Benedict Cumberbatch: Chelsea Manning and civil liberties - interview transcript
Originally posted by _good_evening_ at Benedict Cumberbatch: Chelsea Manning and civil liberties - interview transcript
Decca Aitkenhead's interview with Benedict Cumberbatch - an unedited transcript of the actor's comments on Chelsea Manning
Guardian staff
The Guardian, Saturday 14 September 2013
[транскрипт интервью]On 15 September, the actor Benedict Cumberbatch wrote to the Guardian to say he felt his views had been misrepresented in an interview by Decca Aitkenhead published in Weekend magazine. His note has been posted under the article, and says: "Do I think [Chelsea] Manning should be pardoned? Yes. Do I think that's likely to happen? Sadly no. Re [Edward] Snowden I said in the interview that the use of threats to life as a reason to erode civil liberties through intrusive government surveillance can also be as dangerous to democracy as the terrorism such actions claim to be preventing. This wasn't printed for some reason."
We are happy to clarify any confusion about Cumberbatch's comments on Manning and civil liberties by publishing an unedited transcript of that section of the interview. Editor's note: the article's original standfirst, which said Cumberbatch "talked about... why Chelsea Manning deserved her sentence", misrepresented what Cumberbatch says in the interview: this was an editing error (headlines and standfirsts are not written by the interviewer) and has since been corrected online. We apologise for this mistake.
Decca Aitkenhead: How did you feel watching Manning's trial?
Benedict Cumberbatch: Awful. Cos he is a young man and he did what he did out of a conviction that an alarm bell needed to be sounded. The trigger-happy response is to mudsling and say he's a confused kid who doesn't know enough about his gender. I think that's separate from the fact that he was going to his superiors and saying, 'I'm worried about this.' But his superiors might have been right to say it's not your position to be worried about it within the hierarchy of the military organisation, which is why he had to be sentenced. He took an oath, and he broke that oath - he broke a rule he knew he was breaking. The tragedy is that he did it out of such a strong conviction. On a personal level, I really feel for the guy, it's a very, very severe sentence. But I understand why he had to be convicted, of course I do.
DA: Should he be pardoned?
BC: [Spreading upraised palms, and sighing] Phhh. As I said, he broke an oath, so he knows what he's doing. But he did it for good reason. Again, I think it's too black and white to say he should be pardoned. I just think the sentencing was harsh. But I understand why he was convicted. He broke a law. He knew what he was doing.
[With regard to mass surveillance and civil liberties]
BC: And now we've got revelations that our government organisations, the NSA and GCHQ, have been eavesdropping on private communications to root out terrorism and fundamentalism. But in doing that they've eroded civil liberties to an extent that we're answering fire with fire, and are we becoming Orwellian in our fundamental approach to fighting fundamentalism? It's kind of a terrifying circle to square. I'm not an intelligence expert. I don't want you looking at what I'm looking at on the internet, or knowing what my password is for Facebook or my bank account, or overhearing messages to friends and lovers, people I love and hate, it's none of your business. Oh, but you might have stopped me from being killed on a Tube I took last Wednesday. They're not going to be able to tell us exactly what is in that information. And that's a powerful thing for us to fear, because they can just say, well, we aren't going to tell you, but it's for your own good. They can always say that. My fear is how quickly it's all evolving, that's what worries me. It's just happening so quickly. I don't have an opinion about it, I don't think it's right or wrong.
DA: Don't you?
BC: If they are saving lives, how can you say that is less important than civil liberties? You don't have any liberties if you are dead. What I do feel is wrong is how quickly this is moving into legislation which can have a journalist detained at an airport in that horrible limbo between jurisdictions that is beholden to no international law. I'm only saying what everyone in your paper has already said. That's really worrying, that needs to be slowed down and debated. This is happening too quickly. Yet at the same time, Alan [Rusbridger, Guardian editor] as an editor has that - I'm not saying he's going to sell it - I trust him, I believe in his core principles. But I can understand why anyone would be fearful - like Laura Linney's character [in my new film The Fifth Estate] who has worked for years in intelligence communities would be nervous of the editor of a paper having that information. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying I can see their perspective.
I think transparency is really important, but should that transparency be transferred to our communications? Isn't it hypocritical to say we should know everything about you as a government, but the government can't know anything about us?
DA: Assange would say that's because you're a private individual.
BC: Absolutely. But if you are a private individual who's packing Semtex to kill people and destroy what we know as democracy for political purposes, then you're more than just a private individual in a democracy. My fear is meeting fire with fire, and I think that's what we're moving towards too quickly and we need to debate it.
и от себя: вспомнился один из законов мерфологии "Любой приказ, который может быть неправильно понят, понимается неправильно. /Армейская аксиома/"
Decca Aitkenhead's interview with Benedict Cumberbatch - an unedited transcript of the actor's comments on Chelsea Manning
Guardian staff
The Guardian, Saturday 14 September 2013
[транскрипт интервью]On 15 September, the actor Benedict Cumberbatch wrote to the Guardian to say he felt his views had been misrepresented in an interview by Decca Aitkenhead published in Weekend magazine. His note has been posted under the article, and says: "Do I think [Chelsea] Manning should be pardoned? Yes. Do I think that's likely to happen? Sadly no. Re [Edward] Snowden I said in the interview that the use of threats to life as a reason to erode civil liberties through intrusive government surveillance can also be as dangerous to democracy as the terrorism such actions claim to be preventing. This wasn't printed for some reason."
We are happy to clarify any confusion about Cumberbatch's comments on Manning and civil liberties by publishing an unedited transcript of that section of the interview. Editor's note: the article's original standfirst, which said Cumberbatch "talked about... why Chelsea Manning deserved her sentence", misrepresented what Cumberbatch says in the interview: this was an editing error (headlines and standfirsts are not written by the interviewer) and has since been corrected online. We apologise for this mistake.
Decca Aitkenhead: How did you feel watching Manning's trial?
Benedict Cumberbatch: Awful. Cos he is a young man and he did what he did out of a conviction that an alarm bell needed to be sounded. The trigger-happy response is to mudsling and say he's a confused kid who doesn't know enough about his gender. I think that's separate from the fact that he was going to his superiors and saying, 'I'm worried about this.' But his superiors might have been right to say it's not your position to be worried about it within the hierarchy of the military organisation, which is why he had to be sentenced. He took an oath, and he broke that oath - he broke a rule he knew he was breaking. The tragedy is that he did it out of such a strong conviction. On a personal level, I really feel for the guy, it's a very, very severe sentence. But I understand why he had to be convicted, of course I do.
DA: Should he be pardoned?
BC: [Spreading upraised palms, and sighing] Phhh. As I said, he broke an oath, so he knows what he's doing. But he did it for good reason. Again, I think it's too black and white to say he should be pardoned. I just think the sentencing was harsh. But I understand why he was convicted. He broke a law. He knew what he was doing.
[With regard to mass surveillance and civil liberties]
BC: And now we've got revelations that our government organisations, the NSA and GCHQ, have been eavesdropping on private communications to root out terrorism and fundamentalism. But in doing that they've eroded civil liberties to an extent that we're answering fire with fire, and are we becoming Orwellian in our fundamental approach to fighting fundamentalism? It's kind of a terrifying circle to square. I'm not an intelligence expert. I don't want you looking at what I'm looking at on the internet, or knowing what my password is for Facebook or my bank account, or overhearing messages to friends and lovers, people I love and hate, it's none of your business. Oh, but you might have stopped me from being killed on a Tube I took last Wednesday. They're not going to be able to tell us exactly what is in that information. And that's a powerful thing for us to fear, because they can just say, well, we aren't going to tell you, but it's for your own good. They can always say that. My fear is how quickly it's all evolving, that's what worries me. It's just happening so quickly. I don't have an opinion about it, I don't think it's right or wrong.
DA: Don't you?
BC: If they are saving lives, how can you say that is less important than civil liberties? You don't have any liberties if you are dead. What I do feel is wrong is how quickly this is moving into legislation which can have a journalist detained at an airport in that horrible limbo between jurisdictions that is beholden to no international law. I'm only saying what everyone in your paper has already said. That's really worrying, that needs to be slowed down and debated. This is happening too quickly. Yet at the same time, Alan [Rusbridger, Guardian editor] as an editor has that - I'm not saying he's going to sell it - I trust him, I believe in his core principles. But I can understand why anyone would be fearful - like Laura Linney's character [in my new film The Fifth Estate] who has worked for years in intelligence communities would be nervous of the editor of a paper having that information. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying I can see their perspective.
I think transparency is really important, but should that transparency be transferred to our communications? Isn't it hypocritical to say we should know everything about you as a government, but the government can't know anything about us?
DA: Assange would say that's because you're a private individual.
BC: Absolutely. But if you are a private individual who's packing Semtex to kill people and destroy what we know as democracy for political purposes, then you're more than just a private individual in a democracy. My fear is meeting fire with fire, and I think that's what we're moving towards too quickly and we need to debate it.
и от себя: вспомнился один из законов мерфологии "Любой приказ, который может быть неправильно понят, понимается неправильно. /Армейская аксиома/"