Assange Plays The Clinton Card

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:43:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Public Enemy Num. 1 (snark), Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, with an assist from Time Editor Citizen Rick Stengel, plays the Clinton Card:

Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, "should resign." [. . . T]he WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel [. . .] Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like "the fall guy" in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. "I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."

I'm not too sure about the "espionage in the UN" issue. But the argument I've seen is not very convincing:

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".

The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable"."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".

Spying, generally speaking, is going to be illegal in the country in which the spying occurs. Is there something different about spying at the UN? The language cited does not really persuade me, though the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations comes closer in that it makes a specific reference to "official correspondence." However, the directive referred to seems to not call for spying on official correspondence (or personal correspondence of the diplomats) but rather gathering information about individuals. It is true that it also calls for gathering information that could lead to espionage regarding official correspondence, but it does not order it. That was likely left to the CIA.

I assume State Department counsel signed off on the legality of the directive signed by Clinton (and before her, Condaleeza Rice) and from what I see, I'm not sure I would disagree. Let me put it this way, if the Beltway Media really thinks there is some doubt about the Yoo/Bybee torture memos, then this should be a slam dunk, to coin a phrase, for them.

In any event, the chances of Clinton "being the fall guy" were precisely zero before Assange endorsed this outcome. Now that he has, it is a -100.

Speaking for me only

< Karzai's Drug Pardons: Yesterday's News and a Bigger Issue | The Bear Bryants Of Political Bargaining >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Assange Plays The Clinton Card | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Clinton's characterizing the wikileaks dump as (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:27:35 AM EST

"an attack" upon us all were & are outrageous. Sounds like Nixon re Pentagon Papers which after all revealed the criminality of our government at work.

there is a point to be made (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:39:14 AM EST

that this dump damages what the left is generally supposed to want more of. diplomacy.

this puts diplomats, not just Clinton, in difficult positions in several areas.

I can see why she would say that actually.


So can I (none / 0) (#12)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:46:30 AM EST

she's a hawk, the language comes naturally.


Probably (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:49:01 AM EST

But I personally find it hard to imagine anyone in her position not saying pretty much the same thing.

Who cares really?


you are much more forgiving of the Clintons... (none / 0) (#15)
by Dadler on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:56:28 AM EST

...than you are of other pols, you have to admit that. Personally, when Bill came recently out and talked about employment and Americans just not being ready to do those new jobs of the future, yap yap yap, he proved himself, finally, to be a complete and clueless phucking idiot whom I will never listen to again about anything. Period.

The Clintons, for all their accomplishments, are big pieces of nothing, just like Obama is to me.

Hillary oughtta shut her trap about all of this and act like an evolved human being. Right now, she's so full of sh*t, it's a wonder she can suck a breath.

The American government is a lying, corrupt institution. These leaks serve to destroy that.


You should check this out then (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:04:40 AM EST

Foreign Policy's list of "Top Global Thinkers" from November 29, 2010. Bill and Hillary are number 13 on the list. (sorry, can't link). This year, the two made it on the list "for proving that you don't need to be president to act presidential."

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in September, Hillary Rodham Clinton sounded a confident note: "After years of war and uncertainty, people are wondering what the future holds, at home and abroad. So let me say it clearly: The United States can, must, and will lead in this new century."
Ironically, two of the people most crucial to the new global century are the Clintons themselves: the ex-president and the ex-would-be-president, the power couple now defined by their position just outside the highest reaches of power. Except that, these days, both Clintons are more influential, and more beloved, than ever. Bill's Clinton Global Initiative is starting to feel like a sexier, more effective competitor not just to Davos but to the United Nations itself, bringing world leaders together to commit their resources to fighting poverty with market-based, technocratic solutions. As of this summer, his foundation had contributed $23 million and countless man-hours to the effort to rebuild Haiti. Polls have shown he's a better advocate for Democratic candidates than the actual president, and he spent most of the fall stumping for woebegone Dems from Orlando to Seattle.
Meanwhile, Hillary showed up in one recent poll as the most popular political figure in the United States, an accolade she has earned through a no-drama approach to an array of thankless tasks: brushing off Vladimir Putin's temper tantrum to reach agreement on nuclear disarmament and Iran sanctions, promoting women's rights over the objections of entrenched traditionalists, and launching an innovative effort to bring clean cookstoves to the world's poorest. But what she has mainly stood for is American competence, with her Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review a major, if unglamorous step toward making U.S. statesmanship a more agile beast. If this is what Clinton nostalgia looks like, bring it on.

