12/10/2013 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline, the most catastrophic loss to British

intelligence ever. Is that really what Edward Snowden has done? The

American shutdown and the kidnapping of the Prime Minister of Liberia ——

The former head of Britain's Alick Tronic eavesdropping organisation ——

Alick Tronic. Reckons that what intelligence. Are they right? We

have to take their word for it, intelligence. Are they right? We

most shocking surveillance programme of ordinary civilians in peace time

Guardian's instincts were right of ordinary civilians in peace time

Guardian's instincts were right here, as I have said in print. You

are not a fan of the Guardian, but on this... Absolutely. What was

revealed about the surveillance on this... Absolutely. What was

ordinary people's e—mail traffic and Internet browsing, this is truly

shocking in a free society and it did have to be exposed. A good day

for British journalism, then? Yes. Whenever you managed to get at those

who want to transgress their duties under a democratic system it is

always good. I have a slight problem as well, as far as the threat to

journalism is concerned, someone says something and you print, where

is the journalist? The journalist be the mediator otherwise we have

citizen journalists who take photos and videos with the telephone in one

hand and whistle—blowers on the other. And the journalists are

excluded. What are you saying there? In terms of Edward Snowden, he may

have a case to answer. He is in In terms of Edward Snowden, he may

different position to a Guardian journalist. Of course, these are two

different things. But there is a story that someone like Edward

The former head of GCHQ in very Snowden has borrowed some documents

The former head of GCHQ in very exaggerated terms, what is he going

to do about the consequences? No case has been brought to anybody in

Britain. The Prime Minister has case has been brought to anybody in

that has happened, why don't they do exaggeration this is the greatest

that has happened, why don't they do anything about it? I think you need

to examine those claims. They made this month you have the national

security director at admitting these collection had stopped. It was

connection with the US, and in the end he had to say it was only one or

two. To say it was the biggest security breach for the US and the

UK, it might be objectively true in terms of the documents, but the

UK, it might be objectively true in of threat that they are positing it

poses, I am not so sure. The public, increasingly sceptical of this kind

of thing. There is a difference between what is embarrassing to

of thing. There is a difference and other parts of the security

apparatchiks and what is actually damaging. The case of being is

obvious, but damage, the case has not been made. They are not supposed

to be enemies any more, we are not in the Cold War. He should have

to be enemies any more, we are not talk about anything. There is no

particular evidence of a direct route from Moscow... Given what

Snowden also revealed about the governments, perhaps who is an enemy

president engaged in a debate. The and who is not an enemy is neither

president engaged in a debate. The whole country engaged in a debate.

this is extremely damaging instead intelligence would come out and

When this happens, the Chinese saw it as shocking, but also a delight.

China has had this history, and it as shocking, but also a delight.

written criticising the government. It was a huge piece of news. And

now, the level or the magnitude It was a huge piece of news. And

surveillance is huge. In America and in the UK. It is making the Chinese

look rather low scale. The British security services are a source of

relaxed James Bond. These are guys who are basically public school

types and we can basically trust them not to do anything terrible.

