Archives for posts with tag: International Criminal Court

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

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

Here is my brainchild for setting precedent holding intelligence agencies and their political enablers responsible for war crimes. This is a true copy of my 3 July 2018 filing with the International Criminal Court, updates will be added below.

Dear Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court

Thank you for the invitation to formalize my complaint concerning the crime of sarin gas employed at Ghouta, Syria, in August of 2013.

I

Under customary international law, aiding and abetting war crimes includes three elements:

(1) A Principal person or entity committed a war crime;
(2) Another actor committed an act that had a substantial effect upon the commission of the underlying offence; and
(3) Required mental state: The other actor knew that that such an act would assist, or had the substantial likelihood of assisting, the commission of the underlying offense.

Notice what is missing. There is no requirement that the accomplice had the purpose or desire to facilitate the underlying offence.

https://www.justsecurity.org/32656/law-aiding-abetting-alleged-war-crimes-assess-uk-support-saudi-strikes-yemen/

II

1) Turkey, a NATO nation, via its’ intelligence agency MIT, conspired with al Qaida (a proposed clandestine NATO affiliate) to commit a war crime, that is the (false flag) gassing and death of more than one thousand civilians at Ghouta, Syria, in August, 2013.

2) Officials of NATO actor Germany, a signatory to The Rome Statute, provided ‘cover’ via propaganda and other, related means (e.g. laundering false information to media via parliamentary oversight) allowing the actual perpetrators to escape scrutiny despite German intelligence knowing:

3) Such act (immediate preceding) substantially would assist the commission of the specified crime or in other words, enable false-flag  impunity.

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

III

Arts 49/50/129/146 of the four Geneva Conventions (1949) requiring the Member States to prosecute and punish all ‘persons’ who commit grave breaches (Ambos [2014] 146). Accordingly, the Elements of Crimes of the ICC Statute do not provide an explicit note for the category of perpetrators as there was no dissent during the negotiations at the Rome Conference that war crimes can be committed by both members of armed forces and civilians (Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes [2003] 391).

http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e431

IV

Going to the immediate preceding (III), this petitioner to the International Criminal Court (Ronald Thomas West) 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.

Named persons of the German federal security service and responsible politicians (Bundesnachrichtendienst) who’ve proactively (provided false information) or passively (allowed false information) to purposely aid and abet the actual perpetrators (Turkey’s MIT in partnership with al-Qaida) of the (false flag) gas attack at Ghouta, Syria in August 2013 include (but is not limited to) past president of BND Gerhard Schindler, present president of BND Bruno Kahl, Helge Braun (oversight minister) and Angela Merkel.

Named persons directing the German office of the Federal Prosecutor (Generalbundesanwalt/Generalbundesanwältin) who’ve failed to investigate and prosecute domestically and internationally (universal jurisdiction for war crimes or Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) are Harald Range and Peter Frank.

Named German parliamentarians (leadership and/or senior members) who’ve been in possession (since at least December 2015) of exculpatory evidence exonerating President Bashar al Assad and his officials and military of the sarin attack at Ghouta, Syria, in August 2013 and have failed to take appropriate action to bring the German intelligence service and/or German political actors into compliance with established facts per international law and consequently protected a NATO actor and their al-Qaida partners from the light as the actual perpetrators include (but are not limited to) Hans-Christian Stroebele, Ulla Jelpke, Irene Mihalic, Michael Hartmann, Armin Schuster, Norbert Lammert, Peter Hintze, Johannes Singhammer, Edelgard Bulmahn, Ursula Schmidt, Petra Pau, Claudia Roth, Marieluise Beck, Omid Nouripour, Stefan Liebich, Niels Annen, Roderich Kiesewetter and Gregor Gysi.

