Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
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?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
National security and putting people in danger seems like a smoke screen at this point.
FTA: " former defence 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."
He's claiming they are following a double standard by revealing secret illegal spying on people, and then revealing secret illegal spying on people again.
Well, I guess it could be considered a double standard if you follow the same standard twice.
Not if they tell the public what the government are doing... Hacking individuals private communication was wrong when a newspaper did it and it is still wrong when the government does it. It is not the Gruaniad that has double standards, it is Cameroon.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
"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"
They had no choice - if they didn't destroy the hard drives, then the govt. goons sent to their office would have. What kind of reasoning is this??
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
At some point, the people in charge need to define the scope of 'National Security.' Right now the scope seems to be defined as 'anything that security officials claim'. Because of this, anything a journalist publishes can be said to violate National Security since National Security covers everything.
For example, Martin Luther King's speeches criticized the status quo. Since the status quo is now matter of National Security, Martin Luther King's speeches were a threat to National Security, by today's standards.
So the real argument is what exactly is National Security? Is the status quo more important than civil liberty? Further, why are we not investigating whether or not secret laws used to justify anything violate the law?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
"The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies."
So:
Cameron's hired goons spend their time harassing the Guardian and its little journalist chums into returning or destroying the data on the pretext that "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
The Guardian eventually goes "oh, whatever; if this pointless activity will make you any happier, okay", and permitted GCHQ security experts to trash the hardware containing the data. As one of said GCHQ types put it, now that the files have been destroyed "We can call off the black helicopters."
Aaaand... Cameron then claims that the Guardian's compliance with this pointless demand is proof that the Guardian has published stuff that is dangerous for national security. Which only goes to show that the Guardian should have told Whitehall to sit on it and swivel.
Conclusion: Cameron is a loathsome lump of Eton excreta. He and his equally repellent deputy Clegg have also recently claimed that publication of the NSA material is 'not in the public interest' because it is too complicated for most people to understand, therefore most of the public would not be interested. It's good to know that Government have a strong understanding of key concepts such as 'public interest'.
So, Guardian, the next time the government "politely" asks you to do something, you politely tell the cunts to bugger off and die from an acute lack of tea *. Because evidently they try to use you complying with their requests to be admitting you're wrong. Should have probably known that before.
(* Is that how you would say it? I'm not a British newspaper, so I'm not exactly sure.)
He really needs to just focus on making a bad sequel to Avatar and shut the hell up.
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.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
""The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security "
Lets be clear, the CIA trained Mujahadeen fighters to fight the Russians. It created a database "Al Qaeda", literally translates as "database" in Arabic. The database of those fighters, included one Bin Laden. Who is "Al Qaeda" and who wasn't "Al Qaeda" was defined by the CIA's database originally.
That group turned on the US, after the Russians had been driven out of Afganistan. So I trust the US government about as much as any person can trust THE PEOPLE WHO TRAINED THE TERRORISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Which is not at all. They make an endless series of terrible choices that result in lots of deaths.
Next up, GCHQ stands accused of breaking UK law, lying to the Cabinet and lying to Parliament. The "National" for the UK, means "Britain", not America. Snoopers Charter is not law, GCHQ did not get the laws they wanted and they are outside the law.That's why they kept it secret from most of the government they are supposed to represent, yet NSA and US was told.
Guardian are not just leaking secrets, they revealing high-treason. The most serious example we've ever seen in British history. Not just a spy here or there leaking stuff to foreign powers, but a whole agency systematically spying on Brits and hiding the evidence from Parliament and Cabinet.
Of course there isn't one.
In the first case the Guardian stood up to its own industry and exposed highly unethical behaviour showing that it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with colleagues. In the second case it stood up to its own government and exposed their incompetence and/or complicity in unethical behaviour against their own citizens and friendly nations showing it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with those in power.
So yes I would agree that the Guardian has met a "double standard" for moral behaviour. The question is when will he and his government? A good start would be apologizing for invading our privacy and putting their own interests above their public duty not to mention parliamentary expense claims...
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.
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.
Yes A/C it got abbreviated. Good misdirection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians
Robin Cook knowsthe origin of the name better than Osama Bin Laden?
Bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001:
"The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
(Note: in many Semitic languages the words "camp" and "base" are interchangeable).
National security was damaged by sharing national secrets with a foreign power who shared them with a private company who shared them with a private citizen. The fact that a national newspaper then reports what the private citizen had access to is only appropriate.
Korma: Good
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.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
One, David Beckham makes loads of money, and he can barely string a coherent sentence together.
Two, most of money Cameron "makes" is via inherited investments. He's never had a real-world job.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
he must be another one that thinks the internet is a series of tubes and "uses the googles"
Besides, a "polite request" from government is seldom really polite, and seldom really a request.
Government needs to understand that people often see "government requests" as genuine threats: "Do as we ask, or else." The threat may just be perceived, or it may be real. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
But we must always keep in mind that government authority = force.