17/01/2014 Newsnight


Should NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden be pardoned? Why did the IPCC get it so wrong about the death of Mark Duggan? Getting back in shape with Nimrod Kamer.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/01/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Today even as President Obama ordered new limits to US


surveillance practice, he was still defending the National Security


Agency. It may seem sometimes that America is being held to a different


standard. And I will admit the readiness of some to assume the


worst motives by our Government can be frustrating. Is it now time to


give an amnesty to the man who triggered all of this, Edward


Snowden. We will hear from Noam Chomsky, a former head of the Civil


Service, and a key person who monitors our terror laws. The riots,


why did the Police Complaints Authority falsely claim a victim had


shot a policeman, and why did it take so long to detract it. The fact


they knew and let the story run for days, should have led to serious


resignations. Just how far will people go to get fit in January. Our


man, Nimrod Khamer, goes the distance. Good evening. President


Obama today made it official, Edward Snowden's revelations about the


actions about the National Security Agency have changed US Government


policy on surveillance. The President announced changes to the


way phone records are collected and also promised that if he wanted to


know what world leaders and close friends and allies were thinking he


would lift the phone rather than monitor their calls. Has this


exposed a deficiency in oversight and surveillance in Britain?


President Obama's spying programme has caused shock at home and outrage


abroad. He has been under pressure to act ever since Edward Snowden


started revealing just how sweeping US surveillance powers have become.


Americans are alarmed that the Government's been hoarding


information about their phone calls. Allies like Germany's Angela Merkel


are infuriated that America has been tapping their calls. But the


President is also under pressure from Anne tell begins community


warning him not to limit their power. So, which President Obama was


at work today? The former constitutional scholar or the


Commander-in-Chief? He criticised Edward Snowden for aiding America's


adversaries, but said he didn't want to dwell on Snowden's actions.


Regardless of how we got here though, the task before us now is


greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or


preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead


we have to make some important decisions about how to protect


ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding the


civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and


constitution require. The President stopped short to demanding an end to


the bulk collection of American phone data. What he did promise was


to stop the National Security Agency from holding phone records. But


where they will be stored is up for consultation. It means the agencies


will have to get permission from a secret intelligence court to access


the data. And there's to be a public advocate to represent privacy


concerns in those courts. He's also restricting America's ability to spy


on foreign leaders. I thought it was a remarkably good speech and well


balanced. Of course it won't please people, the most vehement critics on


either side, but you never can. I think he has displayed an enormous


growth of understanding of what intelligence agencies do and why


they are important in the time he has been in office. You know when


you actually are responsible for protecting people you behave


differently than when all you have to do is talk about T he's


responsible now. Today there were yet more leaks from Edward Snowden.


This time concerning an NSA programme called Dishfire, documents


seen by the Guardian and Channel four News reveal that the NHS has


collected 200 million text messages a day from around the world.


Apparently enabling the agency to track people's where abouts,


contacts and bank details. According to the reports, GCHQ is also able to


access the database and to access information they wouldn't normally


be legally entitled to see. So do these revelations mean it is time


that the Government here followed President Obama's lead and


introduced new checks on the country's spies. Ministers refuse to


comment on the details. The Foreign Secretary said he had seen no


evidence of breaches of individuals' privacy, but there are calls for a


review of the law. GCHQ contends and indeed the Foreign Secretary has


confirmed it already today that it has always acting within a proper,


legal framework. That being so, the question for us now is whether that


legal framework is adequate to take account of the enormous


technological change which has taken place since the present legislation


of put in place. My God bless the United States of America. Thank you.


President Obama was determined not to give Edward Snowden any credit


today. But would the President even have made this speech if it hadn't


been for Snowden's revelations. Many say not. They think it is time this


exiled spy was given amnesty. I spoke to MIT professor, Noam


Chomsky, earlier this evening, who is a supporter of Edward Snowden. I


asked him whether he thought the whistleblower's actions have had an


influence on foreign policy? Not foreign policy except indirectly,


they have had a major impact on public awareness and opinion. They


have led to the exposure of many, actually literally falsehoods about


the nature of the policy and what it is alleged to have achieved. You


have called for an amnesty for Edward Snowden, but President Obama


made it pretty clear in his speech today that he thinks that the


actions of Edward Snowden will have some far reaching consequences in


relation to your adversaries, that may not be known for many years. I


have gone along with the amnesty proposals but I don't think I agree


with them. I think he should be honoured for what he did. We might


ask for amnesty for the various people engaged in major war crimes,


could easily name some, but you don't give amnesty to someone who


has done the right thing. You praise him for it. Will we know in several


years that there are negative consequences? President Obama


doesn't know any more about that than I do. Realistically there is


absolutely, I would have thought, no chance of Edward Snowden being


honoured. But on the other side, do you think there is a chance that he


will have to live out his days in Russia? Well, his coming To the end


of his Russian visa soon, we don't know what will happen then. There


might be other countries that might be willing to accept him, maybe


Brazil. It is pretty clear that most of the world is pretty frightened of


the United States. That became very obvious in the scandalous case of


the Ava Morales presidential plane travelling back to from Russia,


where European countries wouldn't allow the plane to enter their


airspace, no doubt out of fear of the United States. Which is a


vindictive power. It has made it clear at the highest level that they


are going to do anything they can to get hold of him. Noam Chomsky. Well


Lord Butler butt, the former Cabinet Secretary, chaired an inquiry into


the use of intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq War, and now sits on


