Leonard Pitts’ column Jan. 9 about the dangerous path President Bush has taken by infringing on our civil rights in the name of “security,” falls flat on its face. Pitts states that “Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War – stands justified by hindsight.”

On that point, he is dead wrong.

In 1861, Lincoln suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North’s military power would be, in his opinion, “dangerous.”

In 1862, when “Peace Democrats” began criticizing Lincoln’s violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation. After doing that, he had many Peace Democrats arrested and put on trial by the military. He proclaimed that all persons who engaged in “disloyal practices” would be arrested.

Thirteen thousand people were arrested under martial law. The Supreme Court declared that was unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the court orders.

After the war, the suspension of basic rights was again rebuked by the Supreme Court. The court decided that it was unconstitutional for the president to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning.

Lincoln accomplished much and did a great thing by bringing the national horror of slavery to an end. But, by approving his suspension of habeas corpus, Pitts weakens his argument.

The rule of law, strictly adhered to, is what is supposed to keep us free. Free to say “Stop!” when our government oversteps its authority.

President Lincoln was not right in this matter, and neither is President Bush.

John Berry, Lewiston