Great Britain’s “conservative” government forced one of its largest newspapers to destroy hard drives containing secrets leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden.
British cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood and national security advisor Kim Darroch – acting on instructions from British Prime Minister David Cameron – told The Guardian it would face legal action if it refused to destroy the data (or hand it over to British authorities).
“The prime minister asked the Cabinet Secretary (Heywood) to deal with this matter, that’s true,” one source told Reuters.
Astounding …
The Guardian‘s reporting on America’s domestic spying network has been courageous – one of the few shining moments the Fourth Estate has had in recent years. It’s sad, but not surprising, that such courage has been met by a Soviet-style government crackdown.
Oh, and while U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration bragged that something like this was “hard to imagine” happening in America, you might want to take that with an ocean of salt based on Obama’s ongoing lies about the size and scope of this spy network.
Suppression of the press, people … coming soon to a continent near you.
5 comments
Is there a Free Land left on the planet?
Good thing it was all electronic files, you know hard to copy and otherwise transmit to other devices or hide on little thingys the size of your thumb. We’ll never, ever see any of these files surface ever again, for sure.
They’ve been open that it is a purely symbolic gesture. The “you’ve had your debate” bit is the one that should really concern people.
One of the safeguards that Britain has over U.S. — Had the Supremes ruled otherwise in Sullivan vs. the New York Times, I wouldn’t have such a problem, but the Fourth Estate (read: “Fifth Column”) can slander/libel “public officials” with impunity.
–
The writers of the First Amendment never intended this – they merely wanted Ben Franklin to be able to issue his anonymous “broadsides” against anyone who supported the King.
–
Like it or not, the Constitution is supposed to protect us from the Government – not from the “Yellow Press”.
The UK does not have the equivalent of our “Bill of Rights.” This was one major reason for the contentious debate over ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The promise of an enumerated “Bills of Rights” was essential to obtain ratification by NY, VA and some other states. In the UK individual rights grow out of the common law with some statutory additions. British rights are not based on the bedrock of a written constitution and are, or maybe I should say “were,” less firm and immutable than ours.