Let's compare the FBI's handling of this with a similar case in which "national security" is the purported issue. Specifically the jailing of NY Times reporter Judith Miller. What if the FBI had seized the NY Times web servers in the course of its investigation? Such a move would be denounced as an outrage! Yet the NY Times, which is bending over to protect Miller (who uncritically passed on bogus intelligence from the Bush administration as "news"), doesn't even have the courage to report on this story which is now several days old.
How might such an investigation be handled if the NY Times news servers were to be investigated? A simple subpoena demanding copies of the NY Times' web server content would be sufficient to conduct such an investigation, and not a heavy-handed approach resulting in indeterminate censorship of unrelated news stories. The seizure of the entire server, and the violation of the speech and press rights of people in over a dozen countries, is a completely unacceptable attack on the media from a shady international police state, enacted under dubious legal treaties, has so far provided no clear legal recourse for Indymedia.
A suggestion for Indymedia while pursuing legal action to recover their stolen news servers. When writing to Rackspace, the FBI, U.S. governemnt, members of UK Parliament, and the Swiss and Italian authorities who requested this seizure--end all correspondence and complaints with the following legal warning (which should be included in any legal claim):
"Damages for all items continue to accrue."