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

[BettyO]

KateH -

My feelings exactly!

[Linda Anderson]

I am reading reports on how the younger Boston bomber suspect partied with his classmates after the bombing.

Does anyone think that Powell would have felt remorse in attacking the Seward household had he met with Booth right afterwards and they had managed to escape?

Do you think if Powell had met up with Booth that he would have felt bad that he had NOT succeeded in killing Seward like he said he was ordered to do?

[Ed Steers]

Briefly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in the ex parte Quirin case that American citizens can be tried by military tribunal. Citizenship did not protect one from military tribunals. The new statute precludes this, however. The new statute codifies military tribunals and removes the sole authority of the president to decide who will be tried by military tribunal (not true during Bush administration). As I see it, the two accused are no different than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both tried in civil court. I see no advantage under the modern statute to using a military tribunal. There are approximately 300 individuals convicted of "terrorism" who were tried in civil courts and are serving sentences in Federal prisons in the U.S. It would appear the system does work.

[My Name Is Kate]

I would have guessed that I read the LTP quote that his zeal (that was not the actual word he used but does accurately paraphrase the quote as I remember it) would have carried him alot further than just trying to assassinate Seward, in "Alias Paine", since that is the only book I have read on the assassination, except for one that I read a long long time ago and have forgotten. But I couldn't find the quote in "Alias Paine". I did read rather extensively online about LTP before I read the book, so that is probably where it comes from. I did a cursory search just now, but nothing turned up.

Another thing I've been wondering about that I read somewhere, probably online, is that after the Seward assassination attempt, someone reported seeing someone who looked alot like Powell, at a soldiers hospital or home. This person was observing the person who looked like Powell and had a black eye, and when the person saw that he was being observed closely, he turned his back.

Has anyone else ever read either of these things?

I think Powell probably would not have blown up the White House if he had been ordered to do so by someone he regarded as a legitimate authority figure, provided he had thought about who might be inside the building at the time, but I'm not sure he would have given much, or any, thought to that.

[BettyO]

Quote:Does anyone think that Powell would have felt remorse in attacking the Seward household had he met with Booth right afterwards and they had managed to escape?

Do you think if Powell had met up with Booth that he would have felt bad that he had NOT succeeded in killing Seward like he said he was ordered to do?

I think that if a person feels remorse right after doing something vilely wrong - that doesn't change - whether or not they have escaped or not. Since Powell said that he felt remorse time he jumped into the saddle. I don't think that had he escaped it would have changed his feelings. He still was carrying a lot of guilt. This in itself may have hindered JWB's escape itself - or maybe not. Perhaps he would have carried his guilt inside and just been silent. One doesn't know....

[My Name Is Kate]

If Powell had succeeded in assassinating Seward, and together with Booth's assassinating Lincoln, it had somehow breathed new life into the Confederacy, I think Powell would have felt differently about his deed. Alot of people probably would have.

[L Verge]

My personal opinion is that the 1865 conspirators were Americans who fought to revenge what they saw as a cruel political war that had changed their country. These two young men are fighting not only a political war against the world, but also a religious one.

Their methods and their techniques and their ultimate goals are based on the Muslim jihad - something that has been around for centuries, and something that the Western world will have a hard time overcoming because we have a hard time understanding its principles. In this case, it is definitely a matter of "know thine enemy." They know our weak spots, and we need to learn and understand theirs.

[Jim Garrett]

As of just a few hours ago, it was decided to pursue the Boston Bombing Suspect in Civilian Courts. As with the trial of the Lincoln Conspirators, I don't think it will make a difference in outcome or ultimate penalty.

[MaddieM]

(04-22-2013 02:51 PM)KateH. Wrote:  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.

Agreed. To compare Powell's psychology to that of a terrorist seems illogical to me. There is no comparison.

---

(04-22-2013 05:09 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  If Powell had succeeded in assassinating Seward, and together with Booth's assassinating Lincoln, it had somehow breathed new life into the Confederacy, I think Powell would have felt differently about his deed. Alot of people probably would have.

I disagree. I think he was genuinely appalled at what he'd done. I also suspect that a part of him gave himself up that night he returned to the Surratt house.

---

(04-22-2013 05:04 PM)BettyO Wrote:  

Quote:Does anyone think that Powell would have felt remorse in attacking the Seward household had he met with Booth right afterwards and they had managed to escape?

Do you think if Powell had met up with Booth that he would have felt bad that he had NOT succeeded in killing Seward like he said he was ordered to do?

