Si existe alguna duda de dónde están mis simpatías respeto a Irán, quiero que sepáis, que soy el que más apoya el ataque preventivo de Irán contra Israel. Si Israel tiene el derecho de atacar a Irán, matar a sus científicos, amenazar a un país libre, entonces este país con todo el derecho internacional a su favor, tiene el mismo derecho de atacar a Israel.

¡Dale, a por ellos! A propósito, Asia Times es el medio de gran difusión online que mejor cubre y mejor entiende la situación en Asia.

Como existen encuestas en todos los medios de masa sobre todos los temas posibles, a mi también me gustaría hacer una encuesta.

¿Cuanta gente está a favor y en contra de un ataque preventivo de Irán contra el mini estado de Israel?

Daniel Estulin

Iran’s legal right to attack Israel

Source/Fuente Kaveh L Afrasiabi

PALO ALTO, California – After years of living in the shadow of an Israeli military strike, Iran is now openly contemplating the idea of pre-emptive strike, in light of Israel’s preparedness for imminent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Citing a right to anticipatory self-defense, the Iranian argument is that instead of waiting for its Zionist adversary to make a move, Iran should take the offensive and cripple Israel’s ability to deliver on its threatened assault.

Iran’s plan to initiate a pre-emptive strike on Israel is perfectly legal under customary international law, according to several Tehran political analysts specializing on Iran’s foreign affairs. “Under the UN Charter, Iran has the inherent right of self-defense that in this case translates into the right to respond to the clear and present danger of imminent attack by the state of Israel in clear violation of international law,” says a Tehran University political scientist who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity.

In a nutshell, Tehran’s legal argument in defense of a pre-emptive strike on Israel centers on several inter-related elements.

First, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has the right to strike Israel because Israel has already engaged in overt hostile acts including the assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists, sabotage, and life-threatening cyber-warfare, not to mention Israeli political and military leaders’ open declarations of intent to attack Iran in the immediate future.

Second, these illegal acts combined with the declarations of intent constitute an imminent national security threat to Iran, defined under customary international law in terms of “outward hostile acts” of one state against another.

Third, Iran has already exhausted all the diplomatic means for deterring an Israeli strike, such as by repeatedly complaining to the UN Security Council, to no avail as the Security Council has turned a blind eye.

Fourth, Israel’s stated intention to attack Iran violates international law for a number of other reasons:

Iran has never threatened to use its nuclear capability to attack Israel.

There is a legal bar against any attack on Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities, in light of the Resolution 533 of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which prohibits any such attack and deems it a violation of international law.

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its leadership has formally renounced nuclear weapons, there is an absence of any treaty constraint barring Iran’s possession of a nuclear fuel cycle, and to this date after extensive inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the IAEA has never detected any diversion of nuclear material to military purposes.

Evidence, including reports in Washington Post citing the opinion of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, suggests Israel is well beyond the “preparatory stages” of an attack on Iran and is gearing up to implement this plan within the next several months.

Taken together, these arguments make a potent legal case for Iran’s anticipatory strike on Israel, irrespective of whether or not Iran moves forward with it or has the actual capability for a successful pre-emptory attack to disable its ardent enemy. According to Iranian media reports, Iran has some 11,000 missiles able to hit targets throughout Israel. The issue of military capability aside, within Iran’s legal discourse, the unlawfulness of Israel’s hostile intention and the lawfulness of Iran’s right to attack Israel first are basically two sides of the same coin. Even the UN sanctions on Iran, let alone US and or Israeli war on Iran, should be viewed as illegal under international law.

According to the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles, an intentionally wrongful act of a state comprises two elements (Article 3): the objective element consisting in an action or omission contrary to an international obligation, and the subjective element having to do with intentions of a state. Neither element can be found with respect to Iran’s nuclear program.

The absence of any evidence of diversion of nuclear material to military activities, based on extensive inspection of Iran’s facilities by the IAEA, together with explicit renunciation of nuclear weapons on political and moral and religious grounds by Iran’s leadership, constitute a bar to the application of both sanctions as well as threats of war on Iran. [1] This is a reminder to a number of international observers who have hailed United States President Barack Obama’s recent criticisms of “irresponsible drumbeats of war on Iran,” overlooking that Obama’s explicit threat of keeping the “military option” constitutes a violation of UN Charter, that forbids such threats by UN member states.

The fact is that Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, continues to get it wrong on Iran by insisting that once all diplomatic channels are exhausted, then the US may resort to the final option of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a number of sane US pundits, such as Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, in his recent opinion piece in Los Angeles Times, have rightly pointed out, any such strike would be illegal from the prism of international law.

To add to Ackerman’s argument, pro-Israel pundits legitimizing an Israeli attack on Iran have willfully distorted the meaning and purview of the right to self-defense, by advancing a dubious understanding that harks back to the George W Bush administration’s ill-fated attempt to extend the definition of “anticipatory self-defense,” which was thankfully defeated at the UN. [2]

A historical deja vu, the present pro-Israel discourses on attacking Iran, are strikingly similar to the ones heard prior to US’s “proxy war” on Iraq nine years ago, which was fully rationalized by the whole army of Israel propagandists swarming the Western media. The big question is whether or not the international community has learned any lesson from the Iraq fiasco and, more important, whether voices of reasons can prevail over voices that thirst for another calamitous conflict in the Middle East? By all indications, the next several months will hold the answer to this critical question.

Notes:

1. Security Council and Iran’s Legal Rights, A Rejoinder.

2. UN Management Reform (2012).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) and Looking for Rights at Harvard. His latest book is UN Management Reform: Selected Articles and Interviews on United Nations CreateSpace (November 12, 2011).

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

Compartir/Share

THE MAKING OF A LEGEND: VIKTOR BOUT

The legend of Viktor Bout as ‘Merchant of Death’ and ‘Lord of War’ was created in the period between the years 2000 and 2007, however it also had a pre-history in 1996 – 1999. The following narrative is fully based on open publications including the book by Douglas Farah and Stephen Braun ‘Merchant of Death’.

The image of Bout as ‘the biggest international illegal arms dealer in history’ was built by the efforts of very few people who managed to ‘sell’ this story to the mainstream US and international Media, to the UN and to the intelligence agencies of several countries including Belgium, the US and the UK.

The authors of the legend were not driven by any evil intention against their protagonist. On the contrary, in their writings a certain respect for Viktor Bout is often evident. Their intentions were mostly good, the first and foremost among them being an intention to save the world, to protect it from crime and war. But with their good intentions they paved a road to hell. Not for themselves. They paved a road to an individual hell for Russian citizen Viktor Bout.

Viktor Bout, the international arms dealer, was invented in Belgium by Johan Peleman in 1996. Even in the Douglas Farah/Stephen Broun book there is no earlier record of Bout. They say that in the late 1990s the US intelligence community started getting hints about the alleged arms dealer of Eastern European origin named ‘Bout’. Apparently, the book doesn’t say exactly when and where those ‘signals’ originated apart from hinting at telephone intercepts.

However the book by Farah and Braun documents the involvement in the ‘Bout affair’ of Johan Peleman, a philosophy major at a Belgian university, working for his first NGO, as the earliest investigation of Bout, by placing it in the year 1996.

Most probably Peleman, a desk researcher with no investigative background who decided to turn himself into an expert on arms trafficking, got his first hint of Bout from another Belgian NGO based in Ostend, not far from the place where he worked. The local NGO was engaged in a battle against Bout on behalf of local residents who were troubled by the persistent noise of the aircraft taking off and landing at all hours, day and night.

The locals by that time were already badmouthing the ‘Russian Mafia’ for ‘taking over the Ostend airport’. To suppose that ‘crazy Russians’ are lifting weapons to Africa in exchange for ‘blood diamonds’ from war zones was simply natural in that time and place. Belgium had a record of being used and abused by arms and diamond traffickers of all kinds.

The active stance of the local NGOs was also facilitated by certain local business interests, as some individuals and organizations among the Ostend business community were lobbying for the closure of the Ostend airport and creating a golf club on its former territory.

There was nothing wrong about the public pressure and rumors and allegations of arms trafficking by Russian Mafia. These were only good reasons for a thorough investigation. What was wrong there, was the fact that no professional investigators were assigned to find out the truth of the matter. This investigation fell in Peleman’s lap. In the following seven years the Viktor Bout story took him through various obstacles and temporary UN contracts, to a top position in a UN investigative ‘panel of experts’.

There are hints in the Media that Peleman first alerted the Belgian security services of his discovery of an ‘Eastern European international criminal organization based in Ostend and headed by a Russian national’ in 1996. Farah and Braun write that Peleman completed his first ‘organizational charts’ of the ‘Bout organization’ as early as in 1997. Peleman was then doing some work on another NGO project on ‘Blood diamonds’, and that was a blessing for his pursuit of Bout.

