Thomas F. Harney

[L Verge]

(11-20-2014 01:41 PM)Gene C Wrote:  We seem to be treading on dangerous ground with this.
Let me just say I don't know if it is written down, but assassination of heads of state is a very dangerouse road to travel, and in my opinion, it is not the prudent thing to do.

Just because the last troops haven't surrendered, doesn't mean the war isn't over. Several of Lee's troups offered to engage in guerrilla warfare and continue fighting when he surrendered his army and he told them no. If we want to get technical about it, I can't recall when President Lincoln ever publicaly called this a war, or requested congress to declare war.

War has nothing to do with prudence. Dating back to the cavemen, the object is to defeat your enemy.

The idea of continuing the Southern cause via guerrilla warfare was actually favored by President Davis, if I'm not mistaken.

"If we want to get technical about it, I can't recall when President Lincoln ever publicaly called this a war, or requested congress to declare war." Shades of Korea - and we're still there. Tell the thousands of Americans who died there that they weren't at war.

---

(11-20-2014 04:34 PM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 02:42 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 01:47 PM)Wild Bill Wrote:  Do you equate Booth's bullet with, say, the bullet that killed Sedgwick at Spotsylvania?


Yes, I do

Bill:

It follows, then , that none of the conspirators should have been arrested, but if arrested, they should then have been released. As for Booth, they should never have even pursued him; they should simply have allowed him to run off to Mexico or wherever, or even settle in Washington, for that matter, returning to the stage, unmolested. While we are at it, why prosecute any assassin of a head of state or any other government official during a time of war (e.g. Marat during the French Revolution; McKinley during the Spanish-American War; Kennedy during the Vietnam War). The Confederacy certainly did not view the Dahlgren orders with such magnanimity. On the contrary, they were outraged by the orders, called meetings to discuss and plan a proper response and then initiated a year of terror and laid plans for retribution in kind.

I don't think your argument holds up. The consequences of such an interpretation of assassination are unacceptable and, to my knowledge, not practiced anywhere. On the contrary, assassins are more likely to be killed on the spot, if possibile, without even a pretense of due process, whereas killings of the enemy in the field are never prosecuted as criminal acts.

John

John,

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehension. No one has said that Booth, et al, should not have been prosecuted and let go to Mexico. But if you think that heads of state are not targets during a time of war, you are, I think, being naïve. During any war, if enemy combatants are found operating behind lines, they are, or should be, dealt with. No one is condoning assassination either, just saying that it is a tool of war and always has been.

Rick

Thank you, Rick. From John's comments, I thought I was misinterpreting everything in this "interesting" interpretation of what is legal and illegal in times of war. At some points, it has seemed like one thing is said and then the same person turns around and contradicts what he has just said. I'm so confused.