Guardian editor denies damaging security of UK by publishing Snowden documents

The editor in chief of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, has denied that the publishing of top secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden has damaged the UK’s national security in any way.

Mr Rusbridger was called as a witness by the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) inquiry into counter-terrorism.

The Guardian, along with the New York Times and publications in Brazil and Germany, received 58,000 classified documents, leaked from the US National Security Agency.

When asked by the committee if he felt the articles published by The Guardian had damaged the country, he referenced the support of a series of high profile figures, from Crime Minister Norman Baker to senior Whitehall and Senate figures, who said that the disclosures had not harmed national security.

He also reiterated that the newspaper never divulged any names from the documents.

“We have never lost control of that information. We only published one per cent of the information we were given.”

Only 26 documents out of 58,000 have been published and Mr Rusbridger maintained he consulted with the proper authorities on all except one of the 35 stories.

Questioning Mr Rusbridger, Matthew Ellis MP said: “We have top secret documents for a reason, not to hide them from The Guardian but to hide them from those who are out to hurt us.”

He also raised the question of whether Mr Rusbridger had committed a criminal offence, under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, by taking the documents out of the country and sending one via courier.

Mr Rusbridger replied: “A small amount of material was Fed Ex’d relating to one story encrypted to a military level; it was sent safely and arrived safely. There was no loss of information.

“I was sharing these documents with colleagues at the New York Times to stimulate debate.”

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick confirmed there is an investigation underway scoping the material obtained by The Guardian.

Ms Dick confirmed the MPS is looking at breaches of section 58 of the Terrorism Act. “It appears possible that some people may have committed offences. We will and are taking advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS),” she said.

Written evidence from David Anderson, the independent terrorism legislation reviewer, made a series of recommendations about UK terror laws, including that suspects should be detained only if there is a suspicion of wrongdoing.

He also said that the detention should only be extended for the same reason. Currently, suspects can be detained for up to nine hours without suspicion. Sixty thousand people were questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act in 2012, but just 670 were formally detained.

Mr Anderson also recommends that anything admitted in questioning under Schedule 7 should not be able to be called upon in a criminal trial.

Speaking to The Guardian, Julian Huppert, a member of HASC, said the law should be changed and there was a case for the powers to be revised even further.

“I am very pleased to see David Anderson`s proposals for further constraints on Schedule 7. His suggestion to require grounds for suspicion for detention and constraints on the use of private electronic data are very welcome. They should be implemented as a bare minimum.”