An illuminating excerpt from the ‘justification’ used by the Metropolitan police when detaining David Miranda at Heathrow.

“We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material, the release of which would endanger people’s lives. Additionally the disclosure or threat of disclosure is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism and as such we request that the subject is examined under schedule 7.”

Welcome to Britain, home of the free. And to the laws framed by New Labour btw.

The Economist has a rather good Leader about the NSA mess. Excerpt:

For a start, it turns out that some of Mr Snowden’s evidence was radically misinterpreted: much of the hoovering has in fact been undertaken by European spies on non-Europeans and then passed to the NSA. This was to protect the West from Islamist terror, which the Americans are often best-placed to investigate. That European leaders did not know of this before complaining to Mr Obama suggests that their lack of intelligence oversight is at least as bad as his.

Second, spying on allies is not inherently wrong. Germany and France have broad overlapping national interests with America—but they occasionally clash. Before the war in Iraq Jacques Chirac, then France’s president, and Gerhard Schröder, Mrs Merkel’s predecessor, sought to frustrate America’s attempts to win over the UN Security Council. Europeans spy on Americans, too, as Madeleine Albright found when she was secretary of state. Politicians think inside information gives them an edge, even when negotiating with friends. After today’s outcry has died away, that will remain true.

But the promised gains from espionage need to be measured against the costs and likelihood of being caught. In the past, electronic spying was seen as remote and almost risk-free. In an era of endemic leaks, however, the risks of intrusive eavesdropping are higher. Relations between America and its allies have suffered. The row may get in the way of international agreements, such as a transatlantic free-trade deal. It could lead to the fragmentation of the internet, enabling more government control by countries such as China and Russia. Bugging someone as vital to America as the German chancellor is too important a decision to be left to a spymaster. It is a political choice—and, without a specific aim in mind, it will usually be a no-no.

America should make it clear that it takes abuse of intelligence-gathering seriously. Officials who lie to Congress should be fired. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, who flatly denied that the NSA collected dossiers on “millions of Americans”, is damaged goods. NSA employees who break the law should be prosecuted, not (as in cases of those caught spying on their personal love interests) simply disciplined. America should also reaffirm that for the NSA to pass secrets to American firms for commercial advantage is illegal. Anyone concerned by Chinese state-sponsored commercial espionage cannot complain if they are thought no better.

Earlier this week, Richard Evans, David Runciman and I did a gig about our research project at the opening of the Cambridge Festival of Ideas. We were joined on the panel by Tony Badger, who is the Paul Mellon Professor of American History at Cambridge, an expert on FDR and the New Deal and on McCarthyism. We had an agreeably large audience who asked some good questions. Towards the end, someone asked a question that none of us had ever considered: how do conspiracy theories end? Tony Badger took it on, and talked about how the anti-communist hysteria of Senator Joe McCarthy’s time had endured over time, taking different forms in different eras, right down to the present Tea Party conviction that Obama is a socialist and that Obamacare is, essentially, a commie plot. In that context, it’s intriguing to find an excellent New Yorker blog post by Adam Gopnik which makes more or less the same point. Here’s the key bit:

As it happens, I’ve been doing some reading about John Kennedy, and what I find startling, and even surprising, is how absolutely consistent and unchanged the ideology of the extreme American right has been over the past fifty years, from father to son and now, presumably, on to son from father again. The real analogue to today’s unhinged right wing in America is yesterday’s unhinged right wing in America. This really is your grandfather’s right, if not, to be sure, your grandfather’s Republican Party. Half a century ago, the type was much more evenly distributed between the die-hard, neo-Confederate wing of the Democratic Party and the Goldwater wing of the Republicans, an equitable division of loonies that would begin to end after J.F.K.’s death. (A year later, the Civil Rights Act passed, Goldwater ran, Reagan emerged, and we began the permanent sorting out of our factions into what would be called, anywhere but here, a party of the center right and a party of the extreme right.)

Reading through the literature on the hysterias of 1963, the continuity of beliefs is plain: Now, as then, there is said to be a conspiracy in the highest places to end American Constitutional rule and replace it with a Marxist dictatorship, evidenced by a plan in which your family doctor will be replaced by a federal bureaucrat—mostly for unnamable purposes, but somehow involving the gleeful killing off of the aged. There is also the conviction, in both eras, that only a handful of Congressmen and polemicists (then mostly in newspapers; now on TV) stand between honest Americans and the apocalypse, and that the man presiding over that plan is not just a dupe but personally depraved, an active collaborator with our enemies, a secret something or other, and any necessary means to bring about the end of his reign are justified and appropriate. And fifty years ago, as today, groups with these beliefs, far from being banished to the fringe of political life, were closely entangled and intertwined with Senators and Congressmen and right-wing multi-millionaires.

Plus ca change.

Very interesting snippet from a WashPo interview with General Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA.

Q: Privacy advocates say the government is asking Americans to trust it when it comes to the NSA’s activities. Given the existing level of mistrust of the government, what is the argument for trusting the NSA?

A: One argument is, you may or may not think what NSA was doing in terms of the metadata and the American telephone records or the PRISM program or the e-mails — foreign based, but collected here in the United States — you may actually think, “You know, I need to know more about that. I’m not comfortable.” But you can’t say it was illegal. It reflects two laws of Congress in 2006 and 2008, passed by both houses, by both parties, overseen by the intelligence committees, approved by the courts. I mean, in the American system of separation of powers, that’s a trifecta — executive, legislative, judicial branches. So it’s not illegal.

But i’m quite open to a national conversation about, “Got it. Not illegal, now is it wise?” To have that conversation, my old community is going to simply have to explain what it is they’re doing more than we have historically done. I actually think that if we get to most people out of the mainstream — all right, here’s what we’re doing, here’s why we’re doing it, here’s why it helps, here’s how we’re overseeing it — I think most people would say, “Eh, I wish maybe you didn’t have to, but okay. I’m okay for now. Call me in a couple of years.”

It’s impossible to imagine a British official or government minister talking like this.

Justice Hugo Black’s Opinion in the US Supreme Court judgment of June 30, 1971 which allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to continue publishing the Pentagon Papers:

“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”