David Cameron Wants the Guardian Investigated Over Snowden Files

dryriver writes "The Guardian reports: 'British Prime Minister David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. He made his proposal in response to a question from former defense secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden. Speaking at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said: "The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files. So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security."'" Destroyed their copies of some files, certainly, but it's not like others don't have the files too.

Comments

Double standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden.

Anybody else who has a problem with understanding just where Cameron is seeing double standards applied?

Doulbe Standard

[Nidi62]

How is exposing 2 cases of illegal invasion of privacy a double standard? And if exposing certain actions can damage national security, then those actions probably weren't a good idea to begin with, or at least certainly were not worth the cost.

The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had

Were the people politely asking also holding a wrench by any chance?

damned if u do damned if u don't

[schlachter]

so they are more guilty because they tried to cooperate and destroy files when asked to do so by the gov?
so next time they will use this lesson to refuse to destroy docs.
and they will be tried for failing to destroy the docs. there's no winning.

Great quote from Ron Paul sums this up:

[RoTNCoRE]

"The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies."

Illegal in Sweden

[Henriok]

In Sweden there's sections in the laws about freedom of speech that makes investigation of the sources of journalists illegal, even if the source might have committed a crime. The police or other law enforcer can't ask a journalist about their sources. That'd be illegal. A journalist doesn't have to keep silent though, so he might tell anyway but the police can't even ask for it. That's what's in the law. But there's probably secret provisions around it if it's a matter of national security, or just using some other agent to do so.

Re:Here we go...

[jareth-0205]

Perhaps my experience of the US isn't particularly extensive, but when I was there you have already gone significantly down this road to all intents and purpose. I couldn't go into a bar or buy a drink without showing ID (I'm clearly in my 30s). I couldn't buy anything on a credit card without showing ID. Since the US is a largely car driving nation, most people there have to carry ID to go about their daily lives. In the UK I genuinely don't carry ID and can live a normal life (you don't have to carry with you when you drive, and no shop or pub will ID me because it's a waste of time), but in the US I had to have my passport constantly with me to do anything.

If A is evidence, then ~A is contrary evidence

[roystgnr]

Had the Guardian not complied, I suppose David Cameron's response would have been "I thought they were guilty, but when they refused to voluntarily cooperate with my national security adviser and cabinet secretary, I started to reconsider."

No? But if not, then he is just trying to rationalize some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" nonsense.

Re:No double standard at all

[TWiTfan]

In Cameron's bizarre lapdog logic, Snowden was the hacker and the fact that the U.S. and UK governments were hacking people's phones was the personal information that he hacked. And I have to admire the guy for being able to make that argument with a straight face.