Military Response Time To Assassination

[irshgrl500]

(12-05-2013 06:42 PM)John E. Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 01:58 PM)irshgrl500 Wrote:  Swift & Overwhelming? Far from it, and also met with enormous errors.
Also, even if the trial was held in a Civilian Court, the defendants had a right to a speedy trial, which is normally waived by the defendant, (today) in order that they may be able to prepare adequately for trial. So, no, considering the defendants were arraigned after their arrest, (and in 1865, one was NOT given a court appointed Attorney – this did not occur until Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) ), so the defendants likely could not afford an Attorney, thus their right to a speedy trial was not waived, and trial would begin immediately. So, no this would not be unusual, today, IF the same laws (which includes Case law, which has highly evolved and changed trials, since 1865.), were in place, today.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was the first President to be assassinated, and this must be taken into consideration, in any analysis, no matter how brief, or general.

The statements are a bit difficult to address; you have made some enormous assumptions, and thus formed your opinions. This is not meant to offend, just an observation.

Not offended, but i disagree with your statements and assumptions.

What am I assuming?

Within 3 days of Booth assassinating President Lincoln, the military and its investigators unraveled a web of conspiracy and arrested: Michael O'Laughlen, Sam Arnold, Mary Surratt and Lewis Powell. Days later, Ned Spangler, who had already been arrested, questioned and released, would soon be back in custody as would Dr. Mudd.

All this was accomplished with the "telegraph" being the only form of communication technology. No security cameras, televisions, telephones, cell-phones, 2-way radios, body heat sensors, internet, etc., were used to aid the investigation.

Swift - See above. While it took 12 days to hunt down Booth, his accomplices were arrested in short order. The investigation and manhunt for the perpetrators began in the parlor of the Petersen House where the President lay dying. How is that not a swift response?

Overwhelming:

Civil and military forces (police, investigators, federal troops) were rallied to assist in hunting down John Wilkes Booth and his accomplices.

Not sure what your statement "met with enormous errors" has to do with mine, but in any case -

Yes, errors were made but this is never unusual in times of emergencies or chaos. To use a modern example, on 9/11, rumors and misinformation were prevalent even with modern communication. The Capitol building, White House and other targets were reported as being under threat of imminent attack. Other planes besides United Flight 93 were rumored to be heading toward Washington. Innocent civilians were arrested for the unfortunate crime of having the same Arabic names as suspected terrorists.


As for the speed of the trial and execution, that's a bit harder to compare with other assassinations or acts of terrorism. All other Presidential assassins were caught on the spot and likely acted alone.

Garfield's assassin was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until 4 months later.

McKinlley's assassin was arrested on the spot and put on trial 16 days later. He was then executed 2 after being sentenced to death.

We all know what happened with Lee Harvey Oswald.

John Hinkley (Attempted assassination) was arrested on the spot but his trial didn't begin until a year and a month later.

Part of the reason the government chose to prosecute the conspirators in a military trial was so they could all be tried at the same time and in the same court. Otherwise, there could have been multiple trials in different states based on location of arrests and specific charges against them. - Arnold and Herold in Virginia; O'Laughlen, Atzerodt and Mudd in Maryland; Spangler, Powell and Surratt in Washington, DC.

I think you are being assumptive in your statement that the "trial would begin immediately". Besides the right to a speedy trial, the 6th amendment calls for a right to an impartial jury. How long would that have taken to find?

Also, what makes you think the defendants could not afford an attorney? All of the defendants save for Atzerodt and Spangler could have afforded attorneys and Ford, like he did in the military trial - would have covered Spangler's attorney fees. I'm not certain but I believe Atzerodt's extended family could have afforded to pitch in for an attorney (if they chose to do so) as well.

In a military trial, the defendants were guaranteed representation. Oddly enough, had they not been able to find attorneys willing to represent them, JAG Holt and his team would have been responsible for both the prosecution and defense of the prisoners.

Oh and Swift??????? How about not letting anyone into the State box, while the President and his guests are enjoying a play. I am aware of the events surrounding the President's assassination.

Many question the Constitutional issue of a military trail, and no, they were not guaranteed representation. How so?

An immediate trial is guaranteed by the constitution, except when waived by the defendant, which was not tested entirely until 1972, Barker V Wingo, but still was guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

Also, I know that Mary Surratt could not afford any Attorney because she was barely able to survive, running her boarding house.

I do not wish to reply in the same manner, with attacks or bodes of criticism, and I was simply pointing out, legally, the trial was and is expected to begin, immediately.
This is not the place for a Public Debate, and your reply clearly indicates you were offended.

I'm very sorry I replied, at all.