Guardian Snowden games threaten lives

There is little doubt that the Snowden revelations peddled by the Guardian have done enormous damage to our security operations, encouraged terrorist organisations and placed the population in danger

by Robin Mitchinson on 4 December 2013 12:48

Today’s Telegraph and BBC News carry sizeable pieces about the Commons Home Affairs Committee’s investigation into the Snowden scandal. The Telegraph concentrates on the really interesting revelation that the Met is investigating Guardian journalists with a view to possible prosecution under terrorism laws.

This is what the paper said:

Cressida Dick, an assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, confirmed for the first time that detectives were examining whether staff at the newspaper had committed an offence. She also told MPs that her officers are looking at potential breaches of a specific anti-terrorism law which makes it unlawful to communicate information about British intelligence agents. The offence carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

(The thought of Alan Rusbridger and his hacks being hauled off to the Bridewell fills one with glee).

The piece continues with statements by the security bosses about the harm caused by the Guardian circulating world-wide uncensored copies of the Snowden documents:

‘Earlier this year Andrew Parker, the MI5 director general, warned in a speech that revealing details about the work of GCHQ, the government listening post, was a “gift to terrorists”.

And last month Sir John Sawers, the MI6 chief, said at the Snowden disclosures that terrorists were rubbing their hands with glee. He said: “What I can tell you is that the leaks from Snowden have been very damaging, they have put our operations at risk. Al-Qaeda is lapping it up."

So there is little doubt that the Snowden revelations peddled by the Guardian have done enormous damage to our security operations, encouraged terrorist organisations and made it harder for counter-terrorism action, placed the population in danger and threatens the lives of undercover agents.

So how did the BBC News cover it?

I am unable to quote it because it has gone off the page already, but the piece carried several paragraphs of Alan Rusbridger’s appearance and defence of the Guardian’s coverage. When asked why he had given wide circulation to 58,000 secret documents unredacted his lame excuse was that there were too many! They were not even kept in secure conditions.

And how did they cover Ms Dick’s highly newsworthy and substantial evidence.

One sentence at the end of the piece.

The BBC buys more copies of the Guardian than any other title by a wide margin.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus

We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.

 
Options
Advertisement
Recommended
Advertisement
Advertisement