3 December 2013
Last updated at 16:07 ET
But Alan Rusbridger told the Home Affairs Select Committee the Guardian was not a "rogue newspaper".
He insisted the paper's journalists were "patriots" and he hailed the UK's democracy and free press.
A government spokesman said later it still believed that publishing the material had damaged national security.
He also said criticism about damage to national security made
by intelligence chiefs at a different committee hearing last month had
been "very vague and not rooted in specific stories".
"There are different views about this," he said. "It's impossible to assess because no one has given me specific evidence."
Asked by committee chairman Keith Vaz MP if he "loved this country", Mr Rusbridger said he was "slightly surprised to be asked".
"We are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of the democracy and the nature of a free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things," he said.
"That's not the country we live in, in Britain... and it's one of the things we love about the country."
Mr Rusbridger said he was not a lawyer and so could not answer a question by Conservative MP Michael Ellis about whether he had broken the Terrorism Act by sharing information listing the names of security officials abroad with other newspapers.
The Guardian editor said the paper had "made very selective judgments"' about what to publish from the files taken by Mr Snowden, a former contractor with the National Security Agency (NSA), and had not revealed the names of any officials.
"We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen," he said.
He said stories in publications including the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel had prompted much-needed debate about the scale of intelligence activities and exposed the limits of laws drawn up in the pre-internet era.
Among the stories carried by the Guardian were revelations that agencies were able to tap into the internet communications of ordinary citizens, that the NSA had monitored the phones of 35 world leaders, and that embassies had been the targets of US spies.
"Newspapers have done something that oversight has failed to do," said Mr Rusbridger.
The Guardian had come under pressure from the UK authorities in a way that would be "inconceivable" in the US, he added.
Mr Rusbridger told the committee: "There's stuff in there about Iraq, Afghanistan, we're not even going to look at it. That's not what Edward Snowden was doing when he wanted responsible journalists to go through this material.
"We've been working slowly and responsibly through this material, with some of the best journalists in the world, 100 contacts with government and agency sources, we will continue to consult them but we're not going to be put off by intimidation - but nor are we going to behave recklessly."
In a statement issued after the committee ended, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: "Nothing we've heard today from Alan Rusbridger changes the facts or the government's position.
"The Guardian's publication and non-secure storage of secret documents has had a damaging affect on our national security capabilities."
Later, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick told the committee that officers were examining material seized from the partner of a former Guardian journalist at Heathrow Airport in August to see if possible offences had been committed.
Only 1% of Snowden files published - Guardian editor
Mr Rusbridger said the paper had "made very selective judgements"' about what to publish
Only
1% of files leaked by former US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden
have been published by the Guardian newspaper, its editor has told MPs.
He insisted the paper's journalists were "patriots" and he hailed the UK's democracy and free press.
A government spokesman said later it still believed that publishing the material had damaged national security.
Continue reading the main story
Alan Rusbridger"We're not going to be put off by intimidation but nor are we going to behave recklessly”
Mr Rusbridger told MPs that
senior officials in Whitehall, the US administration and the US senate's
intelligence committee had told the paper "no damage" had been caused.
"There are different views about this," he said. "It's impossible to assess because no one has given me specific evidence."
Asked by committee chairman Keith Vaz MP if he "loved this country", Mr Rusbridger said he was "slightly surprised to be asked".
"We are patriots and one of the things we are patriotic about is the nature of the democracy and the nature of a free press and the fact that one can in this country discuss and report these things," he said.
Continue reading the main story
A month ago the heads of Britain's three spy agencies used
their first public appearance before parliament to launch an attack on
the leaking of details about Britain and America's intelligence
gathering capabilities.
Today was a chance for the editor of the newspaper which published stories based on those leaked documents to make his case.
Alan Rusbridger said that no specific evidence had been provided of damage to national security.
The stark divisions over the Guardian's actions were apparent in the questioning. Some members were supportive of Mr Rusbridger's argument that it had been in the public interest to publish stories and provide accountability whilst others chose to focus on whether the Guardian had acted recklessly by transmitting some of the raw intelligence files provided over borders either through individual couriers or shipping companies.
Alan Rusbridger said he would not be intimidated but also would not act recklessly as he continued to work to publish stories.
Analysis
Today was a chance for the editor of the newspaper which published stories based on those leaked documents to make his case.
Alan Rusbridger said that no specific evidence had been provided of damage to national security.
The stark divisions over the Guardian's actions were apparent in the questioning. Some members were supportive of Mr Rusbridger's argument that it had been in the public interest to publish stories and provide accountability whilst others chose to focus on whether the Guardian had acted recklessly by transmitting some of the raw intelligence files provided over borders either through individual couriers or shipping companies.
Alan Rusbridger said he would not be intimidated but also would not act recklessly as he continued to work to publish stories.
He added: "There are countries -
and they are not generally democracies - where the press are not free to
write about this and where the security services do tell editors what
to write.
Mr Rusbridger said he was not a lawyer and so could not answer a question by Conservative MP Michael Ellis about whether he had broken the Terrorism Act by sharing information listing the names of security officials abroad with other newspapers.
The Guardian editor said the paper had "made very selective judgments"' about what to publish from the files taken by Mr Snowden, a former contractor with the National Security Agency (NSA), and had not revealed the names of any officials.
"We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we've seen," he said.
He said stories in publications including the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel had prompted much-needed debate about the scale of intelligence activities and exposed the limits of laws drawn up in the pre-internet era.
Among the stories carried by the Guardian were revelations that agencies were able to tap into the internet communications of ordinary citizens, that the NSA had monitored the phones of 35 world leaders, and that embassies had been the targets of US spies.
"Newspapers have done something that oversight has failed to do," said Mr Rusbridger.
The Guardian had come under pressure from the UK authorities in a way that would be "inconceivable" in the US, he added.
Mr Rusbridger told the committee: "There's stuff in there about Iraq, Afghanistan, we're not even going to look at it. That's not what Edward Snowden was doing when he wanted responsible journalists to go through this material.
"We've been working slowly and responsibly through this material, with some of the best journalists in the world, 100 contacts with government and agency sources, we will continue to consult them but we're not going to be put off by intimidation - but nor are we going to behave recklessly."
In a statement issued after the committee ended, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: "Nothing we've heard today from Alan Rusbridger changes the facts or the government's position.
"The Guardian's publication and non-secure storage of secret documents has had a damaging affect on our national security capabilities."
Later, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick told the committee that officers were examining material seized from the partner of a former Guardian journalist at Heathrow Airport in August to see if possible offences had been committed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered