
Lincoln’s Surveillance State - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveillance-state.html
======
sausman
Dictators use Lincoln's actions as justification for their own because most
people are brainwashed into thinking Lincoln was a great President. I guess
when you measure greatness by body bags filled and broken laws, Lincoln was a
great.

* Apr. 19, 1861 -- Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports of South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Did Congress declare war? No. Constitution violated.

* Apr. 20, 1861 -- Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution.

* Apr. 27, 1861 -- Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment. Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

* Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank.

* An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.

* During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”

~~~
angli
Do you have a source for number 3 (warrant to arrest the Chief Justice)? It's
not that I don't believe you, it's just the kind of think I'm interested in
reading about.

~~~
sausman
There's a Wikipedia page here with some info:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant)

LewRockwell.com also has some interesting articles on Lincoln, but they
redesigned the site so a lot of links on Google are broken for now.

------
goodcanadian
The trouble with this article, besides arguing that this sort of behaviour is
ever OK, is that it presupposes a war that is not actually happening. The "War
on Terror" is an election slogan, not an actual war. At best it is a series of
criminal investigations. How very Orwellian to call it a "war."

~~~
lukifer
This is, and has been, the real issue for the last twelve years. Try these on:
War on Battle. War on Murder. War on Explosives. War on Guns. They don't
really stand up to scrutiny.

War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or
ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or
unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and
cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to
dominate the entire globe.

The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we
can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.

~~~
shpxnvz
I'd say the War on Terror has a lot in common with the War on Drugs. Neither
have concrete achievable goals, neither has a well defined "enemy" and both
tap into deep-seated fears of the voting public.

Those characteristics make them great vehicles for political manoeuvring and
expansion of government spending and powers. And this is why I think neither
will ever end; I could not see any politician willingly throwing away such a
tool. I mean, look at the War on Drugs... we've been "fighting" for over _40
years_ and are no closer to an end.

Look at what we've lost already to the War on Terror, then try to imagine what
we will have given up 30 years from now.

~~~
lukifer
I highly recommend Kevin Simler's "Consciousness: An Outside View" for a
richer take on the politics of drugs:
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-
outsid...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-outside-
view/) (Obviously, The Wire also.)

But yes, both the WoD and WoT employ similar tactics: disproportionate power
and violence under the guise of safety, while downplaying the human and
financial costs to a broader public who is mostly insulated from the reality
of the situation.

In both cases, I don't think the motivations for doing so are singular;
there's a little racism in there, a little classism, a little jingoism, a good
helping of perverse financial incentives, and perhaps most insidiously, Just
Because We Can. (See "Lord of War" or "Thank You For Smoking": people like
doing what they're good at.)

------
jasonjei
The thing about our pro-North viewpoint of the Civil War was that while
Lincoln emancipated slaves, it was used more as a political weapon. Lincoln
once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done
it. However, during Lincoln's administration, the power of the US increased.
In fact, it was called the "united States of America," before the Civil War,
if it didn't appear in title case. Lincoln actually committed many
constitutional wrongs and increased the size and scope of the federal
government.

~~~
skwirl
Who did you learn your American history from, Lew Rockwell? Because on the
subject of Lincoln, it certainly isn't from Lincoln's own writings and
statements or the writing and statements of his contemporaries (one example of
hundreds:
[http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.h...](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm)).
Any belief that Lincoln was intent on letting slavery live is a belief that is
not based in reality, and ignores the reason southern states seceded to begin
with - Lincoln's opposition to expanding slavery into U.S. territories, one of
the purposes being that states carved from those territories would be states
that opposed slavery, thus eventually outvoting the slave states and
abolishing slavery. The issue of slavery defines Lincoln from the beginning.
The difference between Lincoln and people like Thaddeus Stevens was one of
tactics; Lincoln was pragmatic. Your statement on Lincoln and slavery is
roughly the 1860s equivalent of believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of
garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the
federalist papers.

~~~
comefrom30
> believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

On that subject, there's a video that it would be great it every American
watched. It's made by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
It's about evidence that explosives were used on 9/11\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg)

~~~
lukifer
Regardless of one's opinion on the "Truther" movement (which does include some
genuine crackpots), it's clear that the official investigation was an
embarrassment, and such a significant historical event deserves more level-
headed scientific scrutiny.

~~~
comefrom30
> "Truther" movement (which does include some genuine crackpots)

No contest. Just for anyone reading this, please remember that having
crackpots in a movement doesn't make it a crackpot movement.

------
el_fuser
"This is why, if you are a critic of the N.S.A.’s surveillance program, it is
imperative that the war on terror reach its culmination."

The problem is there's no end, nor can there be an end. It's too nebulous. We
have always had terrorism, and always will. Just like the war on drugs or
poverty.

And just because Lincoln did it.... That doesn't make it right.

~~~
Zigurd
The "GWoT" isn't a war in the legal sense. It isn't a war under the definition
of war as it is word is used in the US federal constitution. And yet, I
suspect we will find that these "secret interpretations" of laws are based in
some secret declaration of emergency powers that, in effect, edit our rights
and selectively suspend the constitution.

~~~
mpyne
Where did the U.S. Constitution define "war"? For that matter, where did the
U.S. Constitution mandate how exactly Congress is (and is not) allowed to
handle declarations of war, other than that Congress is to do it?

