|
Well, I really don't see any historical precedent, myself. In Lincoln's case, there was a Civil War going on, and it was still ruled unconstitutional. In the few other cases, the concepts of enemy, battlefield, combat, and end-of-hostilities were all very clearly and concretely defined. In this case every one of these terms is nebulous and subjective, making the whole thing completely open-ended. I don't see how it's possible not to conclude that the power granted to the president in the current "war on terrorism" context is way beyond any historical precedent.
|