The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[wpbinzel]

(01-13-2019 07:43 PM)mike86002000 Wrote:  I found Boynton's ruling at: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma...957038.pdf .
I've also found Att Gen Speed's argument for the jurisdiction of the commission at the Surratt Society Site.
I'll be rereading them both, but Boynton's ruling has to do with denying a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Milligan acknowledged that Congress had made that legal. Speed's argument refers to "The Rules Of War". Milligan says it would be a waste of time to ask what rules.
Mike

Glad you found it. The relevance of Ex Parte Milligan and Ex Parte Mudd is that the basis of Dr. Mudd's petition for habeas corpus was Milligan, which Judge Boynton rejected as not being on point or applicable. I find Boynton's legally undisturbed ruling compelling, while you (and others) do not. I have no problem with that and doubt that we could convince the other of our respective positions. That is the value of this Forum and healthy debate, not to mention what makes the world go around. My problem is with an assertion as fact that the Military Commission was "illegal" versus stating it as "in my view" or "it is my opinion"....