But there is also the fact, I am sorry to say, that this was in the

Guardian and the Guardian is not a popular newspaper with the rest

Guardian and the Guardian is not a the press because of the phone

hacking thing of which sparked off resulted in this threat of press

regulation. The Guardian is the resulted in this threat of press

boy at the moment and the rest of the newspapers are reluctant to

offer their support or engage with bad time for those who wish to

are not strictly connected, people regulate the press. Although the two

are not strictly connected, people press would stop this sort of thing

This would be stopped and this would This would be stopped and this

be a bad thing, many people would say. There is another argument which

tabloid newspapers have provoked is an horrendous mess. The British

We have libel laws which attracts is an horrendous mess. The British

We have libel laws which attracts tourism! We have contempt of court

laws in which an editor can actually go to prison. This would be unheard

of in the United States were the first Amendment protects freedom of

expression of all—time —— of all kinds. The idea we need a specific

generation of politicians able to control or monitor regulate the

press is horrendous. I am reluctant to accept any special law about

this. Wide EU need a special law for the press? There are lots of laws

which could be applied when the press does anything wrong. —— why do

you need. Phone hacking is not part of journalism, it is not part of the

press, it is an ordinary crime which courts. In a democracy, to think you

are going to have a special law courts. In a democracy, to think you

the press is bad news. As Janet suggested, some sections of the

press have not made their own case very well in the sense they are

press have not made their own case so open to corrections and putting

things right. They run a big story which is proved to be wrong. Most

good journalists would say, if you get it wrong, you should say so

good journalists would say, if you reasonably prominent position. There

has certainly been cases like that, but right now you have a consensus

within the media that changes need regulation. It is just a matter

within the media that changes need how you make that better regulation

rights and freedom of free speech, happen. Back to your original point,

rights and freedom of free speech, but some people are saying that

Snowden was wrong and it is damaging to the United States and we should

do more of this. We should spy on the bad guys. I think the idea of

revealing that we spy on the bad guys helps them is ridiculous. If

there are terrorists out there who think their phones are not being

tapped into... Do you think there is a spill—over into regulations?

Because of Snowden, although it a spill—over into regulations?

not directly connected, some people will think we need to do more? I

intelligence service, shouldn't will think we need to do more? I

be a point of debate rather than whether we should regulate the

journalists? I think there are two issues here, the Guardian and the

journalism, and the issue which issues here, the Guardian and the

bigger one, that there is a huge surveillance programme on regulated.

Normal individuals, this massive magnitude, all of the technology

information. Is that absolutely necessary for security? Those who

are in charge, politicians in charge necessary for security? Those who

are in charge, politicians in charge of security services, they say trust

e—mails are safe. Do you trust us, it is all fine. We obey the

table there. William Hague actually them? It all went very quiet at

table there. William Hague actually said in the House of Commons, if you

have done nothing wrong, you have another danger if you just talk

about it like that in a mocking another danger if you just talk

it will encourage cynicism. If we trusts anybody, how can a democracy

work? No matter what structure. Exactly. You cannot play with this

idea, be cynical about it and then leave it. The government does claim

it has political oversight over leave it. The government does claim

security services. You have two check it. Check the voracity of

security services. You have two William Hague has said. But by

definition security services cannot be open and transparent. You have

Parliament... It is a trust problem. regulating them... Otherwise where

would it end? Trust in politicians is at an all—time low. When I lived

in the United States, the three is at an all—time low. When I lived

difficult stories to explain to is at an all—time low. When I lived

audiences were the American love affair with guns, why some people do

not believe in evolution and wide from time to time at the American

government grinds to a halt. The American shutdown does not seem

government grinds to a halt. The benefit anyone, does it? You need to

look at who is going to be most benefit anyone, does it? You need to

by it. It is not true that President Obama's ratings are going up, but

shutdown? The polls are showing Obama's ratings are going up, but

Republican party responsible. The majority of Americans feel it is the

Republican party responsible. The Republican Party's ratings are at an

all—time low at 24%. What you have here is a situation of a party that

essentially stopping President Obama's health policy. They are

them is if they have a tea party willing to have the government shuts

them is if they have a tea party candidate, or someone on the right

things have been gerrymandered, candidate, or someone on the right

do not have to worry about the seats. The federal government is the

one that has gridlocked, state governments almost never do. The

system of checks and balances has breaks, but no pedal, which means it

can freeze up when the legislative branch disagrees with the executive

American children learn in school that the executive in forces the

law, the legislative enforces the law and either of those bodies can

things. The Congress is a democratic institution. This is built into

things. The Congress is a democratic Constitution and it happens at

regular intervals. Particularly Constitution and it happens at

Congress having the power to prove the budget. I do think it is a

single issue. Congress has not They have had this issue for a long

faction of a party that is trying to They have had this issue for a long

faction of a party that is trying to stop from being implemented a law

using mechanisms... But it is a stop from being implemented a law

using mechanisms... But it is a immediate problem is Obamacare,

using mechanisms... But it is a it is also about high spending

government. They built Washington on government. The point about the

government. They built Washington on a swamp in order to dissuade people

from steam too long. The federal government was not supposed to have

too much power and these constraints which make it inherently difficult

to do anything where built in quite deliberately. Every system is built

emotional reaction to the monarchies of Europe, the Constitution was

made. It is not only about the Republican Party or the President,

this is a country that doesn't work. Not all me on this occasion, but

throughout the past 30 years at least, the USA has been like this.

