Bush lecturing Putin on freedom and democracy would be a bit more understandable if he actually believed in it himself. Or could convincingly fake it. Reagan fell into one of those two categories; Bush sure doesn't.

Rather ironic that the man who would criticize Putin for diminishing freedom in Russia is the same man who threatens American freedom with the Patriot Acts.

They can enter your house, secretly. If they find something, then they can now go to a judge, get a search warrant, come back, and claim they found that evidence. Without violating the Fourth Amendment? This same man who so threatens American civil rights would criticize Putin? This same president who authorizes torture and denies due process in Guantanamo (where most every prisioner is now admittedly innocent) would criticize the Russians? This same man who lies to the world so that he can unilaterally attack another sovereign nation would criticize Putin for actions in the Caucuses?

Does not matter. Anyone, such as Europeans or the NY Times, who would note these glaring discontinuities must be anti-American. God's chosen president could not be wrong.

The glare of patriotism, the cloud of fear and the gloss of of the "free" press
 

To be fair, the cracking down on civil liberties and the acceptance by much of the press in the US, and more moderate Republicans is a huge factor in the control that Bush exerts on the US. Fear and patrotism keeps the present system afloat. It's only when the populace tires of such tactics, and the government truly goes too far as in the case of the Cold War domestic intelligence efforts that any of this will be addressed, that is if we last long enough to see 2010. A good inidcator of a lightening of intelligence tactics will be a cooling down of a percieved threat. In the 70's Nixon's detente, including his arm limitations agreements with the Soviets, his visit to China, and the end of the Vietnam conflict signaled a cooling down of tensions in the cold war, not to mention the general tiredness of the American public for such a framework. These events parsed with a Democrat controlled Congress, great social change, and Watergate signaled the death toll of that era of the national security state, at least for awhile. The mid to late 70's represented one of the freer periods in this country's history, as well as the most recent reconsideration of national security efforts in the name of America's protection. It stands to reason that simliar multi-prong changes in the framework will be the prelude to the airing out of current abuses, now shrouded in fear and loyalty. The time will come, but for now we are in the midst of the build up, the reconsideration, is some time to come. After the deaths of many more service people, and continuing intelligence abuses, and the unveiling of scandals no longer tolerated in the name of national security.

-Walrus

We can only hope that there is a middle ground somewhere between imprisoning innocent people and allowing the worst living convicted terrorists in the US to write letters extolling terrorism to other terrorists while in maximum security federal prisons.

Why not? Convicted murders can have their own websites....

Not if the website is promoting terrorism. :)

They have to be able to break the code before proof of promoting terror.
Codes can sometimes be quite difficult to break..... :)

Don't be so naive. All they have to do is suspect something. They are many ways to kill a website without tipping your hand. :)

Just because they wrote letters promoting terrorism, therefore people were killed? Does UT fear free speech? Free speech killed American? Nonsense.

Instead, we should encourage those prisoners to write more letters. It identifies their compatriots. Those letters were not the problem. Remember why the second WTC attack could happen. Top law enforcement management conspired to assist those terrorists by not doing their job AND by stifling Federal agents from doing their job. Two Chicago agents were even loudly yelled at, "You will not open a criminal investigation!" Find your enemy. Name that FBI supervisor who did the yelling.

Those letters from imprisoned terrorists did nothing dangerous. But what did make terrorism possible were Justice Department managers - many without field experience - who would let information from those correspondences go to waste. Managers with the classic MBA mentality - they just knew what was better and did not need dirty fingernails to be law enforcement managers.

Need we be reminded of the translator ordered to stop working so fast even when Federal field agents literally called and begged for expedited translations? Who discovered a peer was translating FBI surveillance of what was that peer's boyfriend. Who reported all this and instead was made the victim. I don't see UT complaining about this manager who is clearly a greater threat to all Americans.

Do we fear letters from Federal prisoners to their Spanish peers? Or do we fear the real threat - top management in the Justice Department who even stifle four separate FBI investigations on what became known as 11 September attacks. Those letters from imprisoned terrorists should have been the best thing to happen to law enforcement - if Justice Department top management was doing its job.

Free speech is not the problem. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - who have access to those prisoner's letters and could not even bother to comprehend facts. We are blaming the wrong threat. This discussion should be citing, by name, Federal officials failed in their job. Who did not even learn with whom terrorism prisoners were corresponding?

Free speech is not the threat. Incompetent bosses of those Federal agents are getting away, again, without being blamed.