- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

Snowden’s Ride, Part 13: Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda and Destructive Counterintelligence

[1]

Glenn Green­wald and David Miran­da

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [2] (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT: A very inter­est­ing sto­ry con­cern­ing the detain­ment of of Glenn Green­wald’s part­ner David Miran­da at Heathrow Air­port sheds a poten­tial­ly defin­ing light on “Snow­den’s Ride.”

(Our series on this is long, com­plex and mul­ti-lay­ered: Part I [3]Part II [4]Part III [5]Part IV [6]Part V [7]Part VI [8]Part VII [9], Part VIII [10]Part IX [11]Part X [12], Part XI [13], Part XII [14]Part XIII [15]Part XIV [16]Part XV [17]Part XVI [18]Part XVII [19]Part XVIII [20]Part XIX [21]It is impos­si­ble to do jus­tice to this analy­sis with­in the scope of this post. Please digest the rest of the mate­r­i­al, in order to come to terms with what we are pre­sent­ing.)

A Dai­ly Tele­graph arti­cle [22] quotes a British offi­cial’s state­ment that among the mate­ri­als con­fis­cat­ed from Miran­da con­tained some very sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion.

British secu­ri­ty offi­cial Oliv­er Rob­bins stat­ed that Miran­da was car­ry­ing; ” ‘per­son­al infor­ma­tion of UK intel­li­gence offi­cers, any com­pro­mise of which would result in a risk to their lives and those of their fam­i­ly mem­bers.’ Rob­bins argued that if this data had got into the pub­lic sphere then it would have made spies and their loved ones vul­ner­a­ble to attack or recruit­ment by hos­tile forces. He said that the mate­r­i­al was, ‘high­ly like­ly to describe tech­niques which have been cru­cial in life-sav­ing counter-ter­ror­ist oper­a­tions, and oth­er intel­li­gence activ­i­ties vital to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty.’ Com­pro­mis­ing it ‘would do seri­ous dam­age to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty and ulti­mate­ly risk lives’.

Sev­er­al thoughts come to mind:

“David Miran­da Accused of Car­ry­ing Secrets that Threat­ened Spies’ Lives. This Looks Bad for Glenn” by Tim Stan­ley; The Tele­graph; 8/20/2013. [22]

EXCERPT: Remem­ber that a cou­ple of weeks ago Glenn Green­wald’s hus­band was stopped at Heathrow air­port, detained and had his elec­tron­ic equip­ment seized? Well, we now have some idea of what was on it – and it does­n’t make Glenn look good.

The high court has just grant­ed the police pow­ers to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into pos­si­ble crimes of ter­ror­ism and breach­es of the Offi­cial Secrets Act as a result of analysing some of the data tak­en from Miran­da. And what was that data? The Gov­ern­men­t’s accessed just a small por­tion of an aston­ish­ing 58,000 pages of intel­li­gence doc­u­ments and, accord­ing to a wit­ness state­ment by Oliv­er Rob­bins, deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er to the Cab­i­net, it includes: “per­son­al infor­ma­tion of UK intel­li­gence offi­cers, any com­pro­mise of which would result in a risk to their lives and those of their fam­i­ly mem­bers.” Rob­bins argued that if this data had got into the pub­lic sphere then it would have made spies and their loved ones vul­ner­a­ble to attack or recruit­ment by hos­tile forces. He said that the mate­r­i­al was, “high­ly like­ly to describe tech­niques which have been cru­cial in life-sav­ing counter-ter­ror­ist oper­a­tions, and oth­er intel­li­gence activ­i­ties vital to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty.” Com­pro­mis­ing it “would do seri­ous dam­age to UK nation­al secu­ri­ty and ulti­mate­ly risk lives”. The Gov­ern­ment will now seek to dis­cov­er if that com­pro­mise has tak­en place.

Miran­da’s lawyer said in reply that, “Mr Miran­da does not accept the asser­tions they have made.” Pre­sum­ably, this means that he does not accept the asser­tion that the data he was car­ry­ing threat­ened UK nation­al secu­ri­ty and even the lives of its oper­a­tives. Yet this some­what con­tra­dicts some­thing Miran­da told The Guardian two weeks ago. Back then, he said, “I don’t look at doc­u­ments. I don’t even know if it was doc­u­ments that I was car­ry­ing.” So if he did­n’t look at the doc­u­ments, how can he know that they did­n’t include the kind of infor­ma­tion that the UK Gov­ern­ment alleges? . . . .