and there are folk who specialize in such matters
Your comments strongly suggest you weren't reading the news in the Bush II era:
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members
Read the memo
Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
The Observer, Saturday 1 March 2003 23.18 EST
The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/02/usa.iraq
Look at the date on that story: 2003
Wikileaks did not expose US spying on the UN: that story came out
seven years before Wikileaks published any State Department cables
And the idiotic State Department cables that Wikileaks published did not show that SoS Clinton was ordering people to spy on the UN: what they showed was that some idiotic boilerplate had routinely been added to the SoS transmissions back in the Bush II era, and the professional diplomats paid so little attention to that bullshizz boilerplate, that nobody noticed it enough to remove it. It was laughably craptastic, too: whatever Bush II era moran wrote it really thought professional diplomats were gonna walk around the UN rooting through trashcans for credit card slips and such, without attracting attention
= new reply since forum marked as read