They have to go back and find a system that will enable them to

allowing them to government. Govern. These kind of enquiries, it does

seem dysfunctional. Absolutely, These kind of enquiries, it does

it is built into the constitution. This is fundamental, this conflict.

Amendments to the Constitution are constitution was passed 200 years

ago and distinct web every now and It is a wider debate, as Janet said.

America can get its budget under It is a wider debate, as Janet said.

America can get its budget under There is an ideological divide here.

But it is about the size and power of government. They will talk about

generation of politicians. Ronald Reagan was able to reach across

generation of politicians. Ronald floor, so was Bill Clinton. This

president has been very reluctant to When Britain and France — with a

great deal of backing from the United States — helped Libyans

overthrow Colonel Gaddafi it was hailed as a great moment for the

Arab Spring. Now with the oil shut off and after the brief kidnapping

of the Prime Minister — are we right to think that foreign intervention

mistake? Libya doesn't look very good at the moment. On the surface,

no, but there is no Colonel Gaddafi, prisoners, there is no torture.

no, but there is no Colonel Gaddafi, new generation of businessmen,

politicians and journalists are being trained. But the first time,

there are the newspapers, free radio, people are talking about

there are the newspapers, free rights of the black Libyans in the

South and the rights of religious Libya is a kind of work in progress.

society has its own grammar, its own television bulletin to another,

language. You must understand, Libya language. You must understand, Libya

artificial, created with bits and is not the USA, where every five

artificial, created with bits and pieces from other empires. It is a

huge country, three and a half times the size of France. Give them a

Optimistic, Janet? I do think the chance. I am rather optimistic.

Optimistic, Janet? I do think the question of whether the West student

intervened is a serious one, and I am always inclined to be on the

intervened is a serious one, and I patronising of that part of the

world is unfortunate. There were people going around at one time

saying, Arabs don't do democracy. By that that was a racist thing to

saying, Arabs don't do democracy. By We didn't do democracy until very

recently. I think the idea that We didn't do democracy until very

West did intervene when a tinpot dictator is persecuting or murdering

there's any question that we should do that. It gets messy when we try

to with drop, but I still think do that. It gets messy when we try

moral obligation is there. Do you think it will take a long time?

moral obligation is there. Do you question is not that Libya has not

become a democracy until it is a failure. Maybe Libya will mother

become a democracy. But for the first time, Libya has the choice to

make their own mistakes. Maybe they will make a mess of it, but it is

responsibility. When we talk about foreign intervention, it is easy to

intervention by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In the case of Syria, there

intervention at one point, but it has now passed because of the mix of

ideologies and different kinds of intervenes and it gets demonised

normally tend to take the view of intervenes and it gets demonised

Libyans can make their own mistakes. not intervening. It is great that

Libyans can make their own mistakes. In fact, internal fears get very

messy and you can't watch genocide happen in countries without taking a

stand, but when do we go in, when does the West go in to set up shop

and then leave? What happened in the middle east has been wonderful in

the way that it happened from within the people, the mass. For me, the

West should take a constrained stand and should let the people perhaps

make their own mistakes. After all, Mohammed Carr as I in Afghanistan

was very clear this week. He said Western intervention was disastrous

for his country. Maybe now he's Western intervention was disastrous

the end of his term, you says that, but when he was at the beginning of

his term, it was different. His bodyguards were Americans, for God

's sake. The Americans came there and liberated the Afghans from the

worst Islamic regime that I know, as somebody who has studied Islam very

the pits. They stopped people in the carefully. The Taliban were really

the pits. They stopped people in the bizarre and measured their beard. If

your beard wasn't long enough, they bizarre and measured their beard. If

after, it is their problem, it is compared to the way it was before,

nobody else's problem. That's it for nobody else's problem. That's it

this week. We are back next week at this week. We are back next week at

the same time. You can comment on the programme on Twitter @gavinesler