Read This Full Post, There Is New Information Included.
There’s almost no debate anymore… I was becoming a total skeptic of “Elenin” until this latest news. Nothing could produce these numbers and story if not by intelligent design.
Perihelion – September 11, 2011. Ten years after………………….
Grand Alignment, Venus-Mercury-Earth-Elenin, November 11, 2011. That’s 11-11-11… And I don’t want to get in to power numbers of the secret societies.
Last alignment for Elenin, December 21, 2012… Really?
Oh, and if all that wasn’t great enough, now NASA must completely think that we’re idiots… Or SEVERELY messing with our heads in a very evil way!
JPL Orbit Diagram for Elenin shows “Producer: Otto Matic“.
Now a lot of you may not know Otto Matic, but back on September, 11, 2001 the day of the attacks a software company called “Pangea Software” launched their new game called “Otto Matic”.
Here is what the game was about:
“Otto Matic follows the character of Otto Matic Proto in his campaign against the Giant Brain. The story begins on the Bentley Farm on Planet Earth. Here, he has to defeat brain aliens, vegetables, and a tractor. After returning to the escape rocket, he travels to Planet Snoth at the area J-3110. Here he must survive from dangerous slime, ride bubbles, and ride on platforms. Then he must go to the core and defeat a slime machine. Then he travels to Planet Knarr.
To break the ice, he must get a hammer-bot to crack it. Then he uses the saucer on Planet Shebanek to save many humans in POW camps. Then he travels to Planet Xallamarphamorphous (Planet X for short) to defeat the giant brain. After this, many humans have been saved and the story is over.”
And yes, in the game they actually did refer to the planet as Planet X for short. I didn’t think twice about this until I saw that name on the NASA JPL site.
J-3110 ring a bell? Think back to 3/11/2010, devastating Chile Earthquake.
And should I even mention Leonid Elenin?
ELE out of the constellation LEO?
NINe ELEven
The list goes on… and on…
I’ve sure you’ve heard the Deep Impact movie comparisons too? In the movie there was an ELE comet discovered by an astronomer called LEO. In addition, there was a black president… Now, the only time in our nation’s history we have a black president a inbound “comet” with the name ELEnin discovered by astronomer LEOnid.
This is not a normal comet. Never in the history of man have this many “coincidences” happened at once time for an inbound space object.
Now I know BAUT, and the FIRST thing is “What is your claim?”. Well, I cannot see the future, all I can say is that this is obviously of intelligent design or a staged event. Take your pick.
NASA Directly tells us with the Otto Matic comment
Ladies and gentlemen, Good luck in times ahead.
P.S. One more thing…
# Obs. Used (total) – 2181
Data-arc span – 202 days
NASA has viewed this orbit more than ANY other comet in this time span. All others I viewed that were anywhere close to that number were from 5+ years of Data, this is only 202 days.
Scientists from the Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS) have been reported to be in touch with extraterrestrial beings.
The Bulgarian Novinar Daily has reported that the Bulgarian scientists are currently working on deciphering pictograms which are said to have come in the form of the so called “crop circles” with which the aliens answered 30 questions posed by the BAS researchers.
“They are currently all around us, and are watching us all the time. They are not hostile towards us; rather, they want to help us but we have not grown enough in order to establish direct contact with them. They are ready to help us but we don’t know what to request from them in case of contact,” said Lachezar Filipov, Deputy Director of the Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, as quoted by the Novinar Daily.
Filipov has said that even the Vatican had agreed that aliens existed. In his words, the humans are not going to be able to establish contact with the extraterrestrials through radio waves but through the power of thought.
He has stated that the human race was certainly going to have direct contact with the aliens in the next 10-15 years.
The deputy head of the Bulgarian Space Research Institute has also told the Novinar Daily that the extraterrestrials were critical of the people’s amoral behavior referring to the humans’ interference in nature’s processes.
Filipov’s team is reported to be analyzing the 150 new crop circles which appeared around the globe in the past year.
The publication of the Novinar Daily about the BAS researchers communicating with aliens comes in the midst of a controversy over the role, feasibility, and reform of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, which last week even led to the exchange of offensive remarks between Bulgaria’s Finance Minister, Simeon Djankov, and President Georgi Parvanov.
Bashar talks about the Roswell crash and human DNA.
Bashar answers the questions: “Did an extra terrestrial craft crash in Roswell 1947?”, “If so, which civilization was it from?”, “What caused it to crash?”, “Is some of our earth technology reverse engineered from that crash?”, “What do humans need to understand in order to be able to travel between the stars?”
Bashar, channeled by Darryl Anka, answers the questions: “The human DNA is a blending of how many extra terrestrial races?” and “Who are these races?”.
On August 16, 2001, a crop formation appeared overnight in front of the Chilbolton Radio Observatory in England. It was a clear response to the Arecibo Message which was sent into space by Carl Sagan and Nasa in 1974.
It seems impossible that people could have made such large and complex formations so perfectly in the dark of one night. On top of that, scientific analysis of the crops showed that they had not been pushed down with blunt force as you would expect in a man-made design. Rather, the bottom nodes of the stalks had been heated via some form of focused radiation so that they wilted over and strangely, came to rest at a 90 degree angle.
Why would aliens communicate in this way? Crop formations? Ridiculous right?
Well, what would have happened if they had returned the message to SETI?
SETI has an official protocol for what to do in the case of an actual response. The protocol is to notify the government, and let them decide what to do.
If the aliens had sent this message to SETI, would any of us have ever heard about it?
Maybe they put the message in a field so that everyone could see it. So that the truth couldn’t be hidden. And for the sake of limiting confusion, they put it right next to a radio telescope that SETI has in the past used to search for a response!
Many people will have a skeptical reaction to their appearance, as it so closely resembles the typical “grey” alien dipicated in so many movies. But it is worth noting: That image was not the product of Hollywood’s imagination. Just like the “flying saucer”, the description originally came from people who claimed to have seen them first hand. Hollywood took that description and sensationalized it for their own purposes.
(Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican October 23, 2011/Giampiero Sposito)
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
“Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.
It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. “In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.
“If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.
It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.
Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said: “The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. “We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”
The Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences has just released a strongly worded report (PDF) on global climate change demanding in the strongest possible language that humans act decisively to avert a coming crisis. “We call on all people and nations to recognize the serious and potentially reversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants,” says the report. “If we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.”
The report was not authored by the Pontifical Academy itself; rather, the Vatican convened a group of scientists with relevant experience, along with a few Nobel Prize winners. The group’s focus was on increasing evidence of glacier retreat, and the report ended up focused on its causes. The group’s co-chair, Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, used a somewhat controversial name for the “man-made” geologic era in which we are now living: the “Anthropocene.”
Humanity has created the Anthropocene era and must live with it. This requires a new awareness of the risks human actions are having on the Earth and its systems, including the mountain glaciers discussed here. It imposes a new duty to reduce these risks. Failure to mitigate climate change will violate our duty to the vulnerable of the Earth, including those dependent on the water supply of mountain glaciers, and those facing rising sea level and stronger storm surges. Our duty includes the duty to help vulnerable communities adapt to changes that cannot be mitigated. All nations must ensure that their actions are strong enough and prompt enough to address the increasing impacts and growing risk of climate change and to avoid catastrophic irreversible consequences.
