waldo Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why on earth would they apologize for that? Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... nuthin to see here, says Dancer... just move along now! Unless we assume nationalism the highest moral virtue, more important than truth. Some do, I think. yes... some do! legalities? Morality? Whaaa!... "diplomatic immunity, squawk!, diplomatic immunity, squawk!" US spying on UN leadership • Diplomats ordered to gather intelligence on Ban Ki-moon • Secret directives sent to more than 30 US embassies • Call for DNA data, computer passwords and terrorist links Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.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". The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow. The leak of the directive is likely to spark questions about the legality of the operation and about whether state department diplomats are expected to spy. The level of technical and personal detail demanded about the UN top team's communication systems could be seen as laying the groundwork for surveillance or hacking operations. It requested "current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top officials and their support staff", as well as details on private networks used for official communication, "to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network versions used". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why on earth would they apologize for that? Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... Oh, right. And that US officials are now denying the charge (though contradicting themselves as they do so) means--again--that they are openly, blatantly, lying to everybody. Something which you support, evidently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why on earth would they apologize for that? Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... Igor Gouzenko anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why on earth would they apologize for that? Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... Duh! Doesn't everyone know at least that much? Say it ain't so, Joe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Oh, right. And that US officials are now denying the charge (though contradicting themselves as they do so) means--again--that they are openly, blatantly, lying to everybody.Something which you support, evidently. notwithstanding, in regards the UN, the U.S. being a signatory to the UN convention on privileges and immunities Section 3. The premises of the Untied 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Why on earth would they apologize for that? Because if the shoe was on the other foot and this was a story about foreign diplomats spying on us or the US (Oh the humanity) you'd be crapping your panties even harder, faster and more breathlessly than you already are. Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... No that would be your own world view that's being rubbed in your nose. Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... Yes when we do it, but then you call water-boarding intelligence gathering when we do it so the phrase sounds a little empty when you apply it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... Isn't that the purpose of foreign embassies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Yes when we do it, but then you call water-boarding intelligence gathering when we do it so the phrase sounds a little empty when you apply it. Poor eyeball... thinks the trade attache waterboards people.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Poor eyeball... thinks the trade attache waterboards people.... No, you're the one crapping your pants here Mo not me. Your trade attache is probably just doing his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Why on earth would they apologize for that? Is this a sudden revelation on the hackey sack circuit? My god, your world vierw must be in tatters.... Diplomats have always been intelligence gatherers... The US didnt just collect intelligence here though. They completely failed to secure it. Theyre leaking classified data constantly... hundreds of thousands of documents. My guess is that right now just about every country on earth that has any "interesting" dealings with the US is panicking, wondering if information about them is going to mishandled by the US gov next. I actually bet theres a LOT of apologizing going on right now. This is the problem with the massive overclassification of public information. Your universe of data gets so large that it gets hard to secure it, and manage which of your employees can access it, and secure them. The US government probably has literally billions of documents that could do all kinds of harm to people around the world... And theyre all wondering whats gonna be in the NEXT dump. Theres a lot of nervous people in some banks too... wondering if the whistle is gonna bet blown on THEIR shady dealings. Edited December 1, 2010 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) notwithstanding, in regards the UN, the U.S. being a signatory to the UN convention on privileges and immunities Yes, and when Assange committed the further "treasonous [sic] act of pointing this out, the entire news media's jaws fell agape: "Did you hear what he said about Hillary Clinton?" they moaned in despair. Honestly, this whole matter has exposed more slavering sycophancy--not least from the "small government conservatives"--than I've literally ever heard. The servility is ubiquitous, and is an astonishing confession of the state of our political culture. Edited December 1, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Honestly, this whole matter has exposed more slavering sycophancy--not least from the "small government conservatives"--than I've literally ever heard. The servility is ubiquitous, and is an astonishing confession of the state of our political culture. It's truly bizarre if not a little creepy. The phenomenon must be part of the same complex of obsessive compulsions in which the desire to get the state off people's backs is matched by the desire to also jump all over them. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 It's truly bizarre if not a little creepy. The phenomenon must be part of the same complex of obsessive compulsions in which the desire to get the state off people's backs is matched by the desire to also jump all over them. . The contradictions are manifest, aren't they? I've long suspected that a lot of the talk about "smaller government" refers specifically and only to tax rates. Period. A pretty limited view, and one which obviously begs a lot of questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 The contradictions are manifest, aren't they? I've long suspected that a lot of the talk about "smaller government" refers specifically and only to tax rates. Period. A pretty limited view, and one which obviously begs a lot of questions. Read my lips!! Because they are all lies. They say smaller government, however it has never gotten smaller ever, it has only increased. No new taxes .. but more taxes. A promise of new improved health care ...no new health care. Taxes getting cut ... aaaahah noooo taxes won't be cut. Yay for doublespeek. Double plus non good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Lordy you guys go off on tangents, what a load of yuk to wade through, or scroll on by.. Just read the Amazon the host server of wikileaks has pulled the plug, the Guardian isn't the most accurate of papers