Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: With her speech today, HRC made herself the pro-slaughter candidate. [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)80. What's her position on domestic surveillance?
She's cool with having diplomats spy.
Hillary Gets Wiki-Served
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_gets_wiki-served_20101130?ln
Hillary Clinton should cut out the whining about what the Obama administration derides as stolen cables and confront the unpleasant truths they reveal about the contradictions of U.S. foreign policy and her own troubling performance. As with the earlier batch of WikiLeaks, in this latest release the corruption of our partners in Iraq and Afghanistan stands in full relief, and the net effect of nearly a decade of warfare is recognized as a strengthening of Irans influence throughout the region.
~snip~
Instead of disparaging the motives of the leakers, Hillary Clinton should offer a forthright explanation of why she continued the practice of Condoleezza Rice, her predecessor as secretary of state, of using American diplomats to spy on their colleagues working at the United Nations. Why did she issue a specific directive ordering U.S. diplomats to collect biometric information on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and many of his colleagues?
As the respected British newspaper The Guardian, which obtained the WikiLeaks cables, said in summarizing the matter: A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clintons name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications system used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
The Guardian pointed out that the Clinton directive violates the language of the original U.N. convention, which reads: The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The spying effort derived from concern that U.N. rapporteurs might unearth embarrassing details about the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the directives demanded biographic and biometric information on Dr. Margaret Chan, the director of the World Health Organization, as well as details of her personality and management style. Maybe shes hiding bin Laden in her U.N. office.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_gets_wiki-served_20101130?ln
Hillary Clinton should cut out the whining about what the Obama administration derides as stolen cables and confront the unpleasant truths they reveal about the contradictions of U.S. foreign policy and her own troubling performance. As with the earlier batch of WikiLeaks, in this latest release the corruption of our partners in Iraq and Afghanistan stands in full relief, and the net effect of nearly a decade of warfare is recognized as a strengthening of Irans influence throughout the region.
~snip~
Instead of disparaging the motives of the leakers, Hillary Clinton should offer a forthright explanation of why she continued the practice of Condoleezza Rice, her predecessor as secretary of state, of using American diplomats to spy on their colleagues working at the United Nations. Why did she issue a specific directive ordering U.S. diplomats to collect biometric information on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and many of his colleagues?
As the respected British newspaper The Guardian, which obtained the WikiLeaks cables, said in summarizing the matter: A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clintons name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications system used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
The Guardian pointed out that the Clinton directive violates the language of the original U.N. convention, which reads: The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The spying effort derived from concern that U.N. rapporteurs might unearth embarrassing details about the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the directives demanded biographic and biometric information on Dr. Margaret Chan, the director of the World Health Organization, as well as details of her personality and management style. Maybe shes hiding bin Laden in her U.N. office.
US diplomats spied on UN leadership
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".
~snip~
The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".
~snip~
The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".
Factbox: Main revelations of WikiLeaks diplomatic cables
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/30/us-wikileaks-details-idUSTRE6AT1I720101130?pageNumber=3
ARGENTINA
-- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez, asking U.S. diplomats to investigate whether she was on medication.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/30/us-wikileaks-details-idUSTRE6AT1I720101130?pageNumber=3
ARGENTINA
-- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned the mental health of Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez, asking U.S. diplomats to investigate whether she was on medication.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
195 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
With her speech today, HRC made herself the pro-slaughter candidate. [View all]
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
OP
If you consider WWII like the mess we are in now then I understand you being confused. nt
Logical
Jun 2015
#5
FDR was great, but he was unable to do anything progressive domestically AFTER 12/7/41.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#11
Since you were content with Hillary doing "whatever it takes" to "defend the nation,"
OnyxCollie
Jun 2015
#112
You do not know a damn thing about me. In any event this conversation is at an end.
hrmjustin
Jun 2015
#115
If Obama is capable of keeping Gitmo open, why assume HRC would be above anything?
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#121
More war just raises the poverty levels at home. It enriches the MIC and Goldman-Sachs
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#160
That would be the FDR who said "Dr. New Deal has been replaced by Dr. Win-The War".
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#6
Roosevelt established his progressive policies and set out in a progressive direction
JDPriestly
Jun 2015
#47
He was less progressive in his second term(and agreed, there was no excuse for that).
