so, why were the servers siezed? it doesn't seem to make much practical sense. i mean, they can't expect to destroy files stored in a public access network. there's bound to be (to my thinking at least, i don't know anything about the technical functioning side of IM) mirrors all over the place, surely. stands to reason. doesn't it?

and the thing about those two suspected swiss secret policemen. why would their exposure worry the US authorities? did the swiss govmt request the the US do something about it, with their greater political clout and willingness to flout international law? or were the US interested? If indeed the "exposure" of these alleged secret ham-bags is the reason, does the US have a special interest in them?

have files been removed from the servers? i dunno, do you?

and, christ (excuse my esperanto), why be so bloody open about it? it doesn't makje sense. i would've thought the world's only superpower might've been able to muster the capability to achieve anything they needed to achieve remotely, without anyone noticing.

or, on the other hand, is it an intimidation tactic? "we can do this and get away with it, and that's not all". that, at least, makes some sense. though not much

i'll never understand the rationale of governments, half of the stuff they do doesn't make any rational sense from any perspective i can think of. maybe i'm unimaginative.

maybe we oughta get our own servers or something. that'd be nice wouldn't it? and hideously expensive, yes, i know.

this i say: Doddering and eccentric millionaires! IM needs YOU!(R money)

i'll go away now

See the link for a previous posting of MP questions about Indymedia servers. Richards were the only ones to be answered within a specific time limit.

i agree with the other commentator to this article.
What has happened with indymedia servers doesn't make sense.
If conspirational theory does not work, or merely diplomatic treaties between US and UK regarding antiterrorism measures... then was it merely a display of power by FBI?
Given old-standing struggle between indymedia and FBI, it would make sense as that, given also the fact that Racksack or whatever their name is (currently advertised by indymedia home page, look at adbox, incredibly enough) have their headquarters in US and therefore according to their special antiterrorist laws, are forced to subject to FBI, CIA and Mr Bush.
What does not make sense to me is that indymedia trusted their servers to such hosting, why not English-based hosting? (perhaps the same thing would have happened)... or Irish-based hosting? Good thing anyway to get some compensation.

Waiting for Richard Allan's reply, then...

___________

a correction... "Rackspace" hosting is not being advertised by indymedia but by Sourceforge.