UPDATE: 18 questions for the @Guardian

Image

UPDATE: It would appear that – if Buzzfeed is right – an employee/s or agent/s of the New York Times and/or the Guardian knowingly and willingly smuggled life-endangering stolen intelligence across our borders:

Now the Times or an agent for the paper, too, appears to have carried digital files from the United Kingdom across international lines into the United States. Discussions of how to partner on the documents were carried out in person between top Guardian editors and Times executive editor Jill Abramson, all of whom declined to comment on the movement of documents. But it appears likely that someone at one of the two papers physically carried a drive with Snowden’s GCHQ leaks from London to New York or Washington — exactly what Miranda was stopped at Heathrow for doing.

Remember, the Guardian said they agreed to destroy their computers – all of them – that contained the intel; they professed that they did not know what David Miranda was carrying – I believe their corduroy pants to be on fire even as we speak.

If they lied and kept copies and physically shifted the data, the UK and US intelligence agencies should go after them full throttle for espionage. At the bottom of this blog we have the police opening a criminal investigation into Miranda - remember the relief against that bit is only temporary – for transporting this data… if the Guardian have done it, they should be pursued in exactly the same way. Same with the New York Times.

Being a journalist doesn’t allow you to traffic in intel that can endanger lives OR impair the ability of the UK to conduct its intelligence capabilities: The Miranda judge said that clearly today in his draft judgement.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/queen-on-application-of-miranda-sshd.pdf

  1. It is also significant that one of the exceptions in Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to the protection for journalistic sources and in Article 10(2) is where the interests of national security require disclosure. In X v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) [1996] 1 AC 1 at 43 it was stated that, once it is shown that disclosure will serve one of the interests specified in Section 10, ie. national security and interests of justice, “the necessity of disclosure follows almost automatically”.
  1. The court also considered inspection and disclosure for the purpose of protecting national security, including by preventing or avoiding the endangering the life of any person or the diminution of the counter-terrorism capability of Her Majesty’s Government (the terms of the exclusion from the undertaking the defendants were prepared to make) should be permitted in the limited period until 30 August, notwithstanding the high importance of protecting journalistic sources

We should also ask why the Guardian is panicking and has run to America (possibly with a copy of the Snowden data it would have been lying about not retaining in the UK).

I speculate, because RIPA and TACT were correctly used to force Miranda to share his passwords: and the UK government and police now have a whole bunch of stuff on Greenwald, Poitras, Miranda, Snowden, Wikileaks and the complicity of the Guardian. They know our guys – and the Americans – have them bang to rights and criminal charges and indictments for Greenwald et al may well be coming down the pipe.

Thanks once more to our security forces at Heathrow for their immense work in catching Greenwald and his non-citizen mule red-handed.

—————————————————————————————

 

1. Why did you initially lie about David Miranda not being offered a lawyer, and then fail  andto correct the record all day long?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ.

2. Why did you alter the original story that included this lie, wiping the fact that it was Glenn Greenwald who filed it?

http://www.trendingcentral.com/who-wrote-the-guardians-initial-report-on-david-miranda/

3. Having known all day long that Miranda had been offered a lawyer, why did you only run your interview with him admitting this at 10pm, after other UK papers had gone to bed and could not correct their supportive editorials?

4. Why did you first give the entire British press the misinformation that David Miranda was merely your journalist’s husband, when he had been paid by you to work on and “assist in the story”?

5. Since you claim the high ground on “press freedom” I am sure you will wish to be transparent, and address claims that you were not engaging in “journalism” here at all, but instead knowingly abetting espionage. Here we go:

You state

The Guardian paid for Miranda’s flights. Miranda is not an employee of the Guardian. As Greenwald’s partner, he often assists him in his work and the Guardian normally reimburses the expenses of someone aiding a reporter in such circumstances

You paid for David Miranda’s flights and expenses because, you claim, he was “assisting Glenn Greenwald” in his work.

But how was he assisting Glenn Greenwald? If he was transporting purely “journalistic materials”  why did Greenwald not use FedEx? If the data needed to be secure, why not use a P2P fileshare site? Why did the Guardian approve paying Miranda’s expenses when there are direct flights from Berlin to Rio that Poitras and Greenwald could have used?

Is it because Glenn Greenwald explained to you that as a US citizen he could not email, transport, or securely share stolen information about US and UK intelligence operations against foreign regimes without committing a serious felony and needed to use his husband as a mule?

In that case is not Guardian Media Group corporately responsible for abetting espionage against the United States and United Kingdom?

6. The question of “Exactly HOW was David Miranda “assisting” in the story while your paper was paying him to do so” arises even more strongly when we look at Miranda’s statements to US TV. Here is a video of him and Greenwald talking to Anderson Cooper at CNN. You will want to slide the cursor to 5:05.