According to the Vatican report, those consequences have already begun. “Human-caused changes in the composition of the air and air quality result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security—especially among those ‘bottom 3 billion’ people who are too poor to avail of the protections made possible by fossil fuel use and industrialization.”
Receding glaciers
Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Because “business as usual” won’t be possible in the future, the report asks for three immediate actions:
Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system. All nations must focus on a rapid transition to renewable energy sources and other strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These actions must be accomplished within a few decades.
Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (darks soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50 percent to slow down climate change during this century while preventing millions of premature deaths from respiratory disease and millions of tons of crop damages every year.
Prepare to adapt to the climatic changes, both chronic and abrupt, that society will be unable to mitigate. In particular, we call for a global capacity-building initiative to assess the natural and social impacts of climate change in mountain systems and related watersheds.
Sound expensive? It is, but the report claims that “the cost of the three recommended measures pales in comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.”
The report suggests that action is necessary as a matter of social justice, especially for the poor. It also ties action to the biblical idea of “stewardship” for the Earth, described here as “a planet blessed with the gift of life.” Finally, it aligns its conclusions to the line in the Lord’s Prayer about “daily bread,” asking that “all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink.”
It concludes: “The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.”
Yes, “only Princes and Princesses can have fairy tale or story book lives. Oh, what wretched peons the rest of us are. We don’t deserve to even be in their presence.”
And so fables from antiquity to today perpetrate the tyranny of the self-appointed few, who live more and more lavishly while the real people of the earth suffer hardship and shortages.
The Apparent Message of “Royalty”
(Mockery by Zen): ‘We decree that we are allowed to play by different rules. We can heap unto ourselves as much treasure as we want and live in total opulance. We are your rulers, but will graciously allow you to experience your joys and happiness vicariously through our presupposed purity, pomp and grandeur. Despite our godlike greatness and splendor, we will stoop to your level, although with deference. You will love and covet our ceremonies, our costumes, and even our scant attention to your menial lives.
We shall rule from on high, as from Mount Olympus, while you shall do the chores….and you shall do it thankfully, knowing you are serving your demigods’.
Whatta crock.
The Royal Protocol
An awake and aware individual would be offended by the following excerpt, and see it as degrading and almost unreal.
However, it comes from an “informative” website that glorifies and oozes about European royalty. In it, the “rest of us” are referred to as “commoners”, and the ruling sovereign as “the highest order of human being”.
The web has made it easier than ever before to access information on Devil-worshipping and the occult, experts said.
Exorcism is the subject of a six-day conference being held this week at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome, which is under the Vatican’s authority.
“The internet makes it much easier than in the past to find information about Satanism,” said Carlo Climati, a member of the university who specialises in the dangers posed to young people by Satanism.
“In just a few minutes you can contact Satanist groups and research occultism. The conference is not about how to become an exorcist. It’s to share information about exorcism, Satanism and sects. It’s to give help to families and priests. There is a particular risk for young people who are in difficulties or who are emotionally fragile,” said Mr Climati.
The object of seminars was to scrutinise the phenomenon of Satanism with “seriousness and scientific rigour”, avoiding a “superficial or sensational approach”, he said.
The conference in Rome has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers to discuss how to combat the dangers of Devil-worship.
Organisers say the rise of Satanism has been dangerously underestimated in recent years.
“There’s been a revival,” said Gabriele Nanni, a former exorcist and another speaker at the course.
In theory, any priest can perform an exorcism – a rite involving prayers to drive the Devil out of the person said to be possessed.
But Vatican officials said three years ago that parish priests should call in professional exorcists if they suspect one of their parishioners needs purging of evil.
An exorcist should be called when “the moral certainty has been reached that the person is possessed”, said Father Nanni, a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
That could be indicated by radical and disturbing changes in the person’s behaviour and voice, or an ability to garble in foreign languages or nonsensical gibberish.
While the number of genuine cases of possession by the Devil remained relatively small, “we must be on guard because occult and Satanist practices are spreading a great deal, in part with the help of the internet and new technologies that make it easier to access these rituals,” he said.
The Vatican’s chief exorcist claimed last year that the Devil lurked in the Vatican, the very heart of the Catholic Church.
Father Gabriele Amorth said people who are possessed by Satan vomit shards of glass and pieces of iron, scream, dribble and slobber, utter blasphemies and have to be physically restrained.
He claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries, were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See. He said Pope Benedict XVI believed “wholeheartedly” in the practice of exorcism.
A usually staid weekly Papal audience was spiced up this week with an acrobatic performance by a troupe of topless men. The four performers dressed in white suits walked across the stage towards the Papal throne and surprised the Pope by whipping off their shirts before beginning an acrobatic performance on Tuesday. The Pope looked on as the men hoisted each other into the air, one on top of the other, three high.
Meeting the new couple next door can be an anxious business for even the most relaxed home owner. Will they be international drug traffickers? Have they got noisy kids with a penchant for electronic music? As worries go, however, having the US president move in next door must come fairly low on the list.
Unless of course you are a resident of northern Paraguay and believe reports in the South American press that he has bought up a 100,000 acre (40,500 hectare) ranch in your neck of the woods.
The rumours, as yet unconfirmed but which began with the state-run Cuban news agency Prensa Latina, have triggered an outpouring of conspiracy theories, with speculation rife about what President Bush’s supposed interest in the “chaco”, a semi-arid lowland in the Paraguay’s north, might be.
Some have speculated that he might be trying to wrestle control of the Guarani Aquifer, one of the largest underground water reserves, from the Paraguayans.
Rumours of Mr Bush’s supposed forays into South American real estate surfaced during a recent 10-day visit to the country by his daughter Jenna Bush. Little is known about her trip to Paraguay, although officially she travelled with the UN children’s agency Unicef to visit social projects. Photographers from the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color tracked her down to one restaurant in Paraguay’s capital Asunción, where she was seen flanked by 10 security guards, and was also reported to have met Paraguay’s president, Nicanor Duarte, and the US ambassador to Paraguay, James Cason. Reports in sections of the Paraguayan media suggested she was sent on a family “mission” to tie up the land purchase in the “chaco”.
Erasmo Rodríguez Acosta, the governor of the Alto Paraguay region where Mr Bush’s new acquisition supposedly lies, told one Paraguayan news agency there were indications that Mr Bush had bought land in Paso de Patria, near the border with Brazil and Bolivia. He was, however, unable to prove this, he added.
Last week the Paraguayan news group Neike suggested that Ms Bush was in Paraguay to “visit the land acquired by her father – relatively close to the Brazilian Pantanal [wetlands] and the Bolivian gas reserves”.
The US presence in Paraguay has been under scrutiny since May 2005 when the country’s Congress agreed to allow 400 American marines to operate there for 18 months in exchange for financial aid.
