Where Angels Prey

Where Angels Prey is a novel by Ramesh S Arunachalam. Please refer to www.whereangelsprey.com for more information

Monday, April 11, 2016

Did Hillary Clinton Conduct United States Foreign Policy Through A Private E Mail Via A Private Unsecure Server? (PART II)


Ramesh S Arunachalam 

I came across this very interesting but intriguing piece of information from the official website of US House of Representatives, The Select Committee on Benghazi, Minority Website (https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-latest-release-of-clinton-emails) and I reproduce the same below:

“Statement on Latest Release of Clinton Emails

January 8, 2016

Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Communications Director Jamal Ware released the following statement in response to several media inquiries regarding the State Department's FOIA release of a 2011 email from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"It is the FBI, not the Benghazi Committee, that is investigating the mishandling of classified information in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, private server to conduct official U.S. government foreign policy.

"Of course, none of the Secretary of State's emails – including one in which she appears to instruct a top aide to strip a document of its 'identifying heading and send non-secure' instead of via classified, secure fax – would have been discovered if not for the work of the Select Committee on Benghazi."

In 2010, Secretary Clinton
asked the same aide to "just email" information that was on the State Department's classified system.” (https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-latest-release-of-clinton-emails)

I have seen one of the e mails (2010) as the other e mail referenced is not available. I have however seen several hundred e mails that have been released so far and I will provide a deeper analysis of the same at a later stage.

For the moment, let us concentrate on the statements given in the press release dated January 8th 2016 on the Minority Website of The Select Committee on Benghazi, House of Representatives. Let us look at things statement by statement and I quote the first statement below:

Statement #1: "It is the FBI, not the Benghazi Committee that is investigating the mishandling of classified information in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, private server to conduct official U.S. government foreign policy.” (https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-latest-release-of-clinton-emails)

From the above, it can be inferred that the US House of Representatives, The Select Committee on Benghazi (Minority Website, https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-latest-release-of-clinton-emails) has made the statement that the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton HAD used an unsecure, private server to conduct official U.S. government foreign policy.

This is indeed a serious matter if you consider the duties of the Secretary of State and I quote from the official website that lists the duties of the Secretary of State (http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm)

“Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following[i]:

1.     Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
2.     Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs[ii];
3.     Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
4.     Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
5.     Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
6.     Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
7.     Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
8.     Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
9.     Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
10.  Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
11.  Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
12.  Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
13.  Administers the Department of State;
14.  Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.”

In the above, it must be noted that activities and responsibilities 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 (given above) have DIRECT implications for national defense. And apart from these activities and responsibilities, the activity/responsibility (given in bold in the last paragraph) also has serious implications for national defense as ‘The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries’.

All of these again offer proof of the fact that that the duties of the Secretary of State are also HUGELY concerned with national defense and national security, especially, in the changing world of the last 3 decades where fugitives like Osama Bin Laden have (hiding in other countries including Pakistan) waged war on the United States property, both in the mainland and elsewhere across the globe.

And it goes without saying that foreign policy has serious defense implications. So, foreign policy cannot be conducted in isolation as Nations everywhere (The United States included) attempt to build alliances against the global threat of transnational terrorism, which was in fact brought to the United States mainland via the despicable terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. Therefore, there is always a national security aspect and thereby a national defense component of foreign policy which needs to be recognised. Every foreign policy advisor including the United States Secretary of State would (have to) know that!

Dealing with transnational terrorism is therefore a very integral part of foreign policy and be it 9/11/2001 in the United States or 7/7/2005 (in London) or 26/11/2008 (India) or the recent Paris and Brussels attacks, it is foreign policy that will have to take a lead in ensuring national security. The national defense implications of this fact cannot be overemphasized. In fact, national security and national defense strategies are now an integral part of foreign policy because the foreign policy advisor (such as the United States Secretary of State) has the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of a nation’s assets, properties and citizens worldwide. There can be no two doubts about this!

That said, let us get back to statement #1 given in the press release dated January 8th 2016 on the (Minority) Website of The Select Committee on Benghazi, House of Representatives. The above also talks of classified information but let us get to the aspect of classified information later but please do keep it at the back of your mind! What is of immediate concern to me now and what should concern every American is the fact that the US House of Representatives, The Select Committee on Benghazi, Minority Website (https://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-latest-release-of-clinton-emails) has put forth the statement that “Secretary Clinton used an unsecure, private server to conduct official U.S. government foreign policy.”

That is a very serious statement (if true) and if indeed, Hillary Clinton had used her private unsecure server to conduct official U.S. government foreign policy, then, there is no doubt that she was NOT acting in the best interests of the United States! There can be no two doubts about that!

That said, let us fast forward to the present and see what has happened in Afghanistan just after Secretary of State, John Kerry visited Afghanistan on Sunday, April 10th 2016. The unfortunate blasts that took place after Secretary Kerry’s visit make it very, very, very clear that in today’s (violent) world, foreign policy is (always) closely intertwined with national defense and security.

Please read the following news article and you will automatically come to the same judgment! And imagine, if after these nerve chilling and devastating blasts in Afghanistan, Secretary Kerry were to communicate using a private unsecured e mail server! That would be disastrous indeed and would pose a huge threat to the security of the United States and its programs worldwide!

Blasts rattle Kabul after US secretary of state John Kerry's visit to push for new Taliban peace talks


Posted Sunday, 10th April, 2016, 4:41am

Central Kabul has been rocked by explosions only minutes after US secretary of state John Kerry left the Afghan capital where he called for the Taliban re-enter peace talks.

"A rocket landed near a girls' school. There are no casualties," Kabul police chief Abdul Rahman Rahimi told reporters.

No groups claimed responsibility for the assault, but Taliban insurgents frequently attack government and military installations in the city.

The top American envoy's visit came as Kabul desperately tries to bring the insurgent group back to the negotiating table to end their conflict which began in 2001.

Buoyed by a series of victories on the battlefield, the Islamist group have so far refused to talk until their conditions are met, including the departure of 13,000 foreign soldiers from Afghanistan.

"We discussed our shared goal of launching peace talks with the Taliban," Mr Kerry told reporters at a joint press conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul.

"We call on the Taliban to enter into a peace process, a legitimate process that brings an end to violence," he continued, saying: "Of course there is hope for peace."

Mr Kerry also added that in July, "NATO allies and partners will gather in Warsaw in order to consider the next round of assistance for the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces".

Another meeting is also scheduled this October in Brussels to review development aid to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, the US, China and Pakistan have formed a four-way group to try to jump-start the talks that were first held in Islamabad last July.

However there has been little progress after it emerged later that month the Taliban's founder Mullah Omar was dead, leading to infighting within the group.

President Ghani backed the US secretary of state's call, adding: "Peace is the vital need for the nation and the government of Afghanistan and the United States of America — especially you — have always been our partner in creating a peaceful atmosphere and regional stability."

"I would like to thank you for the consistent sacrifices and the support of the United States of America. Thousands of your countrymen, your sons and young Americans have given their lives in Afghanistan."

Mr Kerry's first port of call was NATO headquarters, where he met with General John Nicholson, the newly appointed head of the alliance's Resolute Support mission, and US troops.

The US currently has about 9,800 soldiers in the country who have been officially limited to a training and advisory role since the end of their combat mission in 2014. - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-10/blasts-rock-afganistan-after-us-secretary-of-state-visit/7313860

Thus, as evident from the above, it is indeed very clear that in today’s world, foreign policy and national defense/security are intertwined and strongly related to one another!

Having set the context, let us now look at a set of e mails from Hillary Clinton dated July 1st 2010 where the subject matter is a bomb blast in Pakistan.

 (Source: Public Domain on the Web, https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/2358)


BOMB AT SUFI SHRINE
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05769248

Date: 08/31/2015                                                                                             RELEASE IN FULL

From: Sullivan, Jacob J <Sullivarth@state.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2010 6:27 PM
To: H
Subject Re: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Yep

Original Message
From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
To: Sullivan, Jacobi
Sent: Thu Jul 01 18:25:22 2010
Subject: Re: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Can you get me more info about the shrine?

Original Message ---
From: Sullivan, Jacob i <Sullivanh@state.gov>
To: H
Sent: Thu Jul 01 18:24:02 2010
Subject: Fw: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Fyi

Original Message ---
From: Holbrooke, Richard
To: Sullivan, Jacobi
Sent: Thu Jul 01 18:07:11 2010
Subject: Fw: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Jake please pass to hillary. I will call. She may want to, especially given forthcoming trip. R PS--tell her I had a good (I think)u talk with Misha S today. Hope it helps trip.

Original Message ---

From: Nasr, S Vali R
To: 'HolbrookeR@state.govs <HolbrookeR@state.gov >
Sent: Thu Jul 01 17:32:48 2010
Subject: Bomb at Sufi shrine

Richard 3 bombs devastated the shrine of Data Ganjbakhsh (the most sacred Muslim place in all of South Asia, and the shrine S was supposed to go to). Aside from loss of life, this is a major blow to Pakistan. I recommend that you call Qureshi, Nawaz and Pasha (who will be here tomorrow). This will either break Pakistanis or will get them into the fight. This shrine is deeply tied to the foundation of Islam in Pakistan.

Vali Nasr



The Stakeholders in the above e mail Trail (with the positions held by them then) are:

·        Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, The United States
·        Jacob Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State
·        Richard Holbrooke, Special Adviser on Pakistan and Afghanistan, working under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
·        Vali Nasr, Senior Advisor to the U.S. Apecial representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, between 2009 and 2011

Was it right for such a high profile team to communicate (on very sensitive matters) through the private unsecure e mail of Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State? Irrespective of whether or NOT laws were violated, it was clearly irresponsible for such a high profile team to communicate (that too on such a sensitive topic) via a private unsecure server, especially, on the eve of the (then) Secretary of State’s visit to Pakistan and Afghanistan, both of which are very sensitive regions and have been linked to transnational terrorism!

It must be mentioned that Hillary Clinton’s Private Unsecure E mail Server was indeed shown to be unsecure[iii] after it was hacked by Marcel Laz─âr Lehel (aka Guccifer). Please recall that Russia Today published emails about the Benghazi Embassy attacks hacked from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sydney Blumenthal, her advisor.

Anyway, getting back to the bomb blast of 2010 at a SUFI SHRINE in Pakistan (given in Hillary Clinton’s e mail as shown earlier), I quote from the BBC, which wrote (the following) about these blasts:

“High alert after Pakistan shrine suicide blasts[iv] (http://www.bbc.com/news/10486925)


High alert after Pakistan shrine suicide blasts

·         2 July 2010
·         From the section South Asia

Police are on high alert across Pakistan after a deadly suicide attack on a Sufi Islamic shrine in the eastern city of Lahore.

Security has been increased in Lahore and at Sufi shrines across the country, after 42 people died at the Data Darbar shrine on Thursday.

Protesters have demonstrated outside the shrine, in anger at what they say were lax security measures.

Wider demonstrations were expected for later in the day, after Friday prayers.

The popular shrine holds the remains of a Persian Sufi saint, Abul Hassan Ali Hajvery.

It is visited by hundreds of thousands of people each year from both Sunni and Shia traditions of Islam.

The impact of the two blasts ripped open the courtyard of the shrine. Rescuers had to clamber over rubble as they carried out the victims.

The first attacker struck in the underground area where visitors sleep and prepare themselves for prayer, officials said.

As people fled, a second bomber detonated his explosives in the upstairs area.

The bombers are thought to have used devices packed with ball-bearings to maximise the impact of their attack.

A volunteer security guard at the shrine described scenes of devastation.

"It was a horrible scene," said Mohammed Nasir. "There were dead bodies all around with blood and people were crying."

The attack is the biggest on a Sufi shrine in Pakistan since militant attacks began in 2001.

"Those who still pretend that we are not a nation at war are complicit in these deaths," said Farahnaz Ispahani, a spokeswoman for President Asif Ali Zardari.
No group has said it carried out the attack, but correspondents say the attacks continue a growing trend among militants to target members of other sects as well as minorities.

The attack may also feed the pervading anti-American sentiment, a sense that US interference in the region is indirectly to blame, says the BBC's Jill McGivering.
US officials said they were still committed to helping Pakistan fight militants.

"We condemn this brutal crime and reaffirm our commitment to support the Pakistani people in their efforts to defend their democracy from the violent extremists who seek to destroy it," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.

The US embassy in Islamabad said the attack "demonstrates the terrorists' blatant disregard for the lives of the Pakistani people and the future of this country".
Last October the US committed to a five-year, $7.5bn (£4.94bn) aid package to be spent on development projects.

The US has pressurised Pakistan to take action against Taliban insurgents using bases in the rugged border area along Afghanistan.

Lahore has been hit by a series of bomb attacks, including a suicide blast at anti-terrorist offices in March, when at least 13 people died.

In May, more than 90 people were killed in a double attack on the minority Ahmadi sect in the city.

Earlier, security chiefs had been congratulating themselves after June was the first month in two years in which there had been no suicide bombings in Pakistan.

They said it was proof the militant networks had been disrupted.

Last year Pakistan launched a major military offensive against militant strongholds in South Waziristan.

In December the military said they had achieved victory, but subsequent reports have suggested the militants remain active in the region.”

 

BIG MILITANT ATTACKS

·         28 May 2010 - 93 people killed in attacks on two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore
·         19 Apr 2010 - At least 23 die in suicide bombing at market in Peshawar
·         1 Jan 2010 - A bomb at a volleyball match kills about 100
·         28 Oct 2009 - At least 120 die in car bomb attack on packed market in Peshawar
·         15 Oct 2009 - About 40 die in a series of gun and bomb attacks
·         9 Oct 2009 - At least 50 die in Peshawar suicide blast

Does this matter not concern national defense for the United States, especially given what happened on 9/11/2001 and also given the fact that Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Pakistani Taliban have all along helped Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden (when he was alive)? And 2010 was when Osama Bin Laden was apparently still living in Abbotabad, Pakistan! And let us not forget the fact that the Unites States has been fighting a drone war against the Pakistani terrorists (in the Waziristan areas) as well.

That being the case, how correct and appropriate was it for e mails to be sent (to the Secretary of State and by the Secretary of State) through an unsecured private server and that too about a bombing (terrorist) incident in a foreign country (like Pakistan), which was SUPPOSEDLY under terrorist attack. And please remember that Pakistan was a country that the Secretary of State was indeed planning on visiting shortly thereafter and she did visit Pakistan on July 18th 2010! And if these emails (of July 1st 2010) do NOT concern national security and defense (for the Unites States), especially given the fact that Osama Bin Laden was alive then (and perhaps already in Abbotbad), what else can concern national security and defense for the Unites States!

As noted above, Hillary Clinton was to travel[v] to Pakistan and Afghanistan from the 18th of July 2010 and here is an interview that she gave Fox News – the interview clearly proves her trip was concerned as much with foreign policy as national defense/security, especially, given the context of what was happening in Pakistan and the region!

That foreign policy and national defense were both part of her agenda is therefore very, very clear from the interview that Hillary gave to the Fox News[vi] and I quote

Interview With Greta Van Susteren of Fox News


Interview
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy
Islamabad, Pakistan
July 18, 2010

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, nice to see you. And this is our second trip to Pakistan with you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It is. Thank you for coming along.

QUESTION: All right. Now, there’s no secret we’re having horrible economic problems at home. How do you convince the American people that spending money here in Pakistan is something we want to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think there’s three ways to make the case, Greta. Number one, this is where the principal terrorist threat to the United States emanates from, and we’ve seen some foiled attacks, thank goodness, in the last several months that have just demonstrated that. And we have to have a much closer cooperative relationship with Pakistan. We have to prevent Afghanistan from falling into a failed state that can then be even a bigger danger to us. And that costs money.
Secondly, if you really think about how much money it cost us as a society after 9/11, it was an incredible economic hit. And so terrorism on top of an economic challenge would be devastating for us, and therefore we have to stay on our toes and try to prevent that from happening.

And thirdly, I think that the long-term benefits of having positive relationships in this part of the world is good for our economy as well. I mean, we have an export initiative that President Obama has announced where we want to double exports. We need to open up markets. Well, how do you open up markets? Well, you raise standards of living, you eliminate insecurity so that people can actually buy the things that the United States produces.

So terrorism, economic, greater access to markets – all of that makes sense to me.


QUESTION: Well, the security issue – it seems to me that Americans really want security. I mean, we’ve recently had the incident in Times Square which originated in this country. But are we getting ahead of the game? Are we actually – is our money paying off in terms of getting security? Because we’ve had this recent event and they’ve even – we see violence all the time in this country.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and the Pakistanis themselves are paying a big price because of it. They’ve had so many deaths due to bombings that these terrible terrorist networks impose upon the people of Pakistan. Their military has lost a lot of people in fighting. This is tough. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that it’s not. But boy, do I think it would be a mistake to walk away. We’ve done that. We have walked away from both Pakistan and Afghanistan in the past with all the consequences we’re well aware of.

QUESTION: So you think if we walked away from this, didn’t give them money today, it would be worse for us from a security standpoint?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. I do. We’re building a relationship that just did not exist. I said in our last trip when you were with me that we had a huge trust deficit, in part because the United States had – to be fair, we had helped to create the problem we’re now fighting.

QUESTION: How?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea that we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of mujaheddin, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan. And we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan. And then we said great, goodbye – leaving these trained people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving them well armed, creating a mess, frankly, that at the time we didn’t really recognize. We were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall and we thought, okay, fine, we’re okay now, everything’s going to be so much better. Now you look back; the people we’re fighting today we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.

QUESTION: Well, if there were some sort of sense of a win for us in the sense that we see all these casualties – we see the casualties going up in Afghanistan – if we got bin Ladin, Usama bin Ladin, I know that would, I think, inspire the American people to feel much more committed to this project. Do you believe that the Pakistani Government knows where Usama bin Ladin is?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think elements in the government do. I’ve said that before. But I think it’s also important for your viewers to know we have been getting, with Pakistani cooperation, a lot of the top leadership of al-Qaida. Now, we haven’t gotten bin Ladin or Zawahiri, but we have consistently been able to track and kill a lot of their principal leadership.

So there is a story to be told here. It’s not yet what I want it to be, because, as having been a senator from New York on 9/11, I want those guys. I mean, I will not be satisfied until we get them. But we have made a lot of progress and we’ve created a much closer cooperative relationship between the United States and Pakistan in going after what are now common enemies.

QUESTION: All right. Now we have the situation recently in Uganda. We have al-Shabaab, another terrorist group, and who is – it looks like terrorism is just going global again in another area. Are we in any way going to get involved in that, in al-Shabaab?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have supported the – what’s called AMISOM, the African Union mission which uses Ugandan troops and troops from Burundi. In fact, the reason why al-Shabaab went after the people in Kampala is because Uganda has been going after them inside Somalia. And we have been fully supportive of that. We’re not in any way contemplating U.S. forces, but we want to support Africans fighting for Africa and we will continue to support those who will take on al-Shabaab, which is no longer a threat just inside Somalia but, as you rightly point out, is spreading its tentacles beyond that.

QUESTION: Going back to what you said, some elements of the Pakistani Government know where Usama bin Ladin is?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe that. Now, I --

QUESTION: You believe that. Why do you believe that? I mean, what makes you think that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe it because I think that if I put myself into a position of leadership in our own government and if there were a terrorist network operating somewhere, even in the most remote place in the United States, some sheriff, some local state policeman, somebody in our collective government would probably know that there was something suspicious going on. So that’s why I assume somebody, somebody in this government, from top to bottom, does know where bin Ladin is. And I’d like to know, too.

QUESTION: Can’t we leverage our money or anything --

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are. We are.

QUESTION: -- I mean, to get that information? I mean, he’s a 6’5” guy. He’s not easy to hide. So I mean, I’m --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are leveraging it. We are leveraging it.

QUESTION: Are we getting closer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to put a proximity or a timeline on it, because, as I said, we have gotten closer because we have been able to kill a number of their trainers, their operational people, their financiers. We’ve been able to do that, so in that sense we have gotten closer. But I won’t be satisfied till we get it done.

QUESTION: Does the Pakistani Government say to you, “Secretary Clinton, we’re going to get him for you, we’re really working”? I mean --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the top levels of the government say they don’t know. To be fair to them, they say they don’t know. And it would be similar, again, if somebody walked into my office and said, “Do you know where bad guy in the Mexican cartel is on our side of the border?” I’d have to say no, I don’t know, but I assume somebody knows. So I think we’ve got to keep pressure on, which we’re doing. But remember, we inherited a situation with such mistrust between the United States and Pakistan that it takes day-by-day confidence building, and we’ve been doing that.

And I think we have a lot to show for it with this Strategic Dialogue that I got started, where we’ve had a lot of American Government officials coming and meeting with their counterparts in Pakistan. Because it’s not just if you get a good relationship at the top; you have to go through the bureaucracy. Because to go back to my example, if I were to start to say, well, who is it who knows where the Mexican cartel leader is, somebody must know, it’s somebody down there in the bowels of the bureaucracy. So you have to set a new tone. You have to set a new sense of direction and authority. And I think that is happening.

QUESTION: You mentioned Mexico.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: And last week, we were with Secretary Napolitano down in Texas-Mexico border. I’ve traveled with you to Mexico as well when you’ve been working on it. Is there a war going on in Mexico?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there certainly is an armed struggle going on. I mean, war usually – I mean, so far, the cartels have not been trying to overthrow the Mexican Government, although they’re trying to seize and hold territory for them to operate their drug activities.

QUESTION: Don’t call it a war?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know. I mean, I don’t want to get into semantics. This is an armed struggle. This is a conflict against really bad people. These Mexican cartel leaders are the most ruthless people. You talk about what we’re up against in terrorism in Pakistan. Look at these people. They behead their victims. They kidnap children. They indiscriminately kill groups of people. So I mean, they’re just as bad as any terrorist groups. They’re in it for money instead of ideology, but what’s the difference? They are violent, vile violators of human rights and human life.

So I don’t want – call it a war, call it a conflict, call it struggle – whatever. We have to help the Mexican Government defeat these people and take back control of their country so that they are not living in fear of what these cartels and their leaders will do.

QUESTION: Right on our border.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, right.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Good to talk to you, Greta.

PRN: 2010/T32-8

Thus, the above clearly shows that Hillary Clinton was using her private and unsecured e mail server to carry on the United States Foreign Policy which is also closely intertwined with national security and defense, especially because of the prevalent transnational terrorism and also because transnational terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda and other networks (like ISIS) are operational in many foreign countries like Pakistan and elsewhere – from where they have plotted and attacked the United States and other countries, as we have seen over the years!

Therefore, it is beyond doubt that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was entrusted with and having lawful possession and control of information, relating to foreign policy, national security and national defense (as shown in the examples and emails above and there are numerous other examples and emails that can be provided).

That said, therefore, it is very, very clear that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she, through gross negligence (at least I think so that it was more negligence than on purpose), permitted the above information (as demonstrated in the July 1st 2010 e mail trail above) - related to foreign policy, national security and national defense - to be removed from their proper place of custody, the SECURE United States government server(s), where they belonged and had them stored in an unsecured private e mail server. I am not sure that was wise under any count!

There are many more emails that I have analysed and I can show that a lot of the emails that went through Hillary Clinton’s private unsecured server were e mails that concerned national defense, national security and also foreign policy. That being the case, the key question of interest here is whether or not, Hillary Clinton - through her above and other e mails sent via a private unsecured server when she was Secretary of State - violated the following section of the law?

Please note that the following section does not talk of classified information and it just talks of information pertaining to national defense!

·        U.S. CodeTitle 18Part IChapter 37 › § 793[vii]
o   "18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."[viii]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WORD CLASSIFIED DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS SECTION. THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY NOTED. THEREFORE, it must be clearly understood that this section DOES not require the INFORMATION to be classified in any manner.

Folks, I leave it to the investigators to do a thorough and objective job in investigating the Hillary Clinton private e mail saga!

Watch this space for more detailed and objective analysis in the coming months!





[i] All activities and responsibilities highlighted in BOLD have DIRECT implications for national defense!
[ii] This activity and responsibility has DIRECT implications for national defense!

[iv] Analysis, By Aleem Maqbool, BBC News, Islamabad, No group has yet said that it carried out the attack, but the finger of blame is being pointed at the Taliban. The type of target, a Muslim shrine, is unusual. There are some elements among Islamist extremists, including the Taliban, who believe that worshipping at the shrines of saints is un-Islamic, and this is one theory why this shrine was attacked. There was another sectarian attack just over a month ago in Lahore in which 80 people died, when two mosques used by Ahmadi Muslims were hit by militants. This could be a battle within a battle that the militants are having with the Pakistani state.” - http://www.bbc.com/news/10486925

No comments:

Post a Comment