Viktor Bout started his work at the Ostend airport in 1995 when most of European heavy-lift air cargo operations were moved there. He helped turn the Ostend airfield into a booming international cargo aviation hub. But Belgian authorities, on the wave of the rumors of arms trafficking and protests by NGOs and local residents of Ostend refused to grant him a resident permit. Bout moved to the UAE, however by 1999 Johan Peleman was already after him in earnest. Also, by then Peleman received his first job with a UN investigative panel of experts as an assistant to one of the panel members. Peleman went to work in the field in Africa with his perception of Bout as head of a huge international arms trafficking network firmly embedded in his mind and psyche.

In the year 2000 the first UN report (S/2000/1225) partly created by Peleman was published and circulated. This report is unusual in the sense that the chapter on illegal arms sales in Angola of the report is totally dedicated to one ‘major Eastern-European arms trafficking network’ called alternatively in the report ‘The Viktor Bout organization’. Later Media reports and documentaries suggest that most of the information incriminating Bout was given to Peleman by a certain defector from UNITA whose name was not revealed in the report. His face was always hidden in documentary interviews in which the 2000 investigation was ‘reenacted’ with Peleman playing the role of the star.

It is interesting to compare the text of the report S/2000/1225 with the text of the US indictment attached to the US extradition request to Thailand for Viktor Bout issued in 2008. The two documents are very similar, with whole portions of the 2000 text repeated verbatim or close enough in 2008. There, in the report of the year 2000 one finds the first mentioning of Viktor Bout’s ‘multiple aliases’ (re: paragraphs 12 – 14 of Facts about Viktor Bout). There are, for the first time of many, the sentences describing the ‘Bout Organization’ as a network ‘capable of moving huge amounts of weapons and money’ around Africa and Middle East. There are charts of the ‘Bout organization’ which, in a slightly amended form, in 2005 appeared as attachments to the US Presidential executive order banning American businesses from entering any dealings with Bout and can be found at the Internet site of the US Treasury Department.

The UN report S/2000/1225 cost Viktor Bout his business. Clients of arms dealers do not care about UN reports which, unlike UN sanctions, are not enforceable. Clients of legitimate businessmen, especially governmental clients, in the same situation vote with their feet. By 2001 Bout sold his business for what he could, and left for Moscow.

He quit the aviation business entirely and stopped going abroad. But the spin machine has already gained such a huge momentum that no one could or wanted or bothered to switch it off.

In 2003 Bout agreed to give an interview to a Western journalist, Peter Landesman who wrote for ‘The New York times’ the famous Bout interview which has been since quoted by everyone in the World Media. It is not necessary to describe at length the merits of that opus which combined Bout’s recorded words with an unrestricted flight of fantasy. One thing worth mentioning is that Landesman, right after the interview was published, wrote a script and sold movie rights for it to Hollywood. Two years later, after a few changes and amendments, the movie ‘Lord of War’ starring Nicholas Cage came out together with the rumor that it is ‘loosely based on the biography of Viktor Bout’.

In 2003, the same year, a new UN report was circulated, with a bigger chapter on Bout now written and edited by Johan Peleman in the capacity of the newly appointed head of a UN investigative team. In that report Bout’s friend, American Richard Chichakli, was named as the chief financial and executive officer of the ‘Bout Empire’. Bout and Chichakli were not business partners. This fact totally escaped the attention of the UN investigators.

In 2005 a US Presidential executive order introduced, without a court hearing, US sanctions against Bout and Chichakli. Bout never had any assets in the US while Chichakli lost everything he owned in America. His property worth over three million US dollars was declared belonging to Bout through Chichakli as proxy, and then frozen.

In 2007 the book by Farah and Braun was published, and the circle of demonization of Viktor Bout completed. In 2008 Bout was arrested in Bangkok.

The legend of the ‘Merchant of Death’ started with the imagination of one man. If he were a writer of adventure novels he would have been immensely successful and harmless to everyone. There could have been a ‘Lord of War’ movie much sooner then, but it would not have had a devastating effect on a life of a Russian family, the family of Viktor Bout.

Unfortunately for Bout, Johan Peleman decided on a career of an NGO and later UN investigator, and he chose Bout to be the key to that career. He never had an ill intention towards Bout, it was ‘just business, nothing personal’. But the problem here seems to be in the fact that Peleman had no previous investigative experience and no academic legal education.