At the time many viewed the arrival of troops as a sign that Washington was trying to monitor US business interests in neighbouring Bolivia, after the election of Evo Morales, a leftwing leader who promised to nationalise his country’s natural gas industry.
In movie limitless, goes about a guy , a writer who lacks creativity. What can be worser than lack of creativity for a writer. He meets the brother of his ex girlfriend. A dealer who worked himself up the social ladder. He works for pharmaceutical company. They made a pill which enables 100 % capacity of your brain, instead of common 20 procent.
Hollywood industry makes movies for some reasons. The main and obvious one is money. A second one is mind control/ deception. Everytime a movie is made about a subject, the mass thinks it must be fiction because it is a movie. Well not exactly. Every time a movie is made , they want you to think it is science fiction.
If you want to ‘really’ learn from these so called science fiction movies, begin to pay attention to details, subliminal messages.
In movie Limitless , there is a scene. In that scene there is a bottle at the background named Illuminating / Illumination and a picture of an UFO under it. So you think, so what?! Well if you think this way. It is time for you to google on worlds like Illuminati, music industry, etcetera. Keep on open mind. It helps, and it is a neccisity if you want to learn.
Watch this movie Base 7 Monarch mind control, espesicially at 54 min.
Quote from a former super soldier. “Life extension technology, Illumination, to do with the brain kind of using 100 procent of the brain. Being in a white room, everything was bright. Instant healing. In seconds. ….
Keep in mind that mind controllers use words to ‘trigger’ sleepers, aka mind-controlled victims, super soldiers.
The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
Jan Stromme | Riser | Getty Images
A major document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should be music to the ears of the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.
The 18-page document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.
“The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.
It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.
“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.
“If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.
It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.
Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield “excessive power over the weaker countries.”
Effective Structures
In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said:
“In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance.”
It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilize world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch “over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system.”
The world needed a “minimum shared body of rules to manage the global financial market” and “some form of global monetary management.”
“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks,” it said.
The document, which was being presented at a news conference later on Monday, acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.
“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world.”
It’s confirmed that the shadowy group known as Bilderberg Group will be gathering this year for its annual meeting at the resort city of St. Moritz, in southeastern Switzerland, June 9-12, but they will have a lot of company. St. Moritz is a short distance from Davos, the site of the regular high-priced meeting of thousands of bankers, political leaders and other notables called the World Economic Forum. But unlike at Davos, where the press is always welcome, Bilderberg still tries to maintain absolute secrecy.
Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz, location of the 2011 Bilderberg meeting
The legendary grand-hotel built in the style of a grand mansion is located in midst of nature, with an overwhelming view of the mountains and the lake of the upper engadine, but just two kilometers from the center of St Moritz. The Suvretta House is a multi-faceted microcosm offering unique and individual opportunities for repose and invigoration. Seasonal openings and Closures Approximate opening – Summer end June to beginning September winter mid December to beginning April. Suvretta House is just two kilometers from St. Moritz, nestled in mountains, 1,850 meters above sea level. Facing directly south, with an unrestricted view of the mountain peaks and lakes of the Upper Engadine, the Suvretta House rests suspended in a world of its own, far away from the everyday hustle and bustle.
Bilderberg has met in Switzerland four times over the years but never in the same city. Normally, when their sibling in crime, the Trilateral Commission (TC), meets in North America, Bilderberg does, too. This year, the TC will meet in Washington on April 8 to 10, but the Bilderbergers are avoiding the United States, in what may be an effort to fool the press. Bilderberg has been called the most exclusive and secretive club in the world. To be admitted, you have to own a multinational bank, a multinational corporation or a country. Since its first meeting in 1953, it has been attended by the top powerbrokers, financial minds and world leaders. The Bilderbergers hope that part of their common agenda with the “Trilateralists” will be accomplished by the time they meet: a U.S. invasion of Libya to generate increased Middle East turmoil so America can go to war with Iran, on Israel’s behalf.
Exact location of the Suvretta House Hotel in St Moritz
As has happened for several years, the Bilderbergers will blubber about how “ evil nationalists” are blocking their efforts to achieve world government. They will order oil prices to climb so desperate Americans might be made more willing to surrender sovereignty to a world government. They will promote wars for profit, and will advance the call for a world government to impose peace—as if peace can be imposed. It is ironic that Bilderberg attendees love Switzerland so much because they are poles apart politically from Switzerland, which declared itself a non-interventionist neutral country four centuries ago. It has been involved in none of the world’s bloody wars since.
The Bilderbergers can expect to be loudly greeted by several European news outlets and some of the U.S. independent media. In Europe, a major metropolitan daily newspapers from Paris, London and other cities gave major coverage to Bilderberg. But The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times and their numerous chains will submit to muzzling because their top representatives are actual Bilderberg participants themselves.
Update: lots of discussion was going on about the exact location of the 2011 Bilderberg meeting. UK newspaper The Guardian has been known to always report objectively about the Bilderberg Group and they recently confirmed Bilderberg is gathering this year at the Hotel Suvretta House in St. Moritz.
Far more interesting news reached us which could make the St. Moritz events rather insignificant. Different sources told us there will be a second simultaneous meeting in Geneva. Will they use the conference in St. Moritz as a media shield, to prevent too many unwanted visitors at the real meeting in Geneva? All very interesting developments as we are getting closer to the conference date…
Nate Goldshlag was among several members of Veterans for Peace who disrupted Donald Rumsfeld’s book tour event in Boston this week. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
On Monday 26 September, three members of Veterans For Peace and a member of Code Pinkconfronted Donald Rumsfeld at a Boston stop of his book tour. I attempted to make a citizen’s arrest. Police hustled all four of us out, while a hostile rightwing crowd shouted and jeered. To get in, we had to dress nicely, pay $50 and give Rumsfeld a standing ovation so that we did not stand out from this crowd. The $50 got you a copy of his book, which I could not stomach taking. Once Rumsfeld started talking, at two-minute intervals, one of us got up to confront him.
Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and the rest of this crew are war criminals, according to international law. They lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They lied about Saddam Hussein being linked to 9/11. They lied about mobile weapons labs, yellowcake from Niger, how painless a war would be and countless other things. They instigated a program of torture in Guantánamo, Bagram and who knows how many other black sites. These lies were used as a pretext for initiating a war of aggression against a sovereign nation – an international war crime.
They are also guilty of violating the UN convention against torture (ratified by the US) and are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 5,000 Americans. Iraq has been devastated to the extent that, years later, many of its people still do not have 24-hour access to electricity. Much other infrastructure is destroyed in one of the oldest civilisations on the planet. Millions of Iraqis are refugees in other countries.
War criminals such as these need to be confronted at every opportunity. This is already happening. They cannot travel freely in Europe for fear of being arrested. However, the problem is not restricted to the Bush administration. Barack Obama is also guilty of war crimes, as he has continued and expanded the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. In all these countries, war and/or drone strikes have killed thousands of innocent people while doing nothing good and creating more people who hate American policy.
