Western Civilization Has Shed Its Values (WIKILEAKS AND HILLARY)

[Demeter]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27012.htm

...In my opinion, the most important of all the cables leaked is the secret directive sent by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to 33 US embassies and consulates ordering US diplomats to provide credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, frequent-flyer account numbers and biographic and biometric information including DNA information on UN officials from the Secretary General down, including “heads of peace operations and political field missions.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

The directive has been characterized as the spy directive, but this is an unusual kind of spying. Usually, spying focuses on what other governments think, how they are likely to vote on US initiatives, who can be bribed, and on sexual affairs that could be used to blackmail acquiescence to US agendas.

In contrast, the information requested in the secret directive is the kind of information that would be used to steal a person’s identity.

Why does the US government want information that would enable it to steal the identities of UN officials and impersonate them?

....Could it be that Washington wants to be able to impersonate UN officials and country delegates so that it can compromise them by involving them in fake terrorist plots, communications with terrorists real or contrived, money laundering, sex scandals and other such means of suborning their cooperation with Washington’s agendas? All the CIA has to do is to call a Taliban or Hamas chief on a UN official’s telephone number or send a compromising fax with a UN official’s fax number or have operatives pay for visits to prostitutes with a UN official’s credit card number.

The report in the Guardian on December 2 that the CIA drew up the UN spy directive signed off by Hillary Clinton is a good indication that the United States government intended to compromise the United Nations and turn the organization, as it has done with so many governments, into a compliant instrument of American policy.

Perhaps there is another plausible explanation of why the US government desired information that would enable it to impersonate UN officials, but as a person who had a 25-year career in Washington I cannot think of what it might be.

[Ghost Dog]

1. The UN should move lock, stock and barrel out of NY to its Geneva HQ

pronto, continued US blackmail funding or not.

... As for associating 'Western Civilisation' with such activities of the US government, uff, where should I begin? With Greece, I suppose...

Otherwise, very accurate article.

"The leaked documents show that the last thing the US government wants anywhere is a government that is accountable to its own citizens instead of to the US government."

[BlueMTexpat]

12. I second this. But it probably won't happen. nt

[Ghost Dog]

14. Well, the US currently provides some 22% of UN funding, when it chooses

to do so.

The U.S. contributes more to the UN than any other country -- 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. For years, the U.S. shorted the UN on these dues, but last year, Congress paid in full and wiped out our significant arrears. We ask that Congress continue to pay all that we owe the UN, and on time. To do less hobbles the UN as it fights for human rights and dignity, keeps the peace, builds democracies, and improves the lives of millions across the world. - http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/

It was that kind of blackmail I would have referred to above. Regardless, I agree the UN should move to Geneva HQ, but most likely would decide (like so many others) it can't afford to right now...

As regards the referenced US spying on UN officials ... yeah, of course identity theft and similar dirty tricks would be the motivation here.

So, who is going to attempt to prosecute? Certain (theoretically empowered and independent) Spanish jurists again?

[BlueMTexpat]

17. It's certainly not wrong to want to know something about individuals

in power with whom one must work on a routine basis, that is, their upbringing, perceived character, background, education, experience and known contacts. To act otherwise would be foolish. Most employers do as much - or more - to check out a new hire. But to seek out credit card, frequent flyer numbers, etc. is not only unwarranted, it is a total invasion of privacy and thus illegal. It also hints at much darker purposes.
As for "prosecution" - I sincerely doubt that will happen anywhere. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if countries other than the US had asked their own diplomatic staffs to do as much or more. It is just that it is currently the US's dirty laundry that is being
aired - to our great embarrassment - as well it should be.
And I, for one, am happy to see it come out in the open.

[saracat]

2. Perhpaps identity verification is needed for high profile individuals?

Perhaps this is needed to "prevent" impersonation?

[sabrina 1]

5. Not sure what you mean. Each sovereign nation is responsible

for identitity verification of its own people. Where would the U.S. get the authority to do what was actually espionage, against law written specifically to prevent such spying on U.N. member nations? The U.S. has no right to spy on other U.N. members.