I think that if a person feels remorse right after doing something vilely wrong - that doesn't change - whether or not they have escaped or not. Since Powell said that he felt remorse time he jumped into the saddle. I don't think that had he escaped it would have changed his feelings. He still was carrying a lot of guilt. This in itself may have hindered JWB's escape itself - or maybe not. Perhaps he would have carried his guilt inside and just been silent. One doesn't know....

When has any terrorist every shown any remorse or common sense? As has been pointed out, their war as they see it, is a holy one... and let's face it, they have 72 virgins to greet them in the afterlife... Makes sense to slaughter people.

[LincolnMan]

(04-22-2013 05:46 PM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  As of just a few hours ago, it was decided to pursue the Boston Bombing Suspect in Civilian Courts. As with the trial of the Lincoln Conspirators, I don't think it will make a difference in outcome or ultimate penalty.

He can now plead the Fifth?

[Rhatkinson]

(04-22-2013 07:20 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Can anyone sum up this law in "ordinary language?" I read it, and it doesn't "sink in."

I will try to explain it, although as a disclaimer, I do not practice any criminal law so I am not personally familiar with this statute. The act has several parts of it, but the parts that are relevant to this particular discussion deal with terrorism.

Title 3 of the act establishes the procedure to declare a foreign organization (i.e., al qaeda) as a terrorist organization and makes it a crime to give them "material support." It also establishes fines for banks that refuse to freeze and report the assets of such organizations. In an effort to isolate countries that support terrorists, the act outlaws financial transactions between anyone in the US or the US government with such nations.

Title 4 deals with regulating the ability of suspected terrorists to obtain visas and deportation of suspected terrorists without the court having to make classified information used in the deportation part of the public record. It also allows the Attorney General to refuse to grant asylum from a suspected terrorist.

Title 5 just organizes and "tidies up" the laws regarding possession of materials that could be used to blow people up. (Hint: don't possess them.)

Title 6 makes a number of changes in existing federal criminal law and procedure, primarily expanding the reach of federal law and increasing penalties to more effectively combat terrorism. For instance, it makes it a federal crime to kill, kidnap or assault any federal officer or employee, to conspire in the US to commit crimes of violence overseas.

Hope this helps.

Heath

---

(04-22-2013 04:31 PM)Ed Steers Wrote:  Briefly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1942 in the ex parte Quirin case that American citizens can be tried by military tribunal. Citizenship did not protect one from military tribunals. The new statute precludes this, however. The new statute codifies military tribunals and removes the sole authority of the president to decide who will be tried by military tribunal (not true during Bush administration). As I see it, the two accused are no different than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both tried in civil court. I see no advantage under the modern statute to using a military tribunal. There are approximately 300 individuals convicted of "terrorism" who were tried in civil courts and are serving sentences in Federal prisons in the U.S. It would appear the system does work.

I agree with Dr. Steers. I would be very surprised if this guy was tried before a military tribunal. The Lincoln conspirators only wish they were around under this new statute because they would have been tried in a civilian court as well.

Heath

[RJNorton]

Thanks, Heath. It helps a lot.

[My Name Is Kate]

To the Seward family, at least, Powell was a terrorist. Terrorists are followers and they don't think logically (by our standards). So was Powell when he committed his act. He did not stop to question the morality of murdering a sick old man confined to bed. He knew women were in the Seward house, and other people, but he apparently never stopped to consider beforehand what he would do if one of them got in his way and tried to thwart him.

And consider this: What kind of humanity did Powell show to Fanny Seward by attempting to murder her father with her looking on in horror?

The more people attempt to defend Powell, the more I feel compelled to NOT defend him, even though I do have some sympathy for him.

[Gene C]

It's not so much defending Powell, it is puting what he did in context with who he was. He is more than just a name in a book or a character in a movie. He was a real person, with real feelings and thoughts. We don't condone what he did, but it does help us to understand history, what happened and why a little better, and to understand when history repeats itself.

(Young people commit horrendous acts, sometimes there are common circumstances behind their actions) It seems likely in this case, an older person who he looked up to encouraged him to do something he probably wouldn't have done otherwise. Unfortunately for Powell (and maybe the Boston Bomber) his let his sense of right and wrong be overcome by the infulence of someone he looked up to.

[My Name Is Kate]

I'm well aware that Powell was a real person. But it seems that some people don't realize the Sewards were real people too.