The real problem is the corporate-controlled government here and the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about in 1961. The multinational corporate elite need to continue this policy of endless war, for profit, for resources like oil, and for global economic control. The military-industrial complex and the national security apparatus set up after 9/11 consume more than $1tn a year, while pensions, social security and Medicare are under attack. Rarely if ever mentioned by the corporate-controlled mass media is the enormous cost to taxpayers of war, the military and the national security state.
I became an activist in college at Harvard in 1968, at a time when there was a huge antiwar movement that, along with GI mutinies, stopped the Vietnam war. After being drafted into the US Army, I co-founded an underground GI newspaper in Germany. Militant mass nonviolent resistance – people demanding and creating real participatory democracy – is rising again against militarism and corporatism, and for human needs not corporate greed. Events in Tahrir Square have sparked the occupation of Wall Street in New York. An occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC, will begin on 6 October. As Bob Dylan wrote many years ago, “the times they are a-changin’.”
In an exclusive April 29, 2011 interview on ExopoliticsTV with Alfred Lambremont Webre, Robert Stanley, investigative reporter for America’s Morning News, states that the purported birth certificate released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery. In the interview, Mr. Stanley’s statement is accompanied by an on-camera demonstration of various forgeries within the nine overlaid digital layers of the birth certificate document as released on the White House website.
Earlier on April 29, 2011, Mr. Stanley reported the breaking news regarding the forensic fraud in Mr. Obama’s newly released birth certificate on America’s Morning News while being interviewed by reporters John McCaslin and Amy Holmes.
During his ExopoliticsTV interview Mr. Stanley indicated that the White House has in fact taken down Mr. Obama’s alleged recently released birth certificate from the White House website overnight (see here), although the White House has left a copy of the alleged birth certificate of Mr. Obama here.
As of this writing, Mr. Stanley stated there had been no overt comment from the White House other than the taking of the birth certificate offline. Neither officials of the Hawaii state birth registrar nor of the Honolulu hospital where Mr. Obama allegedly was born have, as yet, commented.
Mr. Stanley stated that the headquarters of Donald Trump had put him in touch directly with Mr. Trump, and that he had forwarded the evidence of forensic forgery in Mr. Obama’s birth certificate directly to Mr. Trump.
Donald Trump, a possible contender for the 2012 Republican nomination for U.S. President, stated on April 27, 2011 that he considers himself instrumental in forcing Mr. Obama to release the alleged birth certificate, and now apparent forensic fraud.
View Interview with Robert Stanley on forensic fraud on Obama birth certificate
Readers can view the interview of Robert Stanley by Alfred Lambremont Webre on forensic fraud and the Obama birth certificate in the video embedded in the article above or at the following URL:
During his 25 minute ExopoliticsTV interview, Mr. Stanley graphically demonstrates using copies of various of the nine overlaid digital layers within the forensically fraudulent birth certificate of Mr. Obama that the birth certificate was assembled as a forged document, using components of many other documents.
Robert Stanley’s conclusions congruent with other independent research on forensic fraud in Obama birth certificate
Robert M. Stanley’s conclusions are also congruent with other independent analyses of Mr. Obama’s alleged birth certificate released April 27, 2011, including the following:
Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Digitally Layered Photoshop Fake
Other anomalies in the forensically forged Obama birth certificate
Researchers have identified a number of anomalies on the alleged birth certificate of Mr. Obama, apart from the evidence of forensic forgery provided by analysis of its nine layers.
One researcher states, “Look at the hospital name on this document [Mr. Obama’s alleged birth certificate]. The hospital had a different name in 1961, it was not named Kapiolani Maternity and Gynocological Hospital, it was called Kaokiolani Children’s Hospital. It did not get the Kapiolani name until the mid-1970s when they merged. Kenya was not called “Kenya” in 1961 it was called “The British East Africa Protectorate” at the time Obama was born and this document was supposedly printed. Then in 1963 it became “The Dominion of Kenya.” Then later on became the “Republic of Kenya.”
Another researcher states, “I’m not going to say that the information on the document is bogus, but I can definitely, without hesitation, say that the document was originally a two-layer piece. The top layer is the ‘black’ part that came from a scanner as a grayscale scan. It was converted to black and white and the white part was made transparent.
“That was dropped onto a generic green watermark background, which is what makes it look official. But that was NOT on the original document as scanned. This is very evident by the white haloing around everything black. It is also extremely evident that a layer was dropped onto the green background because the green marks are very crisp in the areas around the edges of the image, but are very blurred where the black image block covers it.
“Now keep in mind that before the green background was added, the original scan could have easily been altered, dates or names changed. I’m not saying it was. I’m just saying it’s a 100% fact that it could have been. So, this document as we see it is still not proof of anything. I could easily recreate this document with someone else’s original Hawaii birth certificate and a generic watermark background.”
Another researcher writes, “Jerome Corsi writes that the issue represents the ‘Rosetta Stone’ of deciphering both Obama’s previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.”
“It centers around the fact that two twins born in the same Kapi’olani hospital listed on the Obama document the day after Obama was purportedly born actually have birth certificate numbers lower than Obama. The number should be lower on the Obama certificate if he was born before the twins.
“As Corsi explains, ‘Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.
“Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.”
“Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.”
“Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.”
Why was a forged Obama Hawaii birth certificate necessary?
Between Dec. 24, 1953 and Nov. 13, 1986, an individual born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent married to an alien could be a “natural born citizen” only if the U.S. citizen parent had lived in the U.S. continuously for 10 years, five of which were after their 14th birthday.
Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born on November 29, 1942. Obama was allegedly born on August 4, 1961. Thus, by prevailing U.S. law, Barack Obama could not have been a “natural born U.S. citizen.” If he was born in Kenya, Mr. Obama’s mother was only 18 and could not have lived in the U.S. five years after her 14th birthday at the time of his birth.
Thus, it became a political necessity for Barack Obama to have a U.S. birth certificate. A forged birth certificate may have been produced in this case on April 27, 2011 because a genuine one does not exist despite the fact that the President was born in Hawaii or does not exist because he was born overseas.
For Barack Obama to have become a U.S. citizen under prevailing U.S. law at the time of his birth in 1961, his mother would have had to petition a U.S. immigration court for a naturalized U.S. citizenship status, which would have been readily granted to him because he was born of an American mother.
However, by the tragic timing of his birth taking place a few months short of his mother’s having lived in the U.S. for five years continuously after her 14th birthday, Barack Obama never achieved “natural born citizen” status and was as a matter of law constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency.
It is an established fact that Mr. Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian national Lolo Soetoro, who adopted Mr. Obama and moved his family to Indonesia in 1967. Indonesia requires that its citizens renounce all other citizenships.
There is no record, however, that after she sent Mr. Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971 or divorced Mr. Soetero Mr. Obama’s mother ever petitioned for U.S. naturalization of Mr. Obama. Thus, it is most plausible that Mr. Obama was an Indonesian citizen when he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii in 1971; when he matriculated to Occidental College in Hawaii in 1979; when he ran for the U.S. Senate in January 2003; and when he declared for U.S. President on February 10, 2007.
