MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The Guardian forced by UK government to destroy Snowden material
The British authorities forced the Guardian newspaper to destroy material leaked by Edward Snowden, its editor has revealed, calling it a “pointless” move that would not prevent further reporting on US and British surveillance programs. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo now add censorship to the list.
Aug 20th, 2013 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Freedom of the press always has boundaries.
Aug 20th, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Guardian seems to believe that those boundaries should be pushed further. Now while I am all for boundaries being tested and pushed further, they cannot be pushed past some boundaries set by other laws.
If freedoms are so under threat in the UK, then I suggest The Guardian relocate its offices to Russia and then question exactly how much freedom they then have.
All the players in this drama have made choices to do what they are doing. However they should not complain if those choices are not accepted or liked by governments affected.
As long as governments act within their laws then I have no issue. So far not a single person has shown where the UK government has acted outside the law.
“Guardian destroys stolen classified materila to avoid prosecution.”
Aug 21st, 2013 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why let the truth get in the way of a good headline.
If the RAG thought for a single second they could legally keeep it, they would.
I'm not sure he was “forced”, I saw Rusbridger on the tv last night say it was him that decided to destroy the hardware rather than hand it over and the bods from GCHQ told him how to do it and watched.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Exactly. He has said it was voluntary many times in the media.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did anyone else notice the tide of change in reporting and opinion as the real facts emerged?
It's not a “bizarre” episode. It's the sort of thing that happens when you have secret material in your possession that might be of use to terrorists, and decline to hand it over. It's called “national security”. And it applies equally to material stolen from allies. Mind you, the Guardian rarely tells the truth. This is why we had, at one time, a spate of links to Guardian articles by argie bloggers. The Guardian and argieland have much in common.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The destruction of the hard disks was a publicity action
Aug 21st, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0designed to show how hard the government's security forces are
and to put the media back into its hole.
I think that most big organisations have something called a 'backup'. The 'offending material' must be in a number of places around the world, and in the cloud.
Taking out all the Guardian hard disks would otherwise compromise all the multitude of other business, corporate and 'news' items that any computer in any media office would contain.
No, The Editor declared (eg):
“These two computers contain what you are looking for. What do you want me to do with them?”
Big Brother he say:
“I'll stand here while you destroy them. ... There, that'll teach you!”
The Guardian, the teechers paper. It's always been totally out of touch with reality. Monboit, Lucas, and other nutters believe it.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would defend to the end the right of journalists to investigate and report in the interests of the public. How is reporting sensitive information designed to damage British interests helpful to anyone but the tiny percentage of people who are anti-establishment-at any-cost.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Guardian flip-flops on its morals almost daily. It has been extremely selective regarding the reporting of this whole incident. As the true facts have emerged public and fellow journalist's opinions have changed.
Any of us hearing the initial reporting would have thought the police were a little heavy handed but justified and acting within the law. Now it appears that Miranda was offered a lawyer from the start but he refused requesting to talk to his boyfriend instead. This was denied and he requested a specific lawyer who took 8 hours to get to him.
The editor of The Guardian chose to manipulate the facts whilst declaring that he did not even know the contents of the information being smuggled through the UK by Greenwald's mule and partner. Clearly he has no compunction about spreading damaging information that could harm his country and the wider British public; something we entrust our security services to protect us from.
But the most shocking part of this story is not the mere 9 hours Miranda spent at Heathrow - I have spent longer in airports waiting for delayed flights - but that his boyfriend wrote this:
”‘I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now,’ he said. ‘I have many documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.’
So not in the interest of the public is Greenwald intent on exposing sensitive and potentially damaging information about England (he is too stupid to realise the government serves Britain) but purely to avenge his boyfriend who was slightly inconvenienced on a smuggling trip.
@7 GeoffWard2
Aug 21st, 2013 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know Rusbridger is a mendacious Editor of a poorly run leftist paper but is he that stupid to keep a backup secret from the authorities?
And do you really believe that the GCHQ wonks are incapable of checking the system history before agreeing to the destruction of the HDD’s, come on Geoff!
I think Elaine would be wise to sprinkle her postings with the word 'alleged'.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And stop calling him the 'boyfriend'; you know exactly what you are doing and it makes a lesser person of you.
Only allowed one phone call .. yes, I would phone my wife/partner.
And if my partner had been seriously threatened .. yes, I would make things as difficult as possible to the inquisitors.
And, yes, Chris. The first act of a journo or spy is to post backup/duplicate copies. I've seen The Bourne Identity; I know these things!
Freedom of the press always has boundaries, and the state's freedoms are similarly circumscribed. When either freedoms are exceeded it is up to you and me to 'cry Foul!'
Police State I thought I´d never see it..but I have..An attack on the Free press
Aug 21st, 2013 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are talking to me, Geoff, I would not have though I needed to qualify my statements with 'alleged' in a general discussion. Some of you claims are so outrageous you might want to reign them in a little with 'alleged'.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It has been fully explained to you on the thread where you called a few of us 'gay-bashers' why it is perfectly acceptable to call someone 'boyfriend'. It is not insulting and absolutely relevant to the story. That you don't understand that after it has been fully explained is worrying.
Really, what have you done with the real Geoff?
Miranda was not actually entitled to a lawyer at the time he was offered one. There is no suggestion that he was 'only allowed one phone call'. He was offered an independent and readily available lawyer but declined in favour of his choice of lawyer who took 8 hours to get to him. Understanding why he was there for 9 hours now?
The state didn't break any laws or boundaries. They questioned someone who was carrying stolen property and took it back. All above the law.
Why are you so upset by this? You seem to be exaggerating it out of all proportion.
In the UK you have three entitlements immediately your arrest is authorised by a custody sergeant at a police station.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. You are entitled to have someone told of your arrest, not make the call yourself, though most custody sergeants will allow you to make the call unless there are exceptional circumstances, persons outstanding, in danger or propery to recover etc, etc. Common sense folks!
2. You are entitled to free and legal representation.
3. You are entitled to consult the codes of practice governing the conduct of the police during your detention at the police station.
You can excercise any of those rights when they are given to you or at anytime whilst you are in police custody.
These rights apply whilst you are detained under ARREST.
There are numerous other powers that allow the police to DETAIN you for the purposes of a search to recover items, drugs, stolen property, weapons etc, etc.
You can be searched where you are DETAINED or if more appropriate conveyed to a police station for that purpose. This is not the same as being ARRESTED.
Police can seize anything from you which is or which they suspect may be evidence of an offence.
What people are getting pissed off about here, is that Sec 7 of Terrorism Act, was a misuse of those powers.
Mind you they would probably have been just as pissed of if another power was used!
@14 And the fact that Miranda was not arrested is why he was allowed to leave when the suspect items had been recovered.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, people are questioning Schedule Seven which allows for people to be detained for questioning. This was made law under Blairs government 13 years ago but it is only now that a fuss has been stirred up by the reporting from The Guardian.
I don't think it was misused. It is available under the law and was used. In fact Miranda was given more than he was entitled to and allowed to continue his journey a mere nine hours later. I don't know for sure but the fact that he refused an independent lawyer and insisted on another lawyer who took eight hours to get there could account for the time he was held.
I will be interested to see how this unfolds. As the facts emerge there is less and less outrage and more sympathy with the police trying to do their job in a dangerous world. IF people are unhappy enough to force government to change the law, that will happen. I am not seeing that yet but debate is good.
The civil liberties people will all over this like a rash. They were not happy with the sweeping powers that the Act gives to the police and security agencies.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The more pragmatic amongst us see it as the lesser of two evils, my personal view is that it will come under scrutiny again and in a democracy that is as it should be.
Hopefully a time will come, but I fear not for some decades, when these powers are no longer needed. Then they will be repealed.
What always astounds me is that, whenever there is a successful terrorist attack, it is the same people who ask why the security services failed to prevent it.
@17 I am glad the civil liberties people will question the Act. And I think that, on balance, it will still be deemed necessary in the world we live in today.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I remember rightly the Act was toned down significantly during the debating process as it went through parliament and again under this government. This happens with laws.
If detaining someone carrying stolen information likely to cause damage to Britain, questioning the mule, confiscating the information and allowing the suspect on his way is the result of this Act, I think most people will support it.
I think it is the old catch 22. How can you assess what potential use this data may be to a terrorist, unless you know what that data is. Snowden stole mega bytes of it, just what did he pass on to Greenwald, Miranda was transporting some, not all of it.
Aug 21st, 2013 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is only one way to know, recover it and examine it.
Having done just that, he was allowed to proceed minus whatever he was carrying.
Hahahaha
Aug 21st, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lot are not surprised.
Us lot are not surprised.
“Argentinean government forces Clarín to destroy documents”
Imagine that headline.
That is just about how corrupt Britain is, regardless the perception.
Hahahaha
I shouldn't laugh, should I?
Does anybody know yet if the Brasilian guy was actually caught with Snowden's material on him?
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0If he was found to have a draft for an article or a script for a film then I could see why they let him go.
If he was found to have on him primary Snowdon info, there is no way on earth the British police would let him go.
[Like if I was writing a book on the Holocaust the police would treat me a bit different than they would if my name was Eichman.]
So ... does he get his draft/script back sometime?
20 GeoffWard2
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would not hold my breath if I were him.
Apparently they did find material, Scotland Yard have stated they are now launching a criminal enquiry. I expect that any legal proceedings launched by His lawyers will now be adjourned pending the outcome of that enquiry.
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Weirdly, his lawyers were on TV yesterday saying they had requested that the material not be looked at by anyone pending their appeal. This is not usual as it is a judge that decides if material is admissible or not. On that basis alone I suspect the material is pretty important.
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We shall see as the wheels of justice turn.
Bad law if you have to let a suspect go before checking if he is carrying state secrets.
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't imagine many nations would do this!
It will be a bit embarassing for the P.M. to phone Dilma ...
“Can I have your man back, please? We find he really did take all our state secrets but we had to let him go”.
Laughing stock, or what!
24 GeoffWard2
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think they are really interested in a document mule, they will build a case against the Gruniard.
@24
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was he suspect?
Was he arrested?
Did he take state secrets?
Not what I read. I read that he was detained, searched and items seized from him for further enquiries.
I remember the same problem with José Dirceu, Lula's Chief of Staff in Brasil - the Mensalão scandal. His material was encrypted and could not be broken - so no charges (but now convicted).
Aug 22nd, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here, with Greenwald's partner, the detention needed more than the allowed 9 hours to break the encryption in order to arrest.
There is an obvious problem here. New law, perhaps?
The guy was not detained at random ... oh, so unlikely.
No, surveillance enabled the forces of law and order to be deployed, knowing he was carrying.
Likely scenario?
So, you lot still perceive the UK as one of the least corrupted nations world-wide?
Aug 25th, 2013 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because the rest of the world has this weird feeling, call it a perception, that is quite different.
Quite different indeed...
@ 28 Stevie
Aug 25th, 2013 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please tell me if you can WHO in the UK government at ANY level, including LOCAL government, is taking GBP millions out for their PERSONAL use, you know like TMBOA and of course let us not forget Pepe and the USD 350 million for Pluna that was lost because of his incompetence and using his bestest mate as a minister in charge of the entire fiasco.
Even Juan Carlos López Mena (what a mouthful) the argie owner of Buquebus managed to twig what was happening and pull his own grafter out of the way before the shit hit the fan. Now, magically (or with Pepe’s blessing) he is operating BQB Lineas Aéreas from Punta del Este.
And never forget the electric buses that Pepe helped back Mesa with the Chinese! It’s almost if Pepe is in Mesa’s back pocket!
I won’t mention what my best friend, the Uruguayo who owns a massive heavy side barraca says about the entire government and “grease” money.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!