WikiLeaks Documents Show Hillary Clinton Authorized US to Spy on Foreign Diplomats

Monday 29 November 2010

by: Nadia Prupis, t r u t h o u t | Report

WikiLeaks Documents Show Hillary Clinton Authorized US to Spy on Foreign Diplomats
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Photo: SEIU International)

As the WikiLeaks documents steadily reveal more and more controversial actions taken by the government in its international operations, one report from July 2009 shows Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorizing US diplomats to spy and collect personal information on members of foreign agencies.

The cable, entitled "Reporting and Collection Needs: The United Nations" and sent to 36 American embassies, missions and consuls around the world, details a program called the National HUMINT (human intelligence) Collection Directive (NHCD) and ordered US diplomats to collect a wealth of information on members of the United Nations abroad.

According to the cable, state reporting officers were to gather extensive personal data on UN officials, covering everything from business card titles to frequent flyer account numbers of the foreign diplomats. The information would "serve as a useful tool to help the Embassy manage reporting and collection, including formulation of Mission Strategic Plans."

"Reporting officers should include as much of the following information as possible when they have information relating to persons linked to: office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories … and e-mail listings; internet and intranet 'handles', internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information," the cable stated.

The cable also tasked reporting officers with gathering information on key issues in both the short-term and the long-term, including plans for humanitarian efforts in Darfur and the Middle East Peace Process, among other topics.

On Darfur, officers were to report the views of UN member states on "contributing troops and air transportation equipment, such as helicopters, to the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) and the African Union (AU)-UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID)."

Let Truthout send our best stories to your inbox every day, for free.

Officers were also instructed to inform the U.S. about the actions or intentions of Iran and North Korea's UN Security Council (UNSC) members, specifically on plans to "develop, test, or proliferate nuclear weapons."

The cable also requested the "current technical specifications, physical layout, and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks, and technologies used by top officials and their support staffs," as well as "details on commercial and private VIP networks used for official communications, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys, and types of VPN versions used."

In a statement on November 28, 2010, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the documents were "not an expression of policy," but could nevertheless "compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders."

"President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information."

Clinton held a press briefing Monday to respond to the leak and said that the U.S. "deeply regrets" the release of classified information, promising to take bold action against the theft.

"I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington," Clinton said. "I would also add that to the American people and to our friends and partners … we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information."

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

How does a Obama/Clinton

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 16:40 — Vic Anderson (not verified)

How does a Obama/Clinton NAPPY (No Account President and Party of Yoo're Screwed) ACCOUNTABILITY DENIAL and deplorall of the "leaks" that Actually FULFILL Their DEM PROMISE of TRANPARENCY differ from say, That of Bush/Rice?

So? Do you think for one

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 17:45 — Mark Ostrom (not verified)

So? Do you think for one stinking millisecond that 'THEY' are not doing the same, gathering personal, detailed and potentially damaging information on us?

The Soviet Military, after WWII, had literally hundreds of imbedded Spies in the US, Britain and the Orient all directed by so called "diplomats" in embassies.

The russians went so far, you'll remember, as to imbed both bugging devices EN MASSE into the Soviet Contractor built US Embassy in Moscow, and to imbed microwave "health affecting" hardware as well.

If we do NOT know our enemies, we are FOOLS.

"Keep your ƒriends Close, but your Enemies CLOSER". — Sun Tzu

While Clinton "deeply

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 17:59 — Leigh Smith (not verified)

While Clinton "deeply regrets" the release of the information, it is classic obfuscation to say "official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington". The cables reveal the "official foreign policy" as announced to the press to be just a set of lies, and that the real foreign policy practiced by the U.S. is that of a rogue state: deception, espionage against friendly countries, working against the interests of collaborative bodies (U.N) and treaty partners, and most tellingly, working in the interests of U.S. corporations, not the U.S. population at large. Is there any other country in the world actively spying on U.N secretary general? This revelation has proven that successive U.S. administrations can not be trusted to be a broker in any international relationship.

Wiki-Fakes! Do you really

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:51 — Christopher Marlowe (not verified)

Wiki-Fakes! Do you really believe that the US intelligence service is being bested by some rogue news agency? Wiki-fakes will "leak" just enough to make good gossip, but never any news that actually accomplishes anything. Assange is a false front. Notice that the latest wiki-fakes are pushing more anti-Iran propaganda. "Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications," the prime minster told a group of editors in Tel Aviv. "The documents show many sources backing Israel's assessments, particularly of Iran." Wiki-fakes is a mossad operation.