Thus, as a matter of law, even a valid birth certificate showing that Mr. Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii would not suffice to grant Barack Obama the “natural born” status he requires to be U.S. President, absent a special statue of the U.S. Congress as was granted his 2008 Presidential rival John McCain.
Ironically, in 1986, this U.S. immigration and naturalization law was changed to grant John McCain “natural born” status despite his having been born in the U.S. Panama Canal Zone. The law change permits an individual born overseas to a U.S. parent married to an alien to acquire “natural born” status when born overseas in specific U.S. related facilities and territories.
Why such a clumsy forensic forgery in a Presidential birth certificate?
During his interview, Mr. Stanley was asked to speculate on the reason for such a clumsy forensic forgery in a Presidential birth certificate, as many independent researchers are speculating on this question. A recent poll indicates that more than 60% of U.S. adults believe that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., thus potentially disqualifying him to be U.S. President.
Mr. Stanley responded that there are many possible scenarios for a clumsy forensic forgery. One scenario was that Mr. Obama was “set up” intentionally by other parties to release a fraudulent birth certificate to embarrass him politically. Another scenario was that the parties that colluded in producing the fraudulent birth certificate were careless and produced a second-rate forgery that could be broken by anyone with a working knowledge of Adobe Illustrator.
Some observers have commented that a possible purpose of Mr. Obama’s controllers releasing a glaringly fraudulent birth certificate is to intentionally foment political, social and even racial controversy and strife, as a further covert attack upon the U.S. body politic.
Is Barack Obama the next Richard Nixon?
In his ExopoliticsTV interview, Robert Stanley calls for a Congressional investigation of the apparent forensically fraudulent birth certificate of Mr. Obama. The White House, and federal agencies such as the FBI and Justice Department, have proved incapable of independently investigating this possible impeachable offence. The production of a fraudulent birth certificate for the purpose of qualifying for U.S. Presidential office would be a “high crime or misdemeanor” under the impeachment clause of the U.S. constitution.
Mr. Nixon resigned the U.S. Presidency on August 9, 1974 in the face of likely impeachment resulting from the Watergate break-in on June 17, 1972, as a result on an alert security guard who discovered a taped door left unlocked by the Watergate burglars that Nixon himself had sent to steal political intelligence from the Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.
By analogy, the carelessness of the forged birth certificate of Mr. Obama could be compared to the carelessness of the Watergate burglars who, by leaving the office door to the Democratic headquarters taped, tipped off a security guard that a Presidential-directed illegal search was afoot, which eventually brought the Nixon presidency down.
Is Barack Obama’s birth certificate a distraction from his quantum access time travel pre-identification secret?
Robert Stanley and mainstream media journalists such as CNN commentator Amy Holmes agree that the potential significance of the forensic fraud of Mr. Obama’s, if validated, could go beyond the political repercussions of even Watergate.
There appears to be another hidden factor beyond the location of Mr. Obama’s birth that is at play here – quantum access time travel pre-identification of recent U.S. Presidents, including Barack Obama. The CIA has been pre-identifying future U.S. Presidents such as Barack Obama for 40 years and has, by the evidence, co-opted each of them into CIA.
This secret quantum access program controls the U.S. presidency and makes the United States a functional CIA dictatorship.
As this reporter has written, the eyewitness evidence of whistleblower Andrew D. Basiago, the attorney in Washington State who was a participant in the secret DARPA-administered Project Pegasus that developed Tesla technology-based “quantum access” to past and future events, indicates that it is likely that by 1982 Mr. Obama had been personally informed by CIA that he was destined to be the U.S. President inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
Barack Obama was pre-identified in time as U.S. president by secret DARPA time travel program
The notion that President Obama has had a lifelong affiliation with the CIA is supported by the revelations of crusading lawyer Andrew D. Basiago about a heretofore unknown “quantum access” capability within the US intelligence community provided by time travel technology.
Mr. Basiago has been identified as a “planetary-level whistleblower” by the Web Bot for his account of a secret time-space program, Project Pegasus, launched by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
According to Mr. Basiago, by 1970, Project Pegasus was teleporting individuals between locations in time-space via “teleporters” based on the later works of Nikola Tesla and also propagating images of past and future events via “chronovisors” first developed by the Vatican scientists Pellegrino Ernetti and Pier Maria Gemelli.
These have been used to provide the U.S. president, intelligence community and military with better information about past and future events by which to engage in better contingency planning for future events.
In numerous TV and radio interviews, Mr. Basiago has described how, among other intelligence findings, Project Pegasus was identifying future American presidents and then approaching them and apprising them of their destinies as President.
He has described how as a child serving in Project Pegasus in the early 1970’s, he was present at lunches held at La Hacienda restaurant in Old Town Albuquerque, NM that were attended by project principals and future American presidents, including George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, shortly after they were informed that Project Pegasus had found via quantum access that they would one day serve as President.
In appearances on talk radio’s Coast to Coast AM with George Noory in 2009 and 2010, Mr. Basiago described at length a 1982 meeting with Barack Obama in Los Angeles in which Mr. Obama also revealed his awareness that he had been briefed on the fact that the US government had detected that he was destined to reach the White House.
We can infer from this meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Basiago in 1982 that at age 20 Mr. Obama had already entered into at least a consultative relationship with the CIA, because at the time, the US government was the only country with a time travel capability and the CIA was known to be collecting the intelligence data about past and future events that Project Pegasus was gathering via its time travel technologies.
Cui Bono? Who will be U.S. President on January 20, 2013?
The operant question as of this writing is whether Mr. Obama’s quantum access time travel controllers have determined that Mr. Obama will be the individual sworn in as U.S. President on January 20, 2013.
If CIA time travel has pre-identified Mr. Obama as U.S. President on January 20, 2013, then the “secret team” behind Mr. Obama may be taking a calculated risk with the newly released Obama birth certificate that there are enough Obama supporters in the main stream media through Operation Mockingbird and otherwise, and in the population, that the issue “will go away” or can be argued away on the basis of the technicalities of U.S. immigration and naturalization law.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Obama’s CIA quantum access controllers are aware through time travel pre-identification that some other individual is to be sworn in as U.S. President on January 20, 2013, then a crude and obvious forgery may be a perfect way to commence an internal “coup d’état” with outcome as yet unknown.
Vice President Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, is most certainly a “natural born” citizen and a party loyalist.
Throughout this entire process, whatever the outcome (whether Mr. Obama stays or leaves as U.S. President), the principal objectives of the CIA time travel controllers and their loyal sycophants in the mainstream media will be to maintain the secrecy of the CIA’s quantum access capability, and with it their secret control over the U.S. Presidency.
Further References
Covert Encounters in Washington, DC by Robert M. Stanley
The following introductory paragraph was not included in the copy I received from my source… I include it here now at the request of Dimitri Khalezov who has also informed me that it was part of the original interview conducted by Daniel Estulin.
