| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Video: The Guardian Editor, Unperturbed by Terrorism Charges, Says They Used Only 1% of Snowden’s Files
sage: Alan Rusbridger, editor for The Guardian, testified to UK MPs (Story 1) and “batted away” their bluster (Story 2). He said they had only published about 1% of Snowden’s NSA revelations (Story 3). Meanwhile, Rusbridger is being threatened with terrorism charges by UK police in Story 4. It’s amazing the lengths to which the government is willing to go to keep hidden their shenanigans, or divert attention with a scapegoat.
Story 1 – Alan Rusbridger Gives Evidence to MPs Over NSA Revelations – Video
The Guardian – December 3, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/kl3oocc
Click here to view the embedded video.
Appearing before the home affairs select committee, the editor of the Guardian defends the newspaper’s actions in publishing stories about mass surveillance based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Rusbridger says accusations that the newspaper endangered national security in its handling of surveillance materials are ‘vague’. When asked whether he ‘loves this country’, Rusbridger claims he is patriotic about the fact the country has a democracy and free press.
Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, arrives to face questions from the home affairs select committee on the NSA leaks. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
At the heart of the home affairs select committee’s questioning o
Story 2 – Alan Rusbridger Batted Away MPs’ Bluster Without Raising a Sweat
The Guardian – December 3, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/k9nj87u
The Guardian editor had no problem justifying the press’s freedom to inform the public about mass surveillance
At the heart of the home affairs select committee’s questioning of the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger over the NSA leaks was an age-old dispute about the nature of press freedom.
The MPs were split between those who understood both the theory and practice of a free press and those who, even if they accepted the theory, could not stomach the practice.
But the latter group got nowhere in their pursuit of Rusbridger because he, in company with any decent freedom-loving journalist, had no problem in justifying his trade.
What was remarkable is that the whole thing happened at all. With the British press having obtained the right to its freedom from political control in the 17th century, here was parliament calling a newspaper to account for exercising that freedom.
Why, I kept asking myself, was an editor being required to explain himself to MPs? What makes them think they have the right to do so? Do they act for the people or against them?
Though Rusbridger was tactful enough not to spell out such objections, his nuanced replies to the impertinence of being asked about his intentions and actions was implicit.
I can be more explicit. Our business is disclosure. Our justification is informing the public. We are aware of the consequences of what we publish and take steps to avoid causing any possible harm. We do so within the context of the law.
So, given that Rusbridger is imbued with a press-freedom philosophy, he was able to bat away MPs’ concerns without raising a sweat, despite bluster from a couple of them who sought to suggest he might be guilty of breaching the Terrorism Act.
Michael Ellis, the Tory member for Northampton North, launched into a quasi-courtroom cross-examination that prompted spontaneous laughter.
He was, however, a barrister without a proper brief. In accusing Rusbridger of communicating “top secret” material across frontiers, his main concerns were about the possible identification of gay people working at GCHQ and those – both gay and straight presumably – who took trips to Disneyland.
His Tory colleague, Mark Reckless, in less confrontational mode but heading down the same cul de sac, was more concerned about the fate of a FedEx parcel.
Neither, it should be said, bothered to use the words “public interest”. Theirs was a narrow establishment interest, one that seems willing to grant the secret services unlimited powers without effective control. They were not interested in listening to rational justification and stuck fast to a single line of attack.
Rusbridger appeared just a little exasperated with the line of questioning after patiently explaining, time after time, that the Guardian had not identified anyone who was named within the 58,000 files obtained from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Names had been redacted in the pieces published by the paper. And the files sent to the New York Times had not been compromised.
But Rusbridger’s central point, repeated at intervals, was how the publication of articles about the systems of mass surveillance in the US and UK had been greeted elsewhere – in most of Europe and the United States – with concerns about the need to provide better oversight of the activities of secret services.
While a necessary global debate about oversight was in progress, within Britain, the messenger was being blamed for the message. He said it was an attempt to intimidate the Guardian in order to prevent it from publishing stories of significant public interest.
He didn’t need to say it. The fact that he was appearing before the committee proved his point.
Guardian Editor-In-Chief Alan Rusbridger
Story 3 – Guardian Editor: We’ve Published 1 Percent Of Snowden Files
By Scott Neuman, NPR News – December 3, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/kosvfl9
The editor-in-chief of The Guardian, which has turned leaks from Edward Snowden into a seemingly endless series of exposes concerning U.S. electronic surveillance activities, says the newspaper has published just 1 percent of what it’s received from the former NSA contractor.
