts. The suspension did not apply to the state court systems, which continued to issue writs, and was not unilaterally declared for two whole years without congressional approval like Lincoln's was.
Lincoln's wasn't.
Moreover, Davis was still critized for his use of that power, who felt he was overreaching the authority of his office.
Take the legal double talk somewhere else.
Presidents have to make decisions to protect the Constitution that stretch the limits of what the Consitution may have intended, but that is the responsiblity of the President has.
Lincoln defense of his actions was a sound one, based on the practial demands of the time.
That is why the ability to suspend the writ was written into the Consitution for times such as those.
Had any truely horrible abuse had occurred, the Congress could have just as easily impeached Lincoln.
In fact, many in the Congress felt Lincoln was going to easy and wanted stronger measures taken.
Now, all of these noise that you are generating is suppose to prove what?
Were their abuses on both sides, yes there were.
That has been conceded by historians.
What you are attempting to really prove is that Lincoln was a tyrant bent on the destruction of the Rule of Law.
That is simply false.
Had not the South not fired on the U.S. flag and refused to obey the laws that it was obligated to obey under the Constitution, Lincoln would have faded away as probably a one term President.
He said as much at his first Inagural Address.
It was the South's arrogrance that made Lincoln the great President that he was.