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/12/07/send-a-letter/

V

To contextualize the long habit of Western intelligence agencies sponsoring and/or aiding and abetting false-flag state terror it is recommended the ICC prosecutor review the history of GLADIO:

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

and moving into present time with GLADIO B:

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

For a larger understanding of the underlying or founding criminal nature/background of Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst it is recommended the ICC prosecutor review the BND origins and history of the Gehlen Organization:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/

To understand German officials presently in power continue to play underhanded widely in the present geopolitical era, this information is provided:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/03/25/germanys-martyrs-of-the-maidan/

Contextualizing the NATO nations (includes Rome Statute signatory Germany) intelligence agencies relationship to the chemical crimes of al-Qaida in Syria, it is recommended the ICC prosecutor examine the journalism of Vanessa Beeley concerning the so-called White Helmets:

Buttressing the Turkish MP Eren Erdem’s statement ‘rebel’ (al-Qaida) chemicals were sourced in Europe, is Russian military intelligence:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201806221065657552-chemical-weapons-russia-syria-europe/

Conclusion

Western intelligence agencies have a long history of underhanded play (criminal activity.) In the case of Germany’s BND aiding and abetting al-Qaida in Syria, there is strong evidence prima facie of deliberately laundering false information through the Federal German Parliament (Bundestag) intelligence oversight committee to media effecting the coverup (concealing the actual perpetrators) of a war crime involving sarin gas, per the original information provided to the ICC as amended:

Eren_Erdem - 1

What Can Be Known Versus What Will Be Known

Likely, it will only be a matter time before the CIA editors at Wikipedia will change the recently updated information in the above (cropped-enlarged screenshot) Wikipedia article last updated 4 April 2018:

“Erdem also claims that sarin-gas was transported through Turkey to Syria, later used in the Ghouta chemical attack in 2013,[4][5] as well as later ISIL-attacks against civilians.[6] Erdem showed before the parliament a case where investigations leading to the arrest of 13 potential Turkish ISIL-members were made, but later inexplicably dropped.[7][8]

“Erdem faces treason charges in Turkey for his leaks.[5]

What is Turkish Member of Parliament Eren Erdem on record as having stated? Speaking of a copy in his possession of the Adana Prosecutor’s criminal case 2013/120 that was quashed by Erdogan’s people:

“There is data in this indictment. Chemical weapon materials are being brought to Turkey and being put together in Syria in camps of ISIS which was known as Iraqi Al Qaeda during that time

“These are all detected. There are phone recordings of this shipment like ‘don’t worry about the border, we’ll take care of it’ and we also see the bureaucracy is being used

“About the shipment, Republic prosecutor of Adana, Mehmet Arıkan, made an operation and the related people were detained. But as far as I understand he was not an influential person in bureaucracy. A week after, another public prosecutor was assigned, took over the indictment and all the detainees were released. And they left Turkey crossing the Syrian border

“The phone recordings in the indictment showed all the details from how the shipment was going to be made to how it was prepared, from the content of the labs to the source of the materials. Which trucks were going to be used, all dates etc. From A to Z, everything was discussed and recorded. Despite all of this evidence, the suspects were released

“And the shipment happened, because no one stopped them. That’s why maybe the sarin gas used in Syria is a result of this

“When I read the indictment, I saw clearly that these people have relationships with The Machinery and Chemical Industry Institution of Turkey and they don’t have any worries about crossing the border

“For example in Hayyam Kasap’s phone records, you hear him saying sarin gas many times, saying that the ateliers are ready for production, materials are waiting in trucks which were supposedly carrying club soda

“For example the chemical attack in Ghouta. Remember. It was claimed that the regime forces were behind it. This attack was conducted just days before the sarin operation in Turkey

“It’s a high probability that this attack was carried out with those basic materials shipped through Turkey. It is said the regime forces are responsible but the indictment says it’s ISIS. UN inspectors went to the site but they couldn’t find any evidence. But in this indictment, we’ve found the evidence. We know who used the sarin gas, and our government knows it too

“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. I think is Westerns are hypocrites about the situation”

What more can be known?

1) The German Parliament’s leadership (all political parties), as well the German Federal Prosecutor, had been apprised of the preceding by yours truly on 2 December 2015:

Eren_Erdem - 1 (1)

Dear Members of the German Parliament

I wish to draw attention to recent information regarding your NATO ally Turkey. Last month it had been revealed by two courageous members of Turkey’s parliament that in fact it was Turkey’s federal intelligence services were behind the August 2013 Sarin gas attack, killing more than one thousand ordinary Syrians, an attack NATO nations had blamed on the regime of Basher al-Assad. Your own Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) should have been aware of this fact from very nearly the beginning, as they have been proactively engaged in Syria and the Syrian conflict, as well as spying on Turkey.