In testimony before Britain’s Parliament, Alan Rusbridger told lawmakers that about 58,000 files obtained from Snowden, or “about 1 percent,” had been used by the paper for its stories. However, he added: “I would not expect us to be publishing a huge amount more.”
Rusbridger also lashed out at members of the Home Affairs Committee, accusing them of trying to intimidate the newspaper by using national security arguments as a “trump card.”
The Associated Press writes:
“Government and intelligence officials have reacted angrily to the leaks, saying they compromised British security and aided terrorists. Britain’s top three spy chiefs said last month that al-Qaida and other terror groups were ‘rubbing their hands in glee’ in the wake of Snowden’s leaks.
“Several Conservative lawmakers have said the left-leaning Guardian should be prosecuted for breaching terrorism laws.
“Rusbridger defended the newspaper’s decision to publish the secret material. He said stories published by the Guardian, The Washington Post and others had prompted much-needed debate about the scale of intelligence activities and exposed the limits of regulatory laws drawn up in the pre-Internet era.
” ‘There is no doubt in my mind … that newspapers have done something that oversight has failed to do,’ he said.”
David Miranda, partner of the Guardian’s Brazil-based reporter Glenn Greenwald (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)
Story 4 – British Investigators Threaten Guardian Editor with Terrorism Charges for Publishing GCHQ Leak
Russia Today – December 4, 2013
http://tinyurl.com/ln428j7
British police have launched an investigation into whether the Guardian committed “potential” terrorism offenses by publishing the incriminating NSA and GCHQ documents leaked earlier this year by Edward Snowden.
Alan Rusbridger, editor of the British paper, was testifying in front of a British parliamentary committee Tuesday when lawmakers suggested that the Guardian had helped terrorists by revealing the clandestine activity conducted by the American and British intelligence agencies.
Scotland Yard assistant commissioner Cressida Dick told the MPs Tuesday that is appears “possible that some people may have committed offenses” in connection with the material seized from David Miranda’s laptop earlier this year. Miranda, journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner, was detained for hours at London’s Heathrow Airport and authorities confiscated his computer, cell phone, and other devices, some of which allegedly held material related to Snowden’s disclosures.
UK officials claim that Snowden’s trove of data included information about British spies and that the information’s publication puts lives in direct danger. Rusbridger said his paper would not publish any such information and that Guardian editors have not even looked at some of the information Snowden provided regarding the Iraq war.
Lawmakers also threatened Rusbridger by implying Guardian staff had violated Section 58A of the Terrorism Act, which stipulates that it is against the law to publish or even transmit any information regarding members of the armed forces or intelligence employees.
“It isn’t only about what you’ve published, it’s about what you’ve communicated,” committee member Michael Ellis said. “That is what amounts, or can amount, to a criminal offense.”
Ellis later asked assistant commissioner Dick if investigators were also looking into possible infractions under Section 58A.
“Yes, we are indeed looking at that,” she said. “We need to establish whether they have or they haven’t.”
British authorities have previously raided the Guardian’s London office and destroyed hard drives that Rusbridger said contained documents that had already been sent to the paper’s New York office.
Rusbridger has consistently defended his legal and moral right to publish the documents, saying the government activity they detail should be left up to the public. The ongoing series of articles has revealed that the US, UK, and a number of other countries monitor phone, email, and social media activity of citizens not suspected of any wrongdoing.
“We have published I think 26 documents out of the 58,000 we’ve seen, or 58,000 plus. So we have made very selective judgments about what to print,” the editor said. “We have published no names and we have lost control of no names.”
Critics have already compared the MPs line of questioning to the infamous anti-communism hearings conducted by US Senator Joseph McCarthy at the height of the Cold War. Writing in the Guardian, Ben Emmerson, the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, said Tuesday’s hearing was disheartening for those hoping for less surveillance in the future.
“The astonishing suggestion that this sort of journalism can be equated with aiding and abetting terrorism needs to be scotched decisively,” he wrote. “Attacking the Guardian is an attempt to do the bidding of the services themselves, by distracting attention from the real issues. It is the roles of a free press to hold government to account, and yet there have even been outrageous suggestions from some conservative MPs that the Guardian should face a criminal investigation.”
]]>
< 