No wonder Clinton is furious

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 18:53 — Heartbeatt (not verified)

No wonder Clinton is furious How about this instead:
"President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous spying on the UN Nations runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, Wikileaks has helped the cause of human rights and also the lives and work of all individuals. We condemn in the strongest terms this authorized collecting of classified documents and sensitive national security information."
The only reason they are screaming is because they know what they do is reprehensible. Why are diplomats being asked to do this and are there any who refuse?

This article, with its tone

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 19:28 — Jerry Clark (not verified)

This article, with its tone of hysteria, is filled with sound and fury signifying nothing. The Secretary of State is exercising much-needed due diligence.

2351 If Wikileaks is fake,

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 20:48 — drosera (not verified)

2351

If Wikileaks is fake, then the plan has backfired on the US. The rest of the world is angry at the United States and that is not what you want out of your State Department. I suppose you feel 9/11 was engineered by the Pentagon and that humans never landed on the moon. That's OK, though. It is always good to have a skeptic or two around--even if that rear guard action on the roundness of the Earth has yet to bear fruit.

M.O. Who are are

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 21:11 — S. Hubinette (Research Historian) (not verified)

M.O.
Who are are enemies, why are they our enemies, who are our friends, and why are they called friends?
Sun Tzu also considered alliances very important, jeopardizing them was the act of a fool, spying on your "allies" does not create mutual trust, but creates another potential enemy, or at least willing to be in alliance with another.
I understand the concept of knowing your enemies, but how is an enemy defined? One who does not follow your (nations) desires, plans, schemes, philosophy? How do these enemies come about, how are they created?

Lots of pairs of shoes that

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 22:02 — Anonymous (not verified)

Lots of pairs of shoes that I'm glad I'm not standing in right now.

"Oh what a tangled web we

Mon, 11/29/2010 - 23:50 — Stacey (not verified)

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Doesn't anyone find this situation humorous? It has made me chuckle all day. Imagine a world where there are no secrets. It could only be a vast improvement. Go Wiki Leaks! Keep up the continuous exposure so we can all watch the Kings and Queens who wear no clothes.

On balance, it's unfortunate

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 02:51 — webfoot doug (not verified)

On balance, it's unfortunate for America and the world that these documents were unilaterally released. Seems a lot of dreamers don't realize what nations need to do to survive in the real world. In its very essence, diplomacy requires privacy.
If Hilary Clinton's secretly collecting info on one another's staffs is the worst thing that comes out of this, then we aren't doing such a bad job at that.
These are not the Pentagon Papers.
But they do make fun reading if you like international gossip.

I think the only reason the

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 09:07 — tyler_durden (not verified)

I think the only reason the feds claim to care is because eventually the next pentagon papers WILL be found and released. They clearly have a leak as wide as the mississippi and they either can't find it, or have found it but don't know how much leaked before they were caught.

Either way, these cables are pretty cool to read. My favorites have been one about the old iranian ex-pat who had to escape on horseback into turkey, and one with president assad of syria basically telling US congressmen they had absolutely no idea what they were talking about and had no idea how things work outside the US.

But Hill-Rod being outraged over this is HILLarious given her orders to spy on everyone. I regret voting for obama. At least when the republicans did this sort of shit you're not surprised. They don't run on platforms of making things better and pulling a Dark Helmet "FOOOOOLED YOU!" after winning.

These revelations rather

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:05 — Larry Glick (not verified)

These revelations rather make Richard Nixon look like one of the more honest and forthright politicians.

WikiLeaks will show the

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 19:51 — not america (not verified)

WikiLeaks will show the PEOPLE the TRUTH

The career Diplo-mats will not
The MSM will not
The US Intelligence Community will not
The US police state will not
The US career politicians will not

Only WIKILEAKS will tell the PEOPLE the truth

The Plutocrats news source or WIKILEAKS

you choose ....

All of the countries are

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 23:12 — Anonymous (not verified)

All of the countries are doing this, I am sure, and it didn't start with Clinton. And for sure, they do this, too, with the people who they hire and work with.

What concerns me, most, is the influence the U.S. desires to wield on other countries in terms of their domestic policies, especially when they are more progressive.

