Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


THIS IS THE SO CALLED LAND OF THE FREE - On 31 December 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA). Section 1021 of this act allows for the President of the USA to detain anyone he wants, for any reason he wants, without a trial, without a lawyer, without seeing any family member and to be held anywhere in the world indefinitely.

Contrary to popular belief in the First World, the USA is not the benevolent superpower that is intent on preserving peace and goodwill. In fact the very opposite is true. Since World War Two, the USA has committed many illegal acts of naked aggression against other nations without just cause, has overtly and covertly interfered in the internal affairs of many countries to further its interests and has overthrown many legitimately elected leaders, installing brutal fascist despots in their place.

In fact statistics show that the USA has committed more illegal acts against other nations, including illegal wars since that time than any other nation by far. Many experts in international affairs, including renowned legal minds, have stated that hard evidence shows the USA to be by far the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

Although for many decades the USA was kept in check by the power of the Soviet Union and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which curtailed some the USA's more belligerent aspirations, now that the USSR has disintegrated and the USA remains as the world's only superpower, the Americans now have no compunction in openly using their might to bully and threaten other nations that the USA feels may not serve its interests.


Prior to World Wars One and Two, the Americans spread their tentacles by invading and annexing nations, such as in the Spanish-American War in 1898, when they created the pretext for this conflict with the USS Maine false flag operation and seized Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines and took temporary control of other Spanish-controlled nations.

This type of colonisation by direct invasion and annexation has become unacceptable in the modern era, so the Americans devised another way to control the planet, by establishing military bases in foreign nations and thus have been able to exert control and pressure from within those nations.

As of 31 December 2010, US Armed Forces were stationed at more than 840 installations in around 150 nations. This staggering statistic shows that the USA has a military presence in over 77% of the world's nations. One would have to ask why on earth do the Americans need to plant their troops and weapons in three-quarters of the world, if not for the purpose of having an empire and controlling the planet.

An incomplete list of US foreign military bases is available on the Downloads page. It is amazing to realise that so many nations have allowed the Americans to occupy their nations and put their military forces and clandestine agents on the ground. The worst part is that the Americans have made it a condition that their forces in those nations are not subject to local legal jurisdiction.

In other words if an American deployed in any of those nations commits any sort of crime, even murder, rape, kidnapping or anything else, he is immune from prosecution under local law. This is a complete abrogation of sovereignty by those nations, many of which have lived to regret this deal.

However, it is interesting to see that some nations are waking up to this American invasion and occupation and are doing something about it. In Okinawa, there is a strong push to expel the Americans and eradicate their military base. Even more novel was the approach taken by Ecuador's President Rafael Correa. When the lease for the US Manta Air Base came up for renewal in July 2008, Correa told the Americans that in the interests of equity and reciprocity, he would be quite happy to renew the lease, provided that the Americans allowed Ecuador to establish a military base in the USA. As expected, the Americans refused, so Correa kicked them out of Ecuador.

Why does the USA have over 840 military bases in 150 nations? WHY???


A Google Earth exploration of US military bases around the world proves the insanity of Americans who desire to dominate this planet with military firepower, even though the last world war was so many decades ago. For instance, why does the USA have a massive air force base on Guam, out in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific?

A Google Earth shot of Anderson Air Force Base on Guam in September 2012 shows that the number of military aircraft is simply extraordinary. This was what could be seen parked on the many ramps at this location.

Anderson AFB Guam
A few of the many huge Boeing B-52 bombers at Anderson AFB

Anderson AFB Guam
Fighter aircraft at Anderson AFB plus some large transport aircraft

This does not take into account the aircraft in hangars or out flying away from the base. A previous examination of this base showed two B-2 stealth bombers and a couple of B-1 Lancer supersonic bombers, but these have now been hidden away in hangars after comments about them were made in various forums.

But one has to ask - why do the Americans need such a base and so many military aircraft out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where the closest nation is New Guinea, a good 1800km away, the Philippines, which is 2000km away and Japan, which is 2400km away?

The combat radius of a Grumman F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft such as the ones in the photo at Anderson AFB is around 650 nautical miles (1200km). The combat radius of a General Dynamics F-16 fighter aircraft, seen on the ramp at Anderson AFB is around 340 nautical miles (630km) when lightly armed.

Neither of these fighter aircraft has the operational range or combat radius to do anything but defend Guam against attack. But who would want to attack this speck of dirt in the Pacific Ocean anyway? Getting those aircraft to within range of any nation that has ill-intent towards the USA would be a sick joke. The only nations with animosity towards the USA in that part of the world are North Korea, which is 3200km away and China, which is 3000km away from Guam.

Guam is 9000km from the US mainland and 6300km from Hawaii, the only American territory that the USA should be protecting. So why are all these bombers and fighters stationed on Guam, a little speck in the middle of nowhere? The answer is - Anderson Air Force Base is part of the American global hegemony system, where the USA is using its firepower as a means of threatening and coercing other nations.


There have been many commentaries written about the activities of the Americans in relation to other nations and their aggression and machinations. Here are a few of them. These articles are available in PDF format on the Downloads page and make fascinating and informative reading.

Article by Herman and Peterson exposes American interference

An interesting article called The US Aggression Process and Its Collaborators by Edward Herman and David Peterson gives an amazing insight into this, complete with copious references. It exposes what the Americans have been doing to other nations since 1950. However, it is staggering to realise that most people on this planet, especially those living in Western first-world nations, are completely oblivious to this continuing rampage by the USA, its blatantly illegal wars and covert actions against sovereign nations and their legally elected governments, merely to further American political and financial interests in flagrant breach of international law.

Article by Meacher outlines the bogus War On Terror

In an article called The War On Terrorism Is Bogus, former British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher revealed the real reasons for the USA's so-called War On Terror being merely a pretext for the USA to take military control of the Persian Gulf as part of a blueprint to actually take control of the rest of the world. This exposé alleges that the USA was even examining the development and use of biological weapons, which is totally outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.

Article by Mitha exposes American support for tyrants and corrupt regimes

Another fascinating essay by G Asgar Mitha entitled The Cancer of Corruption exposes how the USA supports and finances tyrants and corrupt regimes for its own benefit, without any care for the people who suffer and die as a result.

Article by Steve Kangas exposes the litany of CIA illegal activities.

Kangas has conducted comprehensive research into the history of the CIA and the operations that have led to an estimated death toll of over 6 million people. His article A Timeline Of CIA Atrocities is a revelation of the extent to which the Americans will go to achieve their aims, no matter what the cost might be in human lives and misery. This article clearly demonstrates that the Americans have no scruples and will do whatever it takes to get their way, even if it kills everybody in their path.

Article by Bennis explains USA lies and propaganda about Iran

American commentator and political analyst Phyllis Bennis has written an excellent book called Understanding The US-Iran Crisis that reveals the truth about the USA's aggressive policies and the constant lies, propaganda and disinformation that the Americans spew out every day about Iran. Yes, everybody knows that the Iranian theocratic regime and its president are fruitcakes, but Iran is still a sovereign nation and has legal rights under international law. It is fascinating to see Bennis exposing one of the most blatant lies emanating from the Americans, that Iran is a "threat" to the USA. There is absolutely no basis for this constant piece of scaremongering, yet former President George W Bush and his gang of neocons drummed up this lie at every occasion to demonise Iran.

Speech by CIA official John Stockwell shows how the CIA killed 6 million people in covert actions

CIA whistleblower John Stockwell reveals the international crimes of the USA

Top-ranked CIA official John Stockwell lifted the lid on the extent of the illegal covert wars and interference by the CIA in foreign nations, in his speech in 1987 entitled The Secret Wars Of The CIA - How 6 million people were killed in secret CIA wars. Stockwell was the highest-ranked official to leave the CIA and go public with the truth about this murderous organisation and its litany of illegal acts.

Even the US Congress officially reported that the US Clandestine Service, including the CIA, was responsible for more than 100,000 illegal acts in foreign nations each and every year, so there is no reason to disbelieve Stockwell's assertions of what he learned as a very senior CIA operative, that showed that the USA had committed more criminal offences and illegal covert actions against foreign nations than any other nation in history.


For many years, the USA has been running their Echelon spying program, trawling through every transmission and every piece of data on which they can lay their hands. The Americans deny that it exists, however every international telephone call, fax, email, or radio transmission can be listened to by powerful computers capable of voice recognition. They home in on a long list of key words, or patterns of messages.

More recently, in June 2013, Edward Snowden, a contractor for the US National Security Agency, blew the whistle on a new American cyberspying program called PRISM. This program has literally been spying on Americans by intercepting their emails, social network activity, listening in on Skype calls and more for many years, with the cooperation of tech giants Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, Skype and YouTube to do it.

The USA accused Snowden with "aiding the enemy" but this is ludicrous. Snowden exposed US administration spying on Americans. So are the American people the enemy? Snowden did nothing more than expose the fact that the US government was spying on its own people, so any accusations of aiding the enemy are just stupid and groundless.

In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden stated that US intelligence had targeted specific institutions in Hong Kong and China, including universities, and telecommunications companies. Is China the enemy of the USA? If so, the Americans need to be honest, considering that China is the USA's biggest trading partner and creditor. Why would the USA be doing such massive business with the enemy? So if Snowden revealed that the USA was spying on China and China was not an enemy of the USA, then the accusation that Snowden was aiding the enemy is completely irrational and illogical.

Considering that the Americans are constantly bleating about other nations such as China spying on them and conducting cyberwarfare, the Americans are the very worst perpetrators of this sort of intrusive and mostly illegal surveillance and hacking. The whistleblower website Wikileaks and brave people such as Edward Snowden have lifted the lid on this very grubby American penchant for spying and interfering in the lives of literally anybody who uses any form of communication.


When Iran started to expand its legal nuclear program by installing centrifuges that were controlled by software made by German company Siemens, they experienced all sorts of problems. Centrifuges would run at the wrong speed. Some of them would break down for no visible reason. The Iranians eventually discovered that the centrifuge control software had been compromised by a very cunning virus called Stuxnet.

For years, the perpetrators of Stuxnet were unknown, however in 2013, US President Barack Obama's administration admitted that not only did it continue a Bush Jr-era initiative, codenamed Olympic Games to sabotage Iranian nuclear programmes using cyber attacks, it rapidly increased them. Despite the damage Stuxnet caused to Iran's nuclear enrichment program, Obama wanted to press ahead regardless.

Stuxnet was designed to shut down Iran's Natanz plant where the country was suspected of conducting nuclear research. However, due to a programming error, it leaked onto the Internet. At that point, Obama asked the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, along with other advisers, whether the cyber attacks on Iran should be stopped. He asked, "Should we shut this thing down?" But not only did he authorise a continuation of the Bush policy, he sped them up.

The Flame attack, which had illegally targeted the computers of Iranian officials and mined for information, was not a part of the Olympic Games plot. However, the Obama administration would not admit if it was responsible, however all the evidence points to Flame being an American cyberspying program.

In 2013, Obama and his cohorts complained bitterly that China and other nations were conducting cyberwarfare against the USA. Yet it is clear to see that the Americans are the worst perpetrators of these crimes against sovereign nations. Attacking Iran's legal nuclear program with Stuxnet was nothing more than an act of war and if Iran chooses to do the same to the Americans, it has every right to do so.

As for Obama accusing China of cyberwarfare, it is not a secret that the USA has been spying on China using its various satellite and Internet based spying programs and actually trying to sabotage Chinese military programs. But the hypocrisy of the Americans is legendary, as they perpetrate their spying, cyberwarfare and other crimes on other nations, then complain if other nations do it to them.


In April 2014, the White House confirmed that a US government aid agency was behind a text-message service that was designed to foment unrest in Cuba. ZunZuneo, dubbed a "Cuban Twitter", had 40,000 subscribers at its height in a country with limited web access. The project is said to have lasted from 2009-12, until the grant money ran out. The USA hid its links to the network through shell firms and by routing messages via other countries.

The ZunZuneo project focused on phone messages because internet activity was so limited in Cuba. Cubans were only permitted to own mobile phones in 2008, but now they are very common. Since 2013, 137 public internet access points were opened for the whole island. But one hour online costs $4.50, or almost a quarter of an average monthly state salary. So telephone messaging emerged as a common form of organisation for Cuba's small dissident community, who send photos and post to Twitter via their mobile phones.

The scheme was operated by the US Agency for International Development (USAid). It is a federal international development organisation run under the aegis of the US Department of State. White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the project had been debated by Congress and passed oversight controls. He said: "These are the kinds of environments where a programme like this and its association with the US government can create problems for practitioners and members of the public. So appropriate discretion is engaged in for that reason but not because it's covert, not because it's an intelligence programme, because it is neither covert nor an intelligence programme."

ZunZuneo was designed to attract a subscriber base with discussion initially about everyday topics such as sport and weather. US officials then planned to introduce political messages to spur the network's users into dissent from their communist-run government. Executives set up firms in Spain and the Cayman Islands to pay the company's bills and funneled the text messages away from US servers. A website and bogus web advertisements were reportedly created to give the impression of a real firm.

Coincidentally, right at the same time as these admissions came from the White House about USAid, the US was accused of funding attempts to topple the Kenyan government, amid worsening relations between the two countries. Kenya's cabinet Secretary Francis Kimemia accused US development agency USAid of funding anti-government protests in Nairobi. But US ambassador to Kenya Robert Godec dismissed the claims as false. Kimemia said that the National Security Advisory Committee had evidence that USAid had given money to two activists who had organised the demonstration.

Of course Ambassador Godec would deny that USAid was interfering politically in Kenya, but now the whole world knows that USAid was behind the political interference and incitement to rebellion in Cuba, so Godec's denials are complete and utter garbage. USAid has now been exposed as an arm of American spying, covert interference and even active attempts to overthrow foreign governments.

And in yet another coincidence, a US man imprisoned in Cuba asked President Barack Obama to intervene personally to help win his release. On the fourth anniversary of his arrest, Alan Gross, 64, wrote to Obama to say that he feared the US government had abandoned him. Gross was setting up Internet access for Cuba's small Jewish community on behalf of USAid. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The White House has publicly called for Gross' unconditional release.

White House press secretary Jay Carney stated that he was unsure whether Obama had read Gross's letter but said that Obama had personally engaged foreign leaders and other international figures to use their influence with Cuba to promote Gross's release. His detention has been a sticking point in otherwise thawing relations between the two countries, which broke off diplomatic relations in 1961 after Cuba aligned with the Soviet Union.

Gross was working for a firm under contract with USAaid at the time of his arrest. Cuba's government considers the development agency's work a way for the USA to undermine the island nation's communist government and with the revelations about USAid's ZunZuneo project, the Cuban government is right. Alan Gross should consider himself lucky that the Cubans did not put him up against a wall 4 years ago and shoot him for being a spy. With these admissions by the White House about USAid, the Cubans would be well within their legal rights to re-try Gross for espionage and execute him.

This is exactly why some nations will not allow aid agencies to operate on their territories and why such agencies are often unceremoniously kicked out. The general public of most democratic countries often wonder why some nations do this, but this confession from the White House about USAid clearly shows the real purpose of thse agencies. USAid setting up a program to foment dissent in Cuba should be the trigger for every nation to immediately examine every so-called aid agency and Non-Government Organisation (NGO) and kick them right out if there is even one hint of them interfering in the politics of those nations.

This admission by the White House proves that USAID's longstanding claim that it does not take covert action in the countries where it operates aid programmes is a blatant lie and why USAID should be completely banned from all nations, along with all other US aid agencies and NGOs, simply because they are most probably arms of US interference and aggression. In fact, all nations are far safer if every single US entity is prohibited from being in those nations, because many of them are just fronts for American spying and interference.


Since World War Two, the USA has either installed by way of coup, engineered revolution or outright military action, or propped up, financed and supported a litany of murderous dictators, while strutting the world hypocritically espousing the virtues of freedom and democracy. Here is a list of a few of them.


It is no big secret that the US Central Intelligence Agency breaks the law. But just how often it does in is a shocker. A US Congressional report reveals that the CIA's spooks engage in highly illegal activities at least 100,000 times each year, which breaks down to hundreds of crimes every day. These are not minor transgressions, but highly illegal activities that break extremely serious laws. The evidence for this comes right out of the US government in writing.

In 1996, the US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a huge report entitled "IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century." One devastating paragraph read:

One of the world's foremost experts on the CIA, John Kelly, who uncovered this revelation, noted that this was the first official admission and definition of CIA covert operations as crimes. He stated:


One of the most memorable outright lies was stated by former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who said:

Of course Rice knew very well that the administration of which she was the third-highest ranking person, did indeed have a program of "Extraordinary Rendition", a typical American euphemism for the kidnapping, transporting and torturing perceived opponents of the USA. Literal mountains of evidence show the Americans operated secret flights to secret prisons all over the world, where detainees were tortured by means totally outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.