[Dimitri Khalezov is a former Soviet commissioned officer of the “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the Soviet Union. He has agreed to this exclusive interview and it is our pleasure to be able to offer readers of www.danielestulin.com another quality first. Dimitri is a crucial piece of the puzzle in the case of Victor Bout. It is safe to say that had it not been for Dimitri´s dedication to helping Mr. Bout, his incorruptibility and brilliance, Victor, might very well have found himself today behind bars in some high-profile American prison. Dimitri is the first man to see Mr. Bout after his world famous arrest in Bangkok and he is the man who has given more headaches to the United States government than anyone else in the world. Furthermore, Dimitri Khalezov is the first person in the world to have uncovered the true reasons for the United States government’s dogged pursuit of Victor Bout. Mr. Bout´s arrest is directly linked to 9/11, and Mr. Khalezov, because of his unique vantage point as a former member of the Soviet “atomic” and later “nuclear” intelligence says that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long back as early 1980´s, while serving in the Soviet Special Control Service.]
victorbout
photo of Victor Bout courtesy of Dimitri Khalezov
(Bout is in the middle)
How did you get involved in the case?
Both Victor Bout and I are Russian. We are both former Soviet military officers. Moreover, we actually come from the same village. I think, these are good enough reason to try and help him with his case, considering that Victor was arrested in Bangkok and I happened to have been living in Bangkok at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, I have extensive experience with the Thai legal system, especially when you consider that the United States government has tried to have me arrested and extradited to America too in connection with 9/11. It happened back in 2003. So, I have enough motivation to try to help Victor.
In March 2008, Victor Bout was Osama bin Laden´s equal as far as notoriety on the world´s stage. How did you manage to see Victor Bout on the very first day of his detention in Bangkok?
Under the Thai Criminal Procedure any person under arrest has his or her undeniable right to be visited by friends while under arrest. Victor Bout, despite being the so-called “Merchant of Death” and the so-called “Lord of War”, was not excluded from the provisions of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code. I simply came to the police station where he was detained and requested to visit my friend. They had to let me see him as much as it might have pained them. In fact, the police went out of their way to help. They seated both of us on a sofa in the corridor and let us chat nicely. Usually they only allow visitors to talk to detained persons through bars of a detention cage, but for Victor and me they made an exception to this rule.
Is there a link between your case, 9-11 and Victor Bout?
Apparently yes. I was wanted by the United States allegedly in connection with 9/11, and with the 2002 Bali bombing (which was a mini-nuke bombing), while Victor Bout is apparently wanted by the Americans in connection with 9/11 and in connection with the 2003 El-Nogal bombing. Incidentally, El-Nogal is known to have been a mini-nuke bombing – at least known to appropriate security officials. As you can see there are a lot of similarities.
Who are the main players: US and Bout’s camp?
It might appear that a certain alleged ‘Bout camp’ exists, it is a totally false impression. The so-called ‘Bout camp’ consists of Victor Bout, his wife, his brother, his mother, his daughter, me (Dimitri Khalezov), a couple of Victor’s personal friends from the Soviet Union, his Thai lawyer – Mr. Lak Nittiwatvicharn, his Russian lawyer, of course, Daniel Estulin, and, perhaps, a few journalists who came to know Victor and his family during their investigation of the case. If you can call this rag-tag army “Bout´s camp”, then yes, there are two main players – “Bout’s camp” and the US camp. Aside from the US government, however, there are quite a few other powerful players who have positioned themselves against Victor.
Who are these powerful players and why have we not heard anything about them?
First of all, the Russian Government (at least certain powerful individuals within the Russian Government), and the Russian secret service.
What? Are you serious? You have just accused the Russian government of working against Victor Bout when the entire world is convinced that had it not been for Putin and Medvedev, Victor Bout, most likely would have been extradited to the United States a long time ago!
You will not be able to hear anything about them, because they are not so stupid as to show off. They would rather show you something entirely opposite – that they are allegedly “helping” Victor Bout. But make no mistake – from the very beginning of this unprecedented set-up, the Russian side was heavily involved with the Americans in the entire operation in framing Victor and in luring him to Bangkok. It was conceived and conducted by both – the Russian and the American secret services working together. In addition to the Russians, other players were involved as well. Primarily, the Israeli secret services – the Mossad and Sayaret Matkal. They have keen interest in this case, too. It was demonstrated by the unprecedented Sayaret Matkal’s involvement in the case of one of the FARC leaders – Raul Reyes and “his” weapon-grade Uranium that was planted by “someone” around his camp in the Ecuadorian jungle. Don’t miss this point – Raul Reyes was murdered on March 1, 2008, while Victor Bout was scheduled to be lured to Bangkok on March 4, 2008, in direct connection with the FARC and Uranium affairs, while all legal paperwork that requested the Thais to arrest him has been submitted to the Thai side by the Americans in the last day of February – that is BEFORE the murder of Raul Reyes.
And, please, note that it was the Israeli Sayaret Matkal (a highly tailored organization that deals exclusively with nuclear weapons of enemies and with nothing else but that) involved in the actual murder of Reyes and in the “discovery” of “his” Uranium. Don’t miss to notice also that Victor Bout arrived in Bangkok not alone, but in a strange company of his alleged “friend” – a certain colonel from the Russian FSB, who was initially arrested with Victor and then strangely released and sent back to Moscow on the first available flight. To understand how improbable it is, try to imagine the following situation. Let´s say that a certain secret service (the French, for example) arranged to lure Osama bin Laden to Paris, promising the Saudi terrorist that he will meet in Paris with his Muslim brothers and in the meeting they will discuss how to demolish the Eiffel Tower with a stolen Soviet mini-nuke. But Osama bin Laden arrives to the meeting in Paris not alone, but accompanied by a certain colonel from the Taliban counter-intelligence service who decided to travel together with Osama just for the occasion – to have a chance to see the Louvre, and the Eiffel Tower (before it is nuked).
The French secret service arrests both – Osama bin Laden and the colonel from the Taliban. Except that the French realize that the one they want is Osama bin Laden, and not the colonel from the Taliban’s counter-intelligence who indeed came to Paris to see its attractions and who simply kept his friend Osama bin Laden company on the flight to France´s capital. So, the French police decide to release the colonel and send him back to Kabul on the next available flight, detaining only Osama bin Laden, because ONLY he was the target of their sting-operation. Does this version sound believable to you? Just as “believable” sounds the explanation why the Thai police and the U.S. DEA so quickly released Victor Bout’s casual companion – the FSB colonel – who strangely arrived with the infamous “Merchant of Death” and “Lord of War” on the same plane and in the same taxi and checked into the same hotel, but in reality did not want to help the latter to sell “portable anti-aircraft missiles” to the blood-thirsty narco-dealers from FARC – he only wanted to see Bangkok and to have a chance to try the famous Thai massage.
Of course, this FSB colonel arrived to Bangkok by “mistake”, so this “mistake” was promptly corrected by the honorable and honest Thai police who quickly realized that the friend of the “Merchant of Death” was innocent and sent him back home immediately. Do you believe this nonsense? I don´t. At least four countries were heavily involved in Victor Bout´s frame up: Russia, United States, Israel and Thailand. There is plausible evidence that other nations were involved in this disgusting frame-up, but involved to a lesser extent than the abovementioned four. It appears that the Danes, the Dutch and the Romanians were involved too; at least, it appears so from the legal paperwork available in Victor’s case-file at the Thai Criminal Court.
