By Ralph Nader at Nader.org:
Hillary Clinton has completed her four-year tenure as Secretary of State to the accolades of both Democratic and Republican Congressional champions of the budget-busting “military-industrial complex,” that President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address. Behind the public relations sheen, the photo-opportunities with groups of poor people in the developing world, an ever more militarized State Department operated under Clinton’s leadership.
A militarized State Department is more than a repudiation of the Department’s basic charter of 1789, for the then-named Department of Foreign Affairs, which envisioned diplomacy as its mission. Secretary Clinton reveled in tough, belligerent talk and action on her many trips to more than a hundred countries. She would warn or threaten “consequences” on a regular basis. She supported soldiers in Afghanistan, the use of secret Special Forces in other places and “force projection” in East Asia to contain China. She aggressively supported or attacked resistance movements in dictatorships, depending on whether a regime played to Washington’s tune.
Because Defense Secretary Robert Gates was openly cool to the drum beats for war on Libya, Clinton took over and choreographed the NATO ouster of the dictator, Muammar al-Gaddafi, long after he had given up his mass destruction weaponry and was working to re-kindle relations with the U.S. government and global energy corporations. Libya is now in a disastrous warlord state-of-chaos. Many fleeing fighters have moved into Mali, making that vast country into another battlefield drawing U.S. involvement. Blowback!
Time and again, Hillary Clinton’s belligerence exceeded that of Obama’s Secretaries of Defense. From her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton sought to prove that she could be just as tough as the militaristic civilian men whose circle she entered. Throughout her four years it was Generalissima Clinton, expanding the American Empire at large.
Here is some of what the candid camera of history will show about her record:
1. A Yale Law School graduate, she shared with President Obama, a former Harvard Law Review President, a shocking disregard for the law and separation of powers be it the Constitution, federal statues or international treaties. Her legal advisor, former Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, provided cover for her and Obama’s “drone ranger” (to use Bill Moyer’s words), John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor. Brennan gave the president weekly opportunities (White House aides called decision day “Terror Tuesdays”) to become secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Imagine thousands of push-button deaths and injuries of internal resisters and civilian bystanders in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere who presented no threat to the U.S.
The war on Libya, which Clinton spearheaded for Obama, was conducted without a Congressional Declaration of War, without even a War Resolution or a Congressional authorization or appropriation. She and her boss outdid Cheney and Bush on that score.
2. Although touting “diplomacy” as a priority, Clinton made little attempt to bring the United States into the community of nations by signing or ratifying international treaties already having as signatories over a hundred nations. As a former senator with bi-partisan support, Clinton didn’t use much of her capital on climate change agreements.
Human Rights Watch reports that chief among the unratified treaties are “international conventions relating to children, women, persons with disabilities, torture, enforced disappearance, and the use of anti-personal landmines and cluster munitions.” The last two treaties are designed to save thousands of lives and limbs of the children and their parents who are major victims of these concealed, atrocious weapons. Clinton has not gone to bat against the advocates for those “blowback” explosives that the Pentagon still uses.
When the Senate recently failed to ratify the treaty on disabilities, Clinton, with former senator and injured veteran, Robert Dole on her side, still didn’t make the maximum effort of which she is capable.
3. Secretary Clinton had problems heralding accurate whistleblowers. A 24-year-Foreign Service Officer, Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq running two State Department Reconstruction Teams. He exposed State Department waste and mismanagement along with the Pentagon’s “reconstruction” efforts using corporate contractors. Unlistened to, Van Buren, true to his civil service oath of office, went public. Clinton fired him. (wemeantwell.com.)
4. Possibly the most revealing of Clinton’s character was ordering U.S. officials to spy on top UN diplomats, including those from our ally, the United Kingdom. Shockingly, she even ordered her emissaries to obtain DNA data, iris scans (known as biometric data) and fingerprints along with credit card and frequent flier numbers.
The disclosure of secret State Department cables proved this to be a clear violation of the 1946 UN convention. Clinton included in this crude boomeranging personal espionage, the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon and his top officials all around the world. As befits these lawless times, there were no Congressional hearings, no accountabilities, and no resignation by the self-styled civil libertarian Secretary of State, not even a public apology.