What’s more is, state actor Turkey initiating the Sarin attack is not some undocumented allegation. As you can see from the attached reporting, there was a proper investigation by Turkish authorities with developed evidence and indictments. I regret to inform you in this case, President Erdogan personally initiated the prosecution that last week saw the editor of the newspaper reporting put in jail.

This raises strong questions of possible BND criminal complicity considering Germany’s support for certain NATO nations directly in relation to the Syrian conflict. What did the BND know and when? Has the BND, when passing intelligence on Syria to Assad’s opposition through its NATO allies, supported the actors who gassed the Syrians? Is Germany’s supportive relationship to the Erdogan government a lawful one, in light of this evidence? Has the BND contributed to the geopolitical disinformation blaming Assad for the August 2013 Sarin attack? Has your parliament been deceived in this matter, particularly your intelligence oversight committee?

Clearly the Sarin case, considering Germany, as a knowledgeable or complicit actor in Syria, should be pursued against the Turkey via the legal mechanism of Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, as well as domestic prosecutions of those German officials, noting the BND particularly, who’ve failed in their reporting requirements and/or conspired to conceal a war crime or crime against humanity.

These should be questions and demand you will present to the federal prosecutor.

Ron West

 

2) Germany’s foreign intelligence service (BND) lied to the German parliament’s intelligence oversight committee:

Eren_Erdem - 1 (2)

(Translated, highlighted text) “Berlin – The Federal Intelligence Service (BND) supports the assessment of the Americans that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is behind the poison gas attacks on suburbs of Damascus on 21 August. In secret classified statements for security politicians, BND President Gerhard Schindler said a clear proof is missing. After an in-depth plausibility analysis, however, his ministry assumes that the regime is the culprit”

At Der Spiegel English:

[T]he country’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), agrees with the US position which holds Syrian President Bashar Assad responsible for the poison gas attacks near Damascus on Aug. 21. In a secret briefing to select lawmakers on Monday, BND head Gerhard Schindler said that while there is still no incontestable proof, analysis of the evidence at hand has led his intelligence service to believe that Assad’s regime is to blame.

In the briefing, Schindler said that only the Assad regime is in possession of binary chemical weapons such as sarin. The BND believes that regime experts would be the only ones capable of manufacturing such weapons and deploying them with small missiles. The BND believes that such weapons had been used several times prior to the attack on Aug. 21, which is believed to have killed more than 1,400 people

3) We can know BND knew better because of intelligence officers who were too stupid to keep their mouths shut. In fact BND is not only competent in Syria, BND is dedicated to the overthrow of Assad:

Eren_Erdem - 1 (3)

The report quotes a US intelligence agent as saying: “No Western intelligence service has as good sources in Syria as the BND does.”

A member of the BND told the newspaper that the intelligence service was “proud of the important contribution [it] is making to the overthrow of the Assad regime.” The official was not named in the report

What will be known is, this is all information had been put before German parliamentarians and has been in their possession for the past two years, even as Angela Merkel parrots the intelligence agencies “Assad did it” no matter Assad didn’t do it, has never done it.

What is ugly is, German politicians accept being lied to by their own intelligence agency while keeping their mouths shut and sitting on their hands when in possession of evidence of the actual perpetrators of a war crime.

And, let’s not forget the sarin gas precursor chemicals were originally sourced or originated IN EUROPE, prior to transiting Turkey via a NATO nation’s intelligence agency (with complicity of intelligence agencies, plural, BND has covered this up), and delivered into the hands of al Qaida & Islamic State.

What should this covering up facts of a crime of poison gas recall? Angela Merkel’s political party’s origins with Adenauer welcoming Nazis into the Christian Democrats’ ranks? The BND founded by the CIA’s rehabilitation of major war criminal Reinhard Gehlen? Is it true Germany has never shed certain Nazi spots?

online record/reference:

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

On Jul 3, 2018, at 2:19 PM, OTP InformationDesk <OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your message. Please note that the International Criminal Court has a very limited jurisdiction. The Court may only address the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as defined by Articles 6 to 8 of the Rome Statute that have occurred after 2002, and can only exercise jurisdiction in the countries that have ratified it. For more information on the Court’s jurisdiction and the full text of the Rome Statute, please refer to page 2 of the attached document and our website as well as our address, http://www.icc-cpi.int. We encourage you to carefully review this information.

