Secrets & Miranda: A sense of proportion is needed

I have written before   (https://www.jimmy-burns.com/blog/espionage/why-i-thankful-edward-snowden/ –

much to the shock of some of my friends and even close relatives – why I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the US-led  Big Brother intelligence community now controls the exercise of our freedoms to the extent that we must all live in fear of these being taken from us.

The public at large and  most journalists-and I include myself and those at the Guardian- are not in a position to necessarily judge with any degree of certainty whether the release of the information they may have leaked to them might help or hinder counter-terrorism-but I believe most of  the US and UK intelligence community is in the business of trying to make the democracies we live it more safe and secure not less so.

Snowden’s revelations about the US  government’s  collection  of phone records and Internet data have not altered my basic view that there is a trade-off between investigating terrorism and protecting personal privacy, and that I don’t feel that Snowden has done innocent law abiding citizens any favours- and seeking to make him stand trial for breaching state secrets-if this can be proven-  seems reasonable.

And for those claiming that the US and the UK have become ‘police states ’ it is worth remembering  that this whole saga has been widely reported and openly debated in the western media , and  that the UK has a police force that largely goes about its daily business unarmed and by popular consent, while Snowden has chosen to  take refuge in Putin’s Russia, a regime that routinely represses freedom of expression, including gay rights,  and murders dissidents and whisteblowers  , among them journalists.

The detention  and questioning of the Brazilian  David Miranda , partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald linked to Snowden , and other events surrounding of it  once again raises the issue of proportionality.

Miranda is not a journalist. According to the employment definition provided by the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger, Miranda nevertheless  “plays  a valuable role in assisting his partner do his journalistic work.”  And that means more than just being his lover. His travel to Berlin, from where he was returning via Rio via Heathrow,   was financed by the Guardian. He had gone to Germany  to hand over documents related to the Snowden affair, although Miranda suggested in an interview that he did not know what documents he was carrying.

Clearly tipped off by the US, it was the  UK authorities who took the decisioun to detain and question him as a favour to its most important  ally, not least in intelligence sharing on terrorism. UK police used terrorist powers-specifically schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows travellers no right to remain silent or receive legal advice, and to be detained for up to nine hours. Senior officers  are in favour of these powers as an essential tool to detain a known terrorist or disrupt a potential terrorist network. They also know that it is an extraordinary power that, in a democratic country, should be  used only sparingly-and figures show that of the relatively small proportion of individuals stopped under such powers, in recent years  only a tiny minority have been held for more than three hours.

It is clear that Miranda’s questioning for almost nine hours , (please note there was no evidence of physical abuse, let alone torture)was unjustified and  badly handled. The fact that Miranda was a Brazilian has necessarily brought back memories of Jean Charles Menezes who was shot dead by police on a London tube following the London bombings for no other apparent reason than professional incompetence.

As for the widely publicised destruction of hard drives containing copies of some of the secret filea leaked by Snowden, this is similarly disturbing. It has only now emerged that this  was carried out at the Guardian’s headquarters on July 20  by a senior editor and one of the newspapers computer experts and in the presence of technicians from the British Government’s secret Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) which shares information with US.

Rusbridger  said he authorised the destruction after receiving  pressure from a senior UK government official who warned that in the absence of a handover of the material or their destruction, the governnent’s intention  was to close down the Guardian’s reporting  of Snowden documents by bringing legal action.

The official was Sir Jeremy Heywood,cabinet secretary and  thus the most senior civil servant in the  country. He  acted with the  explicit approval of Mr Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Foreign Secretary William Hague.

 The government feared that if secret data held by the newspaper fell into what it called “the wrong hands” it could have been a threat to the UK, official  sources claim. A government spokesman went on to explain that  it was “reasonable” for Sir Jeremy “to request that the Guardian destroyed data that would represent a serious threat to national security if it was to fall into the wrong hands”.

The governnent spokesman continued: “The deputy prime minister felt this was a preferable approach to taking legal action. He was keen to protect the Guardian’s freedom to publish, while taking the necessary steps to safeguard security.

“It was agreed on the understanding that the purpose of the destruction of the material would not impinge on the Guardian’s ability to publish articles about the issue, but would help as a precautionary measure to protect lives and security.”

Mr Hague said it was a “very simple matter” of the government having a duty to retrieve classified information to stop it ending up with the wrong people.

As for the Guardian, Rusbridger claims that by destroying the hard drives rather  than handing them over to government, he has protected the newspaper’s source. Moreover it is understood  the files have been copied and the Guardian is expected to pursue other aspects of the the Snowden story, but from the US. Such a move with do its corporate strategy no harm at a time when it is losing money as a UK newspaper and is  keen on expanding its global market.

But lest you accuse me of putting this all down to a   cynical commercial move, let me conclude that I don’t believe a conspiracy exists in this story other than in  the wild imagination  of those who have not experienced the meaning of true repression. There are questionable  journalistic motives involved, as there are aspects of disproportionality  involving certain British police acting  on US information and UK government orders. This is not a major assault on press freedom or on  our essential liberties. The Guardian is still publishing, and Mr Miranda is back in his homeland without charge and with the full freedom to tell his story. I have no plans to resign my British citizenship.