And when the Americans really wanted to extract information from those detainees far beyond even their own despicable standards, they handed them over to brutal regimes such as Egypt's secret police, who employed the most hideous torture imaginable before being handed back to the Americans to be taken to their concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be incarcerated without any form of due legal process.


The USA has illegally made war on many nations, in many cases using the pretext of UN resolutions that it has engineered in the UN Security Council to make them appear as if they have some legitimacy. However the Americans have also waged war on nations that have been absolutely no threat to the USA and that is illegal not just in the international sense, but completely against US law.

For example, after the US attacks on Libya in 2011, President Barack Obama stated, "

There it is, right out of the mouth of the US president, who indeed did authorise a military attack on a nation that was no threat whatsoever to the USA and not even a threat to its neighbours. Therefore what Obama and the USA did against Libya was completely illegal.

More interestingly, Democrat Vice-President Joe Biden made this statement on TV about former President George W Bush when he authorised the USA's illegal war against Iraq in 2003.

Biden became Vice-President of the USA in the Obama regime and thus was a direct party to the US attack on Libya, an act that is no different than the USA's initial attack on Iraq in 2003. Yet there has been a deafening silence from Biden about the illegality of his President's action in authorising the attack on Libya.

It is obvious by the very own words of President Barack Obama that he knew that his action in authorising the US attack on Libya was illegal, but he did it anyway. Previous US administrations have done exactly the same, proving that the Americans will commit illegal acts, not just against international law, but against their own laws too - and they actually know that they are breaking the law.

The USA also uses pressure on the UN Security Council (UNSC) for this body to pass illegal resolutions to support US aggression. For instance, the UNSC vote to impose a no-fly zone on Libya was illegal, because Libya did not attack any other nation. Libya was involved in a completely internal civil war and the UN mandate does not allow for external interference by other nations in any sovereign nation's internal affairs. But the Americans used that illegal resolution to give NATO a pretext to attack Libya.


Just as an example, here is a chronological list of just a few of the belligerent and mostly illegal acts of aggression and interference that the USA has perpetrated since World War Two, along with the President who was in office at the time.


It is a matter of fact that John Stockwell, ex-CIA Station Chief, also worked for the director of the CIA under George Bush (Senior) testified before the Congress that during the Cold War era, over 6 million people have died in the CIA covert wars. The world has decried the fact that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis in World War Two, but the grim fact that the Americans were responsible for the same number of deaths because of the CIA has been completely whitewashed. This alone proves that the USA is the biggest rogue terrorist nation in the world.

Apart from US covert political interference, there is a comprehensive list of US military aggression called US Military Interventions on the Downloads page that clearly shows that the USA is by far the greatest transgressor in the world when it comes to mostly illegal interference in the affairs of other nations.


On 19 December 1989, thousands of US troops prepared to attack Panama with the stated purpose of ousting General Manuel Noriega. The American people were told that Operation "Just Cause" had hit 27 targets, thus making Panama safe for Americans living in that country, as well as those in the USA.

During the attack, the USA unleashed a force of 24,000 troops equipped with highly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft against a country with an army smaller than the New York City Police Department. This illegal invasion against a sovereign nation was made in the name of the protection of American lives, as well as the defence of the Panama Canal, the restoration of democracy, and the removal of Noriega and his drug trafficking operation. The problem was that people who knew the truth about US-Panamanian relations knew that the drug issue was not the reason for the invasion.

The 1977 Carter-Torrijos treaties meant that the Panama Canal was scheduled to be turned over to Panama by the year 2000. The treaty provided for the closure of all fourteen US Southern Command bases in Panama by 1999, which would make more difficult US military access to the rest of Latin America. Seen in these terms, the invasion provided a convenient justification for continued US military presence in the area, as well as the rationale for the renegotiation of the treaties.

The overpowering show of force demonstrated that the USA retained control over its own backyard. Of particular note is the speech of President Ronald Reagan comparing the Canal Zone to the acquisition of Alaska by saying, "We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrijos should be told we're going to keep it." This was in complete betrayal of the treaties that previous President Carter had signed with Omar Torrijos.

The truth is that Manuel Noriega was a CIA stooge and his drug operations were completely condoned by the USA for many years, as long as Noriega did what the Americans wanted. But an increasing truculent Noriega meant that the CIA was not getting its way in the area, so the Americans decided, as they had done so many times with their stooges in other Latin American nations, to remove Noriega, one way or another.

The other reason was admitted by none other than General Maxwell Thurman, head of the US Southern Command, who stated that the Americans wanted to destroy the Panamanian Defence Force (PDF), which was a threat to American military dominance in the nation and in the area. The Carter-Torrijos treaties also meant that the PDF would be responsible for the security of the Panama Canal, thus negating US military control, so the PDF had to be liquidated so that the only security force would be supplied by the USA.

The US media's demonisation of Noriega, including Bush's inarticulate rambling about Noriega, the so-called drug-related, drug-indicted dictator of Panama, was farcical. It was not a secret that this campaign of vilification was just the prelude to a bloody confrontation. An ex-CIA analyst revealed that the invasion was intended to reverse Bush's image as a wimp.

Various regional and international human rights commissions estimate that between 2,500 and 4,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion, a far cry from official US reports of only several hundred. Many of those interviewed in the film, like Isabel Corro, a Panamanian human rights worker, continue to raise money for the exhumation of bodies from mass graves which Pentagon spokesmen deny exist.

The US government was not solely responsible for the deception. The mainstream media was complicit in passing on government press releases as news. Several cleverly edited sequences mesh the images and voices of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and other arbiters of information as they use virtually the same language to describe the invasion and what it means' to the American public. In Panama, the suppression of information included the destruction of photographs and videotape documenting the high number of civilian casualties.

The US invasion of Panama had literally nothing to do with the drug trafficking of General Manuel Noriega. It had everything to do with the Americans trying to stop the handing over of control and sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians and also to send a message to other Latin American nations that they had better toe the American line or face similar treatment.

In March 1991, President Guillermo Endara, the stooge that the Americans put into power in Panama after removing Manuel Noriega, proposed a constitutional amendment that would forever abolish Panama's right to have an army. Later that year, a law was passed by the US Congress to renegotiate the Panama Canal Treaties to ensure continued US military presence in Panama, on the grounds that Panama was no longer capable of defending the Panama Canal. Even a complete idiot could easily conclude that this was the real reason for the Panama invasion.

An excellent documentary called The Panama Deception reveals this disgraceful and illegal attack and invasion of yet another sovereign nation by the USA and it can be found on the Internet.


Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the USA has adopted a doctrine of unmitigated hypocrisy. While it has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to any part of the globe, the USA insists that other nations not allied to the USA divest themselves of nuclear weapons. Of course many nations such as China, India and Pakistan scoff at this suggestion and there is little that the USA can do about it, but those nations that are weak and vulnerable have been targeted and intimidated by the USA into either having their weapons programs monitored or being disarmed of any nuclear capability.

"When the United States is the delinquent, everyone else feels they have a licence to offend."
From "Ultimatum" by Matthew Glass

The hypocrisy lies with the fact that the USA will not set an example and divest itself of its huge nuclear arsenal, nor will the USA ratify compliance with the International Court of Justice, even when it seeks to have people of other nations indicted in this court. The USA constantly demands that other nations comply with international protocols and treaties while continually flouting those same treaties with impunity. In fact it was reported in April 2003 that the USA had restarted its nuclear weapons programme and was manufacturing components for this, in complete contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

For instance, in fear of US aggression, as demonstrated by the illegal US war against Iraq, North Korea decided to restart its nuclear program, so it expelled UN monitors and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea eventually decided to curb its nuclear weapons program, but the USA beat the war drums, threatening North Korea with dire consequences including attack. The only effect of this was for North Korea to not only restart its nuclear facilities, but to conduct yet another nuclear bomb test in 2013.

In typical hypocritical fashion, the USA withdrew from the very important Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and commenced further work on an anti-missile shield and other weapons programs. Russia objected strongly to this withdrawal, but in vain. This is typical of the USA, as it demands that other nations comply with various treaties and protocols, while the USA disregards those treaties with utter contempt.

While the USA continues to deliberately violate the NPT, it demands that Iran not only stops its nuclear energy program, this being a perfectly legal activity under the NPT, but that Iran completely abandons this legal right. The Americans have tried to starve Iran by sanctions and other punitive measures, even threatening attacks on that nation, yet the Americans will not do anything themselves to comply with their legal obligations to divest themselves of their own nuclear weapons. This is not only hypocrisy, but is an illegal act under international law.


The foreign policy of the USA is amazingly hypocritical. Using the pretext of spreading democracy, the Americans have committed countless numbers of illegal acts against other nations, yet this feeble excuse does not stand up to scrutiny. If the USA claims to be spreading democracy, why are the Americans supporting the corrupt Saud ruling family of Saudi Arabia, the most repressive regime in the Middle East? Why do the Americans support that despotic bunch of fascist dictators, the Al-Sabah ruling family in Kuwait? Why did the Americans attack Iraq, which had no connection with terrorists and no WMD? Why do the Americans support Pakistan, which has both? Why are the Americans so eager to attack Iran, using the excuse that Iran is developing nuclear weapons when there is no evidence of this? And most bizarrely of all, why did the Americans push Georgia into a hopeless war against Russia?

It is all about the US dollar

The answer is simple. It is all to do with protecting the US dollar and maintaining this otherwise worthless paper as the world reserve currency. The Americans ignore Saudi repression because Saudi oil keeps the dollar strong. The Americans ignore Kuwaiti repression for the same reason. The Americans attacked Iraq because it was a major oil producer that dared sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar. The Americans want to attack Iran for the same reason, because the Iranians scrapped oil sales in US dollars and are selling their oil for other currencies.

The amazing thing about the Americans supporting the House of Saud is that they are willing to use their troops as cannon-fodder for the Saudis, when those disgusting fascists consider the Americans a bunch of stupid scum. Here is a comment made publicly by their king, which shows exactly what the Saudis think of the Americans.

The Americans would also love to attack Russia, the world's second largest oil producer, for it too refuses to bow before the almighty Petrodollar and is increasingly selling its oil and gas for Euro and Rouble. However, Russia really has weapons of mass destruction, so the Americans pursued indirect confrontation by encouraging their puppet regime in Georgia to attack South Ossetia, a Russian ally. The Russians predictably retaliated, but frightened Europeans pulled investments from Russia and questioned their reliance on Russian oil and the US dollar remained strong for the moment. The Americans knew that Georgia couldn't beat Russia and localised military defeat for global financial victory was the real game plan.

As long as American self-interest is the driving force, repressive fascists like the Saudi royal family will be supported, nations that are no military threat to the USA will be attacked and hundreds of people, even millions will die, just to protect the US dollar from collapse. The pretext that the USA is carrying out its course of action to spread democracy is just a blatant lie, because the facts show the exact opposite.


Nothing describes the conniving of the Americans better than the planned setting-up of Cuba for an attack and invasion using a false-flag operation. This technique is used to make it seem that a nation has committed an act and use this as a pretext for aggression or purported retaliation against that nation. It is exactly the same as planting false evidence against an innocent person in an attempt to wrongly convict that person of a crime he did not commit.

Operation Northwoods was such a false-flag plan that originated within the US government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in US cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba, in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington DC.

Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings, followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated: "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The plan was drawn up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defence. Although part of the US government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed.

However, Operation Northwoods shows how far the Americans will go to demonise another nation with false accusations and false evidence. This was seen in more recent times with the phony Weapons of Mass Destructions ploy against Iraq, that led to that devastating and highly illegal war by the Americans. It was also seen in recent times with the so-far baseless accusations and threats of attack by the Americans against Iran for merely conducting a legal nuclear energy program.


It was obvious that Iraq was not any sort of threat to the USA, however that sovereign nation was assaulted in an all-out war by the USA, accompanied by its faithful hounds the UK and Australia. Notwithstanding the opposition of most countries in the world, the USA disregarded the requirement of UN approval and attacked Iraq, this being yet another highly illegal act, as stated by the then UN head, Kofi Annan.

What was more obvious was one of the prime motives for this war. The USA is the largest consumer of oil and petroleum products in the world. US political doctrine has always been to ensure the current lifestyle and standard of living for Americans, no matter what the consequences may be for others. Back in 1998 when Iraq expelled UN weapons inspectors, there was no shortage of oil in the USA, therefore using the pretext of curtailing Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction was not an issue. The plight of the Iraqi people under brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was not an issue for the USA either.

American panic about oil supply was a factor

The story became very different in 2003. The general strike in Venezuela stopped oil production there. Many Muslim oil producing countries were becoming more hostile to the USA for its support of Israel and they could have turned the tap off at any moment. Coupled with that, US oil reserves had fallen to their lowest level in decades. Therefore the USA literally had its back to the wall and was seeking to establish a risk-free source of oil and Iraq had conveniently become available as a good target. Of course Saddam Hussein was using Iraq's vast oil reserves to taunt the USA by stopping production at will, causing further fuel shortages in the USA and this could not be tolerated.

Protecting the US dollar was the real reason for the war

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was selling oil for currencies other than US dollars, thus threatening the cosy scam that the Americans had been running for decades in collusion with OPEC, forcing the world to use US dollars to buy oil while the Americans merely kept printing more Monopoly money and literally got the oil for free by forcing debt onto those other nations. The US economy was in danger of collapse, so Iraq had to be stopped from destroying the US dollar as the world reserve currency.

Even before the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, the USA had been planning to establish a reliable source of oil and the deposing of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a US-friendly successor was mooted. All of a sudden, from four years of complete indifference to Iraq since the expulsion of weapons inspectors, the world saw the USA suddenly insist that Iraq disarm and comply with UN Resolution 1441.


Apart from the fact that prior to the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003, no weapons of mass destruction were found after years of unfettered scouring by UN weapons inspectors, former US President George W Bush stridently demanded that Saddam Hussein divest himself of such weapons. It did not matter that no evidence was ever produced to prove that such weapons existed, the Goebbels-like insistence of the US administration that Iraq was armed to the teeth with them and was a threat to the USA was literally the justification used to launch an all-out war and invasion of Iraq.

Former US Treasury chief Paul O'Neill, who was privy to the inner circle of the former US Bush administration has revealed that he never saw any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the other bogus reason Bush used as justification for his war on Iraq. In fact it has been revealed that Bush was intent on invading Iraq when he first took office, long before the al-Qaeda attack on the USA in September 2001.

This revelation, coupled with the non-existent weapons of mass destruction and lack of evidence of al-Qaeda collusion with Saddam Hussein, is more than adequate for any logical person to conclude that no matter what Saddam Hussein did to appease the USA, no matter what the position of the UN and its member nations might have been, Iraq was going to be invaded. Of course this is exactly what occurred, with the installation of the US puppet regime of Iyad Allawi.

USA paid a very high price for the illegal war and occupation

However the USA has paid a very high price for its misadventure in Iraq, with nearly 5000 US soldiers killed there since the so-called end of hostilities was declared by former President Bush, with Iraqi resistance fighters picking off American troops at will and attacking American forces and equipment every day.

Furthermore, al-Qaeda is still a threat to all US interests and the US economy is headed for disaster because of the huge cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the continued "War Against Terror" that is obviously doomed to failure, because no conventional warfare can defeat urban fighters using asymmetric warfare tactics.


One of the most damaging revelations, a document called "Middle East - A Possible Use Of Force" has surfaced, showing that during the course of the oil embargo by Arab nations in 1973 against the USA because of its support of Israel, the USA planned to invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi and seize their oil fields. US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger stated to the British ambassador that that the US would not tolerate threats from under-developed, under-populated countries and that it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force.

This merely reinforces the commonly held view that the Americans consider the resources of other nations to really belong to the USA and if those other nations have the temerity to not to make those resources available to the USA, then the Americans will merely appropriate them forcibly by invading and occupying those nations.

This document says that seizure of the oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking and has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning." So the only conclusion that really can logically be reached is that although former US President Bush was intent on invading Iraq long before the al-Qaeda attack on the USA in 2001, that event was the catalyst to find a plausible although false motive to launch a war on Iraq, not so much to depose Saddam Hussein, but to ultimately carry out plans that the USA had formulated since the early 1970s to secure a reliable and vast source of oil in the Middle East.


The most amazing aspect of the Iraq invasion is that the USA has not learned anything from its past misadventures. In virtually every case where the USA has interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, the result has eventually been most detrimental to US policy. The Korean War divided that nation into two countries which have technically been in a state of war for over 50 years. Now North Korea is armed with nuclear weapons and is fervently anti-American.

The Vietnam War saw that country taken over by the Communists, the exact opposite of what the USA intended, with the Americans being forced to cut and run in complete disarray and humiliation. Notwithstanding the fact that the USA was the most powerful nation in the world, the Americans were brought to their knees in Vietnam by a bunch of pyjama-clad fighters using improvised weapons.

Who could forget the photos and videos of the Americans fleeing for their lives from the American embassy in Saigon, scrambling aboard helicopters to get out of the country before they were captured by the Viet Cong. The American attacks on Laos also resulted in a monarchy being replaced by a communist regime to this very day and the Laotians detesting the USA as well.

USA Vietnam Evacuation
The last Americans in Saigon being loaded onto an Air America helicopter and fleeing Vietnam

The Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion was an unmitigated disaster for the regime of former President John F Kennedy and Cuba has remained a communist nation right on the American doorstep. The CIA-orchestrated deposing of President Salvador Allende of Chile and the installation of General Augusto Pinochet is now haunting the USA, as Pinochet was exposed as a butcher who was responsible for murdering many thousands of his countrymen and was indicted by the Chilean government on charges of genocide.

The US involvement in the overthrow of Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh and the installation of the brutal Shah Reza Pahlavi and his Gestapo-like SAVAK secret police in 1953 directly resulted in that country becoming a fervently anti-American fundamentalist Islamic state to this day.

Now it is highly likely that with the Shiite Muslims in the majority, Iraq will eventually become an anti-American Islamic state and the sentiments of the Iraqis have already been demonstrated with strident calls for "Yankee Go Home". The rapidly growing influence of anti-US clerics such as Ayatollah Sistani merely reinforce the fact that the misguided and highly illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq will become yet another costly debacle for the USA.

The Americans have already announced that they are withdrawing their forces from Iraq, yet again cutting and running after being humiliated by a bunch of resistance fighters in turbans using improvised weapons made in their kitchens. Asymmetric warfare has been utilised by the foes of the USA, with much success and the Americans have no answers for this strategy.


The Americans have gone a long way to protect the US dollar as the world reserve currency and thus prop up the debt-ridden US economy by attacking any nation that dares sell its oil for other currencies. Venezuela is now in the crosshairs of the USA and is being demonised at every opportunity. It is no coincidence that literally as soon as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez started trading oil for other currencies, there were two coups mounted against him and his government, both very attributable to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Just as they had done on so many previous occasions, the Americans had illegally tried to depose the leader of a legally elected government of a sovereign nation because he refused to be in the pocket of the USA. Fortunately for Chavez, both CIA-orchestrated coups failed, but they are a large part of the reason why Chavez hates the Americans with such a passion.

Brazil, Bolivia and a few other South American nations are now becoming more alienated from the Americans and in June 2009, the Organisation of American States (OAS) delivered the USA a humiliating slap in the face when it voted to re-admit Cuba to this organisation, after the Americans engineered its expulsion in 1962. The Americans are finding themselves more and more alienated from the very nations that were once their allies.


The world tide of opinion has changed as the illegal American action in Iraq and their plans for other nations were exposed. In a recent survey, people were asked to choose which nation, from Iraq, North Korea and the USA, was the greatest danger to world peace. Iraq scored 8%, North Korea managed 9% but the USA scored a whopping 83%. Even in Germany, one of the USA's greatest allies and NATO partner, a poll conducted in February 2003 showed that some 53% of those questioned said the USA was the biggest menace to world peace, compared with 28% per cent for Iraq and 9% for North Korea.


One of the most amazing attempts of utter bullying by the former George W Bush administration that signed a new National Space Policy that rejected future arms-control agreements that might limit US flexibility in space and asserted a right to deny access to space to anyone the Americans deemed hostile to US interests. Despite international law, despite the UN Charter and the Outer Space Treaty and all the other treaties in force that guarantee complete and unfettered access to outer space to any nation, the USA has stated that if it thinks that it is not in its interest, it will take active measures to prevent a nation accessing space.

In other words, in a completely illegal declaration, the USA has unashamedly now claimed military and political control of outer space and will dictate, or try to dictate who gets access to it. Presumably this means that if nations such as Iran and North Korea decide to launch spy satellites, the USA claims the right to attack and destroy them, even pre-emptively.


In response to this illegal declaration, in 2007 China launched a ballistic missile and successfully destroyed one of its redundant satellites, to the dismay and horror of the USA. Ostensibly, the Chinese got rid of a satellite it did not need, however it seemed that the real reason for this act was to demonstrate to the USA, that China had the capability to eliminate satellites with missiles. In the case of conflict between the USA and China, American spy satellites are now seen to be completely vulnerable to destruction and this is terrifying the USA.

Of course the US threat of denying space to the Chinese is nonsense, as China will never bow down to this sort of bullying and neither will Russia, Iran or North Korea. But for instance if the USA does destroy a satellite that is legally launched by any nation, this would be regarded as a deliberate act of war and could have very grave consequences.


Although the Americans always try to take the moral high ground regarding their fairness and respect for international law, the exact opposite is true. Their illegal overthrow of legitimate governments, assassinations and abductions, financing of terrorist organisation and running detention centres reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps and breaking every international law and treaty clearly indicate that the USA has no regard for those laws and treaties unless they suit the Americans and their interests.

Ever since the USA's launch of their ridiculous and unwinnable War On Terror, the Americans have claimed that their concentration camp at Guantanamo in Cuba adheres to all the principles of international laws. This is a blatant lie. Prisoners at Guantanamo, many of whom were not captured during the course of combat, but illegally kidnapped from the streets of many nations not involved in any American conflict, have been incarcerated without trial or due process of law for years.

The Americans claim that these prisoners are "Illegal Combatants", a term invented by the Bush administration to be able to deny them fair trials or coverage by the Geneva Conventions. However, it would be very hard to prove to any fair-minded court that a person who was illegally kidnapped while walking the streets of Rome, spirited off to a nation such as Egypt, tortured there and then incarcerated in Guantanamo for many years without any recourse to proper legal process, that such a person was an "illegal combatant."

There have been many allegations of torture and other heinous acts by the Americans against these prisoners, but the following report gives a damning indictment of the USA administration and its support of such illegal treatment.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured, according to medical examinations detailed in a report released Wednesday by a human rights group.

The Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached that conclusion after two-day clinical evaluations of 11 former detainees, who had been held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and in Afghanistan. The detainees were never charged with crimes.

"We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering," said Dr Allen Keller, a medical evaluator for the study.

In a 121-page report, the doctors' group said that it uncovered medical evidence of torture, including beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses.

The report is prefaced by retired US Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led the Army's investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2003.

"There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes," Taguba says. "The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Over the years, reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib and allegations of torture at Guantanamo prompted the former Bush administration to deny that the U.S. military tortures detainees.


Another couple of examples of the blatant way that the USA completely disregards international laws and treaties, especially the very important Geneva Conventions, documents obtained under freedom-of-information laws prove that the Americans are willing to commit any number of war crimes and injustices, simply because they think that they can get away with them.

The accounts of illegal kidnapping and torture by so many victims of the Americans are far too many and far too similar to be discounted as some sort of fabrication. There is so much evidence of this and the "rendition" flights to secret airports, that there is no doubt that the USA deliberately broke every international law and treaty imaginable.


Three human rights groups have obtained documents that confirm US Department of Defence involvement in the CIA's "ghost" detention program and the existence of secret prisons at Bagram air base in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The documents obtained as part of a long-running legal battle using freedom-of-information laws were released by the Department of Defence to Amnesty International USA, the Centre for Constitutional Rights and the Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice last week.

The groups received about 1000 documents from Defence out of more than 12,000 that have been identified as coming within their request but which are still being withheld by agencies including the CIA and the Department of Justice.

The groups said these documents confirm the existence of secret prisons at Bagram and in Iraq, affirm the Defence Department's co-operation with the CIA's "ghost" detention program and show one case where Defence sought to delay the release of Guantanamo prisoners who were scheduled to be sent home by a month and a half in order to avoid bad press.

The document from the transport division recommended "hold(ing) off on return flights for 45 days or so until things die down. Otherwise we are likely to have hero's welcomes awaiting the detainees when they arrive." The email also recommended transfer in a smaller, more discreet plane. Around that time, a UN report on Guantanamo had been released.