An investigator with an NGO or the UN is an investigator with limited responsibility. NGO findings are not heard in court, and UN reports are not legally binding to law enforcement organizations. A police investigator always knows that his facts must be checked and re-checked again, to avoid a wrongful conviction – and a criminal case filed by a wrongfully accused defendant. An investigative journalist, even without legal training, has to be careful and take precautions against libel or defamation charges. But a UN investigator doesn’t have to think about these matters, so his responsibility is limited if by training and/or previous experience he is not prepared for investigator’s responsibility.

Peleman created a figure of Viktor Bout which has little to do with the real living person. For its convenience and out of prejudice this creature of Peleman’s was adopted by the UN, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then journalists, then Hollywood, then the White House. They all contributed to the blowing a figure of a living man, with all his talents, achievements and sins, up into an enormous monster which is sentenced by the Thai Appeals court to stand trial in New York in the stead of the real living human.

You can download all the following documents related to Victor Bout’s case. Depending on your browser’s configuration, the files will download inmediately or will ask for you to open it or to save it in your computer.

• MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS REQUEST
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs request (5 March) (cleaner).tif
  • The Ministry of Foreign Affairs translation Eng.doc
• MINISTYR OF INTERIOR REQUEST FOR ARREST MARCH 6
  • Ministry of Interior request (6 March) (clean).tif
  • The Ministry of Interior translation Eng.doc
  • Ministry of Foreign Affair request (Eng transl).doc
  • Ministry of Foreign Affair request.tif
• SEARCH, CONFISCATION NOTE
  • Search-Confiscation NOTE (Thai).tif
  • Search-Confiscation NOTE (Eng).doc
  • US Embassy to Thai Foreign Ministry (Thai transl).tif
  • US Embassy to Thai Foreign Ministry.tif

• INDICTMEMT IN THE USA
  • US v Bout dojpr indictment PDF
  • 04-23-08 Combat intl crime overview pdf
  • Bout arrest pr PDF
  • Bout complaint pdf
  • bout prepared remarks of the us attorney pdf
  • Cached copy of United States Attorney …(etc.) DOC
  • Cached copy of United States Attorney …(etc.)BIG doc
  • Indictment Arms dealer offered weapons to kill Americans CNN
  • U.S. Announces Indictment PDF
  • U.S. Announces Indictment – Yahoo News PDF

• FIRST PRESS COMMUNIQUE
  • Press communique (6 March 2008) ENGLISH tif
  • Press communique (6 March 2008).tif

• NOTICE OF VISA REVOCATION
  • Notice of visa revocation (TM.83).tif

• INTERPOL SEARCH LIST
  • BOUT VIKTOR on interpol pdf

• INITIAL AMERICAN REQUEST FOR BOUT EXTRADITION
  • Thai transl.+ translator’s ID & Diploma copies (clean).tif
  • Request of Americans orig. English.tif
  • Request of Americans orig. English (clean).tif
  • Thai transl.+ translator’s ID & Diploma copies.tif

• EXTRADITION CASE/ APPEAL
  • Public Prosecutor’s Petition (doc.No.1) (Eng).doc
  • 1.Public Prosecutor’s Petition (doc. No.1).tif
  • 2.Letter from Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (doc. No.2).tif
  • 3.Letter from Columbian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Spanish).tif
  • 4.Letter from Columbian Minister of Foreign Affairs (English).tif
  • 5.Letter from Columbian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Thai transl).tif
  • 6.Attached document (first 3 pages only Eng).tif
  • 7.Attached document (first 3 pages only Thai transl).tif
  • Letter from Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (doc. No.2). (Eng).doc

• OUR COUNTER APPEAL
  • My counter-appeal (full Thai transl).doc
  • My counter-appeal (Appellant changed to Defendant).doc

• PROSECUTOR´S INTENTION TO APPEAL
  • Prosecutor’s intention to appeal.tif

• PROSECUTOR´S OBJECTION FOR BAIL
  • Prosecutor’s objection for bail (Sept 2, 2009) – Eng transl.doc
  • Prosecutor’s objection for bail (Sept 2, 2009) – (no stamp).tif
  • Prosecutor’s objection for bail (Sept 2, 2009) – (with stamp).tif
• PUBLIC PROSECUTOR´S APPEAL TO INITIAL SENTENCE
  • Public Prosecutor’s Appeal Eng transl – complete.doc
  • Public Prosecutor’s Appeal (Thai).tif
• LAK (BOUT´S LAWYER) PETITION TO CHALLENGE INTENTION
  • Uncle’s petition to challenge intention (project).tif

• FINAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE ORIGINAL TRIAL WHICH BOUT WON
  • Unknown Petition with WMD mentioning.tif
  • Uncle’s Petition1 30 of ____ 2009.tif
  • Uncle’s Petition2 30 of ______ 2009 with attachments.tif
  • Uncle’s Petition 30 June 2009.tif
  • Prosecutor’s summission on 29 June 2009.tif
  • Uncle’s Petition2 30 June 2009.tif.tif
  • Uncle’s Petition 3 of ____ 2009.tif
• FULL SET OF US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
  • Full set of US documents (Thai transl).tif
  • Full set of US documents.tif

• JUDGEMENT OF THAI COURT IN BOUT´S FIRST CASE
  • Judgement COMPLETE 50 pages Eng transl.doc
  • Judgement 1st 10 pages.tif
  • Judgement 2nd 10 pages.tif
  • Judgement 3rd 10 pages.tif
  • Judgement 4th 10 pages.tif
  • Judgement 5th 10 pages.tif

• 2ND SET OF COMPLETE USG DOCUMENTS
  • 2nd set of US documents.tif

• LETTER FROM USG TO THAI NAVY
  • US – to – Thai Navy letter.tif
• ALLA BOUT FINAL CLOSING TESTIMONY TRANSLATED INTO THAI
  • 1.jpg
  • 2.jpg
  • 3.jpg
  • 4.jpg
  • 5.jpg
• BOUT COMPLAINT TO THE COURT RE EXTRADITION REQUEST FROM USG
  • Section 120 etc. complaint.doc
• SUBMISSION OF BOUT´S DEFENSE TEAM
  • List of Exhibits to Yan’s submission (final).txt
  • Exhibit No.1 (Eng).doc
  • Exhibit No.1.tif
  • Exhibit No.2_part1.tif
  • Exhibit No.2_part2.tif
  • Exhibits No.3 and No.4.pdf
  • Exhibit No.4 (Thai transl).doc
  • Exhibit No.5 (ENG).tif
  • Exhibit No.5 (orig. Thai).tif
  • Exhibit No.6 (Eng).tif
  • Exhibit No.6 (Thai transl).doc
  • Exhibit No.6.pdf
  • Exhibit No.7 (Eng text).doc
  • Exhibit No.7 (Thai transl).doc
  • Exhibit No.7.pdf
  • Exhibit No.8 (OLD).pdf
  • Exhibit No.8.pdf
  • Header Text (Petition to accept it).doc
  • List of Exhibits – final.doc
  • Objections of defense – original as from Yan (verified).doc
  • Objections of defense (Thai).doc
  • Petition to accept_1 (English).doc
  • Petition to accept_1 (Thai – complete).doc
  • Petition to accept_2 (English + header in Thai).doc
• ILLEGAL DETENTION CASE AGAINST BOUT
  • New case for Section 90 (02 March) Eng text.doc
  • All cases of But – all for Alla explanation.doc
  • Appeal by Alla IMPROVED to submit.doc
• MISHA BELOZERSKI (A RUSSIAN COLONEL WHO ACCOMPANIED BOUT TO BANGKOK) STATEMENT.
  • Thai translation.tif
  • Passport.tif
  • Passport Thai translation.tif
  • Russian text.tif
• NEWS COVERAGE OF BOUT´S ARREST
  • THE_NATION_March-10_P8A_.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-7_FrontPage.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-8_FrontPage1.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-8_P3.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-9_FrontPage1.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-9_FrontPage2.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-9_P12.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-10_P2.tif
  • Bangkok_Post_March-10_P14.tif
  • THE_NATION_Daily-Express_March-7_P4.tif
  • THE_NATION_March-8-9_P7A.tif
  • THE_NATION_March-10_P8A.tif
• BOUT´S PASSPORT
  [View with PicLens]

  

  

  

  
  • Bout passport 1.JPG
  • Bout passport 2.JPG
  • Bout passport 3.JPG
  • Bout passport 4.JPG
• BOUT’S PHOTOS
  
  [View with PicLens]