We know why they were doing and are doing it. Under Bush it was to see who was going to oppose their war resolutions and then use the info to try to influence them. The U.S. always likes to get its own way at the UN. Remember Bush trying to bully the world and WE hoping against hope that some of those UN member nations would not vote for Bush's war in Iraq?

If they were trying to get such personal information about individuals from other countries, the fear is they could have intended to use it to smear anyone who does not support U.S. interests.

But, regardless of how they used it, they broke two laws. The law that forbids spying on UN members, AND our own laws against the use of the State Dept for the purpose of espionage.

Something has to be done about the lawlessness of this country. That is made very clear by what we are seeing in the released documents. How completely lawlessness this country has become. How absolutely unconcerned our government is about anyone, including its own people.

[saracat]

6. What was actually floating around in my mind was the difficulty

we and apparently everyone else had "verifying" Iraqi deaths, particularly some of the high profile ones.BTW, so you know, I don't support this. I was just looking at hypotheticals.

[sabrina 1]

16. Oh, I misunderstood you then. It's just that the U.S.

sets itself up as the policemen of the world as if the world had approved of it. Many of the countries including the Sec. General whose personal information they were ordered to get, are populated by very intelligent people and very capable of verifying and keeping records to avoid mis-id'ing anyone, themselves. I cannot imagine any reason why the U.S. would be engaged in secretly spying on these countries and the Sec. Gen. I am sure it was not for altruistic reasons. But mostly it IS illegal and especially to do this to the Sec. General. If any other country had been caught doing it, the U.S would be screaming for their being prosecuted under the laws and thrown out of the UN.

I hope this doesn't just go away and that the UN will initiate some kind of investigation. We just can't keep breaking laws like out-of-control teenagers. And then, the irony of this same country, which was using its State Dept for espionage, trying to find a way to charge someone who was NOT engaged in espionage, Julian Assange, publisher and editor of a news org, with Espionage. As someone said, the U.S. is acting in a 'deranged' manner.

Thanks for the explanation :hi:

[lostnfound]

9. You must be a very optimistic person.

My mother always saw the good in people, and always gave the 'benefit of the doubt'. I loved her for that (and for many other reasons).
But isn't it also plausible that this information was handy in case one ever wanted to set them up?
At the very least, it is certainly the easiest way to obtain blackmail material and to compile a catalog of their social circles.

[sabrina 1]

3. Glad to see some focus on what was a total violation of

the laws governing spying on the U.N. They actually used the State Dept. for the purpose of espionage which is also against the law.

The DOJ is furiously trying to find a crime to attach Julian Assange's name to and some reports say they will try to charge him under the Espionage act. This is ludicrous and was tried before and failed when the government went after the NYT for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

I am amazed that since they are searching around the espionage laws, there has not been a word about the law breaking of the State Dept. regarding those very same laws.

The released documents reveal something very disturbing about this government. The reaction to them reveals something even more disturbing. A reaction described as deranged by many observers.

[Catherina]

4. Blackmail. But, go figure, Assange is the one they're going to charge with espionage. n/t

[saracat]

7. Espionage is their last refuge. They actually have nothing.

[Catherina]

8. They don't and the espionage charges better no stick to him.n/t

[lostnfound]

10. Not only blackmail, but possibly setups. nt

[xchrom]

11. recommend -- i'm sure obama knew and and approved of this as well. nt

[BlueMTexpat]

13. To me, this is evidence of the placements from the BushCo era who are

"sleepers" who remain ensconced within the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Department.
I am frankly surprised that Hillary herself ever went along with anything like this. I thought that she had more sense. But apparently not because this directive had to have been sent with her approval.

[Ghost Dog]

15. Maybe they have or have fabricated something on Ms. Clinton herself

that she wouldn't like to see revealed?

(Since this appears to be the common modus operandi).

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Well, it could equally have been a very sad lapse in judgment on her

part, if she was relying on counsel from any of the BushCo holdovers. And it is very likely that she was.