the Intelligence and Security Committee. David Anderson QC is the


independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and they are with me


now. Edward Snowden has done the world a service, President Obama, as


good as admitted it in the fact that they are changing the law? If all he


had done was to draw attention to the capabilities of the intelligence


agencies and started a debate, yes, I think that is a service. It could


have happened before because actually these things had been


debated in parliament. What he has done is drawn attention to it. What


he did was to download many thousands of actual intelligence


reports and go off to Russia and China with them. We don't know that


anything adverse has happened as a result of that to US citizen,


British citizens or anybody, we don't know anything? We don't know,


but I don't think you will find the Russians and the Chinese haven't


studied these carefully or terrorists haven't studied these


carefully. Noam Chomsky said that you he would like to see him


honoured, that won't happen I don't think. What about an amnesty? I


think it is very important that in any organisation for people who come


across genuine criminality they should have the opportunity to blow


the whistle. I believe actually there are procedures in our


intelligence agencies that allow that to happen. What we can't end up


with, it seems to me, is a situation in which the likes of Mr Snowden or


indeed the editor of the Guardian, are the people who are ultimately


determining what it is the public can see and what is too secret for


them to see because of the damage caused to national security. You


think he should be charged? That is for the Americans, I don't want to


get in to what should happen to Mr Snowden. President Obama is making


clear that in a time of rapidly changing technology then privacy and


civil liberties have to be protected. Let's look at your


Intelligence Security Committee, when MI5, MI6 and GCHQ came in front


of your committee for the first time, they knew what the questions


were, why should the public have faith in that? It was the first time


they had come in front of us in public. They knew the general


subjects, but actually I thought some interesting things came out of


that. They knew the territory, they knew the questions? It hadn't been


rehearsed. No. One of the interesting things that came out was


that they said they got actual evidence of the way in which


terrorists on the basis of what Edward Snowden had revealed were


changing their habits. They say that, but why should the public have


any faith, if you are going to say you are putting the MI5 and MI6 and


GCHQ in front of a committee on accountability and you tell them


what they will be asked, where is the faith in that? It was good they


came before the committee. Part of this is the intelligence agencies


themselves showing a bit more transparency. Should they? I think


they should. So far as the Intelligence and Security Committee


is concerned, it is facing a real test. It has produced two reports in


recent years that I think people have perceived as underwhelming. One


on rendition, where I don't think they got to the bottom of t and one


on 7/7, where the inquest showed there were some things they missed.


They have an extraordinary triple now, they have got the investigation


of Woolich, that is a detailed one. They have got the whole


investigation of surveillance and the balance between liberty and


security, to top that off they have also now got the againson Inquiry


into possible complicity in torture. Those are all huge jobs. The members


of the Intelligence and Security Committee have other things do,


constituencies and parliamentary activities. I hope they are


resourced to do that. Interesting, you have been underwhelming? I can't


speak for previous committees. Have you got too much on your plate? We


have a great deal on our plate. Is it too much? Time will tell. We are


just finishing the Woolich inquiry, we have asked for evidence on the


Snowden relations and the balance between liberty and security. We're


taking on the staff that were serving the againson committee, we


will have extra staff -- Gibson committee.


The allegations about Dishfire, we know that it is incredibly complex,


the allegation is that GCHQ have circumvented UK laws by taking these


200 million texts daily, stored in the US. Our spies have accessed this


stuff which is essentially against British law. Do they have access to


Dishfire? I can't comment on that. Are you concerned about that? We


will look at it, we look at all these things. But what I can remind


you of is that during the summer it was said that GCHQ had evaded the


law by using Prism. We did look into that, and every case in which the


GCHQ had asked for information from NSA through Prism, there was a


proper warrant for it. We confirmed that. So they had always acted


within the law. Now these allegations today, I don't know, but


we will look into it. As a matter of urgency? Well yeah, of course. But


the problem with that is we actually don't know. If GCHQ is acting, as it


were, outside the law, we don't know. Are you concerned about that?


