4 ms·
For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks
by ch215 13y ago
For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost speaks for itself.
First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who held a different view.
Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret services.
Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?" asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal.
As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's about it in terms of any debate.
The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being reincarnated as an olive.
- mercurial 13y agoInteresting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels, and call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law. Same people, different location.
- ch215 13y agoAgreed. The calamity of politics never ceases to beggar belief. As concerned as I am about the surveillance revelations, I'm positively perplexed by how a 29-year-old contractor for a foreign government was allowed access to British secrets like the names of covert agents. If anyone has breached national security--it's not The Guardian who have been _relatively_ responsible--it's those who allowed such a blindingly dangerous situation to arise. So many questions, so few answers, so much for the “mother of parliaments”.
- caycep 13y agoBeing a bit cynical, I'm sure there's some gravy-train-follow-the-money-ism here. With the NSA getting the many billions of military-industrial-complex money that are suddenly threatened by these public disclosures, I suspect much of what we are seeing could be attributed to a circle-your-wagons mentality surround the treasure chests...
- mkingston 13y agoI wonder if they've thought through what this intimidation is likely to bring about. The way I see it, if they hit the Guardian or its staff with charges, the leaks will just go somewhere governments have demonstrably been unable to get at them, i.e. Wikileaks or similar. From a government perspective, this is dreadful compared with the conservative publishing approach taken by the Guardian. Besides, the government wouldn't mind being watched if they didn't have anything to hide. Edit: I'll just make clear the last sentence was mostly in jest.
- csmuk 13y agoAgree entirely but that would go against the state's current policy of limiting press freedom. They're already issuing warnings and roughing up editors. One step forward and we're there. To be honest we won't know if we're there when we are, if we're not already. A lot goes on behind the scenes that we don't see but probably should. Our government plainly works on the principle of: better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Inquiries are all lead by alumni of the same organisations as the politicians so it's hardly worth it. Plus they'll probably seal the verdicts. Best option we have is to take the information from the government and publish it without the politicians or the paper's involvement. Rather an honest criminal than a politician or a newsman.
- turbojerry 13y agoI would posit that the reason there is no debate in Parliament is that MPs are afraid of what GCHQ / NSA / etc. might leak about them. What I find more worrying is that there is absolutely no debate about a) the fact British intelligence services have been compromised in the past and are still most likely compromised, imagine what a Kim Philby could do with all this data and b) the possibility of inserting false information into these data stores thus making even completely innocent people vulnerable to being blackmailed.