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  
• OPEN LETTER TO VICTOR BOUT
  • To Victor 1 page 1.tif
  • To Victor 1 page 2.tif
  • kamikaze_shape.jpg
  • To Sabrina Shroff 1.tif
• BOUT´S ADITIONAL PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTS
  • Letter Embassy Russian Federation
  • 3.Letter from Columbian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Spanish).tif
  • 4.Letter from Columbian Minister of Foreign Affairs (English).tif
  • BOUT-Chichakli diagram.JPG
  • But11.bmp
  • But17.bmp
  • case documents.JPG
  • computadorasfarc.jpg
  • p06_20060929_justice.pdf
• DEFENSE OBJECTIONS AND TIMELINE
  • 1.doc
  • 2.doc
  • Appeal by Alla IMPROVED to submit.doc
  • New case for Section 90 (02 March) Eng text.doc
  • Objections of defense – verified with extra red.doc
  • Timeline.doc
  • to_prime_minister.doc
• RICHARD CHICHAKLI FILE (CHICHAKLI IS BOUT´S FRIEND)
  • US_Gov_Flights_2004.pdf
  • 1990_2000 time line for RAC CHICHAKLI.pdf
  • AirBas_FuelPurchaseAgreement.pdf
  • Chichakli Immunity1.jpg
  • Exhibit No.2_part2.tif
  • DCCCD1 chichakli studies.jpg
  • DCCCD2 studies 2.jpg
  • DOD_Airbas_cards.gif
  • DOJ_OIG_Letter_112009 Chichakli.pdf
  • Exhibit No.6 (Eng).tif
  • Exhibit No.6 (Thai transl).doc
  • Exhibit No.6.pdf
  • Exhibit No.7 (Eng text).doc
  • Exhibit No.7 (Thai transl).doc
  • Exhibit No.7.pdf
  • Exhibit No.8 (OLD).pdf
  • Exhibit No.8.pdf
  • DOJ_OIG_Letter_112009.pdf
  • Ed_Royce_Feb09.pdf
  • Ed_Royce_OCT09 REFERENCE TO MY BOOK END P 1.pdf
  • H_Clinton_0109.pdf
  • Jeppesen-Chichakli.gif
  • Letter_to_Judge, chichakli.pdf
  • letter_to_President_Obama.pdf
  • Notam_AB No fuel available to Air Bas.gif
  • p06_20060929_justice Chichakli in arabic.pdf
  • Search_Warrant Chichakli.pdf
  • Smulian, Andrew Waiver of Indictment.pdf
  • Syria_UN_CoverUp.pdf
  • Treasury Department Letter Samar, Chichakli.pdf
• INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES BY DANIEL ESTULIN, DIMITRI KHALEZOV
  • VICTOR BOUT – INTERVIEW FEATURE.doc
  • Breaking the truth and the Lie about Viktor Bout.doc
  • El-Mundo – 3 alleged ‘mini-nukes of Osama’ used in 911 attacks.pdf
  • Estulin-Khalezov_interview_on_Victor_Bout.doc
  • Most_shocking_interview_Spanish.doc

Capítulo 5 de Libro Los Señores de las sombras /Shadow Masters – Daniel Estulin

DESCARGAR ARCHIVO EN ESPAÑOL PDF (No disponible aún)

Os dejo con capítulo 5 de la version americana de SHADOW MASTERS. Capítulo sobre Victor Bout, revisado y corregido al máximo con todas las pruebas de Tailandia.

For your Reading pleasure, I am posting chapter 5 of my US book SHADOW MASTERS published by Trine day Press. Please read and spread far and wide. The truth about BOUT must be told. The USG will not lie their way to a conviction.

Chapter 5 Shadow Masters – Daniel Estulin – Download PDF in english here

Compartir/Share

Os dejo con un vídeo corto del lanzamiento de una de las armas más temibles en el mundo, P700 Granito. Aunque muchos teóricos de conspiración siguen empeñados en las teorías de si fue o no el avión o misil norteamericano Tomahawk el que impactó contra el Pentágono, la realidad es bien distinta.

Tomahawk está hecho de aluminio y nunca podría penetrar 6 paredes reforzadas del Pentágono, y eso sin hablar de la trayectoria del arma que es completamente distinta al misil que impactó contra el Pentágono. Era Granito, un arma que vuela con una velocidad de 2.5 Mach y en su estado de guerra viene equipada con una cabeza nuclear de 500KT.

Para entenderlo mejor, Hiroshima era 12KT. Para profundizar más en el tema, sugiero mirar en el buscador de mi web. Hemos publicado muchas cosas sobre Granito, Victor Bout y 11-S.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBCeYQAeLcU

Daniel Estulin

Compartir/Share

Wednesday 27 July 2011 – by Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report – Original link – Enlace original

Spanish: Artículo esclarecedor que indaga en muchas de las cosas que vamos contando a lo largo de estos últimos años, sobre los Nazis, Operación Paperclip, armas de destrucción masiva, y la forma de un grupo de personas dentro de estructura del poder estadounidense de entender el mundo.  Enlace en español.