The entire world has the impression that the Russian government and Russian Embassy in Thailand have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help Mr. Bout? In fact, the United States government has bitterly complained publicly about the apparent behind-the-scenes pressure Putin and Company are allegedly applying on the Thais to release Mr. Bout.
Unfortunately, this is one of the biggest mistakes to think that the Russian Government is allegedly involved in Victor Bout’s extradition case in the Thai court on the side of Victor. Indeed, the “official line” in many hysterical publications in the Western and even in the Russian press imply that the Russian officialdom is allegedly “trying hard to help Victor” as Victor could, allegedly, implicate “certain Russian politicians” in some alleged “wrongdoings”.
This impression is somehow supported by the fact that Russian Embassy officials regularly attended Thai court during Victor’s extradition case hearings, and also as a result of a number of statements coming from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But this leaves one with a false impression. Russian Embassy officials visiting Victor Bout and attending court hearings are nothing but a regular consular assistance to a Russian citizen; be it to a citizen named Victor Bout or an unknown Sergei Ivanov.
That said, I can assure you that even though the Russian Consul attended every court hearing, the Thai judges were not “pressured” by the Russian delegation. It is normal for consuls to attend hearings of foreign defendants and the judges are used to it. So by no means the fact that the Russian Consul has diligently performed his duties could be considered as a kind of an “extrajudicial assistance” to the Defendant Victor Bout in the courtroom.
When it comes to the apparent statements of unflagging support made by the Russian Foreign Ministry they should not mislead you either into believing that the Russian officials are allegedly “helping Victor Bout”. They were not and are not helping him at all, but are rather doing their best to harm his position in the Thai court. It sounds strange to a lay Westerner, but you have to understand some peculiarities when it comes to the Russians. First of all, besides Putin, Medvedev and Co., there are other political powers in Russia – so-called “patriots” led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for example, or “communists”, just to mention a few. Some of the “old Russians” sincerely believe that the United States government must not be allowed to arrest a Russian citizen abroad, especially in a third country. Because if allowed to do so with impunity, it will set a dangerous precedent. Today they dare to frame and arrest an alleged “Merchant of Death” who knows no government secrets. But tomorrow, they might arrest a real colonel from the Russian Strategic Missile Forces who decided to spend his holidays in Thailand. The United States government can accuse this colonel of “planning to annihilate the United States as an entity with a massive thermo-nuclear strike” and to demand his extradition to America. What´s more, such a hypothetical accusation would in fact be correct – because such a colonel could indeed plan to annihilate the US due to his service duties.
Please understand, a great majority of Russian citizens as well as Russian Armed Forces, are extremely unhappy that the United States can arrogantly claim their alleged jurisdiction over territories that are not part of the United States and they are especially annoyed when such bullying directly affects Russian citizens. Medvedev, Putin and Company are aware of this and they have to take it into account when making their public statements.
Hence the public pledges of support from the Russian Foreign Ministry which sound like they really care about Victor Bout and his case in Thailand. But nobody should be fooled by these tearful pledges of support. They are nothing but a publicity stunt. In reality, they are no more harmful to the Americans and their cause than barking of stray dogs around the Criminal Court in Bangkok. All these actions of the Russian Foreign Ministry are merely intended to appease Russian population by creating an impression that the Russian Government allegedly “works for Russia” and still “constitutes a challenge to the US hegemony in the world”. However, neither of these is true in reality. Moreover, if the Russian Government did nothing at all to help Victor Bout fight his extradition case in the Thai courts, he would have had a much better chance at winning his case.
Does the United States want Victor Bout for being an arms merchant as he is portrayed by the UN and US journalist Douglas Farah or is there more to his case?
In reality, Victor Bout is not wanted for being an alleged “arms merchant” as he is portrayed and as he is perceived by the people who put more stock into a newspaper article than they do into facts. If Victor was really wanted for what you suggested, then the Americans would not wait until March 2008 to arrest him – they would have initiated criminal proceedings against Victor Bout back in the ‘90s, or, at the latest, at the very beginning of the new millennium. The problem is, Victor is NOT wanted for being the “arms merchant”, at least in the sense he is portrayed in the infamous movie or described in the irresponsible UN report by a former United Nations weapons inspector, Johan Peleman. Victor is wanted for something totally different, but, perhaps, we will discuss that further in more detail.
How strong of a case does the United States government have?
From the judicial point of view, US government’s case is very weak and Victor could easily have won it. Can you imagine that the accusers (US government) failed to bring to the Thai court even a single “portable anti-aircraft missile” that Victor was alleged to have been illegally selling to “the highest bidder”? But the main problem was that the Russian Government and the Russian secret service did their best to harm Victor’s position in the Thai court, to force him to defend himself in the wrong way from the judicial point of view, to make false promises that would dull his vigilance, and, moreover, to deprive Victor of funds, so that he would have simply no money to conduct his defense in the Thai court in an effective manner. If the Russian Government were indeed concerned about Victor’s defense as believed by most people, then it would have at the very least subsidize his legal expenses. It would be normal to expect for the Russian Government to at least provide the best legal experts from the Russian side free of charge and contribute a couple of millions US dollars to cover the legal expenses on the Thai side. At least, it is logical to expect it. What is the two million US dollars for the government of a country with over 150 millions populations that sells gas and oil and brandishes nuclear weapons capable of destroying the Earth a hundred times over? Such petty cash is a small price to pay for Mother Russia to defend its famous citizen in such a notorious case, isn’t it?
But in reality not only the Russian Government did not pay anything either openly or covertly (in disguise through a “private donation”) to Victor Bout and his family; the Russian secret service did their best to force Victor’s brother and Victor’s wife into absolutely unnecessary expenses that drove them into total bankruptcy. Instead of helping them financially, the Russian Government indeed sucked out their last savings. If you also add that it was the Russian officials who advised Victor to conduct his defense in the Thai court in the most wrongful manner and if you add that one of Victor’s lawyer – a proven shill for the American DEA – was also recommended by the Russian officials, you will understand the travesty and injustice and treason involved. Let me say it again, the Russian Government, from the very beginning was secretly, but very efficiently working with the Americans to get Victor Bout to the United States to stand trial, and at the same time, to create an impression that Russia is still “great” and could still “defend its citizens”.
Let´s go over the basic facts of the case. First of all, the Russian secret service managed to convince Victor and his wife Alla, not to conduct the defense in the Thai court by proving the fact that there were no actual portable anti-aircraft missiles available to be sold to the FARC. Solely based on this evidence alone, the case should have been dismissed. The Russian officials proposed, instead, to conduct the defense by proving to the Thai court that the case was allegedly “political”, because the FARC is a political organization, the Communist party. This was a suicidal method of defense if looking at the case through the eyes of a professional lawyer. By proving that the case was “political” Victor automatically proved that he agreed with the existence of the actual “case”, that is missiles and such. This case could have been easily won by proving that there were “no case at all” and as such a non-existent “case” can not be “political” because there was nothing to be “political”.
