Comments on: Rove’s Out. Check. Next?

By: Intra-Party Debate, Part II · New York Articles

Intra-Party Debate, Part II · New York Articles — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:56:16 +0000

[...] habeas corpus to foreign policy, my debate with a fellow Republican continues [...]

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:48:55 +0000

Pete,
Something along those lines would be good, I think. Let me consider the wording a bit more and I’ll try to e-mail you if I can fine tune it.

By: Pete Abel

Pete Abel — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:26:09 +0000

Christine,

Good point, though I struggle on exactly how to amend the current language.

Would it be acceptable to amend it in minimalist fashion, to wit … ?

The war on terror need not be (rather than “should not be”) a war on habeas corpus.

Or something more substantive, to wit … ?

The indefinite war on terror need not be an indefinite war on habeas corpus.

Or something else …?

Any guidance would be appreciated, as I do wonder how much this passage has caused others to balk at signing.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:46:00 +0000

Pete,
I noticed that your response to that commenter was a lot more nuanced than what you wrote in the letter. The letter is black and white, that war should never be a pretense for suspension of habeus corpus. In response to that person’s critique based on Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus, you had a more nuanced opinion of that (and you gave a good rebuttal to the argument, in that you don’t think that the current war status is an appropriate pretense because the war is open ended).

I don’t know where you are in the process of gathering signatures and don’t know if you are interested in casting a wider net- but it seems to me that you might get more people on board with you if you’d change the language in that part of the letter to include shades of gray instead of stark black and white. I know I’d reconsider, maybe that’s just me though.