This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/22/edward-snowden-guardian-should-be-prosecuted-tory-mp

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Edward Snowden NSA files: Guardian should be prosecuted, says Tory MP Edward Snowden NSA files: Guardian should be prosecuted, says Tory MP
(35 minutes later)
A Conservative MP has attacked the Guardian for publishing stories about mass surveillance by the security services based on leaks from US whistleblower Edward Snowden. A Conservative MP has attacked the Guardian for publishing stories about mass surveillance by the security services based on leaks from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Speaking in parliament, Julian Smith argued the newspaper had broken the law and should be prosecuted, but his speech was condemned as "McCarthyism" and "absolute scaremongering" by Labour MPs prevented from making speeches. Speaking in parliament Julian Smith, MP for Skipton and Ripon, said that the newspaper had broken the law and should be prosecuted.But Smith's address was condemned as McCarthyism and "absolute scaremongering" by Labour MPs who were prevented from making speeches.
Several criticised the format of the debate as they were denied an opportunity to intervene while Smith read out his speech and then James Brokenshire, a home office minister, gave the government's point of view that the Guardian's publication of the Snowden leaks have damaged national security. Several MPs criticised the format of the parliamentary debate as they were denied an opportunity to intervene while Smith read out his speech and then the Home Office minister James Brokenshire gave the government's view that the Guardian's publication of the Snowden leaks had damaged national security.
Smith, the MP for Ripon and Skipton, had called the debate in Westminister Hall to raise concerns in parliament about the way the Guardian has handled the Snowden files. The backbencher, who made a complaint about the Guardian to the police, criticised the newspaper for writing stories "with no consultation with government". Smith had called the debate in Westminster Hall to raise concerns in parliament about the way the Guardian handled the Snowden files. The backbencher, who made a complaint about the Guardian to the police, criticised the newspaper for writing stories "with no consultation with government".
"In spite of the actions taken by the government to destroy the files held in the Guardian's London office, these files are out there, highly vulnerable to terrorist infiltration, and not just that," he said. He said: "In spite of the actions taken by the government to destroy the files held in the Guardian's London office, these files are out there, highly vulnerable to terrorist infiltration, and not just that – these detailed files on GCHQ operations are now handed to an infinite number of extra eyes via American journalists and even bloggers. Each person multiplies the risk to this country. The Guardian focused on sending abroad revelations not about the American NSA or whistleblowing. They chose to distribute information about our own intelligence agents and GCHQ … To communicate, not just publish, any identifying information about GCHQ personnel is a terrorist offence. This is not press freedom – this is the Guardian's devastating impact on national security."
"These detailed files on GCHQ operations are now handed to an infinite number of extra eyes via American journalists and even bloggers. Each person multiplies the risk to this country. Smith's allegations were challenged by a number of Labour and Tory MPs. David Davis, a former Tory leadership candidate, and Dominic Raab, MP for Esher and Walton, asked why, if there had been harm to national security, there had been no charges against anyone related to the Guardian.
"The Guardian focused on sending abroad revelations not about the American NSA, or whistleblowing. They chose to distribute information about our own intelligence agents and GCHQ … to communicate, not just publish, any identifying information about GCHQ personnel is a terrorist offence. This is not press freedom – this is the Guardian's devastating impact on national security." Denied the chance to intervene, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, asked why he was barred making a short speech."This is a piece of McCarthyite scaremongering and it disgraces parliament."
Smith's allegations were challenged by a number of Labour and Tory MPs. David Davis, a former Conservative leadership candidate, and Dominic Raab, MP for Esher and Walton, asked why, if there has been any harm to national security, there have been no charges against anyone related to the Guardian. David Winnick, MP for Walsall North, was forced to use a technical point of order to get his point across. He said: "A lot of what appeared in the Guardian that has been the subject of this debate has made certainly the US go into a wide-ranging inquiry into intelligence gathering, and what the Guardian has published has certainly been in the public interest."
Denied the chance to intervene, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, questioned why he was not being allowed to make a short speech."This is a piece of McCarthyite scaremongering and it disgraces Parliament," he said. He later called the debate disgraceful saying the minister read his speech like a robot.
Winnick, MP for Walsall North, was forced to use a technical point of order to get his point across. He said: "A lot of what appeared in the Guardian, that has been the subject of this debate, has made certainly the United States go into a wide-ranging inquiry into intelligence gathering and what the Guardian has published has certainly been in the public interest." However, Smith was backed by Julian Lewis, a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee, who said he would expect to be charged if he had released information as the Guardian had done.
He later said the debate was "disgraceful" and the minister had read his speech like a "robot". Brokenshire, for the government, said he wanted to highlight the "huge damage to national security caused by reporting attributed to the highly classified material stolen by Edward Snowden". He added: "There is no doubt Snowden's actions and publication of material stolen by him have damaged UK national security." Brokenshire said: "I cannot go into more detail of the damage done and the future damage. But we expect to lose coverage of some very dangerous individuals and groups."
However, Smith was backed by Julian Lewis, a member of the House of Commons intelligence and security committee, who said he would expect to be charged if he released information like the Guardian has done. On Tuesday a spokesperson for Guardian News & Media said Smith's speech "propagated a series of myths" about the Guardian's reporting of the Snowden documents. "When responsible journalists working on the same story share documents they are engaged in journalism not terrorism. Senior politicians and government officials in the UK and internationally, over 30 of the world's leading newspaper editors, and an overwhelming majority of the public, have all said that the Guardian's reporting on this story is important for democracy."
Responding for the government, Brokenshire said he wanted to highlight the "huge damage to national security caused by reporting attributed to the highly classified material stolen by Edward Snowden". She added: "They all agree, as does Mr Smith, that surveillance of citizens by intelligence agencies is a legitimate subject for debate. But there would be no public debate had there been no disclosure."
"There is no doubt Snowden's actions and publication of material stolen by him have damaged UK national security," he said. Davis suggested Smith should be more concerned that UK government secrets were "accessible to hundreds of thousands of US government employees", including Snowden, if he was so worried about national security.
Last night, a spokesman for Guardian News & Media said Smith's speech "propagated a series of myths about the Guardian's reporting of the Snowden documents". Paul Farrelly, Labour MP for Newcastle-Under-Lyme, said he wanted it put on the record that "none other than Obama has said some of these disclosures raise legitimate questions for our friends and allies about how these capabilities are employed". He also said the attack on the Guardian was "in danger of being misinterpreted potentially as joining the war of the Mail and other people, all because of its pursuit of phone hacking". Smith denied those accusations.
"When responsible journalists working on the same story share documents they are engaged in journalism, not terrorism," she said. "Senior politicians and government officials in the UK and internationally, over thirty of the world's leading newspaper editors, and an overwhelming majority of the public have all said that the Guardian's reporting on this story is important for democracy.
"They all agree, as does Mr Smith, that surveillance of citizens by intelligence agencies is a legitimate subject for debate. But there would be no public debate had there been no disclosure."
Davies suggested Smith should be more concerned that "UK government secrets are accessible to hundreds of thousands of US government employees", including Snowden, if he is so worried about national security.
Paul Farrelly, a Labour MP, said he wanted it put on the record that "none other than President Obama has said some of these disclosures raise legitimate questions for our friends and allies about how these capabilities are employed". He also said the attack on the Guardian is "in danger of being misinterpreted potentially as joining the war of the Mail and other people all because of its pursuit of phone hacking" - accusations which Smith denied.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.