The groups said the documents also revealed that Defence had a policy not to register prisoners with the Red Cross for 14 days and sometimes for 30 days in the interests of collecting intelligence and that this policy was known to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"These newly released documents confirm our suspicion that the tentacles of the CIA's abusive program reached across agency lines," said Margaret Satterthwaite, director of New York University's International Human Rights Clinic. "In fact, it is increasingly obvious that Defence officials engaged in legal gymnastics to find ways to co-operate with the CIA's activities."

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Patrick Leahy, is pushing for the establishment of a "truth commission" answerable to both chambers of Congress to investigate the actions of the Bush administration and departments.

Senator Leahy called his proposal a "middle ground" between those critics of the Bush administration seeking to prosecute officials, and others wishing to concentrate on the future as opposed to investigating the past.

But on Sunday, President Barack Obama was non-committal. While he repeated his line that torture was wrong and would cease under his Administration, he also noted that he was of a mind to look forward not backwards.


A former British resident released after seven years in detention, more than four of them at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, arrived back in London on Monday and issued a statement alleging that the United States government had subjected him to years of "medieval" torture.

"It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next and tortured in medieval ways - all orchestrated by the US government," Binyam Mohamed said in the statement released by his attorneys at a London news conference.

Mohamed, 30, the first Guantanamo detainee released during the Obama administration, has become a symbol of international anger at the anti-terrorism practices of the United States after the 11 September 2001 attacks. His arrival at a Royal Air Force base near London on Monday afternoon ended what his attorneys have described as a seven-year odyssey of torture, "rendition" by US authorities to secret prisons in Morocco and Afghanistan and legal limbo in a system where he was held without charge for much of his detention.

US officials charged Mohamed initially with plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States and later with conspiring with members of al-Qaeda to murder and commit terrorism. All the charges were eventually dropped. The government of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had been petitioning the US government for Mohamed's return since August 2007.

Mohamed, a native of Ethiopia who immigrated to Britain in 1994, was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002 and turned over to US authorities a few months later. American officials accused him of traveling to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, which he has denied. In accounts provided by his attorneys, Mohamed said that US officials flew him to Morocco and that he was tortured there for 18 months. He said he was beaten and had his penis cut with a razor. He said he was then transferred to a CIA-run site in Afghanistan and was beaten there regularly before being moved to Guantanamo in September 2004. US officials have never acknowledged taking Mohamed to Morocco and Moroccan officials deny having held him. US officials have also repeatedly denied torturing terrorism suspects.

In his statement Monday, Mohamed also accused British officials of being complicit in his "horrors over the past seven years." "The very worst moment came when I realized in Morocco that the people who were torturing me were receiving questions and materials from British intelligence," he said. "I had met with British intelligence in Pakistan. I had been open with them. Yet the very people who I had hoped would come to my rescue, I later realized, had allied themselves with my abusers."

Mohamed said he wanted to speak out on behalf of the 241 Muslim prisoners he said were still being held at Guantanamo and the "thousands of other prisoners held by the USA elsewhere around the world, with no charges and without access to their families."

"While I want to recover, and put it all as far in my past as I can, I also know I have an obligation to the people who still remain in those torture chambers," he said. "My own despair was greatest when I thought that everyone had abandoned me. I have a duty to make sure that nobody else is forgotten." He added, "I am not asking for vengeance; only that the truth should be made known, so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured."

Stafford Smith, Mohamed's attorney, said he was convinced of his client's innocence and he challenged anyone who disagreed to prove it in a British court. "If anyone has any charges they want to bring, we have had a system for the last 800 years which has proved perfectly satisfactory and they should put up or shut up," Stafford Smith said, adding: "If anyone wants to put him on trial, in the immortal words of George Bush, bring them on."


There is absolutely no doubt that Britain conspired with the USA to facilitate the illegal kidnapping and torture of people. In February 2009, Britain was swept into a row over the abduction of terrorism suspects after the admission that British troops in Iraq handed over two men to the USA, which then sent them to Afghanistan for interrogation.

In a statement to Parliament, the Defence Secretary John Hutton said that despite previous denials, new information had been found about detentions in Iraq and Afghanistan that appeared to show the British helped in having captured terrorist suspects sent to other countries for interrogation.

Hutton said that British officials, including the former foreign secretary Jack Straw and the then foreign secretary Charles Clarke had known of the movement of the two men in 2004 since 2006.

This admission was only made after the media had exposed the British role in the illegal kidnappings and torture. There is just no conceivable way that the British Prime Minister and his ministers were kept in the dark about these incidents and all the evidence shows that the regime of Tony Blair was fully complicit in these international crimes.


An article in July 2008 by Harry Sterling in the Canadian weekly newspaper Embassy gives a very good idea of the sort of illegal interference, warmongering and outright flouting of international law in which the USA constantly indulges. The hypocrisy is mindblowing, considering that if another nation did this to the USA, there would be outrage from the White House, yet the US regime thinks nothing of authorising such blatant illegal activity against other nations.


Late last year (2007), US President George W Bush secretly issued what's called a Finding concerning Iran. That Finding authorises the US's Central Intelligence Agency, CIA and other American intelligence bodies to carry out covert actions within Iran itself with the objective of destabilising the government there. This reportedly includes the assassination of so-called "high-value" Iranian officials. The ultimate objective would be the overthrow of the Ayatollahs.

The Finding by Bush takes the issue to a perilous new dimension because the amount of money involved for the clandestine project, as much as $400 million dollars - including funding to Iranian dissidents - could enable anti-government groups to dramatically increase terrorist attacks.

Key players in this scenario would be extremists within Iran's minority Ahwazi Arab population in the South, plus the Sunni fundamentalist-inclined Baluchis in the East. It's thought the Iranian People's Resistance Movement (Jundallah) and the Kurdish Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) may also be recipients of the secret funding.

The Bush administration is playing with fire by supporting such anti-regime groups, some actually anti-Western. For example, Baluchi extremists have links with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Interestingly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a major planner of the horrific September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, is a Baluchi. The Jundallah is a Salafi extremist group, also with reported connections to al-Qaeda.

Such extremists have carried out frequent assassinations and terrorist attacks within Iran, often resulting in considerable deaths of innocent civilians.

Bush's authorisation for destabilising the Iranian government, if not rescinded, also raises serious questions regarding the true underlying reasons for such covert measures, especially given that his own government's National Intelligence Estimate of last December concluded Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.


Support and finance the worst despotic fascist regimes if it suits American interests
Undermine and depose legally elected governments that don't suit American interests

And if nations have legal rights that don't suit American interests,
Force those nations to bargain for their existing rights, as if they did not have them

And if those nations try to uphold their legal rights and resist the pressure.....

Impose economic sanctions on them to starve them into submission
Manipulate the United Nations to impose sanctions on them
Use illegal covert action to try and overthrow their elected governments
Threaten to attack them if they refuse to submit to the blackmail
Actually attack them if they are perceived as not being able to fight back


In July 2009, newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Iran's leaders on that if they were seeking nuclear weapons, "your pursuit is futile" and ruled out explicitly the possibility that the Obama administration would allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel, even under intense international inspection.

In August 2009, Hillary Clinton made the following pronouncements to Iran's leaders on US TV program Meet The Press:

This is one of the most asinine and belligerent pieces of attempted intimidation to come out of the mouth of a senior US administration figure. Hillary Clinton was very wrong on Iran's rights and she knew it, but she still made those completely false statements.

Of course Iran has the right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. This right is enshrined in the NPT and Clinton admits it. However, under this treaty, Iran also has the inalienable right to enrich uranium, as much of it as Iran wants. Clinton's statement that Iran does not have the right to have the full nuclear enrichment and reprocessing cycle under its control is just utter nonsense. The NPT guarantees that right to Iran and the USA has no authority and no legal power to remove that right under any circumstances.

Clinton was also wrong when she stated that Iran did not have the right to obtain a nuclear weapon. Under the NPT, Iran agreed that it would not pursue nuclear weapons, however if Iran simply withdraws from the NPT by giving three month’s notice, it could quite legally pursue nuclear weapons, despite the protestations and objections of the USA. The Americans have completely disregarded their own requirements and obligations under the NPT, so it is massive hypocrisy for them to lecture any other nation about their obligations to the same treaty that the Americans treat with such disdain.

However, by her completely false and really stupid statements, Hillary Clinton has again exposed the USA as an arrogant bully that thinks it has a unilateral right to change the terms of an international treaty by trying to deny Iran the rights that this treaty confers.

