You're going on the assuumption that everyone accused is in fact a terrorist. What about people who are being detained mistakenly, because their name sounds like someone else's, or because of some vague association with someone else who is suspected, or for any other insufficient reason? The whole point of the decision is that an accused person must have the opportunity to answer whatever case there is against them.

Not everyone hates the Tonys. I, for one, always look forward to them. I am a longtime theater lover and community theater participant. For about fourteen years I lived in New Jersey, about an hour's train ride outside New York City. During that time I got to see an average of about five Broadway shows a year. Expensive, yes, but I managed to afford it buy spending my vacation money on Saturdays in the city rather than on some long trip. I was fortunate to see many wonderful shows and many wonderful stars. My favorite show was 'Les Miserables'. The impact it made on me the first time I saw it was just amazing. It became the only show I saw for a second time when I took a visiting family member to see it. A variety of concerns led me to move back to my family home in the Midwest four years ago. Still, my love of the theater is as strong as ever. And watching the Tonys is one of the best ways to keep at least somewhat in touch with what's going on in that world (along with reading reviews on the New York Times site and reading some of the most important new plays when they become available in print). Granted, the glimpses seen on the Tonys show are only morsels, but they are tasty ones and, alomg with the other things I have mentioned, they manage to keep the spark alive for me. For that I am grateful.

As for Mario Lopez, I find your attitude toward him rather condescending. If you have seen him on 'Dancinf With The Stars' you have to admit that he can really dance. Yes, I can imagine him doing quite well in 'A Chorus Line'.

If we willingly give up our constitutional liberties we LOSE THE COUNTRY. Not physically, but in essence. If the United States can imprison people indefinitely without any due process then exactly how are we so much better than those we deem our enemies?

So exactly why did the NPC invite this guy? He has a criminal record for fraud and an outstanding warrant for his arrest. What exactly do they expect him to say that would have any value? Is the NPC stacked with friends of McCain who would be happy to see accusations such as he makes kept on the burner, however lacking in credibility?

Actually. I wouldn't put it beyond the airlines to institute a surcharge for passengers who weigh more than a certain amount. I might chide Mr. Breathed for giving them ideas, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they're already considering it.

I strongly agree with the basic premise of the article being described. It's not how much time you spend in a particular situation, but what you get out of it that counts. McCain had the experience of being involved in combat and being a POW, but did that give him the judgement to determine when a war is actually necessary and when it isn't? From all indications...no.

I'd like to know what the vote was in this case. Was this another 5 to 4 decision?

The very idea of equating the expenditure of a huge amount of money, either to support a candidate or to finance one's own campaign, with free speech is utterly ridiculous. Free speech is supposed to be about assuring that all voices and viewpoints are heard. The intent, and the actual result, of such huge expenditures is to assure that only the voices of those with the massive wealth to make such expernditures are heard, and that they drown out all other voices.

Sad, but only a drop in the bucket. The Republicans are going to spend the next several months desperately trying to convince people that to vote for Obama will in fact mean the end of civilization. I only pray that enough people have wised up to their modus operandi that their scare tactics will not be effective this time.

Keep repeating a lie so often that people finally start to believe it. Isn't that standard Republican operating procedure? When they start to do this kind of thing it's absolutely vital that somebody outshout them with the truth. What's happening with regard to this particular story? Are efforts being made to make sure this lie is shown up for what it is?

I must respectfully disagree regarding Vincent D'Onofrio. While there is certainly intensity in his performance, to me it has often seemed poorly controlled. In particular, the rhythms of his speech frequently strike me as unnatural. Just one person's reaction.

I'm tired of hearing supporters of the administration and Bush's would be successor McCain harp on the idea that the situation in Iraq is "improving". Granted, the level of violence has reduced somewhat. There are numerous reasons for that, some of which, such as the fact that in many neighborhoods, members of one or another of the vying factions have been cleared out, do not exactly represent real positive achievement. However, the real problem with the idea is that it totally ignores the reality the WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE IN IN THE FIRST PLACE! The reasons for our going in were false. Saddam was a bad guy, certainly, but there are many bad buys around the world, and we don't respond with an invasion to each of them. Iraq simply did not represent the kind of clear, immediate threat that would have justified such an action. So while the fact that casualties are down is a fine thing in itself, it doesn't justify a policy of staying there indefinitely.