What would Lincoln do?

Many Americans, particularly relatives of the 3,000 who perished in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, probably have no problem with the Bush Administration detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay prison camp without offering them U.S. style rights, lawyers and lengthy trials.

OK, such detention is in violation of habeas corpus, reinstituted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1866, following the American Civil War. But can you guess which U.S. president, revered by all as a champion of liberty, suspended habeas corpus and his reason for doing so? And how does his rationale stack up against keeping modern terrorists behind bars where they can't plan and execute mass murders of innocent civilians?

So what's all the fuss about habeas corpus? What does it mean? Well, as a point of law, it means ruling powers, i.e., government or society, must produce proof of a crime to keep an individual detained or jailed. It's supposed to keep the powerful from imprisoning the weak or potentially innocent, simply because the government wants to take away their freedom because of real or imagined threats.

Abraham Lincoln, if you haven't already guessed, suspended habeas corpus in 1861 to prevent the "Peace Democrats," also known as "Copperheads," from mustering support for a change in the U.S. Constitution that would allow slavery to exist without destroying the Constitution's other articles. The Copperheads wanted a Constitutional Convention to vote on the issue. Lincoln, of course, objected, so he had many Copperheads and their supporters jailed by the military because he feared state courts wouldn't convict them of treason. When the Supreme Court's chief justice, Roger Taney of Maryland, ruled suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was unconstitutional, Lincoln and the military simply ignored Taney's ruling.

One of John Wilkes Booth's motivations for killing Lincoln was Booth viewed the president as a tyrant - a popular anathema used to describe Lincoln in newspaper columns of the day.

Anyway, enough history. So what's similar or different about keeping terrorists in jail at Gitmo (including the guy who said he would be happy to die because of his role in planning the 9/11 attacks) and Lincoln's jailing of pro-slavery individuals?

Of course, Lincoln was right to fear changing the Constitution to allow slavery. He couldn't let that happen - and he was right. America couldn't exist without giving all citizens the right to be free.

But while Lincoln jailed pro-slavery Americans, President George W. Bush had the U.S. military incarcerate foreign nationals whose goals are to kill citizens and destroy the country. Some Gitmo prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, while U.S. intelligence services apparently intercepted phone conversations and e-mails of others planning more attacks, then arrested the plotters. Of 775 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 270 remain, with a fifth scheduled for later release. In May 2008, U.S. authorities said 36 ex-Gitmo detainees who had been released again took up arms. Does releasing 505 of 775 suspected foreign and domestic terrorists indicate a Bush conspiracy to deny Americans their legal rights?

What's the upshot of Bush attempting to protect the country by shipping terrorists to Gitmo? Knee-jerk opponents (fill in the blank) have called him a tyrant and now lawyers want to give hard-core anarchists American legal rights. Who will gain if these people are granted the same rights as U.S. citizens?

History's perspective will be the final judge of whether or not George Bush's handling of this threat to America will be as honored as Lincoln's actions. However, it's clear Bush's current opponents hate him as viscerally as Booth hated Lincoln.

Bush's opponents say they want to save the country by giving terrorists U.S. court protections. The question of motivation arises: are Bush's enemies willing to put the nation in harm's way to bring down a president they despise? How are we to know who is right?

Since Gitmo filled up with bad guys, no one has flown a jetliner into an American skyscraper, the Pentagon or any other American building.

If I dialed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan cave and offered him some cash, I probably could expect a visit from the FBI and a long Cuban vacation with a private room. Then again, I'm not planning to do that.

Craig Holt is a writer and editor who lives in Snow Camp.