Here you will note Miranda’s hilarious “not me guv” pretence of not being a mule and Glenn Greenwald’s corresponding smirk sitting next to him.

Miranda: “I don’t know that… I was just taking the fi- … those materials back to Glenn. You know Glenn been working with a lot of stories along the years…I didn’t quite follow everything that he writes every day…I can’t follow him, because I have to have a life.”

Get that, Mr. Rusbridger? Your man “assisting on the story” says that he doesn’t even know what this story is about, he wasn’t even paying attention to it, because he “has to have a life”.

In what way then was he assisting in the story and why was the Guardian paying for his flights and expenses – unless the paper knew that Miranda was needed to physically transport stolen classified US intelligence because, unlike Greenwald and Poitras, he is not a US citizen?

For what reason did you not ask Mr. Greenwald why flights and expenses were necessary for Mr. Miranda?

How precisely did you understand Mr. Miranda to be “assisting a reporter in his work”?

Assuming you knew that David Miranda was transporting incredibly damaging, life-threatening CIA and GCHQ national intelligence, how is the Guardian Media Group not complicit in this?

7. If the GMG is indeed complicit, through knowledge and payment, in the cross border smuggling of stolen NSA and GCHQ data, why should not the US authorities and the Home Secretary prepare corporate and criminal charges against the Guardian, David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras?

8. I believe it to be the case (I am open to correction) that Mr. Rusbridger has stated he did not know what David Miranda was carrying. Is this not completely disingenuous, as the only way he would have paid for the flights would be he suspected a human mule was necessary to transport the dangerous files?

9. Alan Rusbridger tweeted what he claimed was a photo of a smashed Macbook destroyed by security services. In fact, the internet soon proved there were parts from at least four computers in the picture. Why was the Guardian storing unbelievably dangerous material that threatens our national security on as many as four office computers, at least, that could easily be remotely hacked by any number of foreign spy agencies?

10. On a total of how many drives and computers did the Guardian copy this material?

11. On a total of how many basic office computers around the world has Guardian Media Group made copies of this material?

12. You know that on Portugese TV your reporter Glenn Greenwald threatened revenge exposure of British spy agencies, & that Mr. Rusbridger claimed this would not happen. Yet yesterday the Independent newspaper exposed a top secret British base working against our enemies in the Middle East, thereby endangering British intelligence efforts against terrorism and the lives of British intelligence agents?

13. Did the Guardian Media Group or, to your knowledge, any of its employees, particularly Mr. Greenwald, leak this incredibly damaging story that endangers UK intel to the Independent, out of a desire for revenge?

14. Why did you assert that Mr. Miranda was carrying “journalistic materials” if you claim you had no idea what he was carrying?

15. Why do you assert that journalism – reporting about a story or news item – is the same as possessing, smuggling, and copying, stolen classified intelligence information that endangers the life and work of British intelligence agents?

16. In deciding to insecurely hold this information on multiple office computers and goodness knows what other means, were you aware that (again speaking in a foreign language) your “reporter” Glenn Greenwald said to Argentina’s La Nacion:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-in-this-spy-story-the-state-is-not-so-clearcut-a-villain-8777943.html

Last month, Greenwald told the Argentinian daily newspaper, La Nacion, that Snowden had “enough information to cause more harm to the US government in a single minute than any other person has ever had”

If you are not aware of this, why not? If you are aware of this, why is Guardian Media Group storing this information on insecure basic office computers?

17. Since Mr. Greenwald has made you aware of the incredibly damaging and dangerous nature of this information, why have you not supplied copies to the US and UK governments, so that they can see what Snowden has leaked to China, Russia and Wikileaks, and take steps to protect the lives of their agents and intelligence assets – lives that you and Guardian Media Group are well aware are now at risk from exposure?

Because you yourselves have said you have held back even more damaging and identifying material, you clearly have had sight of it. Why are you not allowing the US and UK to also have sight of it so we can protect our people? Do you literally not care about their lives, knowing full well they’re endangered by your reporter, Glenn Greenwald?

18. Why are you disabling questions on the ironically-named “Comment is Free” on your Greenwald articles? Is it because you have no shame?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10259658/Scotland-Yard-launch-criminal-investigation-over-David-Miranda-data.html

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, appearing for Scotland Yard to oppose a legal challenge by Mr Miranda, said: “That which has been inspected contains, in the view of the police, highly sensitive material the disclosure of which would be gravely injurious to public safety and thus the police have now initiated a criminal investigation.

“I am not proposing to say anything else which might alert potential defendants here or abroad to the nature and the ambit of the criminal investigation which has now been started.”