A report from Reuters News Agency about the IAEA in September 2009 stated:


VIENNA (Reuters) - The UN nuclear watchdog said Thursday it had no proof that Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program, dismissing a news report that it had concluded Iran was on its way to producing nuclear weapons.

In a statement, the International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's September 9 warning that allegations the agency was sitting on undeniable evidence of Iranian bomb work were "politically motivated and baseless."

"With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran," the statement said.


Even by February 2011, after so many years of American demonisation of Iran and the continuous accusations about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA stated that the UN watchdog has "never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs." "We have chosen our words very carefully and we have never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs," Amano told Reuters News.

In other words, the IAEA has never seen any evidence of Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program and categorically stated that the IAEA has never said that Iran had nuclear weapons. The IAEA is the organisation that has been intrusively monitoring Iran's nuclear energy program for years with inspectors and cameras and other means, but has found nothing to even suggest that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

So how do the Americans and their cronies continue to get away with accusing Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons without evidence and have managed to convince the UN to impose three illegal resolutions and sanctions against Iran? The logical answer is - in the same way that the Americans attacked and invaded Iraq using completely fabricated pretexts about weapons of mass destruction, despite UNSCOM inspectors stating for years that they did not exist.

This and all other previous IAEA report again reinforces the fact that there is absolutely no basis or evidence on which the USA and its allies can rely to show that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The Americans have never been able to produce one shred of evidence to show this.

Therefore the three sets of sanctions that the USA engineered in the UN Security Council to force Iran into abandoning its completely legal nuclear program are themselves illegal, simply because it is illegal to try to prevent a nation pursuing legal activity. Furthermore, the threat of military action against Iran by the USA is illegal under international law and the UN Charter.

But the ignominious track record of the USA and its highly illegal activities against other nations for many decades shows that the Americans don't care about anybody else's legal rights, as long as American self-interest is served.


There is absolutely no doubt that the USA is by far the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. By the beginning of 2010, the Americans have been embroiled in two major wars, one of them being highly illegal (Iraq) and the Afghanistan War being prosecuted for nothing more than the refusal of the Afghans to hand over one or two men to the Americans, neither of whom were Afghan citizens.

In 1999, the Americans led NATO forces to bomb Serbia in support of a proscribed terrorist group, the Islamic Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), who were trying to force the long-standing Serbian province of Kosovo to secede from Serbia and were conducting a campaign of terror and murder against Serbs in that province. Eventually with the massive firepower of the Americans forcing Serbia into submission, the terrorist KLA literally annexed Kosovo and now the Kosovo Serbs whose province this was, are now a persecuted minority in what once was their own nation until the Americans intervened on the side of terrorism.

As part of the dubious and unwinnable wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Americans have been using remotely piloted armed drones to kill people in Pakistan, a nation with which the USA is not at war. By the beginning of 2010, the Americans had murdered over 700 innocent people, including women and children, calling these deaths 'Collateral Damage' - a typical American buzzword for murder.

Along with all their other transgressions, the USA has tried to foment conflict with Iran. In 2007, the US Congress allocated $400 million to destabilise the Iranian government and hopefully precipitate regime change - all illegal under the UN Charter and the proof of this can be found in US Congressional records. But of course the Americans have never bothered to adhere to international law, but hypocritically expect every other nation to do so. Part of the USA's constant attack against Iran has been the funding and support of terrorists by the CIA.

Here is a fascinating essay by a 27-year veteran of the CIA's analysis division, Ray McGovern, exposing the duplicitous behaviour of the USA, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.


Jundallah is one of several groups that have been conducting bombings and other violent attacks against Iran's Islamic regime with the aim of knocking it off balance.

In a July 7, 2008, article for The New Yorker magazine, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh quoted Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer who worked in South Asia and the Middle East for nearly two decades, as saying that Jundallah was one of the militant groups in Iran benefiting from U.S. support.

Hersh also reported that President George W. Bush signed an intelligence finding in late 2007 that allocated up to $400 million for covert operations intended to destabilize Iran's government, in part, by supporting militant organizations.

Hersh identified another one of the militant groups with "long-standing ties" to the CIA and the U.S. Special Operations communities as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK, which has been put on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

But Jundallah has been spared that designation, a possible indication that the U.S. government views it as a valuable asset in the face-off against Iran, or in the parlance of the "war on terror," as one of the "good guys."

Gen. Mizra Aslam, Pakistan's former Army chief, has charged that the U.S. has been supporting Jundallah with training and other assistance. But the U.S. government denies that it has aided Rigi or his group.

Since his capture this week, Rigi has been weaving intricate, though inconclusive, stories about his contacts with American officials. According to Iran's Press TV, Rigi said the United States promised Jundallah military aid in support of its insurgency against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Rigi described contacts in March 2009, claiming that U.S. representatives "said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran."


Rigi asserted that the U.S. representatives said a direct U.S. attack on Iran would be too costly and that the CIA instead favoured supporting militant groups that could destabilize Iran.

"The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran, not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran," Rigi said, according to Press TV.

"One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us [the United States] to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system," Rigi said.

Rigi added that the Americans said they were willing to provide support "at an extensive level." However, in Press TV's account, Rigi did not describe any specific past U.S. support for his organization.

Iran's security forces announced that they had arrested Rigi on Tuesday by bringing down his plane over Iranian airspace, as he was on-board a flight from the United Arab Emirates to Kyrgyzstan, where he said he was expecting to meet with a "high-ranking" U.S. official.

Rigi's capture represents an embarrassment for Western and Israeli intelligence, which have tried to stir up Iran's minorities, comprising almost half of the population. Jundallah contends that it is protecting the rights of Sunnis in Shiite-dominated Iran.


The unwelcome spotlight on Rigi and Jundallah threatens to bring out of the shadows a broader U.S. and Israeli strategy for regime change in Tehran, a goal that dates back at least to President Bush's "axis of evil" speech in 2002.

According to this analysis, the fear about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon in a few years - if it decides to restart the weapons part of its nuclear development program - is largely a synthetic rationale for ratcheting up tensions, much as Bush's claims about Iraq's non-existent WMD were a pretext for regime change in Baghdad.

Under such a scenario, "good guy" terrorists like Jundullah could be enlisted for purposes other than simple violence and disruption. For example, they could be used to sabotage any favourable Iranian response to President Barack Obama's efforts toward engagement.

And this precisely is what Jundallah did last October, right after the Ahmadinejad government gave tangible proof that it was ready to engage on the nuclear issue in response to Obama's call for negotiations.

On Oct. 1, 2009, Tehran shocked virtually everyone by agreeing to send most (as much as 75 percent) of its low-enriched uranium abroad to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes.

Even the New York Times acknowledged that this, "if it happens, would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly, and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit."

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, gave Tehran's agreement "in principle," at a meeting in Geneva of representatives of members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, chaired by Javier Solana of the European Union.

Reversing the Bush administration's allergy to talking with "bad guys," Obama had sent Under Secretary of State William Burns to the Geneva meeting. A 45-minute tete-a-tete between Burns and Jalili marked the highest level U.S.-Iranian talks in three decades.

Jalili also expressed Iran's agreement to open the newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection within two weeks, which Tehran did.


However, on Oct. 18, 2009, Jundullah detonated a car bomb at a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan in south-eastern Iran and mounted a roadside attack on a car full of Guards in the same area.

A brigadier general who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, the Revolutionary Guards brigadier commanding Sistan-Baluchistan, and three other brigade commanders were killed in the attack; dozens of other military officers and civilians were left dead or wounded.

Jundullah took credit for the bombings, which followed years of lethal attacks on Revolutionary Guards and Iranian policemen, including an attempted ambush of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's motorcade as he drove through Sistan-Baluchistan in 2005.

The Oct. 18 attack - the bloodiest in Iran since the 1980-88 war with Iraq - came one day before talks were to resume at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to follow up on the Oct. 1 breakthrough. The killings surely raised Iran's suspicions about U.S. sincerity regarding better relations.

It's a safe bet that the Revolutionary Guards went directly to their patron, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, with evidence that the West cannot be trusted. Khamenei issued a statement on Oct. 19 condemning the terrorists, whom he charged "are supported by certain arrogant powers' spy agencies."

The commander of the Guards' ground forces, who lost his deputy in the attack, charged that the terrorists were "trained by America and Britain in some of the neighbouring countries," and the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards threatened retaliation.

A lower-level Iranian technical delegation did go to Vienna for the meeting on Oct. 19, but Iran's leading nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili stayed away. The Iranians began to raise objections foreshadowing backsliding on their earlier commitment in principle to the export of most of their low-enriched uranium.