If, after your careful review, you still believe the ICC is the correct place for your case and would like to submit a claim to the Court, then please follow the directions for how to do so on page 1 of the attached document. If you decide to submit information, kindly use only this email address : otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int.

Kind regards,

OTP Information Desk
International Criminal Court

5 July 2018 correction, in section IV, the name ‘Gerhard Schroeder, has been corrected to Gerhard Schindler (past president of the BND.) The ICC has been notified of this correction.

9 July 2018 update: The following communication received from the ICC:

The Hague, 9 July 2018

Dear sir/madam

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court acknowledges receipt of your documents/letter.

This communication has been duly entered in the Communications Register of the Office. We will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Please note this acknowledgement letter does not mean an investigation has been opened, nor that an investigation will be opened by the Office of the Prosecutor.

As soon as a decision is reached, we will inform you, in writing, and provide you with reasons for this decision.

Yours sincerely,
Mark P. Dillon, 
Head of Information & Evidence Unit
Office of The Prosecutor

*

A meta-data (background/history) overview of the ICC complaint HERE

*

22 February 2019 update (new Post) HERE

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

Nothing is more lethal to democratic institutions than cowardice. Cowardice is a by far greater threat than corruption. This is because those who fear to stand up and be heard not only embolden those who’ve embraced evil, but with a surrender of courage, have taken the first concrete step to joining the ranks of those would rule over us, as opposed to govern for us. To stand down in the  face of evil, is a service to evil. This would appear to be the case of German parliamentarians.

This following letter sent on 14 December 2014 to:

hans-christian.stroebele@bundestag.de, gregor.gysi@bundestag.de, ulla.jelpke@bundestag.de, irene.mihalic@bundestag.de, michael.hartmann@wk.bundestag.de, armin.schuster@bundestag.de, armin.schuster.wk@bundestag.de, norbert.lammert@bundestag.de, peter.hintze@bundestag.de, johannes.singhammer@bundestag.de, edelgard.bulmahn@wk.bundestag.de, ursula.schmidt@wk.bundestag.de, petra.pau@bundestag.de, claudia.roth@bundestag.de, marieluise.beck@bundestag.de, omid.nouripour@bundestag.de, stefan.liebich@bundestag.de, niels.annen@bundestag.de, roderich.kiesewetter@bundestag.de, philipp.missfelder@bundestag.de

CC addresses omitted

To the several German parliamentarians

Noting I have provided your organization testimonials to my veracity and have been forwarding intelligence to the German parliament for the past two full years, I will remind you of your nation’s obligation under the German Völkerstrafgesetzbuch principle, and the fact you have a certain duties in regards to the rule of law. I notice there is no hesitation to conduct raids and arrests of Islamic radicals in your nation, so why is there no action had been taken in the case of the CIA and this organization’s attempted rendition and assassination of myself on German territory? I have in the past provided the German parliament detailed information in regards to this, including identifying principals and motive. Now, again, as on several previous occasions, I am providing assessment of related criminal activities, pasted in (below) and can be found online at this link:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/12/13/square-pegs-in-round-holes/

As well, it must be noted the relationship of Germany to American military generally, and the working relationship of the German intelligence agencies to American intelligence agencies. Certainly they will not voluntarily step up and provide information in this case that is embarrassing and damaging to themselves. It is the undeniable duty of parliament to force accountability and I’ve yet seen no overt indication you are willing to do this. It is my sincere intention yourselves and your institutions and government will be held accountable, if not to the rule of law in the present, then most certainly held accountable to history.

I am requesting the International Criminal Court file this communication with information previously provided.

