The first duty of government — to protect the public — is one that is often mentioned, particularly after cases such as the detention of David Miranda, the partner of a Guardian journalist, at Heathrow. It is repeatedly mentioned because it is true but it’s also easily forgotten in the perpetual debate over security and liberty.
If the police believe that someone is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that could help terrorists and those who mean this country harm, then of course the police should act — and the law provides them with a framework to do that. That framework includes an independent figure — David Anderson, QC — to review whether the law has been properly applied.
Those who have rushed to pre-empt his review, or decried the State’s power on the basis of a partial and incomplete account of this incident, need to think about what they are condoning.
Some of the wilder allegations that I have heard over the past few days — that this was about suppressing secrets embarrassing to the authorities, or about threatening the partner of a journalist — have been too easily accepted. This is about the UK national security; and more specifically about stolen information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could be of assistance to terrorists and could lead to a loss of lives.
We are rightly proud of our free press, but there is a world of difference between making revelations you believe are in the public interest and insecurely holding on to secret information that could be exploited by those who would do us harm. It’s a difference that the Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger seems to understand as well as anyone else, to judge from his agreement to allow the destruction of a hard drive at his offices. It would have been unthinkable for the State to have known about this material and done nothing to stop it falling in to the wrong hands. It is a legitimate question to ask why this was not done voluntarily at the outset.
The hypocrisy of Labour on this is breathtaking. These are laws that Labour themselves passed. Has Yvette Cooper forgotten that she was part of a government that used its anti-terrorist legislation against Iceland, one of our Nato partners, in a dispute over money?
Since it came to power, this Government has reviewed our anti-terror laws, including proposals to reduce the length of detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 from nine hours to six. The balance between freedom and security needs to be constantly reviewed, but this Government has got it right. Labour and The Guardian need to decide what their real priorities are.