Archives for category: Espionage

Assange-Goodman - 1

An old American ‘boy-prank’ directed at a deserving person (to send a message) was to fill a small paper bag with a fresh dog shit, put just a little bit of lighter fluid (kerosene) on it, place this on the porch of the target, light the bag on fire, ring the doorbell and run. If all went to plan, the target would open their door to sight of a small fire and reflexively stamp it out with their feet. As a metaphor, I’m inclined to think someone had done this to Matt Taibbi, and perhaps, to the editors of RollingStone.

RollingStone’s Why You Should Care About the Julian Assange Case [1] by Matt Taibbi, is a piece this writer (yours truly) finds not only disingenuous but worthy of an intelligence agency propaganda award.

The thrust of the article being any prosecution of Julian Assange endangers journalism, we’ll dissect Taibbi’s premise concerning a very plausible secret/sealed indictment of Assange:

“Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack told Rolling Stone he had “not been informed that Mr. Assange has been charged, or the nature of any charges.”

“Pollock and other sources could not be sure, but within the Wikileaks camp it’s believed that this charge, if it exists, is not connected to the last election.

““I would think it is not related to the 2016 election since that would seem to fall within the purview of the Office of Special Counsel,” Pollack said.

“If you hate Assange because of his role in the 2016 race, please take a deep breath and consider what a criminal charge that does not involve the 2016 election might mean. An Assange prosecution could give the Trump presidency broad new powers to put Trump’s media “enemies” in jail, instead of just yanking a credential or two. The Jim Acosta business is a minor flap in comparison”

These four paragraphs likely have Gina Haspel’s information operations people over at Langley, Virginia, orgasming in their pants. Taibbi omits the fact trying Assange on charges unrelated to the ‘the Russians did it’ is a solid means of shutting Assange up and burying him where he cannot shed any light concerning the 2016 elections’ intelligence agency caper. Trying Assange on unrelated charges, prior to sending him to deep isolation at, for instance, Florence ADX super-max, actually solves a CIA problem. How’d that work? The American legal principle of ‘relevance’ [2] where practically infinite technicalities can be argued to exclude any mention or reference to another case possibly pending before another court, such as the work of the incredibly corrupt [3], [4] special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, example given. Yep, sending Julian off to super-max on charges unrelated to the 2016 ‘the Russians did it’ would be perfectly predictable (desirable outcome) for those intelligence operatives who’d used Wikileaks to frame Russia, and some of Trump’s associates [5], [6], for meddling in the USA’s so-called ‘democratic processes.’ Hey, Matt Taibbi, was it Gina Haspel set the dog shit on fire you proceeded stamp out? Because a bit further on in his article, Taibbi goes on to screw it up even more:

“The perception that Assange worked with Vladimir Putin to achieve his ends has further hardened responses among his former media allies.

“As to the latter, Assange denies cooperating with the Russians, insisting his source for the DNC leak was not a “state actor.” It doesn’t matter. That PR battle has already been decided”

Beyond political fellatio, Gina Haspel would arrange a literal blow-job for Taibbi (even give it herself, if only she were pretty enough) because RollingStone has gone on record stating the DNC mails leak story is passé, out-of-fashion, old news. In other words, Taibbi is saying there is no point in investigative journalism looking into whether (the promptly assassinated) Seth Rich was Wikileaks’ source of the DNC mails, despite more than ample evidence, even a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ or the USA civil law standard necessary for conviction. [7] He might as well have written “Don’t go there.” Why? We’ll come back to this.

Taibbi:

“Although Assange may not be a traditional journalist in terms of motive, what he does is essentially indistinguishable from what news agencies do, and what happens to him will profoundly impact journalism”

This is not only wrong, Taibbi (apparently without noticing) contradicts it himself later in the article:

“…the relationship between Assange and the press deteriorated quickly. A lot of this clearly had to do with Assange’s personality. Repeat attempts by (ostensibly sympathetic) reporters to work with Assange ended in fiascoes … gain[ing] him a reputation for egomania and grandiosity.

“Partners like the Committee to Protect Journalists, who had been sifting through Wikileaks material to prevent truly harmful information from getting out, began to be frustrated by what they described as a frantic pace of releases”

Precisely. Journalists not only vet their sources (Assange, in the past, has stated Wikileaks does not [8] ) but they also must assess whether they can do more harm than good with the secrets they are in possession of, and consider how to finesse information that must be divulged in the public interest in such a way as to not create social chaos. One means of attempting this would be to refer the actual material (documents) evidencing state crimes to the apropos authorities, while restraining oneself to writing about having done this within the context of the story, putting the relevant authority on the spot and in a position of having to do something. Wikileaks dumping massive caches is not journalism. This is not a case of, as Taibbi would have it, “…what he [Assange] does is essentially indistinguishable from what news agencies do”, that is if the news-service is not corrupted and taking intelligence agency scripts to amplify fake stories and bury real stories (like the Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times do, and now, clearly, RollingStone also does.)

This brings us to Assange had attempted, via Dana Rohrabacher, a horse-trade with Trump, where Assange gets immunity from prosecution or a pardon and Trump gets definitive proof the Wikileaks DNC mails source was not Russia. [9] The people surrounding Trump, notably Chief of Staff John Kelly, shut that avenue down. [10] Taibbi, with his ‘don’t go there’ posed as “It doesn’t matter. That PR battle has already been decided” obviously isn’t going to touch this, rather wants it buried. Why?

Possibly, even likely, because of a phenomenon we had seen slip out of the closet during the Obama POTUS tenure, meetings with John Brennan on “Kill List Tuesdays” where America’s extra-judicial assassinations targeting list had been regularly updated, to include American citizens. [11], [12], [13]

We can likely add to the CIA’s three known assassinations of American citizens abroad these past seven years, two of those ordered by Obama and one ordered by Trump, at least two domestic assassinations by CIA, both of which tie into this assessment; Seth Rich and Michael Hastings.

Seth Rich removed, whether at that time incidental to present circumstance or not, doesn’t matter; that is to say if Rich was initially silenced for the leak to send a message, or silenced to remove a dupe, is immaterial to the present moment. Either way, Rich’s removal is part and parcel of what enabled the framing of Trump and Wikileaks for ‘Russian collusion.’ That’s a big piece of the ‘problematic witnesses’ solved for the people behind the making a patsy of Russia. It is entirely possible the DNC leak was initially a MOSSAD operation (Trump has been Bibi’s wet dream) and Rich was gunned down by Brennan’s CIA, with a ‘Russian collusion’ follow-on or the neo-liberal intelligence agency faction’s attempt to reverse the damage. A second possibility (the one I favor) is the leaked DNC mails by a duped Seth Rich reflects the internecine warfare between neocon and neoliberal elements in American intelligence. A third (least likely, in view of developments, but still plausible) possibility is, Rich’s had been an unmanipulated, straight-foward motivation based in a rather ‘naive idealism’ (victim of a Wikileaks bait and hook.)

Michael Hastings, whose car of its own will, took upon itself a desire to run into a tree at high speed and explode with the force of a military grade limpet mine, had been 1) investigating then CIA Director John Brennan, 2) in contact with Wikileaks, and 3) writing for RollingStone [14], all shortly before he died. A lesson Taibbi and his editors at RollingStone have taken to heart? It is no stretch of the imagination, at all, to assume Taibbi (and his employer) had subsequently been put on notice ‘you will take our script and run with it or die.’ The alternative is, RollingStone, editors & writers, had suddenly morphed into incredibly stupid parties who, by pure coincidence, appear to follow diktat and promote the intelligence agency line. Which do you think is more likely? Of course, it is also possible the insect species ignavum nominare [15] had crawled up Taibbi’s butt altogether independently of any specific threat.

Pointing towards wrapping this up, with turning our attention to Wikileaks per se, the following question must be posed: how is it certain alternative media stars miss that Julian Assange was a critical gear in the intelligence agencies (primarily CIA & MOSSAD) information operations responsible for the ‘Arab Spring’ … leading to not only revolution and counter-revolution in Egypt but also the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Syrian so-called ‘civil war.’ [16] How do Chris Hedges (RT’s On Contact), Caitlin Johnstone (medium.com), Glenn Greenwald (The Intercept), Vanessa Beeley (21st Century Wire), Raul Ilargi Meijer (Automatic Earth), and Elizabeth Vos (Disobedient Media), among others, with their defense of Assange, drive the ‘Assange is a good guy’ square peg into the round hole of Wikileaks assisting intelligence agencies geopolitical engineering the so-called Arab Spring? [17] This is also a question certain Wikileaks personalities should be asking themselves, notably Baltasar Garzon, Jennifer Robinson, and Craig Murray.

A second question the Wikileaks staff should be asking, among themselves is, whose strategy is it to conceal THE critical information, information that can only be helpful to Assange when it is made public: the method and source used by Wikileaks to acquire the DNC mails? Is this concealment a strategy of Sarah Harrison? Does Wikileaks have an uncompromised, professional counter-intelligence unit? Because if you don’t, you’re not only a lot of stooges, the lot of you are ultimately stupid. Take a lesson from Amnesty International:

“My conclusion was that a high-level official of Amnesty International at that time, whom I will not name, was a British intelligence agent. Moreover, my fellow board member, who also investigated this independently of me, reached the exact same conclusion. So certainly when I am dealing with people who want to work with Amnesty in London, I just tell them, “Look, just understand, they’re penetrated by intelligence agents, U.K., maybe U.S., I don’t know, but you certainly can’t trust them” [18]

Finally, when it comes to what Russia HAS done, it is to use their propaganda [19] to ‘flip’ the ‘Assangemania’ [20] infecting the Western alternative press, in a disingenuous way so as to promote Assange as a straight-foward example of a persecuted whistle-blower by the corrupt fascism of Western institutions, but this strategy ultimately props up ‘the Russians did it’ Western intelligence propaganda lie; and one wonders when the Russian press will get this. Assange’s currency as an asset is exhausted, no matter which side of the contest is taking advantage.

References:

1 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/

2 https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Relevancy#Rule_403._Exclusion_of_Relevant_Evidence_on_Grounds_of_Prejudice,_Confusion,_or_Waste_of_Time

3 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/03/08/the-cias-amazon-books/

4 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/06/15/americas-deep-state-ii/

5 http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-09-13/local-news/Russiagate-Maltese-professor-Joseph-Mifsud-due-in-US-court-today-living-under-an-alias-6736196262

6 https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/05/26/the_maltese_phantom_of_russiagate_.html

7 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/09/16/incompetent-espionage-wikileaks-iii/

8 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wanted-by-the-cia-the-man-who-keeps-no-secrets-2029083.html

9 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/pardon-me-rep-rohrabachers-curious-visit-with-assange/

10 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353744-kelly-wont-let-rohrabacher-talk-to-trump

11 https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-presidents-kill-list

12 https://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/judge-nixes-kill-list-suit-046079

13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

14 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/wikileaks-vault-7-dump-reignites-conspiracy-theories-surrounding-death-of-michael-hastings/news-story/0df1d06403d0223ce1cfc286a1e75325

15 https://www.translate.com/ignavum-nominare/english/6691827

16 https://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_on_role

17 http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/arab-spring-egypt-strikes-back.html

18 http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.html

19 https://www.rt.com/about-us/

20 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/15/assangemania/

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts’ or ‘Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’?

My international readers will understand the first admonishment, but outside of a horse culture, the second might bear some explanation. So, the anecdote:

It was Summer of 1977, at the Sportsman Bar in Columbia Falls, Montana, I was drinking with a friend, George, when a grizzled sheepherder decided to interrogate us, for the fact of our long hair and his desire to know if we were hippies or the fundamentally different ‘mountain people.’ Sort of like you wouldn’t necessarily know by superficial glance, whether a horse was six years old or sixteen years old. After a few short, unsatisfactory answers to his rude interjections, the old shepherd suddenly demanded to know “How old do you think I am?” George and I looked at each other and ignored this question. Our ignoring him did not derail his determination, however, and he answered his own inquiry with a solemn and and assertive “I am forty five.”

With a nod of the head towards the ancient one (he couldn’t have been a day under a badly beat up sixty years, by all outward appearance, and looked a full ten years older or more than that) I told George “You had better check his teeth.”

My indirect but satisfactory reply caught the old man just as he was taking a swallow of his beer (as if to punctuate his declaration) and he blew the beer out his nose with involuntary laugh and as well choked on significant amount of brew that went down his windpipe and began a coughing fit so severe it changed the color of his complexion and looked as though he actually might not survive.

With the old man hanging onto the bar with both hands so as not to collapse while struggling to find his ability to breathe, George’s and my conversation went something like this:

George: My God, Ron, ‘better check his teeth’ was a little harsh.

Myself: If he dies, whose fault is it? We didn’t initiate his ass-holiness.

It seemed like five eternities, but could not have been five minutes, finally the old man had recovered his breath, and altogether satisfied we were not hippies, afterwards left us alone. As a matter of fact we were ‘mountain people’, both young war veterans who were expert horsemen and local hunters influenced by the indigenous tribal culture reflected in our long hair; rather far away, philosophically speaking, from your typical ‘peace and love’ college student/dissident types.

It follows, when it comes to rude people interjecting uninvited crude behaviors into other peoples’ lives, that old man, with his honest sense of humor and ability to laugh at himself when confronted concerning his bull-shit, was possessed of humanity ten thousand times greater than a Gina Haspel or Hakan Fidan.

Speaking of jokes that can kill people, in the 1 November update of this blog’s piece on the Khashoggi assassination, you will find this language:

“When Gina Haspel flew to Turkey to ‘review evidence’, no doubt she compared notes with Hakan Fidan on who has the better ‘insurance file’ where national players represented in the intelligence agencies heads do business based not only on common interests but also liberally blackmail each other”

The very next day, the timing couldn’t have been more fortuitous, a former head of a French intelligence agency made what amounts to an unheard of admission (big mistake), the proposed fact intelligence agencies are often in position to call the shots between nations, in international relations:

Sophie Shevardnadze: But nevertheless, when the Washington-Moscow relationship was already in tatters, sanctions were flung around and everything, heads of Russian security and intelligence services – top brass – went to the United States to meet with their American counterparts (despite the personal sanctions). It showed that if need be, two conflicting sides can still benefit from talking to each other.

Bernard Squarcini: This is where I’m telling you that on one hand, it is a necessity, and on the other hand, if we don’t want to show it, it is done in a fairly confidential way, via the intelligence services, who are trusted by the heads of state.

Shevardnadze: The intelligence services are actually right after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,’cause their are kind of doing what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs couldn’t do? 

Squarcini: But we work together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we transmit all the tidbits of information that are brought forth that might be of concern to them, and even better, and it happened to me personally, often when I went to see my foreign counterparts, I would always go visit our ambassador in that country and would transmit fresh analysis to the embassy.

Shevardnadze: So when diplomacy fails, that’s for secret services to come into play.

Squarcini: Which is very good! Especially useful when two countries no longer talk… Like in a married couple…

Meet NATO’s Trojan Horse

It was 22 October when the CIA’s Haspel traveled to Turkey for a meeting with MIT’s (Turkey’s intelligence chief) Fidan. It was one week later, two remarkable things happened, and both are concessions to Iran; 1) it was announced eight nations, presumably including Turkey, will be exempt from sanctions if they continue doing oil business with Iran, and 2) USA tells the Saudis to wind down and quit the proxy war with Iran in Yemen.

Recalling Squarcini’s “if we don’t want to show it, it is done in a fairly confidential way, via the intelligence services” one wonders who might have been present at the meeting other than the obviously blackmailed parties, that is Haspel and Fidan. Obviously blackmailed, one might ask? Certainly.

Erdogan and Fidan are no darlings of the Iranians, the Turks have been key in creating the perfect mess in Syria, to the Iranians profound concern. If it were not for that fact, the USA military would not be camped out in Syria east of the Euphrates, on Iran’s border, as the guests of separatist minded Kurds. That Erdogan had been too stupid to see this coming, changes nothing. He blew it in the eyes of Tehran. Moreover, it wouldn’t matter who was in charge in Turkey, they’d have to cooperate with Iran in regards to the Kurds.

This brings up Turkey and Iran on opposite sides of the ‘regime change’ endeavor in Syria where the losing Sunni extremists (takfiri-salafi) will be dispersed to the four corners of the world. Certainly by now the Iranians have all of the intelligence they need to expose Erdogan and Fidan’s Salafi nature (with Fidan a member of the Turkish branch of al-Qaida since the 1990s.) The Iranians could live without Erdogan and his minions but meanwhile, when stuck with this bozo leading their neighboring nation, the point has come the blackmailed Erdogan regime can be the Iranians’ useful idiot.

On the Western democracies side, it is simply inadmissible, however consistent with Erdogan’s policies, that 1) a serving NATO intelligence chief of 8+ years, Hakan Fidan, is a bona fide Salafi terrorist with two decades passed since he’d taken membership in the Turkish branch of al-Qaida. It follows, the gross imbecility of the other NATO nations intelligence agencies either 2) unaware of this information and associated potential for career ending scandal or what’s worse 3) knowing but allowing this to go unchallenged, would put every Western intelligence head at risk of not only scandal but in jeopardy of prison term.

The result? This not only explains Iran’s history of exploiting Fidan where he…

“arranged the secret black marketing of Iran through Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government”

…as a means of breaking past USA imposed sanctions but explains how it is the USA is presently taking steps to make the renewed sanctions regime ineffective enough Iran will survive until alternative (to SWIFT) oil trade mechanism is in place, and conceding the proxy war with Iran in Yemen; following the meeting between the CIA’s Haspel and MIT’s Fidan. This also should explain certain European nations resisting the Israeli lap-dog Atlantic Council’s policy on Iran in regards to reimposing sanctions; raising the question in geopolitical chess terms: what other, related avenues to ‘check’, could possibly be in the works? Stay tuned.

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

 

^ Chris Hedges

 

1 - 1

^ Caitlin Johnstone

 

^ Glenn Greenwald

 

2 - 1

^ Vanessa Beeley

 

3 - 1

^ Raul Ilargi Meijer

 

MikiSpy

 ^ Julian Assange a.k.a. Micky Mossad

…well, you all probably get the idea ;p

Just a reminder to certain alternative media stars that Julian Assange was a critical gear in the intelligence agency (primarily CIA & MOSSAD) information operations responsible for the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ … leading to not only revolution and counter-revolution in Egypt but also the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Syrian ‘civil war.’ How do Chris Hedges, Caitlin Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Vanessa Beeley and Raul Ilargi Meijer, with their defense of Assange, drive the ‘Assange is a good guy’ square peg into the round hole of the intelligence agency geopolitical engineering called the Arab Spring?

A case of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too.’

On Assange

*

Jon Bolton’s (September 2018) presentation of the Trump administration policy towards the International Criminal Court, given in a speech to the Federalist Society, is reproduced here in full (Bolton quoted in italics), with my annotations. I don’t believe I had ever seen such open justification and promotion of criminal behavior by a USA official.

“I am here to make a major announcement on US policy toward the International Criminal Court, or ICC.

“After years of effort by self-styled “global governance” advocates, the ICC, a supranational tribunal that could supersede national sovereignties and directly prosecute individuals for alleged war crimes, was agreed to in 1998. For ICC proponents, this supranational, independent institution has always been critical to their efforts to overcome the perceived failures of nation-states, even those with strong constitutions, representative government, and the rule of law”

Funny how Bolton seems to be unaware the USA was involved in the Rome Statute at its inception; mainly to convince the court should not exercise universal jurisdiction. The other states were keen to have the USA onboard but would appear this had been a ruse all along. When universal jurisdiction had been excluded, to please the Americans, the USA lost interest in joining.

“In theory, the ICC holds perpetrators of the most egregious atrocities accountable for their crimes, provides justice to the victims, and deters future abuses. In practice, however, the court has been ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous. Moreover, the largely unspoken, but always central, aim of its most vigorous supporters was to constrain the United States. The objective was not limited to targeting individual US service members, but rather America’s senior political leadership, and its relentless determination to keep our country secure”

A Bolton type mentality is incapable to grasp if the USA had not pushed its nose into the affairs of nation-states across the globe, while flexing military might in the process (the crime of aggression), populations would not have become radicalized and turned that radicalized anger on the USA. Should any nation’s political leadership be privileged with impunity? Is Bolton saying impunity is a privilege reserved to the USA and its ‘chosen’?

“The ICC was formally established in July 2002, following the entry into force of the Rome Statute. In May 2002, however, President George W Bush authorised the United States to “un-sign” the Rome Statute because it was fundamentally illegitimate. The ICC and its prosecutor had been granted potentially enormous, essentially unaccountable powers, and alongside numerous other glaring and significant flaws, the International Criminal Court constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States”

What a load of patent nonsense. The USA’s Constitution makes treaty law entered into by the United States the “the supreme law of the land” in which case the relevant treaty law is absolutely constitutional as regards sovereignty. The real point here should be, if the USA’s citizens are worried about individual rights conforming to USA standards, they should stay home and keep their noses clean within the context of American law. That’s why we’ve had a constitutional treaty law provision since the USA’s inception, because the entire world isn’t the USA. But Bolton and like-minded minions of USA foreign policy seem to think American standards should apply to the entire globe. It follows, American empire isn’t welcome across much of the globe and understandably so.

“In no uncertain terms, the ICC was created as a free-wheeling global organization claiming jurisdiction over individuals without their consent”

Since when had it been necessary, in any society in the world, to ask the consent of criminals to prosecute?

“According to the Rome Statute, the ICC has authority to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. It claims “automatic jurisdiction,” meaning that it can prosecute individuals even if their own governments have not recognized, signed, or ratified the treaty”

What a worm’s slimy rationalization; if you wouldn’t like to be prosecuted by the ICC 1) behave yourself and 2) stay away from where the court’s jurisdiction is in force (like Afghanistan.)

“Thus, American soldiers, politicians, civil servants, private citizens, and even all of you sitting in the room today, are purportedly subject to the court’s prosecution should a party to the Rome Statute or the chief prosecutor suspect you of committing a crime within a state or territory that has joined the treaty”

So, what’s the problem? Don’t commit crimes, keep your soldiers at home and mind your own business, it couldn’t be more simple.

“To protect American service members from the ICC, in 2002 Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, or ASPA, which some have branded “The Hague Invasion Act”

“This law, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, authorizes the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including force, to shield our service members and the armed forces of our allies from ICC prosecution. It also prohibits several forms of cooperation between the United States and the court”

The preceding two paragraphs is nothing short of an oblique declaration the USA has enacted a de facto rejection of the Geneva Conventions.

“I was honored to lead US efforts internationally to protect Americans from the court’s unacceptable overreach, starting with un-signing the Rome Statute. At President Bush’s direction, we next launched a global diplomatic campaign to protect Americans from being delivered into the ICC’s hands. We negotiated about 100 binding, bilateral agreements to prevent other countries from delivering US personnel to the ICC. It remains one of my proudest achievements”

This criminal disregard for the rule of law in international relations poses a relevant question: Were a state signatory to the ICC to act on Bolton’s, Bush era (strong-armed) agreements, would the actors be committing a crime of ‘aiding and abetting’? Methinks, yes.

“Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement with every single nation in the world, particularly those in the European Union, where the global governance dogma is strong. And last fall, our worst predictions about the ICC’s professed and overly broad prosecutorial powers were confirmed.

“In November of 2017, the ICC prosecutor requested authorization to investigate alleged war crimes committed by US service members and intelligence professionals during the war in Afghanistan – an investigation neither Afghanistan nor any other state party to the Rome Statute requested. Any day now, the ICC may announce the start of a formal investigation against these American patriots, who voluntarily went into harm’s way to protect our nation, our homes, and our families in the wake of the 9/11 attacks”

Two things with these preceding paragraphs. 1) The entire point of the Rome Statute is to bring prosecutions when states refuse to. A state that refuses is certainly not going to make a request. Bolton’s logic is beyond flawed, it is self-canceling. 2) the dry observation the USA’s own investigative conclusions concerning the 9/11 attacks, particularly as relates to WTC Building 7, is as flawed as, and only less far-fetched than, a proposal space weapons were responsible.

“The ICC prosecutor has requested to investigate these Americans for alleged detainee abuse, and perhaps more – an utterly unfounded, unjustifiable investigation”

This phrase in Bolton’s diatribe overlooks the fact of the John Yoo (Yoo, a Federalist Society member, may well have been in the audience) “torture memos” and the USA’s authorizing torture as a matter of policy

“Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president of the United States. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.

“We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.

“We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.

“The United States bases this policy on five principal concerns about the court, its purported authority, and its effectiveness.

“First, the International Criminal Court unacceptably threatens American sovereignty and US national security interests. The prosecutor in The Hague claims essentially unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute individuals, regardless of whether their countries have acceded to the Rome Statute”

This first ‘principle concern’ is not only disingenuous but contains incoherent logic. There is no threat to American sovereignty except that Bolton is claiming the USA is, example given, de facto Afghanistan’s sovereign overlord in what would amount to a feudal sense of fealty. If, in actuality, the USA were present at the discretion of a de jure Afghan government, they have placed themselves under the applicable laws of Afghanistan, inclusive of the Rome Statute. Bolton doesn’t mention this but the American contingent of NATO having ‘granted’ itself immunity in Afghanistan is irrelevant to the ICC except Afghanistan were to have withdrawn for the Rome Statute.

“The court in no way derives these powers from any grant of consent by non-parties to the Rome Statute. Instead, the ICC is an unprecedented effort to vest power in a supranational body without the consent of either nation-states or the individuals over which it purports to exercise jurisdiction. It certainly has no consent whatsoever from the United States”

To reiterate a former point, Bolton cannot seem to grasp if the Americans avoid violating the Geneva Conventions and even more to the point, quit with its’ (often uninvited) military adventures abroad, there would be no controversy.

“As Americans, we fully understand that consent of the governed is a prerequisite to true legal legitimacy, and we reject such a flagrant violation of our national sovereignty”

It follows, Bolton is, in no uncertain terms, claiming the the USA’s sovereignty extends beyond the USA’s borders. Bolton’s claim is USA sovereignty extends as far as the USA can flex its’ military might. The only other way to read this is, he cannot read a map and has no inkling where the USA ends and other national jurisdictions begin.

“To make matters worse, the court’s structure is contrary to fundamental American principles, including checks and balances on authority and the separation of powers. Our founders believed that a division of authority among three separate branches of government would provide the maximum level of protection for individual liberty”

Which extra-territorial American individual liberty is that? Again, Bolton cannot seem to grasp there are other nations with entirely differing cultures, philosophies and laws, possessed of their own inherently equal sovereignty which Americans, present as alien citizens, must submit to.

“The International Criminal Court, however, melds two of these branches together: the judicial and the executive. In the ICC structure, the executive branch – the Office of the Prosecutor – is an organ of the court. The framers of our constitution considered such a melding of powers unacceptable for our own government, and we should certainly not accept it in the ICC. Other governments may choose systems which reject the separation of powers, but not the United States”

In other words, other countries systems are inferior to the USA in Bolton’s view. It should be noted here that ‘American Exceptionalism’ is synonymous to ‘American Empire’ and was a concept born twin to “Manifest Destiny” or the idea the USA is Über Alles.

“There are no adequate mechanisms to hold the court and its personnel accountable or curtail its unchecked powers when required

“ICC proponents argue that corrupt or ineffective judges can be removed by a two-thirds vote of parties to the Rome Statute and that a prosecutor can be removed by a majority vote.

“However, I ask everyone in the room today: would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations, including Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and entities that are not even states, like the Palestinian Authority?

“You would not. I would not. And this Administration will not”

America Über Alles. As a USA citizen with a reasonable grasp of how this nation, the USA, had been philosophically founded, Bolton’s characterizations can only be described as grotesque caricature.

“The ICC’s Assembly of States Parties cannot supervise the court any more than the United Nations General Assembly can supervise the UN bureaucracy.

“Recent allegations of mismanagement and corruption among ICC personnel make this perfectly clear. The first prosecutor elected by the Assembly of States Parties attempted to protect a high-ranking government official from prosecution, assisted a businessman with links to violations in Libya, and shared confidential court documents with Angelina Jolie.

“In short, the International Criminal Court unacceptably concentrates power in the hands of an unchecked executive, who is accountable to no one. It claims authority separate from and above the constitution of the United States”

Let’s juxtapose the corruption and accountability of the ICC to the corruption and accountability of the Pentagon. The result would look like the kid who stole ten cents candy compared to the Keating Five & fleecing thousands of investors for billions of dollars in the saving & loan scandal.

“It is antithetical to our nation’s ideals. Indeed, this organization is the founders’ worst nightmare come to life: an elegant office building in a faraway country that determines the guilt or innocence of American citizens”

No, the founders’ worst nightmare was stated by Benjamin Franklin when he answered the crowd’s demand to know what form of government would be forthcoming from the American Constitutional Convention with “A republic. If you can keep it.” John Bolton is evidence prima facie we couldn’t keep our republic, it has been handed to neo-corporate-fascism.

“Second, the International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over crimes that have disputed and ambiguous definitions, exacerbating the court’s unfettered powers.

“The definitions of crimes, especially crimes of aggression, are vague and subject to wide-ranging interpretation by the ICC. Had the ICC existed during the Second World War, America’s enemies would no doubt be eager to find the United States and its allies culpable for war crimes for the bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan”

Well, firebombing civilian areas for sake of ‘demoralizing’ the enemy is a war crime by definition. Firebombing of Dresden, famously written about by Kurt Vonnegut in his ‘Slaughterhouse Five” is widely regarded as a war crime, even among USA academics, and then there’s “Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is regarded as the single most destructive bombing raid in human history. 16 square miles (41 km2) of central Tokyo were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over 1 million homeless.”

“The “crime of aggression” could become a pretext for politically motivated investigations. Was the mission of US Navy SEALs that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan a crime of aggression? What about the US and coalition strikes in Syria to protect innocent children from chemical weapons? How about US military exercises with allies and partners around the world? Or Israel’s actions to defend itself on countless occasions?”

The Osama raid, from a juridical point of view, would be a targeted assassination. The Syria strikes might qualify, particularly in case of false flag chemical attacks sponsored by NATO associated actors but Bolton could never admit he knows this. The military exercises angle is patently cute, that is until a military exercise were to be cover for going live with surprise attack (an expressed concern of North Korea.) As for Israel, we can let an Israeli citizen speak to Bolton’s nonsense:

“For refugees, camps were shelters for the reconstruction of personal and social life, but were also seen as sites of great political significance, the material testimony of what was destroyed and ‘all that remains’ of more than four hundred cities, towns and villages forcefully cleansed throughout Palestine in the Nakba of 1947-9. This is the reason refugees sometimes refer to the destruction of camps as ‘the destruction of destruction.’ The camp is not a home, it is a temporary arrangement, and its destruction is but the last iteration in an ongoing process of destruction.

“This rhetoric of double negation – the negation of negation – tallies well with what Saree Makdisi, talking about the Israeli refusal to acknowledge the Nakba, has termed ‘the denial of denial’, which is, he says, ‘a form of foreclosure that produces the inability – the absolutely honest, sincere incapacity – to acknowledge that denial and erasure have themselves been erased in turn and purged from consciousness.’ What has been denied is continuously repeated: Israel keeps on inflicting destruction on refugees and keeps on denying that a wrong has been done” –Eyal Weizman: ‘The Least Of All Possible Evils’ (Humanitarian Violence From Arendt To Gaza)

“In the years ahead, the court is likely only to further expand its jurisdiction to prosecute ambiguously defined crimes. In fact, a side event at the Assembly of States Parties recently included a panel discussion on the possibility of adding “ecocide”, environmental and climate-related crimes, to the list of offenses within the court’s jurisdiction.

“And here we come directly to the unspoken but powerful agenda of the ICC’s supporters: the hope that its essentially political nature, in defining crimes such as “aggression,” will intimidate US decision-makers and others in democratic societies.

“As we know, the ICC already claims authority over crimes committed in States Parties, even if the accused are not from nations that have acquiesced to the Rome Statute.

“The next obvious step is to claim complete, universal jurisdiction: the ability to prosecute anyone, anywhere for vague crimes identified by The Hague’s bureaucrats”

“ecocide” is a specialty of the audience Bolton is pitching his aggression to, the Federalist Society is where you’ll find USA based multinational minerals extraction stockholders rubbing shoulders with the military-industrial complex stockholders who concurrently become richer via strong-arm robberies of weaker nations around the world for the extraction people. Bolton is singing to a choir of major sociopath personalities whose wealth (and growing it) is more important to the lot of them than any crime committed in process of pursuing that wealth. Small wonder people with a conscience would hold aside conversations on the future of justice in an environmental context.

“Third, the International Criminal Court fails in its fundamental objective to deter and punish atrocity crimes. Since its 2002 inception, the court has spent over $1.5bn while attaining only eight convictions.

“This dismal record is hardly a deterrent to dictators and despots determined to commit horrific atrocities. In fact, despite ongoing ICC investigations, atrocities continue to occur in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and many other nations.

“The hard men of history are not deterred by fantasies of international law such as the ICC. The idea that faraway bureaucrats and robed judges would strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, and Gaddafi is preposterous, even cruel. Time and again, history has proven that the only deterrent to evil and atrocity is what Franklin Roosevelt once called “the righteous might” of the United States and its allies – a power that, perversely, could be threatened by the ICC’s vague definition of aggression crimes”

To begin, if the USA were not, as a matter of policy, blocking the court at every opportunity (one presumes the USA clandestine services could be involved, with a string of dead witnesses and the relevant-impudent war criminal running a quasi-state hosting Camp Bondsteel, example given), rather jointly pursuing justice, the success rate should have been considerably stronger. Then we have to notice the USA’s clandestine services paramilitary and/or military fingers have been involved with stirring the pot in “Congo, Sudan, Libya, Syria and many other nations”, and in the immediate preceding paragraph you could substitute the names George, Condoleezza, Barack, and Donald and the description ‘cruel’ is a good fit.

“Thus we see paradoxically that the dangers of the International Criminal Court stem from both its potential strength and its manifest weakness”

I would prefer to think of the court’s future as one of ‘manifest strength.’

“Fourth, the International Criminal Court is superfluous, given that domestic US judicial systems already hold American citizens to the highest legal and ethical standards. US service members in the field must operate fully in accordance with the law of armed conflict. When violations of law do occur, the United States takes appropriate and swift action to hold perpetrators accountable. We are a democratic nation with the most robust system of investigation, accountability, and transparency in the world. We believe in the rule of law, and we uphold it. We don’t need the ICC to tell us our duty or second-guess our decisions”

Huh. I can only wonder what that has to do with the USA aggressively, proactively, protecting it’s criminals tied to the renditions (kidnapping for delivery to torture) program from prosecution; unpunished at home with arrest warrants in Germany and Italy outstanding.

“ICC proponents argue that robust domestic judicial systems are fully consistent with the court because of the so-called complementarity principle. According to its supporters, the ICC functions only as a “court of last resort”. If nations have taken appropriate steps to prosecute perpetrators of crimes, the ICC will take no further action”

Right, see preceding. If the USA had properly prosecuted its’ criminals, there would be no action taken by the ICC. But if criminality is your fundamental nature, you could easily be a Federalist Society member in agreement with John Bolton.

“And yet, there is little precedent for the ICC to determine how to apply the complementarity principle. How is the ICC prosecutor to judge when this principle has been met? Under what circumstances will the ICC be satisfied? How much sensitive documentation would the ever-toiling bureaucrats in The Hague demand from a sovereign government? And, who has the last word? If it’s the ICC, the United States would manifestly be subordinated to the court”

Not if the USA would keep its nose clean per Geneva Conventions and keep its’ nasty people out of other nations business, because there’d be no case to be subordinated to.

“If the ICC prosecutor were to take the complementarity principle seriously, the court would never pursue an investigation against American citizens, because we know that the US judicial system is more vigorous, more fair, and more effective than the ICC. The ICC prosecutor’s November 2017 request, of course, proves that this notion, and thus the principle of complementarity is completely farcical. The ICC prosecutor will pursue what investigations it chooses to pursue, based upon its own political motives, and without any serious application of the complementarity principle”

“more vigorous, more fair and more effective” is a rank lie in a nation where non-violent offenders are incarcerated in for profit prisons with political (lobbyists & $$$) incentive to keep them there and, where bankers who turned families out on the street via fraudulent mechanisms walk free and constitutional protections seem to entirely depend on how much money you have, for instance the indigent whose court appointed attorney slept through his murder trial and the appellate court could find no problem with that… and what about a sitting Supreme Court justice (then appellate court judge) having let an innocent man rot an extra 8 years in prison because of a procedural flaw where the evidence exonerating him wasn’t brought to the court’s attention within the rules deadline, the USA appears to have buried that case with ‘search engine optimization.’

“Fifth, the International Criminal Court’s authority has been sharply criticized and rejected by most of the world. Today, more than 70 nations, representing two-thirds of the world’s population, and over 70 percent of the world’s armed forces, are not members of the ICC”

Bolton’s shamelessness is beyond adequate description. One nation, China, is at the core of his statistic. Beyond this, more than 120 nations are signed on to the Rome Statute.

“Several African nations have recently withdrawn or threatened to withdraw their membership, citing the disproportionate number of arrest warrants against Africans. To them, the ICC is just the latest European neocolonial enterprise to infringe upon their sovereign rights”

This criticism is uttered by the most crass hypocrite to ever occupy the role of National Security Advisor for the USA. How’s that? One acronym that describes neocolonialism in Africa on steroids: The Pentagon’s AFRICOM.

“Israel too has sharply criticized the ICC. While the court welcomes the membership of the so-called “State of Palestine”, it has threatened Israel – a liberal, democratic nation – with investigation into its actions to defend citizens from terrorist attacks in the West Bank and Gaza. There has also been a suggestion that the ICC will investigate Israeli construction of housing projects on the West Bank”

Simply stated, “Yinon Plan” should be adequate rebuttal.

“The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel. And today, reflecting congressional concerns with Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel, the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office here in Washington, DC”

Well, this recalls the time HAMAS won the election in Gaza and the USA reacted by refusing to recognize the outcome. Palestinians get the shaft coming and going in their dealings with the USA-Israel axis (Yinon plan.)

“As President [Ronald] Reagan recognized in this context, the executive has “the right to decide the kind of foreign relations, if any, the United States will maintain”, and the Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel. The United States supports a direct and robust peace process, and we will not allow the ICC, or any other organization, to constrain Israel’s right to self-defense”

Right, that why caches of Israeli weapons were discovered to have been in the possession of Islamic State in Syria, ‘self-defense.’ Maybe the ICC will have a look into that at some point (someone certainly should.)

“In sum, an international court so deeply divisive and so deeply flawed can have no legitimate claim to jurisdiction over the citizens of sovereign nations that have rejected its authority.

“Americans can rest assured that the United States will not provide any form of legitimacy or support to this body. We will not cooperate, engage, fund, or assist the ICC in any way. This president will not allow American citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of self-defense.

“We take this position not because we oppose justice for victims of atrocities, but because we believe that perpetrators should face legitimate, effective, and accountable prosecution for their crimes, by sovereign national governments”

Again, lost on Bolton is the fact the ICC only prosecutes when national governments refuse to.

“In April of 2016, it was right here, at the Mayflower Hotel, that President Trump gave his first major foreign policy address during his campaign. At that time, candidate Trump promised he would “always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else””

“Today, it is fitting that we reassert this fundamental promise within these walls. This afternoon, we also make a new pledge to the American people.

“If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly. We will take the following steps, among others, in accordance with the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act and our other legal authorities:

“We will negotiate even more binding, bilateral agreements to prohibit nations from surrendering US persons to the ICC. And we will ensure that those we have already entered are honored by our counterpart governments.

“We will respond against the ICC and its personnel to the extent permitted by US law. We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans.

“We will take note if any countries cooperate with ICC investigations of the United States and its allies, and we will remember that cooperation when setting US foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels.

“We will consider taking steps in the UN Security Council to constrain the court’s sweeping powers, including ensuring that the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction over Americans and the nationals of our allies that have not ratified the Rome Statute.

“This administration will fight back to protect American constitutionalism, our sovereignty, and our citizens. No committee of foreign nations will tell us how to govern ourselves and defend our freedom. We will stand up for the US constitution abroad, just as we do at home. And, as always, in every decision we make, we will put the interests of the American people first”

In short, in Bolton’s view of the world, the criminality of American empire is über alles, having little or nothing to do with the several foreign organs of the Unites States keeping a clean nose abroad, let alone staying home and minding its own business.

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

A Breaking Point in Geopolitical Torsion
(international law vs spy agencies)

Reciprocity in law is as old as, or older than, the Code of Hammurabi’s an ‘eye for an eye.’ This would later be demonstrated in the international law rule of ‘reciprocity’ where an action undertaken by one state cannot be disputed when identical principle is undertaken by an opposing state against the initiating state, an early principle of restraint in international relations. It followed, a greater stability had been sought after in the 20th Century’s attempts to organize the international law with the foundation of the League of Nations and its replacement, the United Nations and the onset of the modern multilateral treaty governing nation-states behavior.

However sincere certain statesmen might have been in creating the United Nations and associated international law of the present era, flaws were inevitable in the mold at casting; the ideological contest between East and West, the naivety of non-Western, especially non-European, nation-states in matters of the Western conceived international law and associated history of ‘treaties made to be broken’, and not least, the long history of the European sleight-of-hand or internecine warfare best represented for the purposes of this essay in the NATO nations, allied and adversaries intelligence agencies. The bottom line per this last is, international law could not, and necessarily has not, reshaped human behavior at the base level; in the absence of a universal jurisdiction overseeing what has become the rampant criminality of the many nation-states’ spy services:

“Certain forms of intelligence activity – those that require deception, illegal activity, bribery, theft, violations of privacy and sometimes force and violence and other activities – cannot be squared with morality, ethical behavior or contextual legality, which is to say that certain aspects of intelligence operations are in the category of acts of warfare, albeit secret warfare. Accordingly, they can only be justified in some kind of ‘just war’ philosophy. Inevitably the question of ‘ends justifying means’ is raised. We should not, then, try to pretend that certain categories of intelligence activity can be justified by self-righteous rhetoric. One is forced into argument of ‘lesser evil.’ It is important to avoid hypocrisy in this connection. The reality is that the United Nations Charter, international law and certain treaties pose grave obstacles to those who would try to justify certain intelligence operations on moral or legal grounds. It cannot be done. Such intelligence operations can only be justified on the ‘war’ end of a war-peace spectrum. They can only be justified in the context of real threats to the vital or survival interests of the nation” [1]

Herein the preceding lie the torsion where international law is laid waste and finally broken; whether Allan Dulles presenting false testimony to President Eisenhower resulting in a green light for the CIA to murder Patrice Lumumba [2], the related Western intelligence agencies employed Belgian mercenary pilot who shot down UN General Secretary Dag Hammarskjold [3], or United States Special Forces training and leading the Bolivian troops who captured Che Guevara but then, handing Guevara to CIA operatives who committed extra-judicial assassination of the same [4], a few post WWII or early examples of flouting the modern conventions of international law, to present actors; whether NATO’s Dutch intelligence agency, with its’ long history of technical assistance to CIA related misadventures [5], assisting with cover for the perpetrators of the false-flag murders of more than 300 civilians in the case of MH17, an information operation to demonize Russia [6], or NATO’s Turkey and its’ intelligence agency handing lethal chemical weapon capability, sourced in Europe, to al-Qaida, killing well over 1,000 Syrian civilians, blamed on Assad. [7] In this last case, referenced in what follows, simple hubris created an opening to break into and expose the ‘unwritten law’ of geopolitical intrigue practiced by the liberal democracies political leadership in relation to the actions of their covert operators: ‘what we don’t know, won’t hurt us.’ Perhaps now, this must change.

The upshot of it all is, you cannot have the liberty and license of covert actors undermining relations between nations, framing their targets with the very institutions intended to impose discipline under the auspice of international law and expect international law can survive, let alone advance the best interests of humanity. When the international institutions and related NGOs have been co-opted by the several intelligence agencies partisans, the truth of the matter is international law has become a cynical vehicle for advancing what amounts to an order of anti-international law or, that is to say, a geopolitical oxymoron in actuality. In this case, a simple rule of social psychology would be facts should finally command ‘the emperor has no clothes!’ in circumstance begging for clarity serving interest of reality.

The perhaps most egregious example of the preceding is, the United Nations Security Council having become a propaganda organ of the liberal democracies, example given Colin Powell presenting ‘weaponized’ information (black propaganda) to the effect of Saddam’s (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction to justify the Bush II administration’s assembling a ‘coalition of the willing’ for purpose of invading that nation-state. In a wider format, international non-governmental organizations exhibit symptoms of manipulation to similar effect, example given would be Amnesty International, where it has been presented on excellent authority:

“My conclusion was that a high-level official of Amnesty International at that time, whom I will not name, was a British intelligence agent. Moreover, my fellow board member, who also investigated this independently of me, reached the exact same conclusion. So certainly when I am dealing with people who want to work with Amnesty in London, I just tell them, “Look, just understand, they’re penetrated by intelligence agents, U.K., maybe U.S., I don’t know, but you certainly can’t trust them” [8]

In the case of the International Criminal Court, African nations caused an institutional crisis when it was (not without some justification) perceived the organization constituted a White European prosecutorial mechanism focused on Black African nation-states. To the ICC’s credit, they have invited criticism from the African states and the Black African chief prosecutor has found courage and focus to take on the USA’s war crimes in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is a signatory to the ICC, the USA is not.) The downside is, there was TEN YEARS preliminary investigation prior to the prosecutor’s request to open the formal investigation (in November 2017.)

Relevant to this, the USA’s John Bolton (Trump’s National Security Advisor) has stated this following as a matter of USA policy towards the ICC:

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us. We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans” [9]

This official policy as enumerated by the Trump Administration is of particular interest to yours truly (this investigator) having, in July of 2018, requested a prosecution of German actors aiding and abetting the known and demonstrably false claims of Germany’s intelligence agency BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst: translates Federal Intelligence Service) covering up the true perpetrators of the sarin attack at Ghouta, Syria, in August of 2013. In short, there is evidence the German agency lied to the German Federal Parliament oversight committee when it presented its’ findings the Assad government perpetrated the attack killing well over 1,000 ordinary Syrians. In addition to this, there is absolutely compelling evidence of the actual actor, it was a NATO nation (Turkey’s) intelligence agency in league with al-Qaida, deliberately perpetrated the attack. What’s more is, thirty or so official office holders of the German Federal Republic, particularly those responsible for oversight of government actions, including senior parliamentarians, the office of the Federal Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court had been notified the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) had laundered disinformation via parliament to media (lied to the public through the oversight committee.) This lie has been allowed to stand even as NATO nations continue to (almost certainly falsely) claim the Assad government had gassed its own people on multiple occasions as pretext to launch attacks that solely benefit their al-Qaida aligned/allied actors in ‘regime change’ operations engineered by the NATO nations several spy services and their several allied or non-NATO partners. The accumulative effect of this lie allowed to persevere in the public purview without investigation and prosecution should be to implicate all of the Germans notified with complicity in a war crime, that is aiding and abetting the actual perpetrators by concealing their identity.

However it might be coincidence, it is interesting to note the Trump administration waited nearly a year since the Afghanistan prosecution had been requested and it was only after this reporter’s filing a case with the ICC, Bolton’s policy announcement was made. What could this mean? Simply stated, the American liability in Afghanistan is very limited [10], whereas the argument put forward by yours truly in the case of Syria could greatly expand the court’s reach, inclusive of arrests of remote intelligence agency actors, and more importantly, hold the intelligence agencies’ political enablers accountable, people far removed from the theater of the actual crimes commission.

The legal rationale provided to the ICC is really quite straight forward:

“this petitioner to the International Criminal Court … holds persons in any government signatory to the Rome Statute are prohibited from aiding and abetting a war crime or crime against humanity no matter the crime had been outside the courts purview (non-signatory state) when the aiding and abetting is committed within the courts purview (a signatory state.) This would include certain Western democracies intelligence agencies’ employees and aligned politicians providing cover for perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

What has been provided to the International Criminal Court is opportunity to reassert the rule of law as a matter of normalcy in international relations; where restraint should become the default and preferred avenue in decision making, inclusive of reining in the state sponsored terror of the Western liberal democracies [11] where the liberal democracies political leadership had been in the habit of instructing their spy services ‘what we don’t know, won’t hurt us’ as the insurance policy when ‘don’t get caught’ had failed. Would it work? That solely depends on courage in the face ugliness.

What is going on now? As entirely a matter of surmise, it might be presumed the argument is being tested in a preliminary manner by submitting it to theoretical experts in law. If it were to pass muster with this initial test, one should expect letters of inquiry to the relevant German authorities; what had been done with the information initially provided in December 2015, and follow-on notifications, demanding had there been investigation initiated and if not, why not?

Claims of ‘we didn’t know’ (the excuse this information concerning a laundered or false flag war crime slipped through unnoticed) should be nonviable for the fact no less than thirty officials were contacted with the information, on more than one occasion. That the information had been provided in English, rather than German, cannot fly for the fact many German universities require English fluency to apply for top programs; beyond the stretch 30 or so German officials might claim English language deficiency, it would be laughable to claim no one with fluency had seen the information. It is noteworthy that following providing the information to the Federal prosecutor’s office, they had abandoned their mailbox (email) for online contact form that does not accept evidence such as jpg files or other attachments. However there might be an excuse made the information had been lost during the period of electronic communications transition, that base had been covered from the other end; as the German Constitutional Court issued electronic receipt for the same information and most certainly should/would have referred the information to the German Federal prosecutor’s office. Also it should be noted this investigator had, twice on previous occasion, ascertained via human intelligence employing separate avenues, that indeed parliamentarians have been in receipt of diverse communications from this end.

What will result? At the time of this composition, no one outside of the ICC prosecutor’s office knows except for the likelihood of the several concerned intelligence agencies with a habit of spying on Western institutions.

Read the complaint to the ICC HERE

References:

1 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Vallandingham2/publication/309680554_The_Ethics_of_Spying_A_Literature_Review/links/581cf45f08ae40da2cab3d69/The-Ethics-of-Spying-A-Literature-Review.pdf?origin=publication_detail

2 ‘In Search of Enemies’ by dissident CIA officer John Stockwell

3 https://www.theguardian.com/world/dag-hammarskjold

4 Declassified documents on Guevara’s murder: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/index.html

5 ‘Inside the Company: CIA Diary’ by rogue CIA officer Phillip Agee

6 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/07/19/black-boxes-dark-arts-geopolitics/

7 https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/03/western-intelligence-agencies-the-international-criminal-court/

8 Former Amnesty International [USA] board member Francis Boyles: http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.html

9 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/full-text-john-bolton-speech-federalist-society-180910172828633.html

10 https://www.justsecurity.org/46687/icc-investigation-u-s-afghanistan-mean/

11 https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio/B

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

Author’s Preface

My Christian, Muslim and Jewish readers, when perusing this series, should bear in mind Jesus is a much abused historical figure, bearing a name that has been used for cynical manipulations since the era of the Crusades. There is a world of difference between the authentic Jesus and the Jesus put forward by radical Christian Zionists who would cynically see the Christians of Syria made extinct (along with Alawites and Druze) by machinations that enrich the American military-industrial complex in tandem with the Israeli radical right wing and Bibi Netanyahu’s pursuit of the Yinon Plan for a Greater Israel. If one gave it one minute’s thought, it raises a question: why are there Christians on both sides of every issue?

This series explores the behaviors of faux Christians and their dishonest allies, that is if authentic Christians follow the Sermon on the Mount. The two cannot be conflated; you cannot stamp out Syria’s Christians in the name of Jesus except to practice oxymoron or hypocrisy. But that would be precisely the outcome if the USA & Israel’s employ of Salafi-Takfiri to overthrow Assad were to prevail. Authentic Christians should be deeply disturbed at the following narrative little different to Jews practicing Tikkun Olam should be deeply disturbed at Netanyahu’s role in the same. No doubt the authentic practicing Sufi who reads here will know precisely what I am speaking of as well, as there are sincere parties in the 1/2 of each group determined to be ‘the righteous of God.’

The Plot To Capture The White House Part 1 treason at the apex

The Plot To Capture The White House Part 2 treason at the apex

The Plot To Capture The White House Part 3 treason at the apex

Additional thoughts: Historically (since JFK’s assassination) it had been more or less CIA neoliberal elements had controlled the White House; best reflected in the nominally ‘conservative’ Christian-Republican George H.W. Bush, whose criminal behaviors were influenced by his (and the CIA’s) Ivy League roots. Ironically, it was the culturally West Texan George W. Bush saw the pendulum begin to swing towards a more radical breed, or hard-core evangelical members of the Doug Coe cult, aligned with the Pentagon, ascend towards practical control of the White House, presently reflected in Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Dan Coats, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVoss (sister of Eric Prince), and The Generals.

The third historical player (other than CIA & Pentagon) in this tug-of-war would be MOSSAD. All of these cooperate in some areas, and contest in other areas of policy. Each of these vie to control the White House. But just now, there is a fourth agency in the play, that is the personality of Donald Trump, conducive to manipulations but not control. The present era is likely the first era, since Allen Dulles had been Director, the CIA hasn’t had the upper-hand. Interesting times!

Moreover, whether ‘God’s Chosen’ in the original Zionist form, or the ‘new chosen’ in the radical Christian Zionist iteration of übermensch, these present Zionist ‘partners’ fully intend that each will attempt to annihilate the other before all is said and done. There’s not much room for the rest of us (other than as collateral damage) in their plans.

Afterthought would be; the more in the remote past the National Security Act of 1947 had become embedded in the USA’s institutions of governance, the more in the remote past de jure (factual) democratic and constitutional principles had been in play. ‘Liberal democracy’ is just an existential threat (to all of us) and cosmic joke at this point in time.

Footnote: Insofar as the Vatican’s fascist fingers in the intelligence agencies’ pie, the curious won’t be disappointed (or will be terribly disappointed depending on your  degree of cynicism) with a read of this (external link) 1983 investigative history-report that remains relevant today: ‘Their Will Be Done.’ A more recent assessment HERE.

*

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you” -Chuck Schumer

Well, Schumer is likely correct in the preceding but there’s a very questionable follow-on…

“Whether you are a super liberal Democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community” -Chuck Schumer

I’m not aware Trump has called for ‘dismantling’ the intelligence community per se but it should be mentioned in the context of Schumer warning everyone ‘don’t go there’, there have been numerous, I would characterize as responsible, calls over the years to dismantle the operations sector of the CIA. But maybe Schumer’s protective scare-mongering over the matter of our notoriously corrupt intelligence agencies goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance. And then recall we are dealing with Zionists, whether the hyper-conservative cult-Christians dealt with in Part 1 of this series or the ‘super liberal’ Chuck Schumer and his ilk. There is one public forum in this world and likely only one, where you would discover a man whose cult beliefs conflate Jesus’ teachings with Hitler’s behavior and expect that a good thing, that is Mike Pence, rubbing shoulders and sharing a podium with a super liberal Democrat along the lines of Chuck Schumer: that venue is AIPAC.  AIPAC is one of MOSSAD’s favorite playgrounds and it’s not the first time [1] Jewish Zionists have consorted with Nazis (important note: all Jews are not practicing Zionists, not by a long shot, just as a majority of Christians are not political Zionists, despite theological demand in certain sects of both religions that Zionism is paramount.)

Now, let’s look at a thumbnail sketch of past possibilities versus actual outcome and we can reasonably surmise which intelligence agency had come out on top (to now) in the most recent USA election cycle. To begin, we examine Bernie Sander’s role as ‘sheepdog’ [2].

“The sheepdog’s job is to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists a year, a year and a half out from a November election away from building an alternative to the Democratic party, and into his doomed effort. When the sheepdog inevitably folds in the late spring or early summer before a November election, there’s no time remaining to win ballot access for alternative parties or candidates, no time to raise money or organize any effective challenge to the two capitalist parties.

“At that point, with all the alternatives foreclosed, the narrative shifts to the familiar “lesser of two evils.” Every sheepdog candidate surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democratic nominee in time for the November election. This is how the Bernie Sanders show ends, as the left-leaning warm-up act for Hillary Clinton” –Bruce Dixon, May 2015

Why the sheepdog in the larger, geopolitical picture? The only real threat to Israel’s miscreant behaviors lies outside of the normal body politic or, a third party success, with the American voter freed from the constraints of the Democrat-Republican ‘duopoly’ in the USA. The Democrats habit is the ‘sheepdog’, the Republican habit in the 2000s had been computerized vote fraud in the primaries, it is a known fact that’s how Ron Paul had been disposed of in most primaries over more than one election cycle and is how George W Bush was elected in 2000 (with a Supreme Court decision pushing him over the top) and reelected in 2004; but this would have been too obviously dangerous to attempt in 2008, 2012 & 2016 general elections and wasn’t applied in the 2016 primaries likely for the reason is this phenomena had become closely monitored by two many parties since the documentary Hacking Democracy [3]. Both of these methods, when putting evangelical Zionists into office as means to the stated end, that  is working towards implementing the Yinon Plan, would be supported by MOSSAD. It must have been a great temptation for a Pentagon that could not stomach Hillary in the 2016 cycle in a system where it is allies of the Department of Defense counts your vote [4].

“E-voting has obvious downsides—no ability to check recorded votes, no ability to perform meaningful recounts and susceptibility to electronic voting fraud. Nonetheless, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that by January 1 states submit plans to make the switch in time for the 2006 elections.

“More troubling, the backers of the act and the manufactures of e-voting machines are a rat’s nest of conflicts that includes Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Why are major defense contractors like Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin mucking about in the American electoral system? And who are Accenture and EDS?”

More likely than not, when computerized voter fraud is too dangerous to employ at the national (general) election level, it is nevertheless frequently employed at the state level with an eye to pushing the national agenda in certain direction [5].

Back to the ‘sheepdogging’ model: Sanders sandbagging the progressive electorate for the Democrats in 2016 is a particularly interesting case, relevant to today’s subject. There was a tremendous drive that was anti-Clinton in the liberal progressive movement organized behind Sanders. This unnerved the Clinton people within the DNC who began working to sabotage Sanders lest he morph from sheepdog to unintended nominee. This is when things get interesting with the DNC mails leak promoted in Western corporate media as a so-called ‘hack.’

No one has argued the released mails detailing the DNC plot to sabotage Sanders were not authentic. But rather than employ effort to call out and to disqualify Clinton, Sanders kept his head down, endorsed Hillary and effectively sent enough of his base off to elect Trump [6].

Sanders_vote - 1

Did Sander’s people challenge ‘the Russians did it’ propaganda line, demand the DNC servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No. They sat back and said nothing as the FBI folded the tent concerning the entire business of investigating the DNC (didn’t seize the server that was supposedly hacked) and what’s more is, Sanders has joined the chorus of ‘Putin is the 21st Century’s geopolitical Vlad the Impaler’ [7]. As well we have:

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email.

“According to one intelligence official who spoke to the publication, no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensics analysis on the hacked servers.

“Instead, the official said, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC. [8]

Looking a bit deeper, a very relevant question is posed:

“Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it’s done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated?” [9]

In actuality we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC mails with a thumbdrive [10]. More than that, we know the DNC mails that had damaged Clinton together with Sanders sheepdog act were released by Wikileaks whose fingerprints are found all over [11] the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ that has thrown the Middle-east into turmoil, breaking up nations and generally following geopolitical footprints that point to a gradual implementation of the Yinon Plan for a ‘Greater Israel.’ In this midst of this, Bernie Sanders doesn’t want you to know that he was a big piece of the electoral puzzle that fell together in favor of Trump. Why? Why is ‘anti-war’ Sanders on ‘the Russians did it’ path (pointed towards war) when in fact there is entirely too much evidence to the contrary available to his people to credibly make that case, particularly in regards to the DNC mails? Why did Sanders deliberately fold his hand in favor of Trump? Meanwhile Sanders supports the absolutely corrupt script detailed in Part 2 of this series…

“Democrats should wait for special counsel Robert Mueller to complete his investigation against the president before seeking impeachment, Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He was referring to a Democrat-led resolution to impeach Trump that died on the House floor Friday.

“I think Mr. Mueller is doing a very good job on his investigation,” Sanders said. “If Mueller brings forth the clear evidence that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I think you have grounds for impeachment” [12]

…even as Trump implores his treasonous Attorney General Jeff Sessions to do something…

““Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr……” [13]

&

“Ex-NSA contractor to spend 63 months in jail over “classified” information. Gee, this is “small potatoes” compared to what Hillary Clinton did! So unfair Jeff, Double Standard” [14]

…that will not be done. Trump doesn’t get that Jeff Sessions is a Mike Pence fraternal brother (Coe cult radical Christian Zionist) ‘Never Trump’ personality who purposely allows this charade to go forward in a process supported by Sanders. At this point Trump is expendable to the Israelis, having moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and torn up the Iran agreement, all that is left to do is get an American war with Iran going, to push Netanyahu’s support for Yinon forward, and the chances of that go up with an American President in deep trouble. How odd it would seem to the uninitiated but clear eyed observer, were one to perceive Bernie Sanders ultimately responsible for a President in hard hitting war with Iran and ayatollahs showing no inclination whatsoever to ‘make a deal.’

“Oded Yinon … 1982 paper for Kivunim (Directions) entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”, is often used as a reference point for evidence of an Israeli aim to balkanise the surrounding Arab and Muslim world into ethnic and sectarian mini-states” [15]

It follows, Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria’s breakup and working to keep the Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu’s goals. In fact, Israel’s intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and the USA second [16]. Relevant to this, I had begun this series with an Alastair Crooke quote from his excellent essay ‘The Metaphysics of our Present Global Anguish’ where he details the failures of secularism resulting in pushing people away from enlightenment inspired thinking and towards renewed focus on national religion, national patriotism and national ethnic identity rooted in diverse ancient memories of origin, all things despised by neoliberal globalists. Here is a bit more complete quote:

“500 years ago, the Enlightenment crushed the brief impulse from the Ancient world in Europe, known as the Renaissance. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it is the world of today’s élites which is imploding. What had been imagined as defeated, beyond recovery, is cautiously arising out from our crumbled ruins. The wheel of time turns, and comes around, again. It may all fare badly – the mode of linear one-track thinking implanted in the West does have an inbuilt propensity towards totalitarianism. We shall see” –Alastair Crooke [17]

The paradox of Crooke’s essay in relation to this series is, at the heart of this circumstance, at this stage of the game it is difficult to distinguish between the neoliberal Zionist and the authentic Nazi; where on either party’s part the actual ‘identity’ is behind a mask. But if you were the MOSSAD people manipulating or instructing Bernie Sanders (not to speak of Jared Kushner!), the reader never guessing Sanders’ present program perfectly merges with the treason of faux followers of Jesus at the Pentagon, would be part and parcel of the intelligence agency plan.

*

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

%d bloggers like this: