Boston Bombing aftermath, any similarity to the Lincoln assassination aftermath?

[LincolnMan]

I was listening to a panel of legal experts regarding what "should" be done with the captured suspect in the Boston bombing. Some of the discussion revolved around whether to try him as a combatant or not. Other considerations involved whether or not he should have court in front of a military tribunal or in Federal Court. One legal expert referenced the trial of the conspirators! There is also the talk of the death penalty or not. It seems that these kinds of deliberations do have some similarities to the Lincoln assassination aftermath-legally-and perhaps otherwise. What are the thoughts here?

[L Verge]

I had to shorten the title of Bill's previous post in order to post my reply. The system told me his title exceeded the limit of 85 characters. Did others have the same problem?

Anyhow, here are my thoughts:

There are certainly similarities, and much of it may hinge on whether or not he qualifies as an enemy combatant based on the fact that he became a naturalized citizen last year (in preparation?). The Lincoln conspirators were certainly American citizens, but were deemed enemy combatants. We'll see.

All I can say is that a few days after 9-11, I received a phone call from the Department of Justice asking where they could find all materials related to the 1865 Conspiracy Trial. We see how far we have gotten on trying those criminals - and they were certainly enemy combatants.

[LincolnMan]

Laurie: very interesting that you were called after 9/11. I would think that the authorities are considering how to proceed legally to avoid creating any controversy over the trial of the Boston bomber suspect.

[Jenny]

I honestly don't think there are any similarities except extremely superficial ones *at this point*. The more we learn, the more I might be able to find some.

And that's really interesting, Laurie, about the 9/11 incident with the Justice Department.

[My Name Is Kate]

Classmates and friends of the younger bombing suspect all seem to agree what a nice a guy he was/is, and they can't believe he would do such a thing. They wonder if he was brainwashed by his older brother. The cops now think his throat wound may have been self-inflicted in a suicide attempt, though it is questionable that any remorse was involved.

I see some similarities with LTP's case. People who knew Powell from childhood couldn't believe he would end up the way he did. And he seems to have been brainwashed into doing what he did, then didn't care whether he lived or died afterwards, and actually preferred to die. Both were very young.

I hope the bombing suspect's interrogators can find out some useful information from him, especially as to how a supposedly otherwise normal person could suddenly turn into something very much like a fiend.

[BettyO]

The differences I see between Powell and the Boston Bombing suspects are that these two young men apparently DID NOT CARE WHO THEY WOUNDED OR KILLED - children, women - they simply didn't care. They were out to do as much damage as they possibly could.

Powell would not have killed or wounded women and children - his own words, as he told Dr. Gillette, being "Men do not make war on women." He went out of his way to avoid Fanny Seward. I think Powell panicked at Seward's house and did not know how to handle men coming at him from all sides in what turned into a hand to hand affair. Sure, he probably would have killed Fred Seward had his gun not missed fire - but I feel somewhat positive that he went there not even expecting to be confronted with young Seward, but apparently thought he could march straight up to Seward's room and dispatch him and him alone. The whole affair turned into a deadly "Donnybrook".... but to compare Powell to the Boston bombing suspects? In a way, similar in that they were both very young, and seemingly had a normal childhood; loved and respected by family and peers, but there the similarity ends.... JMO

[Thomas Thorne]

If this person had some formal affiliation with a terrorist group which has declared war on the United States or has waged war with the United States,he should be treated as an enemy combatant.

Unfortunately the government will not do so because of his US citizenship even if any of the above are true.

BTW I recently discovered the Confederacy formally declared in May 1861 that a state of war existed with the United States.
Tom

[RJNorton]

Can anyone sum up this law in "ordinary language?" I read it, and it doesn't "sink in."

[L Verge]

Those of you who attended the Surratt conference in March should have a copy of Military History magazine devoted to the subject of military courts and written by a former Jag officer who served briefly on the Guantanamo Commission and then became an adviser to The Conspirator movie.

Former Chief Justice Rehnquist also wrote a book entitled All The Laws But One that has at least one chapter on this. Also, a former president of the LGDC and a member of the Surratt Society has written at least one book on the issue. His name is Burrus Carnahan - if I can remember the title of the book, I'll post it.

This issue of citizenship is key to the revival of the efforts to "Free Dr. Mudd," in my opinion. Again, the present and future have the opportunity to learn from the past. Maybe in so doing they will also clear up some things in the past.

[BettyO]

Ed Steers also wrote an excellent article in North and South Magazine last year on the Military Commission -

[L Verge]

Yes, he did. In fact, it was so good that I made copies of it to distribute to my guides to help with any questions they might have. Edward, where are you?

[Gene C]

(04-22-2013 06:04 AM)BettyO Wrote:  The differences I see between Powell and the Boston Bombing suspects are that these two young men apparently DID NOT CARE WHO THEY WOUNDED OR KILLED - children, women - they simply didn't care. They were out to do as much damage as they possibly could.

Powell would not have killed or wounded women and children - his own words, as he told Dr. Gillette, being "Men do not make war on women."

I agree with Jenny (post #4), I don't see any similarity bewteen the two. Booth was politicaly motivated and Powell was following orders, they had specific people targeted for assassination. The Boston Bombers don't seem to have cared who they killed or injured. No reason for their actions has yet been uncovered, Booth left behind reasons why he acted the way he did.

[My Name Is Kate]

My only point was that both MAY have been brainwashed into doing what they did. I wouldn't even have thought of any similarities if not for this thread.

The bombers apparently did spare the SUV driver's life because he was not American.

I wasn't implying that Powell was a terrorist or anything else. I just hope that someone can interrogate the bomber and shed some light on the "psychology" of some of these Jekyll/Hyde personalities (terrorists, etc.).

As an afterthought, and in all fairness, I do think that if Powell had been ordered by someone who he regarded as a legitimate authority figure, to blow up the White House, he would have done it, and he probably would not have stopped to think if any women and children were in it at the time. He himself said that his zeal (can't remember his exact words) would have carried him alot further than just attempting to assassinate Seward. He would have felt remorse afterward, as he did with the Seward assassination attempt, but that would not have helped the victims any.

[BettyO]

Quote:As an afterthought, and in all fairness, I do think that if Powell had been ordered by someone who he regarded as a legitimate authority figure, to blow up the White House, he would have done it, and he probably would not have stopped to think if any women and children were in it at the time. He himself said that his zeal (can't remember his exact words) would have carried him alot further than just attempting to assassinate Seward. He would have felt remorse afterward, as he did with the Seward assassination attempt, but that would not have helped the victims any.

I have to disagree. I think he was too honorable a person to consider such. I don't think he would have blown up the White House. He didn't stoop to shoot Lincoln when Booth chided him to do so on April 11. I simply think he would not have. He didn't have it in him.

I have also never heard of that quote regarding Powell's "zeal." Where did you get that reference from? Just curious.....I've researched his life for the past almost 40 years and have never come across that....

[KateH.]

We'll never know why Powell did what he did. However, I'm not sure if Powell would have agreed to blow up the White House or something along those lines. Using that example, blowing up the White House would take a lot of innocent lives, including cooks and maids as well as the first family. His task was to kill Seward and leave. He did attack other people in the house, one of the reasons he felt guilt after, but he did not attack any women or children. Gus and Fredrick were not young boys like Tad Lincoln. Robinson and Hansell were grown men. Furthermore, Powell could have easily stabbed Fanny was she tried to come between him and Seward, but he merely threw her aside. That shows that he had some thought going through his mind that wasn't just to kill everyone that was in his way. Just my opinion.