Today is the ninth anniversary of the 2nd US Court of Appeals ruling against President Bush's denial of due process to Jose Padilla.
Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Bush and Rumsfeld was an outrage, and I am personally grateful that the court ruled it so. Various liberal and libertarian groups filed amicus curiae briefs in the case, also cause for appreciation.
Among more complex legal issues - which I'll leave to the experts, was the simple fact that suspension of habeas corpus, during time of calamity, is granted to Congress, not to the President. This can be discerned by any literate person reading Article 1 of the Constitution, and I'm once again grateful that this simple point of law was noted by the legal experts on the court.
There is a downside, however. Almost nobody seems to recognize the original precedent for the unlawful actions of the Bush administration in this matter.
George W. Bush, in depriving a U.S. citizen of his right to the writ, was following the example of the most revered Republican in American history, a demigod whom our nation has honored with a temple.
Abraham Lincoln incarcerated hundreds of citizens who opposed his war against the South, locking them up without charging them with any crime. When Justice Taney, acting as a circuit judge, ordered a writ of habeas corpus, the federal marshall, on Lincoln's orders, declined to execute it. Moreover, Lincoln actually issued a warrant for Taney's arrest, but couldn't find anyone compliant enough to carry it out.
Lincoln had no legal right to deny habeas corpus, but is only mildly criticized by feckless historians due to his iconic status, sealed by his martyrdom.
The lesson for imperial presidents is clear: If you wish to jail citizens with impunity, you better instigate all out war within our borders first. If you happen to be an imperial president from the Left, you will have the advantage of a fawning, courtier press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Steven,
You're over the top with this one.
Lincoln is a genuine heroic figure, who delivered us from our national shame, slavery.
You should return to your liberal roots.
Dear Dr. Noah-Lott:
Unless Lincoln was a liar, he had no interest in freeing slaves.
Until it became neccesary as a war measure. A symbolic one at that - emancipation only applied in southern areas not occupied by union troops. Slaves in Missouri, for example, remained in bondage.
Since you are Dr. Ira Lee Noah-Lott, tell me, when did Lincoln, in all his years lawyering and politicking, ever raise a protest over the Illinois law against free blacks immigrating to his state?
Would you say that free black persons were better off in ante-bellum Virginia, or in Illinois, in general?
From our past history, I know you are likely to accuse me of defending slavery.
I unequivocally deny the charge. My questions are designed to provoke thought, which I hope redound to a more informed opinion about the past, ultimately leading to a more intelligent appraisel of the current political environment.
Remember, I left your ideology in large part because your historiography was found lacking in basic integrity.
Post a Comment