Did Hillary OK Taps on Diplomats?
A new book by Glenn Greenwald — Edward Snowden’s journalistic confessor — charges that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice asked the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats from countries casting the swing votes on the Security Council on whether to toughen sanctions on Iran.
Question: Did Hillary approve the surveillance? Did she know about it?
We need to know if the person who wants to be the next president approved and allowed the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats.
In Greenwald’s book, “No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S. Surveillance State,” he charges that as the Security Council met in May of 2010 to consider tougher sanctions against Iran, Rice asked the NSA for help “so that she could develop a strategy,” to win over the votes of undecided diplomats. Greenwald bases his accusation on leaked agency document unveiled by Snowden.
The NSA obligingly moved ahead with the paperwork to get approval to spy on diplomats from four Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. On May 26, 2010, the FISA Court approved the surveillance. What was the conceivable connection with terrorism that justified these taps?
It worked. All four nations fell in line and voted for the sanctions.
Afterwards, a grateful Rice wrote the NSA thanking it. She said that the intelligence helped her to know when diplomats from the other permanent Council members — Russia, China, the UK and France — “were telling the truth … revealed their real position on sanctions … gave us an upper hand in negotiations … and provided information on various countries ‘red lines.'”
Unless she had blinders on, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must have known of this surveillance and, most likely, would have been privy to the intercepts themselves. Whether she approved this kind of cloak and dagger diplomacy, which sows distrust of America all over the world, is a key question as the presidential candidacy looms.
Hillary had previously directly ordered spying on foreign diplomats in connection with the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December of 2009.
Again, documents from Snowden reveal that the NSA conducted surveillance on foreign delegations and monitored their communications giving U.S. negotiators advance information about other nations’ positions at the meeting.
The NSA monitoring likely played a role in a dramatic moment at the conference when, according to reports in The New York Times “Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret.
The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said.”
Jairam Ramesh, the then Indian environment minister and a key player in the talks asked why the US spied on rival delegations: “Why the hell did they do this and at the end of this, what did they get out of Copenhagen? They got some outcome but certainly not the outcome they wanted. It was completely silly of them.”
Hillary called for spying on other diplomats as soon as she took office as Secretary of State. Documents unearthed by Wikileaks show that she signed an order telling U.S. diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the U.N., and other top U.N. officials. She asked her people to get information on biometric information (such as DNA, fingerprints and iris scans), passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications. She also asked for their Internet and intranet usernames, email addresses, website URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers and work schedules.
With this penchant for spying, we are entitled to know if Hillary was involved in the latest revelations to come from the neverending Snowden disclosures.
When you were a kid, do you ever remember your mother asking you, “if your friends jumped off a bridge,
Yesterday, I ran across an article in USA Today that should have created a firestorm of controversy. Apparently, Congress has