For example, one of the cables, which I believe was from the U.S. Ambassador to France to C. Rice, Secretary of State, discussed their "progress" through Sarcozy in terms of his efforts to "reform" domestic policy; the reforms, that is, that have now had millions in the street in outraged protest. (Of course, from the tone of this cable, you would never know how many French citizens are opposed to these "reforms.")

They were *hopeful* with Sarcozy, but not entirely approving, and quite uncomfortable, for the most part, it seemed, with France. It was surprising to read, for myself, because it did not at all have the air of a communication concerning one of our allies.

I recall that Sarcozy eventually leaned to Obama, with some reluctance, but also, relief at his winning. I think the Bush administration was very difficult to work with, for many world leaders.

But, also, I think the attitudes conveyed by these "communiques" were not unfamiliar to the heads of state they discussed, either.

It's ironic that people are

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 23:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

It's ironic that people are arguing that government officials have a right to privacy of communications, when those communications concern the violation of others' privacies.

I remember some people who became involved with the Democratic Party, and some materials were delivered to their home for them to do some work contacting people, or something or other. Well, there were notes about people, personal assessments by god only knows who, and what did they discover, but notes about them, too, off-handed analyses of the wife, and the husband. And the analyses were rather silly and unfounded.

I have to think, it wasn't so far from there to where we are, here. With about as much import to be attached to whatever their conclusions are about the various people who work with or for them, as they talk about each other, among each other, and draw their subjective judgments on any number of factors from the information they filter with individual brains, for the most, likely, faulty.
continued

continued I once heard that

Tue, 11/30/2010 - 23:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

continued

I once heard that about 90% of human perception is "projection."

Given that our foreign policy is riding on as much, I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

I do think the privacy violations, though, represent a threat to all people.

Btw, if you've ever tried to reach Progressive Democrats, you may have noticed that their computer systems are completely hacked, and one of their failings as an "effective" group is their lack of action on this matter ... somehow, I don't think they're being hacked by the Republicans, but by their "own people."

@ 04:34 - When you read

Wed, 12/01/2010 - 00:11 — Anonymous (not verified)

@ 04:34 - When you read articles about how the Progressives cave on health care, and soon, we'll hear something about their caving on social security, etc. -- consider that hacking well, my friends. If an organization can't get its act together enough to even communicate effectively over the internet in this day and age -- how in the blazes are they going to win on these "progressive" issues ? Do they even *really* want to win ?

I knew someone who worked for a city both when the Democrats were in power, and then, the Republicans. To this person, the big deal between the two was simple organizational ability. The Democrats ran a sloppy shop, while the Republicans -- in terms of what offices procedures, etc. were -- had their shit together. As sad as that is to hear for some, it was true.

So there are the goals, but there are also the means and the locomotion. If we want to change the world, we ain't gonna be able to do it, if there isn't a thinking file clerk who knows how to alphabetize, someone who read a letter, understand what kind of problem it's communicating, and solve it effectively, and so forth.

Without these skills and abilities -- you're not going to get health care, save and expand social security, feed the hungrey and house the homeless.

The boring stuff that choo-choos you there. And that mlitary branches often appreciate the reality of, moreso.

Addendum to my prior

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 13:10 — Anonymous (not verified)

Addendum to my prior comments which may have you thinking otherwise (and I HOPE the government IS reading) -- this is it for us, with the Clintons, too. We've dumped the Democrats since the health care debacle, and now, along with this wikileaks, there's the fresh information about torture coming out. We hung on to our hopes about Hillary for a long time, through the sexism of the left and the Obama campaign, and so on .. and we braved our transfer to the Obamites .. and we hung on through Obama's *stuff* because of what he means to so many .. but this is it. I'm really sorry I ever took the crap I did caucusing for her, campaigning for her, and then, campaigning for him. My labor was worth more than any dollars they receieved from their corporate buddies.

We stand by Julian Assange. Hillary Clinton was once with the People but she is no more. Our foreign policy and our government is a travesty of justice and human rights.

Get out of these military engagements you've all driven the U.S. into trillions of dollars in debt, open up Medicare, stop bailing out the banks and bail out the People ! Save and EXPAND social security. A Guaranteed Minimum Income For All Americans if you can't put the jobs out there ! Produce jobs not killers and torturers and more health insurance companies and useless politicians.

GO JULIAN! Thank goodness for countries like Bolivia or whereever it is that he has been offered asylum ! There are millions upon millions of homes around the world that would open their doors to this man if he needed it. And there are millions of homes that would not answer if a politician came ringing the bell.