Ron West

“The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the
history of crime” –Voltaire

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/

**

122 KNOWN aircraft were used in renditions within a database of 11,000 flights (by those aircraft) during the known period of renditions.

http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/global-rendition/the-flights/index.html

With 119 ‘detained suspects’ acknowledged in Feinstein’s ‘torture report’, the first problem we see is, there are more planes known to have renditioned people than the ‘torture report’ admits had been renditioned. Ignoring the idea the CIA had required use of a separate plane for each rendition (+3 planes), the initial math comes out to 92 flights per prisoner. Let’s toss 1/2 the flights and we have 46 flights per prisoner. Let’s toss 1/2 the flights again, and we have 23 flights per prisoner. Ok, so now we’ve thrown out 75% of the flights by known renditions aircraft and that works out to 25% of the flights would amount to renditions of 2,750 prisoners. So, let’s cut that by half again; if 12.5% of the known flights were renditions, there would be 1,375 kidnapped and or captured persons flown by the CIA. Cut in half again, to 6.25% of flights by planes known to fly renditions, and we should have 688 involuntary ‘transportees.’ If 3% of the flights by KNOWN renditions aircraft, were transporting ONE prisoner each, depending on number of stops, we’d still have up to 344 people (versus Feinstein’s 119), relating to the CIA renditions.

The disparity of the math is too great to give any sense of credibility or reliability to the Feinstein report. And there is no present way of determining whether flights ‘disappearing’ people (dumped at sea) had been employed in the (CIA supported) Latin America junta style:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/victims-of-death-flights-drugged-dumped-by-aircraft–but-not-forgotten-8360461.html

Now, it stands to reason we don’t have close to all of the planes and flights identified because many of them would have been military. As well, we know the American military has not been even close to fully probed over its own ‘black site’ torture centers, this documentary film’s existence (suppressed in American media) is a singular example:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video

How many people are missing? We’ll never know so long as the people perpetrating the crimes (CIA-U.S. military) are the people providing access to the information, such as the CIA had in the case of the Feinstein probe. The Feinstein ‘torture report’ can be little more than a ‘we’ll acknowledge as little as possible’ white-wash or professional psychological operation employed for purpose of damage control.

There needs to be an authentic accounting. Many (most?) flights that weren’t to ‘black sites’ were likely military flights to, example given, Guantanamo. And what constitutes a kidnap rendition, as opposed to a battlefield capture or someone handed over by a 3rd party, for instance Pakistan? What are the structures? Aside from inferred black sites in the Senate report identified from other sources (Poland, Romania et al) it is known prisoners were delivered for torture to 3d party nations Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Libya and there well may have been a ‘black site’ at Guantanamo separate from the regular detention facility, not to mention strong indicators pointing to Diego Garcia. As well, I’ve seen reports Special Forces in Afghanistan, working with CIA, had numerous small (off record) detention facilities in remote areas where prisoners had been shell-gamed to evade rules, and reports of black site jails on U.S. navy ships. Also there are indications renditions had been scrapped in favor of stepped up assassinations under Obama. The subject of renditions is a longs ways from broken open in any sense of reality.

Related:

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

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/11/22/reorganizing-murder-inc/

S1

*

Sent to all members of German Parliament on 18 June 2013, coinciding with Obama’s visit to Berlin-

Dear Member of Parliament

I thought you might find my story interesting. I am a fugitive anti-corruption investigator with a serious problem. Over the past 5+ years I had allowed myself, in informal arrangement set up via 3rd party, to be used as live bait to document an international murder ring connected to intelligence agencies, for both German and Spanish (and then German again) authorities. The problem is, despite the fact the authorities should long since have ample evidence to issue arrest warrants, pursue extraditions and prosecutions, they sit on their hands. Probably this has to do with the explosive nature of my case and I will hazard a guess of political interference and/or inertia.

This initiated under Bush and carried on under Obama. I regret to inform you the Bush era crimes did not cease with the Obama administration, but have rather been shell gamed. Related to this, I had initiated a complaint with the International Criminal Court naming Germany as accessory to criminal acts:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/03/11/complaint-to-the-international-criminal-court/

The International Criminal Court has asked for more detailed information prior to any decision taken to prosecute. In the meanwhile, it had been my hope Germany would take responsible action, rather than my filing an amended case. To this end, I have been forwarding much information to the office of Hans Christian Stroebel, but there is no acknowledgement of my communications. I understand Mr Stroebel has been ill, or perhaps my mails are routed to a junk mail folder. In any case, I will now be expanding my communications with members of the German Parliament.

