(or into the box as it were). I have a friend who almost fits the LW's profile to a T--same age, middling writing success leading to career stagnation, bouts of depression mixed with suicidal thoughts--even the sick wife (though not as sick as LW's). And guess what he did to get out of it? He had an affair with a younger woman. He became like a character out of Cocoon--after the affair ended, the rejuvenation led to what he describes as the most creative 3-year period of his life. Okay, so LW has cancer, money problems, and a seriously ill spouse and maybe this is not the answer for him. But I point it out for a couple of reasons. One because I think it underscores Cary's point---you have to feel alive again--or like living again--and that means somehow recreating a time when you really felt alive. Now for Cary that might mean rereading Dylan Thomas; and for my friend it meant (ho-ho) mentoring a younger writer. The other reason I relay this story is because my friend tells me that he's learned more about life since he turned 60 than in all the 59 prior years. Which means, contrary to the shameless beliefs of our more callow posters, neither life nor creativity end at 30.

"On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency."

Glenn, seriously, I think your work in this area is heroic and deserving of the first ever blog Pulitzer, but I think sooner or later you have to address the difference between the civil rights of actual US citizens and the rights of combatants in war. Obama made clear in the speech that there will be a process in place to determine which of these people will be held indefinitely, and it will not be his decision alone. If you capture someone of recognized, verified high value on the field of battle, it should seem obvious that keeping them off the battlefield trumps any concerns for their (borrowed) civil liberties as long as the battle endures. No?

Glenn, since you’ve done me the great honor of taking my post seriously enough to address a few questions to me, please allow me to return the good deed. I do so in the form of this scenario:

Agents of the US government—military, CIA, FBI, CSI (your call) operating in a battle theater known as Denmark assault a mosque in Cophenhagen where they find Osama bin Laden (or whoever his new #2 is, or even his #3). Under the rugs they find hordes of cash. Under the pillows they find plans for spending the cash on an attack on US targets—Fenway Park on Mother’s Day, HBO headquarters, Joe Francis’s house, Salon (no joke, they have decided that corporate America is in self destruct mode and it’s not our freedom they hate, but our culture). Osama or #2 or #3 is cuffed, blindfolded, and given one of those devious little copper cuffs to the side of the head as he’s pushed into a waiting van--however he is not read his Miranda Rights. He is flown to the US for trial. There will be a prolonged time setting a trial date (not infinity, but let’s say 18 months) because extraordinary security precautions must be arranged. Our prisoner will be kept in a maximum security prison in Montana. In the meantime his public defender files a motion to have the case dismissed on constitutional grounds (they should be obvious and plentiful in this scenario since I tried to break every one of the bill of rights here--there’s even evidence that a Danish family was forced to quarter our troops before the assault).

Now you be the judge, Glenn: How do you rule on the motion?

It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I would throw the motion out. But---Big BUT here--if the accused in the case was an American citizen (be he a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, NAMBLA, or the Chaldean Council), I rule in favor of the motion and throw the case out.

Am I, in true progressive fashion, being hopelessly nuanced here?

Beware the hobgoblin!

And the first order of business is: "Off with his head!" Him being the freshly minted president of course (who, two weeks ago, was getting all kinds of slack cut for him on the basis of being new on the job).

As I heard the speech yesterday, Obama was saying they were working on a process for dealing with the most difficult category of detainees. But the so-called progressive community (in a sane world that would imply patience, reason, discriminating thought) has already gone into Hyper Hysteria mode. Gulag? Spanish Inquisition? (one poster here seems to be sitting on his own secret cache of evidence of on-going torture...do tell, Chicken Little). Really, now? For a plan that's still on the drawing board?

I've got an idea--and I don't mean it in that goddamn snarky way: Joan, put forth your ideal plan for dealing with such detainees (or ask Glenn to do it) and let us all seriously debate it. There's a chance more good will come out of that than this tiresome whining about how nobody really understands and loves the Constitution but us Salon readers and Rachel Maddow (who would have cut a guest off at the balls if he'd used a rightwing scare word--like mushroom cloud--but just nods approvingly when someone plays to the demographics and loosely throws around lefty scare words like Gulag. Gag me with a waterboaard.)

If I'd read Glenn first, I could have saved myself the time of writing that comment calling for a Salon discussion of how to deal with the fifth category of detainees. I see that Glenn is already on the job. Whatever you're paying the guy, Joan, it's a bargain.