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#82
He also was able to do things because he had a massive congress and a great depression...
Drunken Irishman
Jun 2015
#168
Uh, Nazi Germany truly posed an existential threat to everything good and decent
cheapdate
Jun 2015
#83
The best way to keep this country safe is to leave the rest of the world alone for once.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#9
I watched the little ant doing the infinity sign on your post with that thought till I realized
nightscanner59
Jun 2015
#65
We have inadvertently provided weapons to groups like ISIS because of our excessive
JDPriestly
Jun 2015
#59
You miss the point. We have more important issues than spreading democracy in the Middle East.
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#161
Yeah, like spreading democracy HERE in the USA, instead of digging us deeper into the hole of
PatrickforO
Jun 2015
#167
Democracy isn't like peanut butter, you can't spread it. The best one can do is
rhett o rick
Jun 2015
#181
True. In this day and age, a country can only become democratic from within and from below.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#184
The military budget is bloated and few would disagree unless they profit directly.
Enthusiast
Jun 2015
#69
Our military is not set up primarily for defense and hasn't been for a long time.
A Simple Game
Jun 2015
#93
"No war can ever be progressive or liberating again, and none can ever be feminist."
OilemFirchen
Jun 2015
#35
Bosnia was twenty years ago, and that was a negotiated settlement, not any military victory.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#117
It's about both. BTW, I don't have an "ideology"-just sincere personal convictions.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#81
Christ on a trailer hitch, do you know nothing of context? He was a young WW II veteran....
Hekate
Jun 2015
#32
Exactly...a mundane statement that every candidate will make at some point
BeyondGeography
Jun 2015
#53
So you prefer a president who wouldn't do what ever it takes to keep this country safe?
EX500rider
Jun 2015
#34
I suspect most ordinary folks expect their leaders to keep them safe.../NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2015
#38
You are confusing political rhetoric with reality. They have nothing in common
Jack Rabbit
Jun 2015
#60
I'd prefer one who at least kept that within the bounds of morality and human decency.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#87
Don't knock it! As it's a great place to practice creative writing skills and dramatic fiction:
freshwest
Jun 2015
#195
You mean the ones where he tells Middle Easern countries to fight their own battles?
Spitfire of ATJ
Jun 2015
#77
Bernie is not versed on foreign affairs, lacks enough experience. He has not shown he is willing to
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#50
Then he has a problem and one of the responsibilities of a president is making the
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#73
If you would have given the true story instead of the talking point we would discuss this further.
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#95
He will be elected, even if he gets the nomination he can't beat the republicans and he knows.
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#151
Most of us are just as offended when a male candidate says things like that.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#120
You seriously think that opposing HRC's militarism is the same thing as being Willard?
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#146
They all say it, like "Gold bless America". You cannot mean to tell me the sloganeering
Rex
Jun 2015
#136
It's her JOB to prove that a woman can be a good Commander In Chief....
Spitfire of ATJ
Jun 2015
#76
Not sure how to break this to you, Bob, but Hillary supporters are in the minority here.
leveymg
Jun 2015
#135
That would be the McCarthy and RFK Democrats whose candidates took over 69.9% of the primary vote
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#157
I am convinced Hillary or any of the GOP will keep the US in perpetual war.
AtomicKitten
Jun 2015
#139
she lifted that line directly from the boilerplate republican speech. let's see which duers cheer
Doctor_J
Jun 2015
#159
You're right, Ken. If we are to EVER have hope for social, economic and environmental justice,
PatrickforO
Jun 2015
#166
You'd think she'd remember how badly the "vaporize Iran" stance backfired on her.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#172
And yet we have Bernie, has access to security briefings but overlooks any action to halt ISIS. WTH
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#178
Well, it just may be our fight. we have already had the two guys in Texas, maybe just wannabes but
Thinkingabout
Jun 2015
#186
What do you want us to do? Put boots on the ground in every Arab/Muslim country?
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#187
None of which can happen in an adminstration that keeps an interventionist foreign policy going.
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#193
"Whatever it takes" is the same thing as saying "I agree with Cheney on foreign policy".
Ken Burch
Jun 2015
#192