Still, since then, the Iranians have broached alternative proposals that seemed worth exploring - for example, sending for further enrichment smaller quantities of low-enriched uranium in stages.

However, the Obama administration has rejected these alternative proposals out of hand, reportedly at the instigation of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and neocon regional emissary Dennis Ross, whose apparent priority is to avoid anything that might strengthen Ahmadinejad.

In other words, despite the rhetoric about the need to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, regime change appears to remain the transcendent goal of neocon-lite Democrats at the White House and in Hillary Clinton's State Department.

These neocon-lites seem to have adopted the benighted view that the Iranian regime will crumble, if enough outside pressure is applied.

Add to the mix, the constant harping about the "fraudulent" election last June and support for regime opponents who will not accept the election results, which non-propagandistic and reputable polls indicate Ahmadinejad really did win. [See's "US Media Replays Iraq Fiasco in Iran."]

Oh, yes; "crippling sanctions" are also in the picture.


Despite these obstacles, Iran's post-October proposals on the nuclear issue strongly suggest that Tehran is still willing to negotiate. But it appears that Secretary Clinton and others inside the Obama administration, whether neocons or neocon-lites, don't actually want a deal.

The way they seem to see it is that an agreement on the nuclear issue would make regime change that much more difficult.

Which raises the question of who provided Jundullah the kind of intelligence and direction that enabled the bloody attack of Oct. 1 - and why?

Cui bono? Who profits from the kind of violence that hardens the attitudes of the Revolutionary Guards and their patron Khamenei, and enables the West to portray them as reneging on the October agreement in principle.

Answer: Israel's Likud government, the American neocons and others who won't give up on long-cherished dreams of regime change in Tehran, which would then supposedly lead to a cut-off of Iran's support for Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestine's Hamas.

The truth be told, few well-informed analysts in either the United States or Israel actually believe there is an imminent nuclear threat from Iran, which has encountered technical problems refining uranium even to low levels that are suitable for generating nuclear energy.

But that doesn't stop the gamesmanship toward Iran any more than the lack of WMD evidence stopped President Bush from whipping up an alarm about Iraq in 2002-03.

Does Secretary Clinton really expect to be taken seriously with her Rumsfeldian demand that Iran prove a negative - that it is NOT working on a nuclear weapon?

In a major speech last week in Doha, Clinton decried the fact that Iran "has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its program is entirely peaceful." Remember when the Bush administration demanded that Iraq's Saddam Hussein prove he didn't have chemical and biological weapons?

In that same speech, Clinton let slip that Iran "doesn't directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners" - read Israel, which itself possesses an estimated 200-300 nuclear weapons in its undeclared arsenal.

Like other senior U.S. officials - and all major U.S. news outlets Clinton forgets to mention that on Sept. 18, 2009, the IAEA member states formally voted to call on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and submit its nuclear facilities to the same oversight that nearly all other nations do.

Israel issued an official statement that it "deplores" that vote, and U.S. Ambassador Glyn Davies rejected the resolution, claiming that it unfairly singled out Israel.

In her Doha speech, Clinton insisted that it is the Iranian "nuclear weapons military program" that all should be concerned about. She bemoaned "the rise of influence and power by the Revolutionary Guard - which is really tragic."

Well, Madam Secretary, you might want to talk to CIA Director Leon Panetta about putting the reins on Jundallah and other violent groups so as not to empower the Revolutionary Guards still further - unless the hardening of lines on both sides suits some grander purpose.


We know from official British documents (the "Downing Street Memos") that, on July 20, 2002, former CIA chief George Tenet told the head of British intelligence that President Bush had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that the war would be justified by spreading fear that Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

The British intelligence chief, Richard Dearlove, concluded, correctly, that the intelligence would be "fixed" around the policy.

Not only full-scale neocons but wannabe neocons like Secretary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice are now taking the same line and doing the same "fixing" about Iran.

Ambassador Rice recently charged that Iran is pursuing "a nuclear weapons program with the purpose of evasion." Clinton professes to be "deeply concerned" over what she calls "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Clinton and Rice should check with National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, who is still using the subjunctive regarding the possibility of a restarted Iranian nuclear weapons program.

As for me, I'm deeply concerned at the widespread impression that the Secretary and others have fostered. A CNN poll last week indicated that 70 percent of Americans are in the same indicative mood, believing that Iran already has a nuclear weapon. That's downright eerie - a flashback to Iraq.

If memory serves, that's about the same percentage of Americans who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.


During her final year as Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice was racking up so many frequent-flyer miles jetting back and forth to Israel that wistful Arabs decided that the definition of "condoleezza" must be perpetual motion signifying nothing.

Now, her successor - joined by other senior U.S. officials - is engaged in similarly peripatetic endeavours.

Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser James Jones, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen have all visited Israel since January, and Vice President Joe Biden will be there next week.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak is visiting Washington now, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will arrive next month.

Perhaps, we should hope that this is just pointless whirling about rather than something more serious.

These high-level meetings also are occurring against a continued backdrop of U.S. disdain for international law.

Senior American officials, dating back at least to the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, deemed aggressive war to be a war crime. Though I don't recall anyone rescinding the Nuremberg principles or amending the U.N. Charter, one hears cheerful talk from both American pundits and some U.S. officials that "everything is on the table" regarding Iran.

One asks: including another war of aggression? The answer: Don't you know what "everything" means?

This is profoundly unsettling for those of us who thought that disdainful trashing of post-World War II agreements would stop when Bush and Cheney rode off into the sunset.

Even if couched in the Orwellian language of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war, "a public threat to engage in aggressive war" is itself a violation of the U.N. Charter. But it seems no one cares?


Neocon pundits continue to stoke these fires. In Tuesday's Washington Post, for example, columnist Anne Applebaum listed a number of utilitarian reasons why President Obama will not bomb Iran. (International law was not one.)

Applebaum suggests, though, that Obama's "defining moment" could come when he is awakened at 2:00 AM by a call from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who tells him "Israel has just carried out a raid on Iranian nuclear sites. What then?"

"If that ever happened," Applebaum writes, "I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically - for an unwanted war of necessity."

The message? Disregard the intelligence that doubts the Iranians are building a nuclear bomb: no, better still, "fix" it to suggest that they are.

Then, turn loose the Jundullahs to worsen tensions and to strengthen the hands of Iran's hardliners who will cite violent provocations as proof that the United States is not acting in good faith; that will add to the impression of a gathering threat; next institute crippling sanctions to further ramp up the anger.

And be ready, in case Netanyahu starts something the United States will have to finish. Has someone explained this possible scenario to President Obama?


Since World War Two, the Americans have embarked on much aggression against other nations in a bid to force their will upon them. However, it seems that everything they touch backfires on them and this could be described as The Law Of Unintended Consequences - reaping exactly the opposite of what was intended.

It is very interesting to examine various US overt military actions and their results. For instance, here are a few examples of how the Americans reaped the unintended consequences of their warmongering that achieved virtually the exact opposite of what they really intended.


Amazingly, there is copious evidence to show the illegal machinations of the Americans, but because of overwhelming military might, the USA is now a law unto itself, no better than one of the so-called "rogue nations" that it so frequently castigates. Yesterday it was Iraq, tomorrow it will be Iran. Former President George W Bush stated that "Iran will not possess nuclear weapons on my watch" but Bush is now out of office and there is no evidence that Iran actually is seeking nuclear weapons.

However, there is only one sure way the USA can ensure that Iran really is not seeking nuclear weapons and that is to invade and occupy that nation. Unfortunately for the USA, unlike Saddam Hussein, the Iranians are far stronger than the Iraqis and will certainly not roll over, but would be more likely to use whatever means they have at their disposal to inflict enormous casualties on the USA, Israel and any other nations involved in any attack against them.

Time will tell. However the world needs to act now to curb the USA and its attempt to impose disarmament on the planet while itself possessing such an awesome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. A good start would be the renunciation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by all signatory nations until all nuclear armed countries such as the USA, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel signed it and agreed to disarm totally and allow unfettered inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Another very important move would be to indict all the Americans that have been responsible for authorising, instigating and committing crimes, including war crimes, against other nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans demanded that the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic be indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal, yet his alleged offences pale into insignificance, compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who lost their lives as a result of the illegal war, invasion and occupation of Iraq, authorised and instigated by US President George W Bush, US Vice President Richard Cheney and US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and other Americans.