however, so will look for another source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Lordy you guys go off on tangents, what a load of yuk to wade through, or scroll on by.. Just read the Amazon the host server of wikileaks has pulled the plug, the Guardian isn't the most accurate of papers however, so will look for another source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon Wikileaks.com is down, no more. Someone is worried about the info that is there. However, I love the way this is shaking the-powers-that-be up some. Damage control ALL over the MSM. Even if there are no more leaks we now see how easily information on the net can be controlled. Still waiting for the 'big' thing..... something is around the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Wikileaks.com is down, no more. Someone is worried about the info that is there. However, I love the way this is shaking the-powers-that-be up some. Damage control ALL over the MSM. Even if there are no more leaks we now see how easily information on the net can be controlled. Still waiting for the 'big' thing..... something is around the corner. Incorrect. Wikileaks is still up. Amazon stopped providing hosting services but there are many other providers. www.wikileaks.org Edited December 1, 2010 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Incorrect. Wikileaks is still up. Amazon stopped providing hosting services but there are many other providers. www.wikileaks.org Ahh good good .. I was going to wikileaks.com ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 As for calling for his assassination--it should amaze me (but doesn't) that officials are calling for first-degree murder. Which officials have called for his assassination? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Man... it cant be fun to be that guy right now. Every government worshipping sycophant on earth is gunning for the guy. Wont suprise me a bit if he winds up dead. I guess they know the risk though... The company that owns wikileaks has been fighting government censorship of information for quite a while. It was founded by chinese dissidents who probably faced the same kind of tactics used against wikileaks today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Man... it cant be fun to be that guy right now. Every government worshipping sycophant on earth is gunning for the guy. Wont suprise me a bit if he winds up dead. I won't be sup[rised if he ends up with a talk show It was founded by chinese dissidents who probably faced the same kind of tactics used against wikileaks today. Lie. Chinese dissidents CIA agents. No MSG. CHINA WIN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) I'm more afraid of a more dangerous change; that diplomats may begin couching their language out of fear that their frank and honest utterances will, while they may still be at their posts, published for the world to see.Wow, Toadbrother. What an astounding conclusion.This happened several decades ago. ----- After a quick glance through this thread, I think posters misunderstood my OP. The State Department is largely irrelevant and these cables are equally meaningless. This is not how world leaders conduct foreign policy. These cables are the result of sending Washington bureaucrats out to world capital cities. The bureaucrats read the local papers (through interpreters), talk to a few journalists or political leaders, have a drink with fellow expats at the local Hilton and then write these cables. Nobody important in Washington reads them. We live in a world of the Internet, and where Obama can pick up the phone and talk to Berlusconi whenever he wants. Obama doesn't rely on State department cables to know what is happening in the world. Posters here, and people who see something serious in this wikileak, have an image of diplomacy that dates from the 19th century. Edited December 2, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) Thus far the only things that seem of a serious nature are the revelations that Middle Eastern states have all been begging the US to take out Iran's nuclear program. Judging by Israel's ecstatic reaction, there's one country out there that probably is toasting Assange and Co. as we speak. The pressure on the US to do something meaningful about Iran is going to grow immensely now that we find out that the Egyptians, Saudis and Jordanians are on the same page as Israel. If Assange thought that the release of information was going to turn hawks into doves, he may have in fact inadvertently done quite the opposite. What's even more important is what is left out of the I-told-you-so claims about the supposed Iranian threat: that the people don't agree with their dictators. Our leaders, and Israel, agree with the dictators...big surprise. But the tyrants' subjects generally do not. Because, while we hear these revelations about Saudi Royals wishing for a US attack on Iran, the other story (as per your sensible remark elsewhere about people's versus States' opinions) complicates matters somewhat. Polling conducted last month by Zogby and the University of Maryland in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates suggests that views in the region are shifting toward a positive perception of Iran's nuclear program. These views present problems for Washington, which has counted on Arabs seeing Iran as a threat maybe even a bigger one than Israel. So why is Arab public opinion toward Iran shifting? According to our polling, a majority of Arabs do not believe Iran's claim that it is merely pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. But an overwhelming majority believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons and should not be pressured by the international community to curtail its program. Even more telling, a majority of those polled this year say that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be positive for the Middle East. In 2009, only 29% of respondents viewed that as a positive. In another Brookings poll (not cited here, I don't think, but I will find it) it is pointed out that 80% of Arabs see the United States as a serious threat, and 10% see Iran as a serious threat. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 We live in a world of the Internet, and where Obama can pick up the phone and talk to Berlusconi whenever he wants. Obama doesn't rely on State department cables to know what is happening in the world. Who does he rely on then, Wikipedia? One of the reasons diplomats exist is to give Obama a reading on people like Berlusconi before he even picks up the phone. Also to prepare the groundwork of whatever negotiation is going to take place. He can't know every world leader or go cold into every conversation with one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 2, 2010 Report Share Posted December 2, 2010 Who does he rely on then, Wikipedia? One of the reasons diplomats exist is to give Obama a reading on people like Berlusconi before he even picks up the phone. Also to prepare the groundwork of whatever negotiation is going to take place. He can't know every world leader or go cold into every conversation with one. As far as I'm concerned the Obamas and Berlusconis of the world should be in near constant direct communication with one another on a daily basis. The world is too small and its problems are too large to not be. The system you describe belongs in a day and age when communications travelled no faster than a horse or a sail boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.