FISA and the court system it created are quite possibly the most egregious affront to the Constitution of the past 40 years that the SCOTUS found, in its infinite wisdom, to uphold. To replicate that monstrosity to handle "dangerous" detainees who Hiatt admits would NEVER be tried would be an even greater stain on the Constitution and our country.

And what are the chances the detainees would ever be freed? The FISA court grants government requests 99.5% of the time, based on evidence the public will never see. Is there any chance the detainee court will be any more independent?

Just try them in criminal courts or the court-martial system. Those systems are more than adequate to handle the detainees' cases.

"Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honorable men I've ever known," Cheney said of his former chief of staff.

Yeah, except for the whole, ya know, lying to federal investigators thing...

Somebody should really explain that the average person will probably save at least $1,300 over the life of the car in fuel costs.

It's a stupid medium. 140 characters isn't nearly enough for the sort of meaningful discourse some people try to have on it; and, ironically, it allows too much space for posts to be limited to just pure inanity (I admit, MOST posts on Twitter are pure inanity, however).

So you have posts that seem to be getting at a substantive point but are prevented from doing so due to space constraints. This leads to idiotically shallow postings from normally intelligent people (Gingrich's "Sotomayor is a racist" tweet comes to mind).

And those are drowned out by people telling their "followers" what brand shampoo they bought today.

It was a mistake to put someone with no intelligence and little military background in charge of the CIA. He has spent his entire tenure shoring up support of members of the CIA who, understandably, do not fully trust him. He has simply become a tool of the forces of inertia at the Agency.

His comments re Cheney -- even if based on reasonable interpretations of Cheney's own words -- were terribly impolitic. These haven't been the only "mis-characterized" statements he has made, though.

Seriously, he should just resign; he's useless as a Director and has serious foot-in-mouth disease.

"The United States remains a center-right country composed of people who believe in center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty."

I do not why I read "Glenallen's" columns when he always puts such hogwash into them.

He offers up -- without any kind of support -- that America is a "center-right country." Which makes complete sense, really -- a country that has nationally elected in two straight elections a center-LEFT party to power with commanding majorities is, in actuality, a hidden center-right country. It just begs the further claim by Republican that if they just kept to their "values," whatever that means, they would still be in power. Utter hogwash. Polls show commanding majorities for many "left" policies, like government-run health insurance and a less belligerent foreign policy, to name only two.

And, Glenallen, F you for essentially stating the "Left's" values don't include "family, hard work and honesty." Seriously, implying that liberals/leftists are welfare kings/queens, adulterous divorcees, and liars certainly doesn't make your other arguments look better.

Just send me a memo when you lose the baseless rhetoric.

Walken:

Yes, liberals like to expand the "institution" of marriage to people who are not currently covered. Nowadays, that means pushing for same-sex marriage. You are fine to believe that's not a good idea but ponder these following thoughts in your small head.

Fifty years ago, expanding the institution of marriage meant pushing for interracial marriages. You don't think that's a bad idea, do you? So-called "conservatives," like you Walken, fought against the idea tooth and nail, using all of the arguments that their contemporaries are using against same-sex marriage now; "it will destroy marriage," "it will change an institution that has been the same forever." Those arguments were simply covers for racists in a time when blatant racism was increasingly politically incorrect. The similar arguments used by you and your modern day contemporaries are simply covers for your gay-bashing and deeper homophobia. (On a side note, Gay Pride festivals are happening nationwide around this time; you are obviously suppressing something with your camouflaged hate and you should check them out... you may discover something about yourself.)

Further, "conservatives" like you completely sidestep a more important issue with modern-day marriage than its expansion to same-sex couples, probably because conservatives have no comprehension that they are actually responsible for the problem. Nearly 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce; millions of American children are products of broken homes. Actual "center-right" values of no sex before marriage and forcing young people to marry before they are ready in their early 20s are the major reasons behind the broken institution of marriage we have in America.

To be honest, why the LGBT community wants to be a part of this broken institution is beyond me... I say just scrap the thing completely.

... what's his/her name, Glenallen Wilken?, the patently ridiculous Republican partisan that has been writing columns for Salon lately...

Yes, Mr. Greener does express some somewhat wacky Republican rhetoric (he does admit he is a partisan, after all), but at least he approached the column from an intellectual base, using things like facts to back up his arguments and contentions, not mindless talking points.

He also doesn't insist that American is a "center-right country."

Salon, please make Bill Greener your new "Write to a Republican" columnist!

You don't say. I'm stunned, shocked and hurt!