Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation
A group of U.S. Senators are asking the FBI to explain a recent controversial National Security Letter sent to the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive was able to defeat the request with help from the EFF and the ACLU this past April. "The Internet Archive's case is only the third known legal challenge to NSLs, despite the fact that the the FBI issues tens of thousands a year -- more than 100,000 such letters were issued in 2004 and 2005 combined. But despite the lack of legal challenges from recipients at ISPs, telephone companies and credit bureaus, successive scathing reports from the Justice Department's Inspector General have found illegal letters and a willy-nilly culture within the bureau towards tracking their usage."
They wouldn't need to answer those questions because only an idiot would entertain the idea.
First, one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president. Only an idiot would make a claim of doing something within a month of being in office and they don't deserve to be the president. As a matter of fact, I can't believe that your such an idiot for thinking that someone should make a decision and take an action like that so carelessly. It sort of pisses me off that people like you will end up voting and continue fucking up the country.
Second, None of the other countries would arrest a sitting or past diplomat or government official as long as the government they represented is still in power. It could be five presidential terms later and it simply wouldn't happen. One of the most fundemental rules of diplomacy is that you don't endanger the lives of your heads of states or diplomats by doing something with another countries. The only exception to that is for spying and generally they are only held long enough to realize the extent of their work. Why do you think that neither the UK, US, or any of the other countries that went to war in Iraq prosecuted Saddam for war crimes and it was left to the new Iraqi government to do? Because you don't fuck with present or past officials of other countries over something they did as that official and expect your officials to be safe. The mere Idea that it might happen is nothing more then hand waving. It won't happen. And if the response from any sitting president is less then all out war, I will be the first to lead the charge of impeachment or assassination on him. I wouldn't assassinate anyone myself but I would publicly thank anyone who did.
And why would I do that? Because any leader of official of the United State of America, regardless of how much you liked or disliked their policies or actions when they were the official, deserves the full unfettered protection of the United States. Anything they did while serving office was for the interest of the office they served. If the U.S. doesn't impeach them or bring charges to them ourselves, then no other country should.
This isn't just about Bush or Cheney either. If some other country is foolish enough and attempts to arrest Carter for his foreign policy actions when president, we should got to war to save him too. There is a principle of jurisdiction and whose laws you as an American citizen is subject to. The office of President of the United States of America is not subject to the whims or laws of any other country then the United States of America. If you think otherwise, you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool. There are things at stake here that are much greater then your personal disdain for a (former) leader.