I think everybody should be concerned. I think equally they will


be wrong to think that we're dealing here with organisations that are out


of control. We don't just rely on the Intelligence and Security


Committee. We also have two intelligence commissioners who are


formidable former Court of Appeal judges who have quite respective


low-sized staffs and who spend quite a lot of their time looking into the


activities of GCHQ and other agencies, and coming to their own


conclusion that is they publish, and very few people read. Thank you very


much. Today the family of Mark Duggan,


shot dead by police in north London in 2011 received an apology from the


Independent Police Complaints Commisssion. The police watchdog


said it had wrongly told the media that he had fired at the police


before he was shot. In a damning admission, the IPCC said it knew


that the Duggan family's confidence in the commission and investigation


was damaged by mistakes made at an early stage. Where did the IPCC put


out than I correct information and why didn't it correct the record as


soon as it realised it was wrong. Here is Jim Reid.


His death sparked the worst riots in a generation. Last week a court


found police acted within the law when they shot and killed Mark


Duggan. But serious questions remain about the way the authorities


handled this case. Today the police watchdog, the IPCC, apologised to


the Duggan family for putting out misleading information in the


aftermath of the shooting. That information continuity out not just


-- turned Knott -- turned out not just to be false but inflammatory.


To look at the significance you have to look at the way events unfolded.


Mark Duggan was shot dead at six. 15pm on August fourth. A police


officer was taken to hospital after a bullet was found stuck in his


radio. Almost immediately the police watchdog was called to investigate.


The press started to call about the story. A late night spokesman at the


IPCC told the reporter that they didn't know the order in which the


shots were fired. We understand the officer was shot first before the


male was shot. A clear impression was given that gunfire had been


exchanged that evening. That a shoot out of some kind had taken place on


the streets of Tottenham. One of the reporters given that information was


from the Press Association, the news agency whose material is then sent


on to every broadcaster and newspaper in the country. The same


news was flashed up on 24-hour TV channel, that worried IPCC


investigator Colin Sparrow, at the firearms unit HQ in Whitechapel East


London. He told The next day the ballistics came


out. The bullet in the radio was a police bullet, not from the gun of


Mark Duggan, there was no dramatic firefight. But nothing was done to


correct the false impression there was a shoot out that night. Some


newspapers continued to say there had been. That afternoon Mark


Duggan's family and supporters walked to Tottenham Police Station


to protest peacefully. To put out all this misinformation, to put out


this idea that there was a shoot out when there absolutely wasn't a shoot


out and they knew. To refusing to to the family home to inform them.


These are the only reasons and sole reasons we went to Tottenham Police


Station, had they done the things they were supposed to have done we


wouldn't have gone there. Tottenham, there wouldn't have been a riot


there, and I would imagine there wouldn't have been riots in all


those other areas of London where there were riots. As riots took hold


across England the IPCC decided not to correct the full story of a shoot


out. It took another three days until the watchdog released the


results of those ballistic tests. The fact that they knew and let the


story persist should have led to resignations, seems to me. There are


two roles for IPCC in statute, one is police scrutiny and the other is


public guardianship, on both counts they failed. So, if the police


watchdog knew something was wrong, knew that false and inflammatory


information was still being reported, why didn't it do something


about it? Well, on Sunday August seventh after the first night of


rioting, it did issue a statement, warning people to ignore rumours


that Mark Duggan had been executed by police. But it didn't even


mention those false reports of a firefight. The IPCC has told


Newsnight it didn't want the results of those ballistics tests to be made


public until its own investigators could take evidence from the


firearms officers involved. That same afternoon 11 members of the


Met's elite CO-19 team sat together in a room for eight hours before


giving written statements, something allowed under the current


guidelines. The officers involved have always denied they broke any


rules or colluded inappropriately. It is a concern that has been raised


before. Most notably after the shooting of Jean Charles DeMenezes.


