Law review article on the constitutionality of the military commission

[Marty L.]

I've flagged this before; now it's actually in print. I know some of you will disagree with its basic argument; but I hope that it at least spurs conversation, and that you'll all find *something* of interest in it. I'm sorry I'll be out of town for your upcoming conference. Please feel free to distribute copies of this (or a link, anyway) to any attendees who might be interested.

Thanks very much to those of you who helped me understand some of the minutiae and who helped me avoid several historical errors.

http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/...nation.pdf

[Steve]

Congratulations on having your article published!

[L Verge]

(03-27-2018 08:19 AM)Marty L. Wrote:  I've flagged this before; now it's actually in print. I know some of you will disagree with its basic argument; but I hope that it at least spurs conversation, and that you'll all find *something* of interest in it. I'm sorry I'll be out of town for your upcoming conference. Please feel free to distribute copies of this (or a link, anyway) to any attendees who might be interested.

Thanks very much to those of you who helped me understand some of the minutiae and who helped me avoid several historical errors.

http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/...nation.pdf

Marty - Do you have clear rights to the article since you are giving the Surratt House permission to reprint? I am not sure that I can convince our gov't. printing office of producing such a thick document on such short notice, but just in case. I have been asked this before, most recently when I turned Wild Bill's 2017 conference talk on Lincoln's Reconstruction policy into a booklet. This one I would do as a give-away just at the conference. Not promising anything except including the online link in the folder, however.

[L Verge]

(03-27-2018 01:13 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:19 AM)Marty L. Wrote:  I've flagged this before; now it's actually in print. I know some of you will disagree with its basic argument; but I hope that it at least spurs conversation, and that you'll all find *something* of interest in it. I'm sorry I'll be out of town for your upcoming conference. Please feel free to distribute copies of this (or a link, anyway) to any attendees who might be interested.

Thanks very much to those of you who helped me understand some of the minutiae and who helped me avoid several historical errors.

http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/...nation.pdf

Marty - Do you have clear rights to the article since you are giving the Surratt House permission to reprint? I am not sure that I can convince our gov't. printing office of producing such a thick document on such short notice, but just in case. I have been asked this before, most recently when I turned Wild Bill's 2017 conference talk on Lincoln's Reconstruction policy into a booklet. This one I would do as a give-away just at the conference. Not promising anything except including the online link in the folder, however.

Jut reached a compromise with our print shop: I am sending the first four pages with your opening statement and the table of contents for the article and have added a note on the top as to where to find the full 168 pages. We will insert these in the conference folders. Our registration is now approaching 120 with one week to go.

[Marty L.]

Thanks, Laurie! 120--wow.

[mikegriffith1]

To me this seems like an obvious, open-and-shut case: You don't haul civilians into a military court when civilian courts are open and functioning. I mean, other than the handful of true believers in the military tribunal, are there any serious scholars who still argue that the tribunal was legitimate, much less fair and just?

Even back in the days when I accepted the traditional version of the assassination, I recognized that the conspirators did not receive a fair trial and that they should have been tried in a civilian court.

Of course, we now know that the military tribunal's prosecutors used a hefty amount of bought or coerced perjury and suppressed exculpatory evidence and other evidence that did not fit their narrative.

[L Verge]

(09-23-2018 09:06 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  To me this seems like an obvious, open-and-shut case: You don't haul civilians into a military court when civilian courts are open and functioning. I mean, other than the handful of true believers in the military tribunal, are there any serious scholars who still argue that the tribunal was legitimate, much less fair and just?

Even back in the days when I accepted the traditional version of the assassination, I recognized that the conspirators did not receive a fair trial and that they should have been tried in a civilian court.

Of course, we now know that the military tribunal's prosecutors used a hefty amount of bought or coerced perjury and suppressed exculpatory evidence and other evidence that did not fit their narrative.

What is that saying? "In times of war, the law falls silent."

I have no legal mind whatsoever, but I believe that several prominent legal minds have told me in the past that there are still circumstances today in which military courts can hear cases involving civilian defendants. I also know (as I have previously stated on this forum) that shortly after 9/11, I received a phone call from someone in the Justice Department inquiring about the Lincoln Conspiracy Trial of 1865 and where to find the historical data.

Further, a friend of mine and of the Lincoln community today, The Honorable Frank J. Williams, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, was part of the investigation to determine the legal ramifications of establishing our current prison at Guantanamo and dealing with 21st-century militants of another country(ies) who had committed unspeakable crimes on many thousands of innocent civilians. I believe that Guantanamo is still an active prison?

Mike - If you had been an ordinary citizen of the Union in April of 1865, with no legal training, would you have stood up and demanded that those responsible for the assassination of Lincoln be tried in a civil court since they were civilians? Or, would you have termed them "enemy belligerents" serving the Confederacy (with which the U,S, was still at war)?

[Gene C]

(09-23-2018 09:06 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  To me this seems like an obvious, open-and-shut case: You don't haul civilians into a military court when civilian courts are open and functioning.

Functioning - yes
Able to handle this case - no

The circumstances of Lincoln's assassination as Commander in Chief following a bloody civil war justified a military trial.
Personally I doubt todays civilian courts are capable of handling a similar situation.

[Eva Elisabeth]

I agree with Gene!