He added that the material amounted to “tens of thousands of highly classified UK documents”.

The Guardian/Observer and the Indonesian Farting God

Madsen2

Why so coy, Guardian and Observer Weakend?

We all know you pulled your front page splash from the Observer on NSA snooping, after Twitter pointed out that your source, Wayne Madsen, was a grade A nut job.

Today and last night, the apparently real Twitter account @WMRDC posted the following:

The real “fruit loops”: Michael Moynihan, Damian Thompson, “Prof” John Schindler, Louise Mensch, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

Me and Michael Moynihan? Charles Johnson? Damian Thompson? Too kind, sir, too kind.

I then went through and had a little look at Mr. Madsen’s account. Apparently it is real, as it has been posted links to his nutjob website since 2009. I thought I would treat you all to a few of his previously posted tweets, all easy to see on his recent stream and available to the staff of the Guardian and the Observer.

UK sex scandal: It’s Bo Jo and Sam Cam (Mayor of London and PM’s wife). More at http://WayneMadsenReport.com 

Was Obama’s mother a secret worshiper of an Indonesian farting dwarf god? Today at http://WayneMadsenReport.com 

Evidence that Cheney had Saddam’s chief banker murdered to steal his money. Today at http://WayneMadsenReport.com 

Is Obama a member of a secretive sect – the Subud? Today at http://WayneMadsenReport.com 

More evidence emerges of Breivik’s links to Israel. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

New 9/11 information points to domestic treason terrorism behind attacks. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Arabic-speaking Mossad teams directed 9/11 “hijacking” cells. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Was Obama’s mother a CIA economic hit woman? Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Murder of GCHQ man fits old British intelligence modus operandi. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Proof: CIA actively recruited at Occidental when Obama was student. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Add Obama’s maternal grandfather to list of CIA family members. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Is Obama a real-life “Manchurian Candidate?” Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

The CIA connections of President Obama’s father. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

The CIA-Mossad-Saudi network that launched Al Qaeda. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Obama’s gay Chicago past linked to murder of Obama’s former church’s choir director. Today at WayneMadsenReport.com

Wow. Personally, I’m really impressed by the Obamas, aren’t you? They’re like the Corleones, but Hawaian. Or like that family in Spy Kids or something. Mother! Father! Grandfather! Son! All CIA agents! Members of the secret Sudud society! And worshippers of the Indonesian Farting God!

You don’t mess with the Indonesian Farting God, boyeee.

Now according to this impeccable source, The Observer actually had their splash on the first editions of the physical paper on Sunday, but unlike them, I would prefer to actually double check it.

Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) who broke the massively important #Snowden story was clearly embarrassed by this epic journalistic FUBAR. He personally had nothing to do with the story, but it is not good enough to say that the Guardian and Observer are separate. They are clearly not separate. The story was front page on the Guardian website, under the Guardian brand; the Guardian must take responsibility.

The Daily Beast also alleges that the writer appears not even to have spoken to Madsen, his “source”, and to have plagiarised a blog called “PrivacySurgeon.org”:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/01/nsa-nutjob-anatomy-of-a-fake-observer-story.html

And overlooked by those piling on The Observer was the rather significant fact that the paper appears not to have spoken to Madsen, instead mining quotes from an interview he gave to a blog called  PrivacySurgeon.org. (Indeed, some of Doward’s language is very similar to the source material, but why kick a man when he’s down?)

The Guardian’s US Editor responded on Twitter that they had removed the story, to which Harry Cole provided the perfect riposte:

@janinegibson: Observerstory, taken down while editors look at it.” <- They’re meant to do that before you publish it.

So a few questions remain for that beacon of transparency and of getting other journalists locked up, the Guardian:

1. Did your reporter plagiarise his Madsen quotes, and/or language, from a blog as suggested by the Daily Beast?

2. Did your reporter even speak to Wayne Madsen?

3. Did your reporter google or search the Twitter feed of Madsen and if not, why not?

4. Why are you pretending that the Guardian and the Observer are separate when they have the same editor and the story was front page on the Guardian website?

5. If they are separate, why was it @JanineGibson, Twit Bio “Editor in Chief, Guardian US” who responded and pulled the story?

6. Why did “editors look at” a front page story only after the Internet had Fisked it? What is the Guardian/Observer’s practice in terms of editorial checking on major stories? If such a giant story was run on the front page with zero checks or controls, how can readers have any confidence you check any of your stories?

7. Did the story make the printed first edition of the Observer?

Comment is Free was good enough to ask to reprint my blog on privilege-checking; I double dog dare them to reprint this one, and let their own readership hold them to account on “journalism” that goes beyond mere shoddiness to allegations of quote-mining.

Lastly, what are the consequences at the paper for running stories sourced like this?