"Note that it states 'the sternest retaliation should follow...'"
Complete the sentence: "The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority."
Even if you believe that the Dahlgren Raid was a planned assassination attempt, it was a failure. There was no assassination. There was nothing to retaliate against.
Furthermore, the whole of Article 148 is intended to reinforce the idea that even an enemy should be accorded the opportunity for a hearing ... before he is executed for his treasonable conduct.
" Lee might have surrendered in April 1865, but other Confederate forces did not surrender until May 1865. Among them, Richard Taylor, son of former President Zachary Taylor, brother-in-law to President Davis. Brigadier General Stand Watie did not surrender until 23 Jun 1865."
True. However, the confederate government had collapsed and its remnents were in flight. The insurgent government of Virginia had also collapsed and "Extra Billy" Smith was on the run. There was no "command and control" (to use a modern term) left to direct rebel military activities in Virginia. Whatever direction Booth may have had, it was certainly non-existant by April 14, 1865. Booth and his fellow conspirators can, in no way, be considered military operatives.
"On [Dahlgren's] person he had orders stating, '[t]he men must keep together & well in hand & once in the City it must be destroyed & Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed.'"
You continue to err by mischaracterizing Dahlgren's personal notes as "orders."
"Article[s] 27 & 28 [are cited as authority for retaliation]"
Did you read them? "Retaliation will, therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution ..." (Art 28)
You appear to try to make that case that the Lincoln assassination was an authorized form of justifiable retaliation ("Per the Lieber Code - implemented by Lincoln, LEGALLY justifed retailitory measures - in fact - it demanded them.). Capture was in no way contrary to any of the Laws of War. You fail to make the case.
Furthermore, the whole of Article 148 is intended to reinforce the idea that even an enemy should be accorded the opportunity for a hearing ... before he is executed for his treasonable conduct.
Oh, so we are to capture Osama bin Laden, then give him a hearing, a trial, 3 squares and 72 virgins, and then execute him? That's your definition of 'retaliatory' measures?
You continue to err by mischaracterizing Dahlgren's personal notes as "orders."
Do you think Lincoln to be an idiot, that would issue this: "Assassinate Jeff Davis and Cabinet"? The only do that on TV so idiots can understand, in the real world no one is going to leave an explicit paper trail. Butler had already failed, Kilpatrick then met with Lincoln, Dahlgren met with Lincoln, Dalgren wrote his father about his glorious mission and the fame it would bring him, and Dahlgren had orders and personal papers on his person indicating that Richmond was to be destroyed, Jeff Davis and cabinet killed. A moron can understand what that means.
Even if you believe that the Dahlgren Raid was a planned assassination attempt, it was a failure. There was no assassination. There was nothing to retaliate against.
So if some terrorist attempts to assassinate our President, we have to wait before they are successful BEFORE before executing retaliatory measures?
You're insane.