English: Enlightening report that explores many of the things, we’ve been investigating over the last few years:  the Nazis, Paperclip Operation, Mass destruction weapons, and how a group of people within the U.S. power structure understand this world.

Daniel Estulin

Wernher Von Braun, a former member of the Nazi Party who used Jews imprisoned in concentration camps to help build the V-2 rocket for Hitler’s Third Reich, is cited in an Air Force PowerPoint presentation about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons. (Image: Department of the Air Force)

The United States Air Force has been training young missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons by citing passages from the New Testament and commentary from a former member of the Nazi Party, according to newly released documents.

The mandatory Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare session, which includes a discussion on St. Augustine’s “Christian Just War Theory [3],” is led by Air Force chaplains and takes place during a missile officer’s first week in training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The Christian Just War Theory has been touted [4] by Rep. Ron Paul, a 2012 presidential candidate, during campaign stops.

St. Augustine’s “Qualifications for Just War,” according to the way it is cited in a 43-page PowerPoint presentation [5], are: “to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order (just cause)” and “to restore moral order; not expand power, not for pride or revenge (just intent).”

The Air Force documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and provided to Truthout by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation [6] (MRFF), a civil rights organization. MRFF President Mikey Weinstein said more than 30 Air Force officers, a majority of whom describe themselves as practicing Protestants and Roman Catholics, have contacted his group over the past week in hopes of enlisting him to work with the Air Force to have the Christian-themed teachings removed from the nuclear weapons ethics training session. [Full disclosure: Weinstein is a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.]

Included with the PowerPoint presentation are more than 500 pages of other documents [7] pertaining to a missile officer’s first week of training. After missile officers complete their training they are sent to one of three Air Force bases to guard the country’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) arsenal and launch their nuclear-armed Minuteman IIIs if called upon to do so by the president.

One of the slides used to explain to missile officers the moral and religious justifications for launching nuclear weapons quotes Wernher Von Braun [8], a former member of the Nazi Party and SS officer who used Jews imprisoned in concentration camps to help build the V-2 rocket.

“We knew that we had created a new means of warfare and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision [emphasis in document] more than anything else,” Von Braun said upon surrendering to American forces in May 1945. “We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.” [emphasis in document]

Von Braun was part of a top-secret military program known as “Operation Paperclip [9],” which recruited Nazi scientists after World War II who “were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval; their service for [Adolf] Hitler’s Third Reich, [Nazi Party] and SS memberships as well as the classification of many as war criminals or security threats also disqualified them from officially obtaining visas,” according to the Operation Paperclip web site.

The Air Force has been citing Christian teachings in its missile officer training materials for at least a decade. One Air Force officer currently on active duty, who spoke to Truthout on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the media, said he was trained as a missile officer in 2001 and vividly recalls how the chaplain leading the training session on the ethics of launching nuclear weapons said, “the American Catholic Church and their leadership says it’s ok in their eyes to launch nukes.”

The 381st Training Group and 392nd Training Squadron are responsible for training every Air Force Space and Missile Officer. Several emails and phone calls left for spokespeople at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the squadron is based, were not returned. The PowerPoint identifies Chaplain Capt. Shin Soh as leading the nuclear ethics presentation.

One of the ethical questions contained in the PowerPoint presented to missile officers asks: “Can you imagine a set of circumstances that would warrant a nuclear launch from the US, knowing that it would kill thousands of non-combatants?

Another question trainees are confronted with asks: “Can we train physically, emotionally and spiritually for a job we hope we never have to do?”

To help officers answer these ethical queries, the PowerPoint presentation cites numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament fighting “just” wars. For example, “Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot,” God motivated “judges (Samson, Deborah, Barak) to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors,” and “David is a warrior who is also a ‘man after God’s own heart.’”

Also included in the PowerPoint presentation is a slide containing a passage from the Book of Revelation that attempts to explain how Jesus Christ, as the “mighty warrior,” believed war to be “just.”

It goes on to say that there are “many examples of believers [who] engaged in wars in Old Testament” in a “righteous way” and notes there is “no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history.”

The Air Force has been mired in numerous religious scandals [10] over the past decade and has been sued for allowing widespread proselytization at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

The PowerPoint documents’ blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous citations of the Bible seem to be yet another violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state and Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution, which specifically prohibits a “religious test.”

Weinstein, a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG), said a section of the PowerPoint presentation that has been cited by MRFF clients as being at the top of the list of “unconstitutional outrages” is the one “which wretchedly asserts that war is both ethical and part of ‘the natural order’ of man’s existence on earth.”

“Astonishingly, the training presentation grotesquely attempts to justify that unconscionable concept of ‘war is good because Jesus says it is’ by specifically textually referencing allegedly supportive bible passages from the New Testament Books of Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Timothy and, finally even Revelation,” said Weinstein, a former White House counsel during the Reagan administration. “If this repugnant nuclear missile training is not Constitutionally violative of both the ‘no religious test’ mandate of the Constitution and the First Amendment’s No Establishment Clause then those bedrock legal principles simply do not exist.”

“Jesus Loves Nukes”

Former Air Force Capt. Damon Bosetti, 27, who attended missile officer training in 2006 and was stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana, said he and his colleagues used to call the religious section of the ethics training the “Jesus loves nukes speech.”

“What I went through in 2006 didn’t have that level of inappropriateness in it, but it was still strongly religious,” he said of the PowerPoint presentation the Air Force now uses for training missile officers.

Bosetti, who is represented by MRFF, said he believes the intent of quoting Bible passages was to make officers feel “comfortable” about launching nuclear weapons and signing a legal document stating they had “no moral qualms” about “turning the key” if ordered to do so.

The legal document from the Department of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, which was also released under the FOIA, states, in part, “I will perform duties involving the operation of nuclear-armed ICBMs and will launch them if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor.” [emphasis in document]

Bosetti, an officer who left active duty in the Air Force last year, said officers were immediately presented with the three-page document to sign after the end of the training session on nuclear ethics.

“I think the average American would be and should be very disturbed to know that people go through training where the Air Force quotes the Bible,” Bosetti said. “This type of teaching sets a dangerous precedent because no one above you is objecting. It shifts the group definition of acceptable behavior more and more off track.”

A senior Air Force Space and Missile officer who reviewed the materials, said the teachings are “an outrage of the highest order.”

“No way in hell should this have been presented as a mandatory briefing to ALL in the basic missiles class,” said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It presumes ALL missile officers are religious and specifically in need of CHRISTIAN justification for their service.

“If they wanted to help people with their spiritual/religious/secular justification for serving as missile officers, then they should’ve said something like ‘for those of you with religious concerns about missile duty, we’ve arranged the following times to chat with chaplains from your particular faith group.’ For those with secular concerns about the morality of missile duty, we’ll have a discussion moderated by a professor [and/or] counselor, a noted ethicist, too. If you’re already good with your role and duty as a missile officer, then you’re welcome to hit the golf course or gym.”

The senior Air Force officer added that the commander of the training squadron “that approved this, along with the Training Group Commander at Vandenberg, should be fired instantly for allowing it.”

Weinstein said the combination of citing fundamentalist Christianity and a Nazi scientist as a way of explaining to missile officers why launching nuclear weapons is ethical is a new low for the Air Force.

“Leave it to the United States Air Force to find a way to dictate the ‘ethical’ value of nuclear war and it’s inevitable role in the ‘natural order’ of humanity’s existence, to it’s missile launch officer trainees by merging unadulterated, fundamentalist Christian end times Armageddon doctrines with the tortured ‘people who are guided by the bible’ endorsements of a former, leading Nazi SS official,” Weinstein said.

JASON LEOPOLD

Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. Follow Jason on Twitter:@JasonLeopold.

La Fuerza Aérea de EE.UU., cita el Nuevo Testamento y a un ex nazi, para enseñar la ética del uso de armas nucleares a sus oficiales

Jason Leopold Global Research

Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Germán Leyens

La Fuerza Aérea de EE.UU. ha estado entrenando a jóvenes oficiales especialistas en misiles sobre la moral y la ética de lanzar armas nucleares mediante la cita de pasajes del Nuevo Testamento y comentarios de un ex miembro del Partido Nazi, según documentos recientemente publicados.

Compartir/Share

Os dejo con la entrevista del jueves 17 de marzo en RNE en el programa “En un Mundo Feliz” con Tato Puerto. Buena, muy buena. Clara, clarita, como a mi me gusta!

Espero que os haya gustado el programa de Camino del Misterio de anoche del cual dejo audio también. Aclaramos muchas cosas. Uno, Energía Nuclear es la única alternativa del futuro, Energía Libre NO EXISTE, si te duele la espalda deberías de buscar un médico y no un sastre y si te duelen los dientes, un dentista y no un fontanero. Cierto, siempre habrá gente que busque un fontanero para arreglar sus problemas de espalda. Pero esto ya son otros problemas.

¡Feliz sábado!

Compartir/Share