5. Clinton led a dangerous expansion of the Department’s mission in Iraq. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 10, 2011, “In place of the military, the State Department will assume a new role of unprecedented scale, overseeing a massive diplomatic mission through a network of fortified, self-sufficient installations.”
To call this a diplomatic mission is a stretch. The State Department has hired thousands of private security contractors for armed details and transportation of personnel. Simply guarding the huge U.S. embassy in Iraq and its personnel costs more than $650 million a year – larger than the entire budget of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), which is responsible for reducing the yearly loss of about 58,000 lives in workplace-related traumas and sickness.
Another State Department undertaking is to improve the training and capability of Iraq’s police and armed forces. Countless active and retired Foreign Service officers believe expanded militarization of the State Department both sidelines them, their experience and knowledge, in favor of contractors and military people, and endangers them overseas.
Blurring the distinction between the Pentagon and the State Department in words and deeds seriously compromises Americans engaged in development and diplomatic endeavors. When people in the developing countries see Americans working to advance public health or clean drinking water systems within their countries, they now wonder if these are front activities for spying or undercover penetrations. Violent actions, fueled by this suspicion, are already jeopardizing public health efforts on the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Clinton’s successor, former Senator and war veteran, John Kerry, says he wants to emphasize peace, human rights, and anti-poverty endeavors. He doesn’t have to prove his machismo should he strive to de-militarize the State Department and promote peaceful, deliberative missions in the world, from which true security flows.
24 responses so far ↓
1 Deran // Mar 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm
The liberals will always ahte Mr. Nader, and he will always keep talking about what is really going on, no matter how much the powers that be hate him.
2 Kleptocracy And You // Mar 3, 2013 at 12:09 am
This is very important “stuff”. Hillary TRULY (is) was the frontwoMAN for the Powers that Be ! Taking her orders directly from them. Sadly she might just be resting up for a ’16 battle for the POTUS (possibly against Jeb Bush). The more things change, bulls#*%. A Clinton or Bush has been the upfront oval office puppet for 20 years of our lives, ENOUGH is ENOUGH friends! This is serious stuff, PLEASE no more CLINTON or BUSH ! – Thank You
`~CFR – Council on Foreign Relations Hillary Clinton tells who gives the orders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-sUywS0FJ4&feature=fvwrel
“Rockerfeller and the rest of his gang are all generational practising Satanists. Thats all anyone really needs to know coz everything that spews from their mouths is lies? and flies.”
-rushkagon on youtube 5
“The only risk to? the biosphere we live in is vermon like David Rockefeller, these nazis need to find another planet to live on.”
-infamos on youtube
{Why do} “300 million Americans have {only} 2 choices for president? Can you
imagine having 2 colors to pick for your car? Red or Blue. No silver, or black w/ chrome rims. No racing yellow or hunter green. Nope – 2 colors, red or blue. The 2 party system has failed us. Our corrupt corporate propaganda media has failed us. You cannot? give 300 million people 2 choices & expect change. They feign fighting on TV while they sleep together at night. We need a 3rd, 4th, 5th choice to fairly represent us” -shwantz2 on youtube
DESTROY the Two-Party Oligarchy system……..
3 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 3, 2013 at 12:58 pm
This is a great article, and I hope more people speak up against Hillary. The fact that she is a woman only makes her murderous, treasonous behavior even more despicible. I hope to see her in prison instead of the White House, in 2017.
4 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 9:01 am
She is, indeed, quite a piece of work. She knows what she does is wrong and doesn’t care.
5 Concerned Citizen // Mar 6, 2013 at 9:57 am
I’m not one to defend Hillary, but she doesn’t belong in a political prison.
Ms Pyeatt, is there anyone in power that you would not force into your Gulag?
6 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 10:08 am
Who said “political” prison? Actual prison for complicity in actual crimes against actual victims would be my presumption of what was meant here.
7 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 6, 2013 at 12:32 pm
CC @ 5: “Ms Pyeatt, is there anyone in power that you would not force into your Gulag?”
I’m sure you mean that as a rhetorical question and as a way to somehow make it look like I’m over critical, but there are some people in power whose terms in office don’t cause the death of others. I suppose they might be engaging in other crimes, ie finiancial, but if they’re not conducting themselves in an honest and forthright manner, then sure, they should be held accountable. Do you have a problem with that?
8 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 6, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Why doesn’t Hillary belong in prison? Are you nuts? I could start enumerating her many overreaches, but hey, if you can make a comment
like that I wouldn’t even know where to start.
There’s a document called the Constitution, you see…
9 Concerned Citizen // Mar 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Are you suggesting officials be jailed for violating the constitution?
10 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Of course. Otherwise what purpose would it serve?
11 Concerned Citizen // Mar 6, 2013 at 8:31 pm
The constitution is ambiguous. Having a view contrary (no matter how wrong) and putting that into motion does not make one a criminal. Of course those that make egregious misuses should be removed from office and at the very worst banned from serving. But you should not jail these people, because it is then akin to political imprisonment.
12 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 6, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Whether a politician should be jailed or not for violating the Constitution should depend on the severity of the action. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, she aggressively caused war-like events in Libya unconstitutionally which resulted in many lives lost and many millions of dollars spent without approval from Congress. This is something that constitutes enough of a crime that I definitely believe prison is appropriate. This is a country who has kept Bradley Manning in prison for 1000 days without trial (yes, I know there’s one now) for exposing secrets. I hold Hillary to a much higher standard.
13 Concerned Citizen // Mar 6, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Hillary was just following orders. The real one to blame is Obama. There are many valid reasons to impeach him but unless he is intentionally committing treason rather than backwards ideology he should not be imprisoned.
14 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Hillary was just following orders.
Now where have I heard that excuse used before?
15 Jill Pyeatt // Mar 6, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Cc @ 13: ” unless he is intentionally committing treason”
UNLESS HE IS INTENTIONALLY COMMITTING TREASON??? Are you crazy? Of course he is! How’s the weather in that rabbit hole you’re in???
And as far as Hillary only following orders, I happen to disagree, but even if she is, that’s no excuse. She should–and will be– judged accordingly.
Excuse me, did you accidentally stumble across our site, thinking we were the FollowingObamaNoMatterWhat website?
16 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 9:53 pm
I think that those posts just might be parody. “Just following orders” being used without irony? I doubt it.
17 Concerned Citizen // Mar 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Which one of you will run the libertarian gulag?
18 paulie // Mar 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm
You will!
19 Thomas Jefferson // Mar 7, 2013 at 12:22 am
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by jailing those who have the blood of tyrants on their hands.
Wait, what?
20 paulie // Mar 7, 2013 at 3:38 am
So it’s up to US government officials to determine who is a tyrant and carry out extrajudicial assassinations and launch wars without congressional authorization? I didn’t know that was Thomas Jefferson’s plan for the revolutionary American government.
Wait, what? Indeed.
21 Thomas Jefferson // Mar 8, 2013 at 10:49 am
No, it’s up to lovers of liberty to determine who is a tyrant. When France, the Netherlands, and Spain helped me fight tyranny during the Revolution, I didn’t worry about them being “world police”.
Re: my plan, are you not aware that, like Obama, I too ordered U.S. military action in Libya without a congressional declaration of war?
22 paulie // Mar 22, 2013 at 12:52 pm
That’s all well and good, but in practice it’s US regime officials, not lovers of liberty, who are making these determinations. I’m not sure I would qualify Hillary Clinton as a lover of liberty or trust her choices; would you?
Thanks for reminding me how, as an executive (whether of the US government or your own plantation), you failed so thoroughly to live up to your excellent rhetoric.
You were a complicated guy, TJ, but I’d rather see us follow the example of your words more than that of your actions.
23 Thomas Jefferson // Mar 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm
The subject was “jailing those who have the blood of tyrants on their hands”. By definition, it’s up to the would-be jailers to make the determination of whether the blood was that of a tyrant.
24 Sally Hemmings // Mar 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Sho nuff, Massa Tom, you sho right suh.
Leave a Comment