That I am a real person and have delved deeply into past intermingled corporate/government corruption, is easily confirmed via Mueller Law of Austin, Texas, USA. My webpage commemorating six years exile:

www.ronaldthomaswest.com

Example of work skills for which I have been hunted by corrupt elements of German allied (American particularly) security services, employing open source method, the ‘Deep State’ series explores the inter-relationships of corporate boards to politics, corrupt law enforcement, organized crime in intelligence agencies, military and military contracting. Here you will find threads between powerful corporations and associated personalities to the bottom line (profit) and death squads, international organized crime, arms & narcotics trafficking, connecting the dots from the CIA special activities division to heroin and cocaine funding the Tea Party (and much more)

America’s Deep State Foundation article

America’s Deep State II FBI complicity

Heroin, Bags of Cash & The CIA Deep State III

Link to my personal story HERE

The incumbent German administration refusing to act on, and concealing this from Parliament, is inexcusable.

Please feel free to share this mail as you please

My kindest greetings

Ron West
*
Related: Color of Law
*

“Onward Christian Soldiers” is a popular hymn in the more conservative churches of 21st Century America:

“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going as before”

I recall this hymn from my childhood, it did not require any refreshing of my memory, I did not have to look up the lyrics. These are lyrics our Pentagon have taken to heart.

Here is example of this hymn’s inspiring hate in the most lethal military in today’s world:

“Michael Weinstein. You and the mfrr have nothing better to do than bully and fight the Christian soldiers who built this nation. From the wreckage of the indian savages? And made it the only shining light of the world? Have you forgotten history? Our soldiers are made strong because of their faith in Jesus Christ and Christianity. When America’s soldiers are strong America is strong. I am such a soldier. Proud of my Savior and the USA. One among many in my unit who know you for what you truely are. A bunch of us at chapel watched some of the speeches you gave. On you tube. We all noticed how much you resemeble the devil. Seriously you do. And you have the devils slippery powers of false persuasion too. You and the devil both hate Christ. You and the devil are the losers. You will both have hell as your home for all ages to come. Your life is totally a waste. Mr. Weinstein give it up and surrender to the Word of Christ. Our fighting forces fight with Jesus as our Lord and leader in all things. Deal with it. You try to mess with that and you totally deserve to suffer. Your fallen childrens deserve to suffer. Your fallen wife deserves to suffer. Your fallen parents deserve to suffer. All your fallen friends of the mfrr deserve to suffer too. And they will.”

What better evidence of crusaders than a meeting held in a United States military chapel instigating hate against the one man in America who’d taken a stand against the Christian extremist takeover of the United States military.

And then:

“My husband is a proud USMC sniper. We and our children and all the real marines in our unit are proud Christians. We all walk our life in the Lord’s Word. This means that it is our number one job to bring the lost to the Word and Grace of our Savior. By all the means necessary. If we fail to do so all who do not find Christ will burn in the darkness of hell. Mr. Mikey Wienstien has dedicated his earthly life to satan. To trying to stop marines and soldiers and the American forces from bringing the fallen world to Christ. And most of the world is fallen. Christ is the one and only way. This makes Mikey the number one enemy of the Savior. Mikey on tv. Mikey on the radio. Mikey in the magazines and newspapers and Mikey all over the internet. Mikey won’t stop defying Christ and persecuting his followers in the service. But Mikey’s earthly life will end one day soon we pray. It is then he will pay. It’s then we will sing and smile. Our prayer circle on base is large and effective. Our prayer circle prayer is a dream of a world with no Mikey Wienstein in it. The dream we share is of Mikey in hell on fire and screaming. And screaming and screaming and screaming. As the flames bake him. For all eternity as our Lord has proclaimed. And noone can hear him. Noone can help him. Watch Mikey sceam in our dream. Here Mikey scream in our dream. Forever in hell with his friends the homos, the muslems the communists, the leftists. And the gun haters and the abortion lovers. Christ makes all things new again. Christ answers the prayers of his faithful. and noone is more faithful to Christ than the USMC. Burn, burn Mikey burn. Halleluyah.

Notice that on top of the 1st hate mail directed at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation leader Michael Weinstein referring to “Indian savages”, the 2nd mail refers to that foundation’s work to protect (among others) the rights of Muslims.

In this context it is not a stretch at all to draw a comparison; the ordained minister Colonel Chivington’s massacre of the peaceful Cheyenne chief Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek, Colorado and the torture and murder of thousands of Muslims in Iraq by James Steele at the direction of Rumsfeld & Cheney, under the supervision of General David Patraeus, as recently exposed in a lengthy documentary by the Guardian.

