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  The investigative drive here, ostensibly to reform outdated intelligence laws, is deemed a matter of “counter-terrorism”.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

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The “Great” Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail