UK Prime Minister Threatens To Block Further Snowden Revelations

Bruce66423 writes "From the article: 'In a statement to MPs on Monday about last week's European summit in Brussels, where he warned of the dangers of a "lah-di-dah, airy-fairy view" about the dangers of leaks, the prime minister said his preference was to talk to newspapers rather than resort to the courts. But he said it would be difficult to avoid acting if newspapers declined to heed government advice.' So that will achieve something won't it? Don't these politicians understand that blocking publication in just the UK achieves nothing? The information is held outside the UK, and will be published there; all he's doing is showing his real colors."

Comments

Russian Times to the rescue

[ulatekh]

I remember reading about these NSA revelations years before Edward Snowden disclosed them...on the Russian Times web site.

Guess we'll have to go back to relying on the Russian press to defend freedom and print the truth.

Ugh...I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Re: Russian Times to the rescue

[reve_etrange]

There are "left" and "right," but our current national politics are a struggle between the center-right and far-right. If you look at local governments there is a lot more variation and mixture in general. For example in California, the open primary and citizen-controlled redistricting have recently blown open the field. Last year all my local contests were between the Dems and Peace and Freedom, which is actually sort of left-wing.

Re:Russian Times to the rescue

[SuricouRaven]

The leaks so far include the UK and US working together to tap emails and phone lines used by heads of allied states, and a US attempt to intercept the diplomatic lines at the UN. It's hard to imagine what could come out next to top that one. The only possibilities I can see would be using the intelligence services for political advantage (Watergate-style), using them for commercial advantage to domestic companies (China-style) or using them to deliberately manipulate the politics of another country. Those are juicy possibilities, certainly, because they'd clearly reveal the 'protecting our country from terrorist threat' line as a big lie.

Re:Russian Times to the rescue

[Xest]

It's also quite possible he simply believes his own bullshit.

This is the guy who was quick to cry terrorism in response to the Lee Rigby murder but at least initially refused to call it terrorism when a Ukrainian far right extremist stabbed a muslim and bombed two mosques in the UK.

Certainly he has a very warped perspective on threats and terrorism so I could quite believe he believes his own bullshit about how Snowden's revelations help terrorists and will be the end of civilisation as we know it.

Re:Russian Times to the rescue

[Xest]

There was a guy on here the other day telling me he was the most conservative Republican conservative going.

At the same time he was saying about how welfare should be about giving everyone the exact same amount regardless of who they are (i.e. he was advocating communist ideas).

He was completely unable to grasp that was he was advocating was most definitely not conservative given that by definition conservatism is about resisting change, and he was advocating massive change, and was very much a communist idea - i.e. the complete opposite of the right which he claimed to proudly represent.

I never cease to be amazed how messed up the political views and comments of many Americans are. So many wear their supposed leaning like a badge of honour whilst spouting views that completely contradict it and similarly declaring things about other leanings that make absolutely zero sense. From the libertarians that rally against gay marriage and the freedom to have abortions, to the conservatives that demand profound change, to the tea partiers who claim to be all about the constitution and free speech whilst turning up at opposition rallies armed to try and stifle discussion of opposing views with implied threats. It's insane and it's so painfully hypocritical.

I have more respect for people who at least come out and say what they are. I can't stand Nigel Farage in the UK because he refuses to admit he's far right whilst advocating primarily far right policy - at least Nick Griffin of the BNP for all his flaws had the courage of his convictions to admit what he was even if I think his views are sickening. It's like a denial people have because they fear being associated with Nazism if they openly admit they're far right even though in practice they do in fact often align politically with them. If you don't have the courage to admit what you believe in, whether that's far left communism, or far right fascism or something in between then the implication is simply that you know deep down that there's something wrong with your beliefs. Don't try and dress yourself up as something your not, because either you believe what you believe, or you know full well you're just being selfish, ignorant, and full of shit.

Of course the problem is it works - there's so much confusion especially in the US that you can claim to be a libertarian and people see you as a freedom fighter when in reality you're advocating primarily anti-libertarian policy. It's as if some people see the political leaning people label themselves with as more important in defining what they stand for than the actual policies they're pushing in practice.

