FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Cameron Response to Edward Snowden

by BINOY KAMPMARK

In the latter part of last week, it became clear that any drives to reform the intelligence community in the United Kingdom would focus less on that community than the behaviour of those who had reported on its activities.  Spies will be spies, and those who scribble down their details are bound to get themselves into hot water.

Prime Minister David Cameron took the lead in announcing that a parliamentary select committee deal with the disclosures by Edward Snowden.  The investigative drive here, ostensibly to reform outdated intelligence laws, is deemed a matter of “counter-terrorism”. “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” (Guardian, Oct 17).

The circumstances surrounding Cameron’s approach to secrecy and the disclosure of confidential information reeks of Oxbridge convention, the stifling old boy’s net: polite request; prompt discharge of duties in the name of Her Majesty’s government; the idea that people of good form just do not tell on their governments.  Of course, like many a convention, it reeks.  Tradition tends to be the democracy of the dead over the living.

Furthermore, The Guardian disputes Cameron’s assertions, citing that ever onerous British application of “prior restraint” as the true explanation.  According to a spokesman, “The prime minister is wrong to say the Guardian destroyed computer files because we agreed our reporting was damaging.”  Apparently, the files were destroyed “because the government said it would use the full force of the law to prevent a newspaper from publishing anything about the NSA or GCHQ” (Oct 17, The Guardian).

Any number of committees might rush to do Cameron’s homework on naughty disclosures of intelligence material to the media. The defence select committee, the intelligence and security select committee, and the culture select committee have been touted as suggestions.

As it turns out, Cameron was not short of offers to undertake that great solemn duty of plugging the leaking boat of British intelligence.  Keith Vaz of the Commons home affairs committee publicly stated that it would look at The Guardian’s activities as part of an inquiry into counter-terrorism.  Vaz, who is that committee’s chairman, said he would consider examining “elements of the Guardian’s involvement in, and publication of, the Snowden leaks”.

The impetus for that came via a plaintiff letter from former Tory cabinet minister Liam Fox, a conservative who has always courted a reactionary streak.  Instead of treasuring the quality of liberty, he favours the police-state gruel of surveillance and suspicion.  Fox had earlier asked Cameron for a “full and transparent assessment about the Guardian involvement in the Snowden affair”.

Further pressure is being applied by the frothing Tory backbencher Julian Smith, who has personally written to Scotland Yard urging them to take the reins of investigating of The Guardian.  He has also been granted a parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall this coming Tuesday on the issue.  “I look forward to laying out the reasons why I believe that the Guardian has crossed the line between responsible journalism and seriously risking our national security and the lives of those who seek to protect us” (Daily Mail, Oct 16).

Not all are as mad about security as the Cameronians.   Keith Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) doesn’t warm to the idea of punishing journalists who do breach laws while performing a genuine act in the public interest.  It “would be very unhealthy if you had a situation where a journalist felt that they needed to go to their lawyer before they pursued any lead or asked any question” (The Guardian, Oct 19).  A balancing test is required: whether the consequence of the criminal breach is outweighed by the public interest in that disclosure.

Unfortunately, the Starmer’s guidelines remain ones without the force of law.  As such, the journalist remains at the mercy of prosecutorial fiat – will they, or won’t they?  The outgoing director remains suspiciously confident that the “public interest” has been appropriately defined by the DPP.  Those in the media can feel at ease.  Given that no judge in common law history, let alone government official has ever perfected that test, this is truly herculean and therefore unreliable.

A neat and striking contrast to the Cameron approach to British intelligence is that of their U.S. big brother in arms, home of the still as yet unshackled NSA.  The Snowden affair has produced considerable issue on the subject of blanket surveillance, though it remains to see how strapping they become.  A Presidential Review, and three proposed bills before Congress can be counted amongst them.

The bills, at least in raw form, deal with outlawing the bulk collection and data mining of Americans’ phone records and internet records by the NSA.  They consider establishing third party oversight of NSA programs which deal with covering data from American citizens (Time, Oct 4).  Then there is that rather testy issue of what qualifies as journalism.

It is true that, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has her way, such bills will merely be the runts of the legislative litter. Given that she is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she is bound to restrain, as far as she can, the reformist agenda.

The UK, however, has all too many Feinsteins in the “intelligence” mix, and extreme ones at that.  The focus in Blighty is more on Snowden’s acts and their Guardian links, rather than the worth of his information or any discernible public service he has given.  Evidently, the Cameron government is determined to leave no such acts un-stoned.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and ran with Julian Assange for the WikiLeaks Party as a senate candidate for Victoria.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious madness in Ulster
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
January 19, 2017
Melvin Goodman
America’s Russian Problem
Dave Lindorff
Right a Terrible Wrong: Why Obama Should Reverse Himself and Pardon Leonard Peltier
Laura Carlsen
Bringing Mexico to Its Knees Will Not “Make America Great Again”
John W. Whitehead
Nothing is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics
Yoav Litvin
Time to Diss Obey: the Failure of Identity Politics and Protest
Mike Whitney
The Trump Speech That No One Heard 
Conn Hallinan
Is Europe Heading for a “Lexit”?
Stephen Cooper
Truth or Twitter? Why Donald Trump Is No John Steinbeck
Binoy Kampmark
Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning
Ramzy Baroud
The Balancing Act is Over: What Elor Azaria Taught Us about Israel
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail