Archives for category: Espionage

The question lurking behind this satire is; if Wikileaks is in a position to crush ‘the Russians did it’ DNC bs, why haven’t they? Because Assange is more important than pulling the rug out from the morons in DC using the patent ‘hack’ bullshit to jack geopolitical rivalry and tensions with Russia, incredibly, dangerously high? Craig Murray needs to come clean –

Craig Murray
(& result of the moron-o-meter exam)

I’d perused the Wikispooks biography page on Craig Murray [1] and noticed a few things. Craig Murray insists he has lived…

“as a dissident where I have devoted my life to exposing, and trying to counter, the evil of the neo-conservative policy pursued by our political class at the behest of the corporations who fund them. I have suffered a huge loss in money, status and most of the other normal aspirations. But what I have gained is invaluable. I have respect and love, while Blair and Straw will forever be despised”

Well, Craig, as much as I despise the neoliberals Blair and Straw and their neoliberal policies, you certainly don’t have my respect and love. Notice the first symptom of a personality flaw: the cultural imperative where drive to wealth and status is a “normal aspiration.” I very much doubt Murray has preserved his original working class dialect for everyday use. In Britain, the first words out of one’s mouth typically identifies a person’s class affiliation.

Handicapped by upper class aspirations = minus one point.

Doesn’t know the difference between a neoconservative & a neoliberal = minus one point.

“Following publication of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on the CIA’s Use of Torture in December 2014, Craig Murray said “Can I just say how pleasant it is to be vindicated ten years after being sacked by Jack Straw for opposing the torture and extraordinary rendition programme – which Blair and Straw claimed I was inventing.” In an audio interview on 12 December 2014, Craig Murray recounted his experience to Scottish journalist and broadcaster Derek Bateman examining the legacy of Labour in a week when revelations about state-sanctioned torture by the CIA under Bush/Cheney further threaten the reputation of the Blair government” -Wikispooks

…Murray’s ‘pleased to be vindicated’ based on a calculated whitewash report where CIA complicity in a far wider legacy of kidnapping to torture had been glossed over is hardly the stuff of playing hardball against the team of criminals. Murray should have done the math; 119 prisoners (the report’s numbers) renditioned to black sites versus eleven thousand identified renditions plane flights just doesn’t add up [2]

Sucked up an establishment produced, deliberate whitewash of CIA renditions = minus one point.

Murray believes in virgin birth, the tooth fairy and the patent nonsense World Trade Center Building 7 died of fright on 9/11, no matter thousands of professionals with understanding of steel & concrete structures conclude there was at least one, indisputable, professionally engineered building demolition at WTC on 9/11 [3]

“Craig Murray announced in 2010 that he would summarily remove any comments about 9/11 from his website, stating his own position that “I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected”” -Wikispooks

Cowardly aversion to ‘conspiracy theorist’ label = minus one point.

Murray is a professionally trained diplomat but not a spook. This is clear on more than one point (see a second point in his Wikileaks interactions) and this one goes to Murray’s rank fail on how spy agencies propagandize their own people with false intelligence reports when backstopping lies via a technique called “eyewash” [4], [5]

“Craig Murray has publicly supported the Al Jazeera documentary, “Lockerbie: What Really Happened?” which concluded that the Lockerbie bombing was ordered by Iran and carried out by the PFLP-GC, with help from Hezbollah, and if Libya had a role, it was secondary. Murray blogged that “The information on Lockerbie published in today’s Daily Mail from an Iranian defector, matches precisely what I was shown in a secret intelligence report in the FCO just around the time of the first Iraq war. It was decided that this would be kept under wraps because the West needed Iran and Syria’s quiescence in the attack on Iraq”” -Wikispooks

Yo, Craig, wake-up call, your Iranian defector likely took MI6 script matching your own case of eyewash (backstopped the lie you’d been fed), the Pan Am 103 bombing easily should be a reprise of the murder of Dag Hammarskjold, only in this case was Britain and South Africa’s intelligence services execution of Bernt Carlsson who’d been preparing prosecution of Her Majesty’s government yellow cake trafficking [6], [7]

Does Her Majesty a favor with an eyewash blind spot = minus one point

And finally we have Stickyleaks…

“I took half an hour out yesterday from building the Doune the Rabbit Hole site to take part in a worldwide broadcast in support of Julian Assange. You can see me here on YouTube from 3 hours and 43 minutes in, though you may prefer to watch Slavoj Zizek who is on just before me ❤️❤️❤️

“The fact that I could broadcast video to people all over the world from a beautiful but remote field in the shadow of the Trossachs, via a mobile phone connection, is an example of just why the state and corporate media can no longer dominate the narrative with their propaganda. That is the main subject of my brief talk” craigmurray.org.uk July 2018 [8]

Ok, so Craig Murray, who has all but admitted he met with Seth Rich in the DNC leaks case (probably to verify the authenticity of the mails prior to Wikileaks paying cash to Rich, not to be the conduit) and possibly (very likely) as a surveilled  high profile associate of Wikileaks got Rich identified as the DNC source, causing Rich to be assassinated (a trained spook uses a cut out to prevent just this sort of scenario)…

murray_wikileaks-1

“I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things” -Craig Murray

…somehow doesn’t understand (cannot connect the dots) the fact 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 does Craig Murray, when evangelizing with his perception of Assange as a hero, drive that square peg into the round hole of Wikileaks supported the intelligence agency geopolitical engineering called the Arab Spring? [9], [10], [11]

Failed basic espionage 101 by meeting directly with a Wikileaks source = minus one point

Doesn’t understand how organizations like Wikileaks serve intelligence agencies’ interests as in the case of the Arab Spring = minus one point

Narcissistic infatuation with Assange sans perspective, together with not interfered with in his electronic communications by intelligence agencies (allowed at youtube) because he’s actually not a threat as much as a manipulated stooge resulting in a limited hangout = minus one point:

Craig_Murray_psychology - 1

^ MI6 profile of Murray’s ‘intelligence’ maturity level

Minus eight points on a scale of zero to minus eight, the geopolitical moron-o-meter determines a result of profoundly retarded:

Geopolitical moron-o-meter:

^ Craig Murray’s result = profoundly retarded

 

[1] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Craig_Murray

[2] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/03/we-tortured-some-folks/

[3] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/12/1617/

[4] https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Eyewash

[5] https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/repugnant-philosophy/

[6] https://www.iol.co.za/ios/behindthenews/pik-bothas-lockerbie-mystery-17617534

[7] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-downing-of-flight-103-over-lockerbie-it-was-the-uranium/5364222?print=1

[8] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/07/thoughts-inspired-by-julian-assange/

[9] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/09/16/incompetent-espionage-wikileaks-iii/

[10] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/04/17/wikileaks-spy-agencies/

[11] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/01/08/agent-assange/

Ghouta_August_2013 - 1

On Intimidation, Cowardice & Corruption
(at the International Criminal Court)

“Drill and uniforms impose an architecture on the crowd. An army’s beautiful. But that’s not all; it panders to lower instincts than the aesthetic. The spectacle of human beings reduced to automatism satisfies the lust for power. Looking at mechanized slaves, one fancies oneself a master” -Aldous Huxley

The United Nations is an experiment in democracy founded on the Western principles of international law. Angela Merkel’s conflating globalism with multilateralism (these are NOT the same thing) notwithstanding, the United Nations is a global body established by multilateral treaties. This does not establish ‘globalism’ but serves as a platform for facilitating relationships between sovereign nations. The International Criminal Court is example of this, where the ‘Rome Statute’ (the multilateral treaty establishing the court) had been ‘midwifed’ from within the UN but created a court (the ICC) that is ostensibly independent. However the UN Security Council may refer cases to the ICC, the UN has no authority over the court and no power to extend or curtail the courts jurisdiction, which is solely over those nations which had opted to enter into the treaty (Rome Statute) creating the court.

However, if the institutions of the United Nations are notoriously politicized and corrupt, and they most certainly are [1] it follows the UN’s closely aligned institutions might be expected to show similar symptoms.

We have recently seen these symptoms (read on) but it should be noted the ICC had been undermined from its inception, particularly by the USA in what appears on its face to have been a geo-strategic policy of fraudulent engagement of the Rome Statute process. In short, the USA participated in the setting up of the court but used its considerable influence to prevent the court adopting a principle of universal jurisdiction. With the court at its formation limited to jurisdiction over nations entering into the Rome Statute treaty, the USA would appear to have disingenuously joined the court (signed on) but never seriously pursued ratification (the legal necessity of a democratic nation’s parliamentary body affirming the state executive signature) and therefor never came under the court’s jurisdiction.

What had been created is a social oxymoron in actuality; a core body of nations (Europe, EU & NATO nations, particularly) determined never to self-prosecute but to use the prosecutorial vehicle provided by the Rome Statute as post-colonial geopolitical device aimed at African states in ongoing state of neocolonialism. Consequently the court has seen to the prosecutions of politicians from Congo, Kenya, Sudan and Ivory Coast but not the French role in Rwanda’s genocide or Paul Kagame, a USA darling:

“He’s [Kagame] actually gotten a free ride from the ICC despite all the evidence of his army creating, sponsoring militias in Congo since 2002. Militias sponsored by Kagame’s troops have plundered, killed civilians and recruited child soldiers in the Congo yet Kagame and his commanders have not been indicted by the ICC” [2], [3], [4]

Relevant to the French immunity (impunity), this raises a question concerning whether European states signatory to the Rome Statute, that is a “coalition of the willing” should have been liable for what amounts to a ‘crime against humanity’, or an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead civilians having resulted due to infrastructure destruction (e.g. disease via water contamination), when Iraq had been invaded despite the invading states’ leaders (notably Tony Blair) knowing that invasion’s premise was false. Are the EU & NATO states’ accountability waived by the ICC?

It hardly seems a ‘crime of aggression’ need be adopted to hold states responsible for their acts where existing statutory law should be adequate.

This brings us to a recent case filed by this reporter points to corruption. For purpose of defining corruption in the case at hand, identified by the court’s filing reference ICC OTP-CR-295/18 [5] it is asserted (by this reporter) any case of acquiesce in the face of intimidation is a form of corruption, where cases are shelved as opposed to pursued in good faith. Recent example of this is demonstrated in the resignation of an ICC judge citing two instance where the ICC had been subject to threats or subverted. [6]

In the first instance, Turkey arrested an ICC judge with Turk nationality under the pretext of ties to Gulen, an excuse often used by the current Salafi leadership of Turkey to rid itself of principled Sufi members of Turkey’s civil service. [7] The UN Secretary General, rather than confront Turkey with a principled stance no UN member state will unilaterally set precedent with the removal of ICC judges, allowed the precedent to stand.

The other instance causing his resignation (mentioned by Judge Flugge) is the well publicized (policy) threats against the ICC by USA National Security Advisor, John Bolton, in his speech to the Federalist Society. [8]

According to Christopher Black, a longtime barrister working the several international tribunals, including the ICC, the USA plays strongly:

“First of all through key personnel they have placed in the ICC, for example the prosecutors, some judges who are willing to do what they want…

“A judge in my case was threatened by Americans working there that if certain passages in the judgement acquitting the general I was defending were not removed he would face physical problems. This is the type of gangsterism they use to get their way in these tribunals”

Also specific to the USA, at a separate tribunal, according to Black:

“Not only was a judge in my case at the Rwanda tribunal pressured but I myself was threatened by the CIA while I was there to stop raising questions and presenting evidence they [the US side] did not like” [9]

The preceding suggests Turkey may have arrested the judge with Turkish nationality as a quid pro quo on behalf of a 3rd party to dispense with a judge perceived as a threat. In any case it’s clear the ICC is compromised.

Bearing the preceding in mind, in the case filed by this reporter, to begin it should be noted it was the ICC itself invited my filing, when the Office of the Prosecutor had responded, on 3 July 2018, to a letter I’d emailed to a German international law attorney on, 30 June 2018, copied to the ICC.

In both the letter and the complaint a clear line of evidence had been provided pointing to Turkey had (false-flag attack, in league with al Qaida) arranged the indiscriminate murder of well over 1,000 civilians at Ghouta, Syria in August of 2013. According to a Turkish parliamentarian, Eren Erdem, citing Turkish state produced investigative files in his possession, the chemicals used to produce the Sarin gas in this attack had been sourced in Europe. Turkish MP Erdem is on record stating:

“All basic materials are purchased from Europe. Western institutions should question themselves about these relations. Western sources know very well who carried out the sarin gas attack in Syria. They know these people, they know who these people are working with, they know that these people are working for Al-Qaeda. [What] I think is Westerns are hypocrites about the situation”

In this regard it is noted the court’s Office of the Prosecutor takes on the responsibility of assembling evidence:

“At the ICC, most evidence is collected and secured by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP)” [10]

In the present case (ICC OTP-CR-295/18) the filing party (Ronald Thomas West) had assembled ample evidence to justify initiating a preliminary investigation that should have triggered the court looking into whether there had been the associated crime of ‘aiding and abetting’ committed within ICC jurisdiction. To bolster this, the case had been made an additional, associated crime of aiding and abetting had been demonstrated where German intelligence had misinformed German politicians of the facts actually surrounding the Ghouta sarin attack, so far as to blame Assad.

This last (immediate preceding) would not necessarily constitute a prosecutable crime (depending on what the judges might be inclined to believe on a given day) but there is more. This reporter had provided the necessary evidence to the concerned politicians correcting the record; indisputable evidence Turkey’s intelligence agency was providing sarin to al-Qaida militants within a timeline consistent with the Ghouta attack. [11]

This evidence submitted to the German executive (office of the Federal Prosecutor) and oversight (parliamentary leadership of all parties represented in the federal parliament) was never acted on; the German political establishment closed ranks across the political spectrum to deny the government of Syria honest assessment of the Ghouta attack. The false-flag crime accordingly sustained as a successful political ploy in regime change endeavors by EU and NATO states where those very states have become complicit in aiding and abetting a war crime with the act of material concealment of the actual perpetrators identity (a NATO state.) [12]

The German politicians (and related institutions) had been provided with the evidence on 2 December 2015. By the time this (very same) evidence had been provided to the ICC in a formalized complaint on 4 July 2018, thirty one months had passed without action by the Germans, satisfying the requirement Germany should have had opportunity to redress the wrong.

On 6 February 2019, one week after the resignation of Judge Christoph Flugge, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor replied to this reporter with:

“The Office of the Prosecutor has examined your communication and has determined that more detailed information would be required in order to proceed with an analysis of whether the allegations could fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Prosecutor has determined that, in the absence of such information, there is not a basis at this time to proceed with further analysis”

Essentially what the ICC has done is, to shelve the case with a demand this reporter who’d made the filing (at their invitation) provide information beyond simple and clear evidence aiding and abetting of a war crime is ongoing by a state within the jurisdiction of the court. This general, non-specific language, in the common vernacular, are called ‘weasel words.’

Why? Clearly the ramifications of adopting the practice of prosecuting the politicians empowering false flag geopolitical engineering by intelligence agencies is frightening and no doubt opposed by politician & spy alike.

Were the ICC to proceed in this case (whether it were a successful prosecution or acquittal), not only would it likely topple Angela Merkel, but it likely brings into reach Davis Cameron and his spy chief Alex Younger, also Francois Hollande and his spy chief Bernard Bajolet… and so on.

In the case of Germany, there is a safe assumption: There will be no prosecution of these crimes due to a German constitutional loophole larger than the Brandenberg Gate … “for the good of the state.” Because at the end of the day, it is (a commonly used German expression) “just not possible” to rock the boat with Turkey or cross the USA.

Why the International Criminal Court matters (in the present moment) has little to do with justice and much to do with exposing the corruption of foundational principles across the spectrum of international institutions.

*

The ICC had been provided a nearly identical draft of this (preceding) with opportunity to comment. [13] Prior to releasing this for initial publication at the Ft Russ news website, two weeks have passed and no reply has been forthcoming. The ICC also declined to clarify the nature of “more detailed information [that] would be required” and has remained silent on my asking whether the German authorities had been contacted with request for information and if so, the nature of any reply.

Noteworthy is the ICC does not deny the “allegations” (the evidence is too strong) nor does the ICC altogether dismiss the possibility of jurisdiction (they have jurisdiction over complicit parties within the EU, only are either intimidated and afraid or too corrupted to exercise it, probably a combination) rather finds a ‘weasel words’ excuse to shelve a case that would call out the hypocrisy of the European signatories to the Rome Statute based on the criminality of the EU/NATO intelligence agencies.

The net result is, as of this moment the false-flag sarin attack at Ghouta, Syria (and murder of well over 1,000 innocents) during the month of August 2013 remains a successful sleight-of-hand attack blamed on the wrong party and the crime of aiding and abetting the perpetrators, it could be argued, extends to the International Criminal Court itself, in case where refusal to correct the public record protects the guilty parties. I would describe this as ‘international criminal complicity’ when a UN associated judicial body becomes aware of an easily rectified element of a major war crime, as simple as recognizing an evidence based false-flag, and instead chooses to sit on its hands.

The pity of it all is, if there were courage to pursue jurisdiction over those complicit parties within the Rome Statute’s signatory states, a precedent would be established perhaps leading (over time) to further precedent where anyone complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity could be arrested when stepping on any Rome Statute nation’s soil and progress made in realizing accountability.

Ronald’s Maxim

In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage

References:

[1] http://www.innercitypress.com/index.html

[2] http://www.therwandan.com/the-icc-has-given-africas-most-prolific-genocidaire-a-free-ride/

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41283362

[4] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/rwanda-paul-kagame-americas-darling-tyrant-103963

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

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/28/international-criminal-court-icc-judge-christoph-flugge-quits-citing-political-interference-trump-administration-turkey

[7] https://www.dw.com/en/from-ally-to-scapegoat-fethullah-gulen-the-man-behind-the-myth/a-37055485

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

[9] https://www.rt.com/news/450611-us-icc-manipulation-experts/

[10] https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-35076-4_4.pdf

[11] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/04/15/what-can-be-known-vs-what-will-be-known/

[12] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/12/a-breaking-point-in-geopolitical-torsion/

[13] copy of this post & relevant questions requesting information were sent to the ICC on 9 February 2019

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

%d bloggers like this: