I saw the segment live and in color. Congratulations dear one for talking sensibly over the shouting. Why is it that cable puts absurd next to truth and call it fair and balanced in a deliberate attempt to create a shouting match.

Good for you, Joan, but if we can all take a giant step back, this reality that we find ourselves in is completely sick and twisted.

Torture: right or wrong for the United States?

Gitmo: should be continue operating this godawful hell of human rights abuses?

Really, has our nation sunk so low as to make either of these topics open to debate? The answer, sadly, is yes, which illuminates how the events of Hitler's Germany could have happened, i.e., how could one of the most advanced, civilized nations on Earth have descended into utter moral depravity? Answer: see Joan's debate with Liz Cheney.

I have a great idea for a new horror movie franchise: move over Texas Chainsaw Massacre Family, and Wrong Turn cannibals, and Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers. Say hello to "The Cheneys: The Family That Tortures Together, Stays Together."

Seriously, it feels like we're all trapped in a horror movie.

I'm almost hangin' on the edge of my seat pullin' for Mir Hossein Muvavi to beat that little pimp Ahmad-I-need-job's ass in Iran's June 12 election and Liz Cheney doesn't even give a shit! OHHH how cavalier can you get!

The Guantanamo prisoners have recently stated that under Obama, they are treated much worse than under Bush. Closing Guantanamo will only result in relocation to worse situations. Let's talk about Obama's abject failure to help those in need of mortgage relief. You need to read dickmorris.com to see the horrific job Obama is doing.

You are picking on the grammar of a Palin transcript, and on the conditions of a few dozen detainees. It's time to get real, Joan. Barak is taken.

Hell, I'd feel -much- safer with the 'terrorists in Colorado's Supermax. They're they'd be overseen by people who are used to guarding terrosists and they wouldn't be a stone's throw from escaping into a country that doesn't like us. They'd be a well guarded fortress away from escaping into a land of people who would quickly shoot/shank/strangle them. Plus, hey, Supermax has treatment standards and wouldn't stand for the crap people hundreds of miles from an authority figure will do to people at their mercy.

Congratulations on a debate well and thoroughly won.

Actually, you need to read dickmorris.com to find out how to lose elections, and how to suck a hooker's toes. Back under the bridge, troll.

And the above is why I shouldn't type on something that doesn't have an edit feature when I'm tired. Man, my college writing teacher would kill me for those typoes...

The word troll is a derogation of bag lady. Those are the homeless of a society gone "stimulus" mad. Please refrain from such derogative remarks.

Carla Bruni has nothing to worry about.

Who's the chick in the cariciture?

I need my own TV show.

Why is everyone in the video smirking but you?

Well, with a couple of breaks to let my blood pressure drop out of the danger zone, I was able to watch the whole debate.

I think you mostly did very well under difficult circumstances Joan, and I do admire your poise in these situations. WRT the substance of the argument, you clearly had the upper hand. Liz Cheney's main point was prima facie ridiculous.

"The terrorists work very hard to get into the United States. Why should we make it easier for them to do this?"

Huh? The terrorists want to get into the country as free persons with the ability to move about and do harm, not as shackled prisoners at supermax prisons where they have virtually no chance of escape or communication with their supporters. Surely the audience isn't dumb enough to fall for Cheney's idiotic equation: simply being on American soil = danger.

As a previous commenter mentioned, it was pretty clear you don't like Liz Cheney (I don't either), and I can certainly understand why it would be hard not to show that on your face. However, from a purely strategical perspective, it would probably have been best to tone it down. Unfortunately, there is a proportion of viewers that are going to make there judgment on the "debate" on more emotional than rational grounds, so it's a good idea not to give them an opening to discount your arguments because they feel you've been disrespectful to Ms. Cheney.

For me the parallel was the first Bush-Gore debate where Gore won hands down on the substance, but left a lot of folks who were undecided with a bad impression because he was so clearly contemptuous. (BTW, I don't think you were anywhere as aggressive as Gore. It just happens to be the best case I can think of at the moment.)

Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight. All my comments are meant to be helpful.

Joan, objectively, that was a good performance, and interesting debate.

I have two quibbles with your position.

First, many of the bastards -- unibomber, 1993 WTC bombers -- in our custody were already here when we arrested and tried them. There's something about the post-9/11 guys coming from the Middle East, then to Cuba, that bothers me when we talk about bringing them to the U.S. It's kind of a visceral "contamination" thing. I'm saying to myself: let me know when they arrive, so I can go shoot them. And I'm not a very violent person by nature.

This goes to the issue of no-trial detention (if there's actually going to be a trial, then fine, bring them over). No one can prove whether Gitmo is affecting the mindset of terrorists, or whether holding them here would be less of a recruitment symbol, even though you have the better logical argument than Liz by citing the generals and admirals (i.e., assuming they have better insight than I do). Let's call that a close call -- I have a lot of respect for General Petreus after what he accomplished in Iraq. If he wants Gitmo closed . . . then maybe.

Secondly, however, Liz Cheney pulled her own "Greenwald" on you -- National Review's lawyer-turned-columnist Andrew McCarthy. Substantively, I have always been concerned that if we bring these yahoos over here en masse, there's going to be a world of habeas corpus and evidentiary problems, coupled with judges who (rightfully) find no basis for indefinite no-charge detentions for those being held in U.S. custody, on U.S. soil. It bears repeating: that was the whole reason they were put in Cuba in the first place.

Obama can plow through the first objection, if one likes. But the second one is tougher.