fb-pixelEditor of Guardian grilled on Edward Snowden files - The Boston Globe Skip to main content

Editor of Guardian grilled on Edward Snowden files

Defends decision to run stories based on leaks

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the British newspaper The Guardian, was questioned on his patriotism and whether he violated the law.Andy Rain/EPA

LONDON — Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger vigorously defended his decision to publish articles based on the secret files of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, telling a parliamentary committee hearing on Tuesday that the right to continue pursuing the story goes to the heart of press freedoms and democracy in Britain.

The hearing on the Guardian’s handling of intelligence data leaked by Snowden, who is living in self-imposed exile in Moscow, drew the attention of free-speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Rusbridger faced more than an hour of questioning by Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee on counterterrorism, testifying in what at times descended into a combative grilling of both the Guardian and its editor.

Advertisement



Along with The Washington Post, the Guardian, a London-based news outlet with a print circulation under 200,000 but online readers numbering in the many millions, was the first to publish reports based on the Snowden leaks. In response, British authorities have acted far more aggressively than US or other European officials, launching what Rusbridger and international free-speech advocates have decried as a campaign of ‘‘intimidation” against the paper. Actions taken include the coerced destruction of Snowden data at the Guardian’s London headquarters and public denunciations by Prime Minister David Cameron.

A number of left-leaning politicians appeared to cheer the editor on for shedding light on the extreme lengths US and British intelligence agencies have gone to in their global information-gathering efforts. But others, particularly Conservative lawmakers, challenged the decision to publish and pressed Rusbridger on whether he had violated British law.

Mark Reckless, a Conservative, questioned Rusbridger about the Guardian’s decision to share the trove of 58,000 Snowden files it had received — including documents containing the names of British intelligence operatives — with the New York Times. Names, Rusbridger said, were not redacted before being handed over because of the vast resources that would have required.

Advertisement



Reckless said the decision appeared to violate British counterterrorism laws. He then asked Rusbridger whether he thought he should be prosecuted for allowing such a transfer.

Rusbridger responded, ‘‘I think it depends on your view of a free press.”

Earlier in the hearing, Labor lawmaker Keith Vaz questioned Rusbridger about testimony last month in which John Sawers, head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, told lawmakers that the Guardian’s decision to publish had the country’s enemies ‘‘rubbing their hands with glee.” Vaz then bluntly asked Rusbridger, ‘‘Do you love this country?”

‘‘I’m slightly surprised to be asked the question, but yes, we are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of democracy, the nature of a free press, and the fact that one can, in this country, discuss and report these things,” Rusbridger responded.

The Guardian’s right to publish the leaked Snowden files has been defended by leading free-speech advocates, with the hearing on Tuesday prompting several protest letters, including one in which US journalist Carl Bernstein described Rusbridger’s forced appearance Tuesday as ‘‘dangerously pernicious.” After the hearing, Padraig Reidy, spokesman for Index on Censorship, a London-based free-speech organization, called it a worrying sign.

‘‘The government has been reassuring us for the last few years that politicians will never interfere,” he said. Tuesday’s interrogation showed that ‘‘when a story comes out they don’t like, they start making threatening noises,” he added.

Advertisement



Rusbridger said that the Guardian had thus far published only 1 percent of the data trove. He said the paper had consulted government agencies on both sides of the Atlantic more than 100 times.

‘‘We will continue to consult them, but we are not going to be put off by intimidation,” he said, adding, ‘‘but nor are we going to behave recklessly.”