People need to learn what different leanings mean and start evaluating candidates on what they actually stand for rather than obscure paranoia over terms that aren't dirty like "liberal" and "socialist" contrary to what the idiot squad likes to pretend. They think by saying "he's a liberal" they're being nasty and slagging them off, when in reality they're saying "he's a guy that supports protecting people's rights and freedoms and ensuring equality" as if that's somehow a bad thing. The opposite of classic liberalism is basically fascism, so by decrying someone for being a liberal with the implication that you oppose liberalism you're effectively aligning yourself with fascism. If only they knew how fucking stupid it made them sound to those of us who know what things like socialism, and liberalism actually are.

The fact is pretty much the entirety of the Western world is primarily liberal with a hint of socialism and a focus on capitalism in them more general economy so to decry that is to decry the bulk of what stands behind Western ideology.

Silencing the Press

[Phoenix666]

So Gen. Alexander releases a propaganda video saying he believes the journalists releasing the stories ought to be silenced, and now the UK is echoing that? It seems to me that we are well on our way to the point of no return.

Re:Silencing the Press

[TapeCutter]

Alexander and the UK are odd bedfellows, apparently he was a financial supporter of the IRA before Clinton at the urging of Bono)speech starts @2:21) stopped Americans from donating to the IRA. Say what you like a Bono, but it took the balls of an Elephant to make that speech as an Irishman in Boston.

Sen. Feinstein

[Phoenix666]

They're reporting this evening Sen. Feinstein is backpedaling on surveillance after defending the NSA's crimes all summer. Did one of her grandchildren chew her out for turning the country into a police state? Or is she so stupid that she hasn't actually paid attention to the issue and its implications til now? Or is it a dodge to deflect the criticism until the public forgets and moves on and all can return to status quo ante?

Honestly, I'm kind of to the point where the situation won't be made right until the people at the NSA responsible for this are in prison, the NSA is dismantled, and everyone in the Whitehouse and Congress are impeached and thrown into the deepest, darkest hole we've got.

We all know what this means...

[hyades1]

I guess it's a pretty good bet that Snowden got hold of something nice and juicy about what Cameron's Tory government has been up to.

I can't help but look forward to the revelation, and wonder exactly how that jumped-up little fascist thinks he's going to prevent people in Britain from finding out. Will they be legally required to go around with their eyes squinted and their fingers in their ears?

This should be fun!

Re:wrong target

[Frobnicator]

Why? Don't they have their own subscription to The Guardian?

One interesting thing about threats is that you absolutely must be able to follow through and the threats most be seen as a positive action. Cameron has just put his head in a noose. (Well, more than usual)

When The Guardian publishes again --- which it absolutely will --- he can choose to do nothing and further relinquish control, further harming himself politically. Or he can take it to the courts like he threatened, spending a fortune trying to get an unpopular order which will also harm him politically. If he succeeds at getting the order all it will do is make the UK government and the crown look even more the fools. He is playing a game that has no winning moves.

By all means, I hope he continues to make threats like this. If he doesn't follow through he will be seen as weak, and if he does follow through he will become even more unpopular. Boris Johnson is already twice as popular in the polls, Cameron is already less popular than his party (which is also rapidly sinking) and idiotic statements like this will just cause the ship to sink faster.

Mr Cameron, every time you open your mouth you make it easier for those who will oppose your party in 2015. Please carry on.

Re:wrong target

[mosb1000]

No country claiming to be a bastion of freedom should be in the business of mass data collection of its citizens' comings and goings.

That's probably just a consequence of having the ability to collect such data. I'm more worried about they way they encourage people they have a problem with to engage in illegal activities just so that they can arrest them. Or the way the way laws have been passed prohibiting recreational drug use, effectively declaring 10% or so of the population to be criminals. Them tracking our comings and goings wouldn't be such a problem if our innocent activities weren't illegal in the first place.

Re:No one outside of the NSA knows what Snowden kn

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you'll trust a whistleblower who has climbed the ranks high enough to access top secret information in the U.S.'s intelligence service, Russia's intelligence service, and China's intelligence service? But what if this whistleblower dosn't release information that's embarrassing to Paraguay, too? How could you then trust that he wasn't just a shill for some Latin American strongmen? Hmmmm?

Re:Puppet strings

[WillKemp]

Wonder how much pressure the PM is getting from Washington?

He doesn't need pressure. When their US masters give them orders they simply obey. They don't even question it. It's been that way for decades. All the bullshit whining about the EU taking away their sovereignty is just a smoke screen - the UK has had no sovereignty for a very long time. And, of course, one of the tasks their masters have set them is to disrupt the EU as much as possible (it's a threat to US economic dominance).

Re:wrong target

[jalopezp]

I don't know, Ed Milliband is working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.