What is missing from the western democracies dialogue is American actions that inspire the terror aimed at us.

 We have our Iraq legacy of mass murders, torture, rape and humiliation by American military, and the perpetrators are not held accountable for the most part. We saw the occasional prosecution of a low level soldier or a few, but the generals associated with the systematic abuses, examples given Patraeus and McChrystal, effectively are immune, the proper term is impunity.

Whether Patraeus’ ‘dirty war’ death squad veterans,  or McChrystal’s Camp Nama abuses, et cetera, the responsible parties have walked free.

 In Afghanistan, featuring the same players, there have been numerous crimes as well. There, American (CIA associated or coordinated) special operations forces have basically behaved as they pleased, with their special status independent of normal NATO command structures.

Mix this up with mercenaries (CIA hires called “counter-terrorism pursuit teams”) and you get what we’ve seen; school boys bound and executed, families murdered including pregnant women with bullets cut out of their bodies to cover the tracks of their special operations killers, and the most recent event where a CIA officer running a paramilitary team was killed (the real story behind this next linked article’s spin) and the result was an act of spite in violation of the rules of war; an air strike called in that killed ten kids and a couple of women sheltering with them. These are not isolated incidents but representative of that war, with multiple cases, year in and year out.

 Why?

Extreme Christian fundamentalism overtaking our officer corps and security apparatus, the radical right “Officers Christian Fellowship” and such stellar cretans as Pentagon darling William Boykin, a poster child example; as well fundamentalist generals Patraeus and McChrystal with CIA associated special operations background, examples given.

When Muslims are not really considered human beings, the rules of war are not taken seriously consequently and with this infection spreading, it should be no surprise a dozen civilians, kids and women, who’d fled to the roof of a building Taliban had taken refuge in, in a firefight, do not stand in the way of a bomb dropped on that building consequently. This (or similar actions) have happened time and time again.

It could have been young men from any ethnic background having to do with consequently radicalized Islam inspired to strike back in Boston. 

Until this is a part of a new and international dialogue, and there is a consequent accountability, terror aimed at Americans particularly, and western democracies generally, will only rise.

German Interior Minister Han Peter Friedrich has stated:

“In Boston all indications are pointing to a dangerous phenomenon, which is causing us growing concern. Instead of large organizations, we will now be attacked by lone wolves and small groups who radicalize themselves. That is very unsettling”

This statement had been made in a context of video surveillance aimed at prevention of attacks, which is a band-aid fix in a case of a patient with cancer. I can personally assure you all, the German authorities have known about the egregious hate crimes against Islam as a whole by NATO associated American military, for quite some years, transited through American military bases situated on sovereign German territory; Ramstein, to name but one facility.

The Germans have also known for quite some time, Obama’s ‘look forward, not back’ policy of shielding international criminals has as much as anything to do with the top American leadership compromised and corrupt to the core.

FBI Director Robert Mueller had been central to covering up the terrorism money laundering BCCI scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder had been at the center of arranging concealing the identities of American corporate personalities who provided cash and machine guns to the right-wing Colombian AUC death squads who went on to murder approximately 4,000 people, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was not only appointed by Bush but is a personal friend of the lawyer who was Dick Cheney’s vice presidential general counsel when Cheney was engaged in his international crime spree.

The Germans also know justice will not be forthcoming from the USA, particularly now that Obama himself is compromised by deeds committed under advisement of his ‘counter-terrorism’ advisor (and now CIA Director) John Brennan.

I hate to think Germany is shirking its historic responsibility to confront these behaviors in NATO, despite the fact Germany has a law:

The Völkerstrafgesetzbuch or VStGB (“international criminal code”) is the German law that regulates the crimes against public international law. It was created to bring the German criminal law into accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It was announced on 26 June 2002 and became law 30 June 2002. It covers the following offenses:

None of these are subject to a statute of limitations.

This law has NOT been applied by Germany, for reasons that must be construed as rank political cowardice. This is a primary reason this complaint to the International Criminal Court may be found to have standing. Germany should be obliged to apply this law or to be found complicit in these crimes.

About Ronald Thomas West

VE18

%d bloggers like this: