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