Actually (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:15:27 AM EST

I'm not. I spend a lot of time reminding people that they expect MORE from the Clintons than they do other pols.

Campaign promises for example. Have I ever acted as if I believed them from any pol?

Let me remind you of one instance in particular - Obama's promise to redo NAFTA. WHEN he made the promise I said I won't hold it against him (I am pro-NAFTA) because I knew he did not mean it.


actually (none / 0) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:40:59 AM EST

The American government is a lying, corrupt institution. These leaks serve to destroy that.

from what I have read so far these documents do not seem to do that at all to me. it seems to me from what I have read that in pretty much every case it shows that public and private policy is exactly the same.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#32)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:41:04 AM EST

with the exception of the UN thing the documents are suprisingly mundane in terms of US duplicity- especially when contrasted with the rather expected disparity between Arab leaders public and private opinions on Military action against Iran.

: Repetition (none / 0) (#34)
by waldenpond on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:44:05 AM EST

It's merely additional verification of all the lies the US and other 'leaders' tell. Did anyone not think it was the US doing the bombing in Yemen?
This is nothing because it's just another story that the US is authoritarian and corrupt.

I think it was a conscious effort (none / 0) (#25)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:08:41 AM EST

during this "time of war" to equate Assange with the terrorists. I find it deplorable in a supposed democracy that attempts by the press to inform citizens is described as an attack on our country, indeed the free world.

There are secrets governments need to maintain, but it is painfully obvious far too much is classified, material that is not essential to "national security." And this is done in order to keep citizens uninformed, and to spare political leaders embarassment and/or critical review of their performance in office.

Regardless of whether secret information is appropriately classified or not, when the government loses control of the information the press has every right, in my view a duty, to make public that which the press independently concludes is newsworthy.

I don't feel as though I have been attacked. I feel further enlightened.


what "conscious effort" (none / 0) (#26)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:10:53 AM EST

Peter King has been on every news network and blog trying to get them classified as a terrorist organization.


I am refering specifically to HRC's comment (none / 0) (#28)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:13:52 AM EST

that the wikileaks dump is an attack on us all or some such nonsense.


: so (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:19:34 AM EST

do really think with all we have to worry about that we have "a right to know" that Hillary is wondering if that woman from Argentina (is it?) is no some psychotic medication?
who cares?

Normally I'd agree (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:39:11 AM EST

about the "militirization of language" but I'm a reasonably verbose person and I'm struggling for a non-violent verb to describe the effect of this leak on US diplomatic efforts (which is what Hillary was referring to the in quote in question).


Do you not (none / 0) (#30)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:37:37 AM EST

see how the leaks do absolutely nothing to dimish the chances of war and while largely insubstantial if anything increase the chances of war with Iran- frankly the whole "missle technology from North Korea" "every other country in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to Israel wants the US to Attack Iran", "split US and Russia" gambit seems almost tailormade to fracture the fragile US-Russia cooperation necessary for sanctions, and to ratchet up the support for American military action against Iran. But hey I guess that could be what you want as well because then you can call the Obama admin super hawkish.


There's already reason enough (none / 0) (#36)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:50:05 AM EST

to call this Administration super hawkish without these leaks.

I think the leaks do diminish the chance of war with Iran as the duplicitous countries can no longer hide behind the US and Israel should either attack Iran


I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:06:49 PM EST

you remember from, oh, two or three years back what a "super-hawkish" administration looks like.


: And I think little (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:13:53 PM EST

was leaked that anyone doesn't already know

Diplomacy not reality tv (none / 0) (#14)
by waldenpond on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:55:47 AM EST

The reality tv aspect of investigating royals is a waste of resources and makes State look like a bunch of bumblers. Lying to people destroys credibility. The world doesn't believe the US lies anyway.


Isn't honesty... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:01:23 AM EST

a critical component of diplomacy?

The diplomatic community reminds me of backstabbing, trash-talking, phony, high school lunch room cliques.

This might hurt diplomacy in the short term, but help it in the long run...if the diplomatic community changes its tune.


No, no its not (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:43:53 AM EST

Diplomacy is like all other negotiations you tell people what they want to here and pursue your own goals as much as possible while cooperating when absolutely necessary- would you tell the absolute truth about how much your willing to pay when buying a car? Don't we all tell little white lies about our opinions of people? (Whereas brutally honest assesment is a good thing when trying to inform those without direct knowledge about the nature of a situation).


Not exactly (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:11:41 AM EST

Diplomacy involves saying the right thing - so as not to offend another party - rather than brutal honesty.

It's more diplomatic to say, "Your haircut looks unique" rather than say "Your haircut looks like you tripped in front of a lawnmower."


: I'm not saying it has to be brutal.. (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:36:25 AM EST

you can be honest about your goals, desires, intentions, concerns without being a d*ck about it.
Lies and deception have a way of snowballing into bigger lies and deceptions, and next thing ya know there is a war on with bodies stacked a mile high.

if fact (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:54:35 AM EST

diplomacy does not and never has had much to do with honesty.


I see your points gang... (none / 0) (#39)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:47:56 PM EST

and it is little wonder the world is in a constant fubar state when those tasked with keeping the peace are expected to act like used car salesmen.


Human Nature (none / 0) (#40)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:56:49 PM EST

People don't want to be told the cold, honest truth. And it's all about power - no one reacts well to someone trying to strong arm them, so whole wars can get started by protocol errors being used as an excuse.


: Human nature.... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 04:55:10 PM EST

I guess that is what it is...a seedier aspect of it anyway.

I hear that... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:31:25 AM EST

if this is an attack, I'm an astronaut.

I, for one, appreciate the insight into geopolitics, which seems more like high school than I had imagined.


Meh (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:45:44 AM EST

That's what pols do.

Assange is not an American so she didn't call him a traitor.

I actually think Greenwald is getting at the real issue - why is the media attacking Assange? Very strange.


: The media (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 02:43:50 PM EST

is attacking Assange because his leaks demonstrate just how badly the media does its job of keeping people informed, and because his model threatens their system of access to high officials in exchange for publishing only what high officials want published.

: The media reporting on this has been (none / 0) (#22)
by Anne on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:28:27 AM EST

dreadful, more or less presenting only one side of the story - the one, as Glenn posts, the government wants and expects them to present, as if it is - once again - all we need to know. There's an irony there that is utterly lost on these New Age Baghdad Bobs and Babs...
I've yet to hear any of the big-name talking heads confront or question the government's position, but they all make sure we know that Assange is being investigated on rape charges...and we know what that means, don't we?
Maybe Obama should just nationalize the major media and we can all stop pretending they are much more than the government's propaganda operation.
Oh, wait, what am I thinking? That would mean he'd have to go toe-to-toe with his corporate BFFs, so...nevermind...

: I havent yet read Greenwald but I agree (none / 0) (#27)
by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:12:18 AM EST

the media should be supporting this guy, not attacking him.
But then again American mass media has become nothing more than, IMHO, a consortium of corporate PR department.
AP should now be understood to stand for "Associated PR."

While a State Department Counsel (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by KeysDan on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:06:32 AM EST

likely signed off on the legality of the Clinton and Rice directives, my guess is that the legal opinion went through several drafts, if not authors, before finalized.