~~~
Zigurd
There is a context: What definition of war requires that war be declared by an
act of Congress? Has it got a beginning? How does it end? Do you think that
pseudo-war is legitimate in this context? Do you think the Framers meant to
write empty, infinitely flexible words?

------
dreamdu5t
Why is Lincoln's behavior the barometer of anything? The validity of our
opinions has fuck all to do with whether Abe Lincoln agrees.

Enough with the vapid worship of historical figures. Lincoln is dead. We don't
need his permission for anything.

~~~
d23
Because our entire law system is based on precedence. It helps to have context
to know whether or not what we are really experiencing is as terrifying as
politicians and pundits make it out to be. That's not meant to be a statement
of either side of the issue, but this obviously has a place.

------
DanielBMarkham
Fellow Americans seem amazed when I tell them this, but Abraham Lincoln was
the closest the United States of America ever had to a complete dictator. He
monitored communications, he shut down state legislatures, he imprisoned
Congressmen -- there were so many political prisoners at one point that wags
called one of the prisons the "American Bastille"

But, as the author points out, these were _temporary_ measures. The founders
knew in time of war that somebody, one person, had to be trusted for a short
time to work outside the system as he saw fit. They gave presidents broad
mandates. For times of war.

But now politicians have redefined the term "war" to mean just about anything.
We have a war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on damned near
anything. In addition, Congress has stopped declaring war, even when tens of
thousands of soldiers die.

Finally, we toss terrorism into the mix -- amorphous, quasi-state-sponsored,
with no real command structure and nobody ever to surrender. It'll just go on
forever. Add that to wartime executive powers, and you've got a freaking
problem the size of Kansas. Yet nobody seems to really come out and say it.
Media personalities will ask every questions imaginable and not address the
huge elephant in the room. Meh.

~~~
Zigurd
Lincoln is a strange touchstone. While we encourage or at least tolerate the
Czechs and Slovaks to go their separate ways for the mere sake of self-
determination, it's heresy to suggest we might be better off with a separate
Republic of Texas.

------
motters
Seems like a weak article intended to try to placate people who are concerned
about what the leaks revealed. The scope and scale of mass surveillance
systems today is in no way comparable to the government systems one or more
centuries ago. Even if Lincoln spied on the telegraphs, back then most people
didn't use telegraphs for personal communications.

~~~
danso
The OP talks about an order which circumvented the press and even called for
the arrest of newsmen. Even if you were right about the use of telegraphs for
personal communications, the freedom of press is actually enshrined in the
First Amendment and the public was much more reliant on the news wires than
they are today. Why is it so hard to accept that the government has frequently
used war as a pretext for violating civil liberties, unless you insist on
keeping to the narrative that America was a flawless beacon of freedom until
the NSA showed up?

What's that saying about those who fail to remember history are doomed to
something something?

~~~
greenyoda
The original quote was: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it." [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana)

------
9h1d9j809s
There is no private communication during a war. This is normal and it makes
sense.

We are not in a war, no matter what some say.

(The article actually implies this, but I wanted to clarify for those not
reading the article completely.)

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>We are not in a war, no matter what some say

I guess it depends on your perspective.

Maybe you aren't, but hundreds of my good friends are, at the behest of the
president that, assuming you are a US Citizen, you had a part in electing
(also, assuming you are a part of society).

So the people who actually fund and execute wars think "we" are at war. I
would say that should pretty much settle it.

~~~
mpyne
well...... the military and the 'national security apparatus' is at war, that
much is for certain. Certainly Congress's authorized budgets seem to agree
with the idea.

But the _nation_ itself is not at war, if that makes sense. So any changes in
the day-to-day routine for the average citizen (or the governors of the
average citizen) should not be evaluated as if the whole nation is on a war
footing.

------
bobwaycott
This article is really pointless. It does not matter that Executives, the
Congress, or the Courts have engaged in constitutionally dubious actions
during wartime that we've seen scaled back.

 _The problem is that Executives, the Congress, and the Courts have engaged in
constitutionally dubious actions during wartime (or ostensible wartimes)._

The only solid point is that, _regardless_ of whether one is a critic of the
NSA programs, this so-called "war on terror" must reach its culmination so we
can right the ship and move forward.

------
mtgx
> But part of the reason this calculus was acceptable to me was that the
> trade-offs were not permanent. As the war ended, the emergency measures were
> rolled back. Information — telegraph and otherwise — began to flow freely
> again.

Even if you agree with that, it shows the problems America has today. Because
it has stopped _declaring wars_ through Congress, and defining how the war
will end, and letting the president start new wars, either directly or
indirectly (arming enemies of other countries), there is now a perpetual war.

The "cyber-war" (if they choose to believe they are in cyber-war) is perpetual
by definition - which means all those extra-legal powers that are supposed to
be temporary, will be virtually permanent, which means the Constitution and
other laws will be applied at a much lower standard than before.

------
lettergram
The war on terror should not give broad powers to the president or the NSA,
CIA, etc. The war on terror is about as pathetic as a war on drugs. You cannot
declare war on an idea (according to the constitution) nor did the Senate
declare war on terror. The point is, if you are a suspected terrorist the
government should be able to get a warrant to tap your phone/internet anyways.

