Video of GCHQ ordering the Guardian to destroy laptops.

[Savannahmann]

By now, everyone knows the story of how the British Secret Intelligence threatened the Guardian to compel the paper to destroy the information obtained by Snowden. The video of the destruction is now available, and the story behind how Snowden got the files is the subject of a book being released next week. One can only assume that the NSA/GCHQ has finished reading it, since they probably hacked the computer of the author Luke Harding and was reading it as he typed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq

Under the watchful gaze of two technicians from the British government spy agency GCHQ, the journalists took angle-grinders and drills to the internal components, rendering them useless and the information on them obliterated.

The bizarre episode in the basement of the Guardian's London HQ was the climax of Downing Street's fraught interactions with the Guardian in the wake of Snowden's leak – the biggest in the history of western intelligence. The details are revealed in a new book – The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man – by the Guardian correspondent Luke Harding. The book, published next week, describes how the Guardian took the decision to destroy its own Macbooks after the government explicitly threatened the paper with an injunction.

What do they mean, threatened the paper with an injunction? It means shutting the paper down until the Government gives them permission to resume operations. Yes, I know, the British don't have the Freedom of the Press we have in the United States. Although, it would be hard to really quantify the so called Freedom of the Press in the United States, at least we have the illusion, if not the factual protections.

The video of the destruction is at the link, and if anything it demonstrates the outright stupidity of the Intelligence Services. The information was not contained in one place, they did nothing to stop the flow of information, they just revealed the face of a petulant big brother. Do what we say or we will ruin you. The stories continue, books are being written, and the information is still getting out much to the chagrin of the Authoritarians. Each revealed piece of information has them snarling and wishing that Snowden was dead, and his information safely contained in a network accessible by nearly a million people in the United States alone.

Each night, the Authoritarians and defenders of the faith pray that someone will put a bullet in Snowden, before someone else gets the idea that opposing them is something that can be done with relative impunity. I'm sure they're are at least a half dozen umbrella guns in Moscow while Jason Borne wannabe's wait for the go code to come through.

[bemildred]

1. Damn. There is that "850,000 Americans" number again.

Downing Street insiders admit they struggled to come to terms with Snowden's mega-leak, and the fact that the 29-year-old American was able to upload top secret British material while working at an NSA facility in faraway Hawaii. Snowden wasn't even a full-time NSA employee, but a private contractor, one of 850,000 Americans with access to top secret UK information. "We just sat up and thought: 'Oh my God!'" one Downing Street insider said.

[randome]

2. Good God, the hyperbole knows no bounds.

"...the Authoritarians and defenders of the faith pray that someone will put a bullet in Snowden..." Angry, much?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Eleanors38]

3. So did this government-ordered destruction not occur?

[randome]

5. Apparently so. That isn't the point.

As easy as it was for Snowden to steal classified documents, how much LESS secure do you think a corporate media organization is?

You may be able to find a handful of DUers who want to put a bullet in Snowden's empty head, but that's about it. And that's the unneeded hyperbole I referred to.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Eleanors38]

6. I would find it hard to believe a U.S. agency would oversee destruction

of a news organization's records, and even with the corporatization of news, hard to believe such an order would be complied with. GB seems to have a more authoritarian society, however.

I don't know if anyone on DU who would do in Snowden, but I'm sure there are plans in the works to "disappear" him in some fashion, not that it would do any good. Release of info would just be orchestrated by others.

[randome]

7. Actually, it's been orchestrated by others for some months now.

He gave everything he had -so he claims- to several news organizations. Those classified documents are not safe now. As evidenced by the poorly redacted version of one that 'slipped through' into the light recently.

Snowden, like Assange, does himself no favors by opting for isolation. Except in Snowden's case, it sounds like he was isolated for most of his life and will be for the foreseeable future. 'Disappearing' him would do no good and would likely 'inspire' news organizations to publish everything they have so I think that's a ridiculous notion.

He gave up his control of the narrative and I think that was a mistake.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

9. No, you're wrong. The "poorly redacted document" story you mention has been debunked

That bunch of bullshit was posted on a Drudge-like site that had zero sourcing, zero facts and zero substantiation.

There was nothing there.

Please stop repeating lies.

[randome]

10. Just stating what I read before.

If you say it was debunked, I'll take your word for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Rules are made to be broken. Including this one.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

11. Seeing as you posted on BOTH previous threads where this was debunked, you do know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024400162 (you're post #36)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024401967 (here you are again, post #96)

[Savannahmann]

8. No, accurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347301