A fine line exists between collection of information, and collection of correspondence (and other collections, such as body fluids), especially when the information sought includes DNA samples, iris scans, credit card numbers, fingerprints.and other personal information.

However, it is not surprising that both Secretaries Clinton and Rice would bring a more hawkish or muscular tone to the State Department. Indeed, during Senate budget hearings Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton both argued against cuts in the State Department budget citing how the military and diplomats work hand-in-glove, and that much of the money goes directly to the frontline of the war on terror (Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan were cited).

Now the times may require a shift, but it should not be a surprise when diplomats are viewed as intelligence assets. But, one thing is certain--the revelation, despite protestations, will help future State Department budgets and will not hurt Mrs. Clinton's political prospects.

Sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 10:17:55 AM EST

"A fine line exists between collection of information, and collection of correspondence (and other collections, such as body fluids), especially when the information sought includes DNA samples, iris scans, credit card numbers, fingerprints.and other personal information."

But reading the convention, it seems to me Clinton did not cross it.

I could see arguments for the other side of course.

I mean this is not like the torture memos.


Actually I'm not entirely (none / 0) (#35)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 11:47:24 AM EST

sure I agree with that- I mean morally I do no doubt but this is the exact sort of fine-tooth parsing of International Law that was used to justify torture-- again morally they're very different but both do seem to be workarounds (though in this case a workaround that doesn't really bother me all that much- I pretty much assume as a given that all country's attempt to spy on each other as much as is possible- it'd be dumb not to given the impact of state decision-making I mean having information is just prudent).


Well (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:10:33 PM EST

You are wrong on the MERITS of the parsing.

Your comment is shocking to me.

The Yoo/Bybee memo was not even colorably correct.

If you do not agree,well sorry, I have no respect for your opinion on the subject.

FTR, I have gained a thorough understanding of the torture legal issues over the years. No one I take seriously has any doubts that the Yoo/Bybee memo is one of the most contemptuous legal memos they have ever read.


: And haven't the authors (none / 0) (#46)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:19:18 PM EST

as much admitted that the content was prepared so as to support the opinion the Admin requested? And isn't this "admission" one of the basis for the call for disbarment?

But (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:48:58 AM EST

Spying, generally speaking, is going to be illegal in the country in which the spying occurs. Is there something different about spying at the UN? The language cited does not really persuade me, though the 1961 Vienna Conventionon diplomatic relations comes closer in that it makes a specific reference to "official correspondence." However, the directive referred to seems to not call for spying on official correspondence but rather gathering information about individuals....

Is the UN Headquarters consdered the same as an embassy as far as spying? Does the US have jurisdiction on everything that goes on in the building?

No (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:01:26 AM EST

Nor are the embassys in Washington.

My point is different. to wit, what I saw from the directive was the collection of information, not the collection of correspondence.


: Ah, thanks. (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:03:35 AM EST

people like Tweety and (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:51:28 AM EST

John Podhoretz are saying the leaks might be a good thing. I wonder if he is saying this about Clinton just to get the right off his back.

seems to be working to some extent.

Is Assange off Interpol yet? (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:08:16 AM EST

Not sure who put him on Interpol though. Maybe Sweden.


Sweden. (Not U.S.). (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:12:55 AM EST

: Sweden could be... (none / 0) (#43)
by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 03:21:19 PM EST

taking the heat for the US...like Yemen taking the heat for our bombs.

A few nights ago (none / 0) (#7)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:14:00 AM EST

Wilkerson (sp?) who served under Powell spoke to Olbermann about the leaks; WIlkerson says a lot of the docs leaked are attempts by various players to persuade, to influence policy, etc., and must be understood as such and not taken at face value as reflections of policy. I understand that a signed order is different, but just wanted to convey this perspective on the overall document 'dump'.

Another question: Who at Dept. of State would leak the documents? A Republican holdover who is anti- Obama and/or anti-Clinton? Where are our security measures lacking that make such leaks possible?