I think we need a team of investigative lawyers leading


investigations. We need an Independent Police Complaints


Commisssion that is more like the Crown Prosecution Service, only that


can get confidence back. Today the IPCC said armed police should be


separated after a shooting and banned from conferring. Officers


involved in the Duggan case, will also be told to answer the


watchdog's questions at an interview, something they have so


far refused to do. We asked the IPCC to come on to Newsnight tonight, but


they said they cannot be interviewed by the shooting of Mark Duggan,


until their own investigation is complete. Jeremy Clarkson is a


notorious and prodigious tweeter, more than two million people follow


him on-line. Many will see the photo of him seemingly asleep on the


plane, surrounded by Top Gear colleagues, next to a piece of paper


with a message scrawled on it, which some would find offensive. "Sadly I


fell asleep on the plane" when the image was shared on-line. He later


deleted the tweet and wanted to apologise to anyone who was upset by


the tweet. Joining me is the rugby player turned Strictly star and


anti-bullying campaigner. You have seen the picture, what do you think


of it? Initially I was shocked at the word "gay" used in an offensive


manner. The horrible swear word offensive to women any way. It was


disappointing to see that. Again you know, we know that Clarkson is very


close to the bone in the stuff he Does. And the power of social media


and why we are here talking about it. He has to be a role model and


can't be seen to be doing the wrong thing. Personally I think we need to


educate the next beginlation to understand what gay means, and not


in a casual homophobic way with him sleeping on a plane alongside


offensive wear words. Again, he's in the public eye, on one of the


biggest TV shows in England with Top Gear. You know, it is a shame that


you know it has come to this point of him being smeared across the


papers. But I think that personally he has afollow -- apologised, and


how can we draw the positives out in some respects and use what he has


done to educate people about it and say he has done wrong and apologised


and taken it off Twitter. Now we need to use that and say that's not


acceptable in a social media environment. It wasn't exactly a


fulsome apology. What I wonder is you are very acutely aware of


bullying, I wondered if you were the son of a father who was a big Top


Gear fan and you saw that, and you were a son that was gay and perhaps


hadn't come out. What impact a tweet like that would have. Clarkson's


followers are also kids? Yeah, absolutely. You know not only in


this country, you know Top Gear is global. Ultimately you know the word


"gay" at the moment, especially in playgrounds is used in casual way,


casual homophobia in playgrounds is rife, it can be "faggot", "homo" or


"gay". If you are the father of a child in the closet or mother, one


you probably might not know, for that reason, when that child might


not want to come out and think actually if I come out what will I


be subjected to. If it all right to see star on TV doing that, he's


portraying that is OK and perreceiving that is OK. It is the


knock-on effects it has. Bearing in mind we have come a long way. 20


years ago it was racism and it has taken that next generation to drive


a cultural change. Homophobia is where racism was 20 years ago. There


is a lot of work to be done. And it does start by educating the next


generation of youngsters. That is how I perceive it. Do you think he


should do a bit of penance? I can't hear you. Do you think he should do


penance? I can't hear you, sorry, good night.


We wanted to talk to Jeremy Clarkson tonight but we were unable to


contact him. January is traditionally the month


when people sometimes make rash decisions to go dry, go low-carb,


get fit fast. The Sunday supplements are full of fitness programmes


promising to change your life and the clothes and gears to go with it.


The new fad is Extreme Fittness, we sent Nimrod Khamer out to look at


four of the latest crazes. Hydrospining, which combines cycling


and swimming is huge in France, and only just now arrived in the UK. I


went to check it out. The resistance is 12-times higher than with air,


because you are inside the water. So you burn much more calories, now you


are inside the water, I want you to go much quicker. Go on. She gave me


a challenge to hit the record speed of 60 kms per hour. I'm not sure you


have the perfect position. It was a little bit tougher than I thought.


40. 50 if you want to challenge. You want to maybe film the numbers!


After all that exercise, I needed something less strenuous and more


relaxing, like yoga with your dog. Doga! So the dog was chosen because


he is the most comfortable? He's man's best friend and they like to


be touched and they are very complimentry to the owner. This is


the breed that I -- breathing that I use. You have to lift your eyes and


go "hah", "hah". Lift him up. : I'm not going to lie it was weird and it


got even weirder. Row, row, row the boat


# Gently down the stream... . What are you doing with your feet


Breathe into your waistline. Use that breath. Just stay still, let's


do it again, I'm going to give you a little squash and we're going to


breathe together. Breathe, push your hips up. Inhale! Lift up, lift up,


lift up. There, push into your arms, straighten t arms. I had a good


time, but my sternest test was still to come.


I went to a session called Vikings and Valkaries, designed to separate


the men from the boys. Take it up with momentum push. Down, down,


down. Try the technique. Just pretend I'm wrecking it. You have to


grab both hands. We have some big kit and see great results for people


who come not being able to lift the tyre within an inch, and within a


few weeks they are flipping it five or six times up and down the track.


Heave, heave. Heave. I had held my own against some seriously big guy,


but wanted to try something more cardiovascular. The new tip after


work activity all Overgrown town, is exercise and raving, Raveosise. She


showed us the move and we had to copy her. There is no alcohol, it is


healthy and it is a fun thing to do after work and it gets you fit


really. I had loads of fun, but after a long day of extreme exercise


I felt raved out. But I guess that's the point. Nimrod Khamer, clearly


loved Doga the best. Tomorrow morning's front


25 leading charities urge David Cameron to open Britain's doors to


its share of the most vulnerable refugees. And finally on the


That's it for tonight. Jeremy back on Monday. We leave you the work of


the University of Queensland's Global University Institute, they


spent years filming coral and then speeding the images


Good evening, today's heavy showers have cleared away,


Download Subtitles