~~~
Ygg2
As that guy from Wire said, the difference between war and War on Drugs, is
that wars end. Best to declare War on War.

------
osth
OK, while we are reviewing the beliefs and actions of past Secretaries of War,
how about Henry L. Stimson? He once said, "Gentelmen do not read each other's
mail."

Now, this was while he was Sec. of State, before he became Sec. of War. His
views later changed, after he took the position as Sec. of War. Ask yourself,
"Why?" [1]

It's an interesting piece of history:
[http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber](http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber)

1\. Here's a possible way to think about it: Programmers are familiar with the
idea that software is not inherently good or evil; it's how it's used that
matters. "A Victorinox can be used to fix your car (good) but it can also be
used to disassemble it (evil)." Similarly the data being gathered by mass
surveillance programs can be used to further "national security", or it could
be used for other (evil) things.

If you accept this way of thinking about surveillance by a government of its
own citizens, then it stands to reason that there should be some rules about
how the data can be used. Check and balances. Alas, as we see, secrecy governs
all aspects of the surveillance process. There is no judicial review of the
collectors, except by a secret court... and one that itself lacks details
about the process (i.e. how the data is collected). How can the public, even
by proxy of its representatives, ever hope to review the application of these
programs if they are not even permitted to know about them?

Under this sort of scheme, if a young man with good intentions informs the
public, he's already broken the law. No one needs to prove he's harmed
national security. It's assumed. Not that she is a good example to compare
with, but I guess Rosa Parks broke the law too. She was damned if she did
(arrested) and damned if she didn't (to live in a segregated country). The
thing is, after she was arrested, she had the support of many people, some of
who had considerable influence.

------
e3pi
"...When I first read Stanton’s requests to Lincoln asking for broad powers, I
accepted his information control as a necessary evil. Lincoln was fighting for
a cause of the utmost importance in the face of enormous challenges. The
benefits of information monitoring, censorship and extrajudicial tactics,
though disturbing, were arguably worth their price."

"Mr President, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was
a friend of mine. Mr President, you're no Abe Lincoln." (Prolonged shouts and
applause.)

------
D9u
Spies have always been in the employ of the ruling classes, and the fact that
some other POTUS broached the public trust by violating our Bill of Rights,
that doesn't mean doing the same thing today should suddenly become
acceptable.

Also... Any kinetic action aimed at an ideology is futile, for as long as
there are human beings who differ in their opinions, there will be strife.

------
LAMike
So it seems that no matter what point of history your talking about, those who
have the ability to spy, will spy.

What is the most viable option for citizens to change this?

Will everyone have to be on encrypted VPN's?

Will there be a riot on Pennsylvania Ave. that sparks a revolution?

Will each community put up their own wifi weather ballons and set up massive
intranets in their neighborhoods?

Or will everyone accept the fact that we're the new slaves - except our cages
are a little bigger and less transparent than before?

~~~
dllthomas
_" Will everyone have to be on encrypted VPN's?"_

A VPN only protects data in transit. While everyone should practice good
network security, it's not a complete solution. We need a government that will
reliably respect our rights, including the right to privacy. Revolutions don't
have a very good track record at producing such. I have more hope for the
political process, but haven't entirely figured out what that should look like
either.

------
joewallin
This is a completely ridiculous comparison the NY Times is making.

------
amerika
“I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social
and political equality of the white and black races.” - Abraham Lincoln

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/what-
di...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/what-did-he-
really-think-about-race/?pagination=false)

~~~
hughdbrown
And the article continues, as if anticipating this isolated quotation:

 _It would be easy, comments Oakes, “to string such quotations together and
show up Lincoln as a run-of-the-mill white supremacist.” But in private,
Lincoln was much less racist than most whites of his time. He was “disgusted
by the race-baiting of the Douglas Democrats” and he “made the humanity of
blacks central to his antislavery argument.” In a speech at Chicago in 1858,
Lincoln pleaded: “Let us discard all this quibbling about…this race and that
race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in
an inferior position,” and instead “once more stand up declaring that all men
are created equal.”7

Lincoln’s statements expressing opposition to social and political equality,
Oakes maintains, were in fact part of his antislavery strategy. Extreme racism
was at the core of the proslavery argument: if the slaves were freed they
would aspire to equality with whites, therefore slavery was the only bulwark
of white supremacy and racial purity. Lincoln “wanted questions about race
moved off the table,” writes Oakes, and “the strategy he chose was to agree
with the Democrats” in opposition to social equality. Lincoln understood that
most Americans—including most Northerners—believed in white supremacy, “and in
a democratic society such deeply held prejudices cannot be easily
disregarded.” Thus the most effective way to convert whites to an antislavery
position, Lincoln believed, was to separate the issue of bondage from that of
race._

