"Presidents may use their predecessors as emissaries to deliver private messages to other nations or as official representatives of the United States to state funerals and other important foreign events. Richard Nixon made multiple foreign trips to countries including China and Russia and was lauded as an elder statesman. Jimmy Carter has become a global human rights campaigner, international arbiter, and election monitor, as well as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize." [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#...
He later did the same thing to Clinton, though not nearly so bad.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...
BTW, that article is almost hopelessly hyperbolic. I really want to understand why diplomacy and Carter's advocacy are potentially wrong, but the author choose to level a personal attack rather than making reasoned arguments which may or may not have lead me to understand his position.
To answer your question though, diplomacy is certainly good and should be the first choice. But it's not "inherently good"; just ask Czechoslovakia how they felt about Chamberlin's diplomacy with Hitler.
More to the point, nations have to live with the results of their diplomatic efforts, so it's important that those efforts are attuned to work together.
If you were a CEO trying to shift company strategy to focus on a certain goal, you'd find it at least annoying if a former CEO went out and directly worked against that strategy because they "had a better way to do it". Even worse, being pulled in both directions could end up leading to a worse outcome for that company than if one or the other solution had been chosen.
"The NSA can keep phone records made from another country for up to a month." As far as details to share, like. This has to be intentionally weak. Other details they could share: the NSA scoops up your emails and your phone records.
I don't know what the mechanisms are (e.g. I'm not positing lizard men are doing this), but way in which so much reporting aims to delegitimize any opposition to total surveillance is fascinating. What causes this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-...
Q: "the N.S.A. has argued that this kind of intelligence gathering is critical to try to protect the American homeland?
JIMMY CARTER: That has been extremely liberalized and, I think, abused by our own intelligence agencies. As a matter of fact, you know, I have felt that my own communications are probably monitored."
Keep in mind that the USPS can (and does) scan the front and back of envelopes[0]. Keeping this information indefinitely is tantamount to storing email "metadata" (information which is intrusive enough that it's what caused Groklaw to shut down).
Also, it's easier than one might think for a determined adversary to discern the contents of the letter - either by opening it carefully so that it appears unopened, or by (e.g.) shining a light to
There are defenses against this too, but I wouldn't assume the physical post is inherently more secure than email.
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/where-mail-with-illegib... - I can't find the original link that asserted that they store this information indefinitely, but IIRC the USPS didn't make much of an effort to hide it.
Do not make the perfect the enemy of the better. This is the kind of thinking that gives us big scary warnings for self-signed SSL certificates, and lets plain HTTP connections proceed unmolested.
I still haven't figured out if it is meant as an insult, or if Jimmy Carter is some kind of super secret spy.
