May 2, 2024

British Newspaper Has Advantages in Battle With Government Over Secrets

The Guardian, which leans left and used to see itself as the voice of Britain’s socially conscious middle class, has struck a more combative tone in the last few years. It was deeply involved in publishing the WikiLeaks material and with that organization’s impresario, Julian Assange, and now with the lawyer Glenn Greenwald and the former National Security Agency contractor, turned leaker, Edward J. Snowden.

Having gone global and remained free to readers on the Web, with a newsroom in New York as well as in London, The Guardian is a much harder news organization than most to intimidate or censor, as the British government, with no written Constitution or Bill of Rights to enshrine protections of free speech, has discovered.

But the tale of the last two months, as Mr. Rusbridger tells it, at least, is an extraordinary one of attempted political interference. Agents of the British government descended on The Guardian’s offices to monitor three executives as they physically destroyed computer hard drives containing some of the classified material that Mr. Snowden downloaded from American intelligence databases and gave to Mr. Greenwald and others.

“You have powerful protections in America that we don’t,” Mr. Rusbridger, 59, said Tuesday in an interview after publishing an op-ed article in his paper describing some of the government’s actions.

In conversations with him, the British government threatened the paper with “prior restraint,” he said, to stop it from publishing material, and then demanded that The Guardian return or destroy the classified material it was holding.

“It was quite explicit: we had to destroy it or give it back to them,” Mr. Rusbridger said in an earlier interview with the BBC. “I explained that there were other copies, not within the U.K., so I couldn’t see the point of destroying one copy. But because we had other copies I was happy to destroy a copy in London.”

The United States has sought the extradition of Mr. Snowden, now in Russia, but it has not acted to restrain newspaper publication or gone into newspaper offices to seize or destroy files and hard drives, as in Britain.

Mr. Rusbridger, Guardian editor since 1995, said he was prompted to describe the government’s actions after the British police detained Mr. Greenwald’s partner, David Michael Miranda, at Heathrow Airport on Sunday, on his way home from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. Mr. Miranda had met another of those aiding Mr. Snowden, the filmmaker Laura Poitras, and was carrying encrypted material from her back to Mr. Greenwald in Brazil.

Mr. Miranda, a Brazilian, was held in the transit area of the airport under Schedule 7 of Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000 for the legal maximum of nine hours; he was questioned and his electronic equipment seized before being released without charges.

He and Mr. Greenwald intend to file a lawsuit over the detention, Mr. Rusbridger said, “because it’s not clear that he was actually committing any offense in carrying material through Heathrow.”

The British government has defended the detention. After saying little on Sunday or Monday, a Home Office spokeswoman said that the police had been looking for “stolen information” that could be of use to terrorists.

“If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act, and the law provides them a framework to do that,” the spokeswoman said. “Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.”

The prime minister’s office was kept informed, as was the American government, which denied having asked Britain to take any action against Mr. Miranda.

Mr. Rusbridger sees the detention as an act of intimidation.

Using terrorism legislation that “offers none of the protections that exist in mainland Britain is quite a disturbing new turn,” he said.

Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/world/europe/british-news-organization-has-advantages-in-secrets-battle-with-government.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

European Finance Heads Strive to Reach an Accord on Banking Oversight

European leaders were expected to hail the breakthrough, which gives the European Central Bank the leading supervisory role over lenders, as a sign they are taking concrete steps to maintain the viability of the euro.

“This is an accord that creates true bank supervision,” Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister, told reporters after 14 hours of talks. “Step by step, we are resolving the crisis in the euro zone,” he said.

“We have reached the main points to establish a European banking supervisor that should take on its work in 2014,” said Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister.

The deal would put more than 100 large banks in Europe under the direct supervision of the central bank leaving thousands of smaller banks primarily overseen by national regulators. But the ministers insisted that the European Central Bank would be able to take over supervision of any bank in the euro area at any time.

The idea behind the single supervisor is to make lenders less susceptible to political interference than has been the case under the present system of national supervisors, which failed to prevent banks from accumulating so much debt that they put the finances of states like Ireland and Spain at risk, in turn threatening the future of the single currency.

The agreement on a single supervisor should be a springboard for European leaders to discuss later on Thursday steps leading to a broader banking union, like a common system for the orderly closure of failing banks and, eventually, to measures to reinforce Europe’s economic and monetary union, like the creation of a shock-absorption fund to shore up the economies of vulnerable members of the euro zone.

The European Parliament and some national parliaments, including in Germany, still must approve the deal before it becomes law.

To reach the deal, France agreed to a formula where only banks holding €30 billion ($39 billion) in assets, or holding assets greater than 20 percent of their country’s gross domestic product, would be directly regulated by the central bank. Previously France had insisted that all 6,000 banks in the euro area should be closely regulated by the central bank.

Germany had sought a reduced remit that would make the job of the supervisor more manageable and faced pressure from a powerful domestic banking lobby trying to shield many small German savings banks from closer scrutiny. But Germany agreed to allow the central bank to step in and take over the supervision of any bank in the euro area at its discretion.

The Germans also had concerns the central bank could be tempted to alter decisions on monetary policy to make its supervisory job easier, and they wanted to give the system some accountability. As a compromise, Germany agreed to give member states greater scope than originally foreseen to challenge central bank decisions.

Britain, which remains outside the 17 European countries that form the euro zone, had been seeking assurances that it could be exempt from orders from the new supervisor that would affect its banks operating abroad and lenders operating in the City of London. Britain agreed to a formula that should allow it and other countries outside the system to block most, but probably not all, decisions on rule making taken by the E.C.B., and to oppose decisions in cross-border banking disputes it disagrees with.

Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, told reporter he had ensured “that the countries that weren’t going to join the banking union, like Britain, were protected and their interests were protected.”

For countries like Spain and Ireland, the supervisor is a prerequisite for allowing them to tap a European bailout fund and inject rescue aid directly into their troubled banks. That would allow those governments to avoid weighing down their national balance sheets with yet more debt.

But the system for the direct recapitalization of banks is only likely to go ahead only once the supervisor is fully operating, and well after a German general election in October. German citizens have grown weary of paying most of the bill for bailouts.

Leaders also must clarify whether the system should apply in cases, like Spain and Ireland, where banks ran into problems before the introduction of the single supervisor.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/business/global/eu-leaders-try-to-show-unity-on-bank-supervision.html?partner=rss&emc=rss