Instead, Victor and his wife agreed with the proposal of the Russian officials and limited the defense in the Thai court by claiming that the case of dealing with the FARC was “political” without challenging the actual “case” whatsoever. The most important point of the entire case – that there was not even a single alleged “portable anti-aircraft missile” captured – was not voiced in the court-room. And no questions have been asked by Victor’s lawyer from the witnesses of the prosecution as to WHY the arresters failed to go after the alleged “missiles” in order to seize them and to deprive the so-called “Merchant of Death” of his deadly arsenal. Therefore, from the way Victor´s lawyer conducted the actual defense, it appeared to the judges that Victor was indeed selling the missiles, but the matter to consider was only if the FARC was a terrorist organization (as claimed by the Americans) or a political one (as claimed by Victor). As you may expect, the court eventually disagreed with such an interpretation and ruled that the case was NOT political, while Victor and his then lawyer (who was a shill for the Americans) did absolutely nothing to prove to the court that there were no case, no missiles, and no FARC – instead of proving that so-called “FARC” was represented by the US citizens while the “missiles” was merely a product of their sick imagination and existed only in their bogus paperwork, Victor and his then lawyer managed to prove by default that the actual accusations of the Americans had some grounds.
Secondly, the Russian secret service promised Victor and his wife that if Victor conducted his defense in the Thai court in the abovementioned manner (by proving that the case was “political” without challenging the actual claims and the total absence of any evidence of the Americans) then the Russian Government would guarantee that Victor would win the case. As you may expect this promise and this “guarantee” was just a cheap ploy invented by the Russian secret service in order to blunt his vigilance and to ensure that Victor would lose his case in the Thai court despite total absence of the alleged missiles and despite an absolute presence of abundant evidence that the entire “case” was merely a frame-up by the American DEA.
Furthermore, Victor’s wife, at my insistence made a very efficient complaint against her husband’s illegal detention (because the actual detention of Victor was indeed illegal due to technicalities and during the entire extradition hearings in the Thai court Victor must have been freed, and not behind bars). Submission of such a complaint by Victor’s wife caught all Victor’s enemies – the Thais, the Russians and the Americans – virtually with their pants down. The problem was that the detention of Victor was indeed technically illegal and he must have been released immediately – the technicalities of the illegality of the detention were obvious, if not to say self-evident, and were presented in the written complaint by Alla Bout in such a clear manner that they could not have been challenged even by the best lawyers in the world. The only way left to the judges was to consider the case and to rule to release Victor Bout from unlawful custody and to continue the extradition hearings with him released from prison. Apparently, it was not an option for the Russians, Americans and Thais who worked too hard to get Victor arrested, thrown behind bars, and deprived of any income. But what could they do in this situation? Unfortunately, they found a way out: the “trusted guys” from the Russian secret service approached Victor’s wife and convinced her to voluntarily withdraw her complaint against her husband´s illegal detention (claiming that it puts the Thai court in a difficult position and the court does not like this at all – which was indeed true) in exchange for the deal: once the complaint is withdrawn, the “grateful” Thai court would immediately rule to release Victor on bail – as a kind of a “settlement” that allows everyone “to save face”.
Victor and his wife again put their faith in the Russian government and agreed to withdraw the complaint. Except that the “grateful” Thai court never released Victor on bail as promised. This is just another example of how the Russian officials actually “helped” Victor Bout. The list of their “help” is very long, but I don’t want to make it too long and too boring. I would mention that on the recommendation of the Russian secret service, Victor’s brother has paid U.S. $120,000 for Victor’s bail, but the money was stolen, the bail has never been granted and the money was never returned. Again, on the recommendation of the Russian secret service, Victor’s brother paid $250,000 dollars allegedly for an “out of court settlement” whereas Victor would be released before conclusion of the case. According to the promise of the Russian officials, if the 250 thousand USD were paid, Victor Bout will be freed by May 1, 2008. The money was paid as demanded, but nothing happened in the Thai court – the case just continued and nobody bothered to return the money or take responsibility for the false promise.
As a result of this despicable behavior on the part of the Russian officials, “Victor Bout’s camp” as you call it, ran out of money to such an extent that when it became necessary to translate several important court documents from Thai to English in order to understand what the Thai witnesses said in court, Victor could not afford to pay the 2,000 USD for the translation and till today, some of the important papers from the case-file remain only in Thai language. I hope this is more than enough to establish how the Russian Government is actually “helping” Victor Bout to lose his extradition case in the Thai court.
Then, why is the Russian government working against Victor Bout?
Because of the Russian, to be more exact the Soviet-made missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
What? I think you better explain that and, please go slowly.
The Americans, understandably, demand from the Russians to find a fall guy or a patsy (or a group of fall guys) who is/are responsible for the missile that was found in the middle of the Pentagon. Considering that the missile was actually nuclear-tipped (with a half-megaton thermo-nuclear warhead that is more than 25 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb) you can imagine that the Americans are quite insistent with their demands to the Russians to find, at last, the culprit and to surrender him to the US Justice.
It is indeed serious. But when it comes to the Russians, they can not admit the truth – that the “Granit” missile with its thermo-nuclear warhead was stolen from the sunken “Kursk” submarine, because Putin back in 2000 solemnly declared to the world that there were no nuclear weapons on board of the sunken submarine.
What is a “Granit”?
The P-700 “Granit” missile (also known by its NATO classification as “Shipwreck” or “SS-N-19” – where “N” apparently stands for “Navy”) is the most advanced Soviet-era Navy missile. It is intended to be fired from submarines in submerged position and is primarily intended to destroy the US aircraft-carrier battle-groups. This is a highly sophisticated and highly “intelligent” missile. The “Granit” missiles could be used to strike battle-groups and other ship orders while fired in swarms of 12 missiles in one salvo, but could be as well used in single shots – fired against single naval targets, as well as against stationary ground targets (as was demonstrated in the case of the Pentagon strike on 9/11). Each “Granit” missile weighs about 7 tons, has length of about 10 meters, could fly up to 625 km at the supersonic speed at 2.5 Mach. Each missile is typically equipped with a standard “Navy-type” 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warhead; conventional warheads for this missile even though exist in theory, are never used in reality – so that all without any exception “Granit” missiles in service are nuclear-tipped.
This missile deems to be totally indestructible, because NATO lacks any means to shot down this missile even if they detect it in advance. In fact, it was demonstrated in the case of the Pentagon attack on 9/11 – NORAD managed to detect the upcoming “Granit” missile at least 6 minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD’s operational officers managed to ring the atomic alert, scramble the so-called “Doomsday plane” in response, but were not able to prevent the actual strike – the missile managed to successfully approach Washington DC and hit the wall of the Pentagon despite being detected by NORAD 6 minutes in advance. Make you own conclusions – as to the danger of this weapon. I would also like to note, that according to the Soviet and Russian strategic plans, the submarines armed with the “Granite” missiles could be used as a “back-up” option for the retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States (while the primary role in such a strike belongs to strategic intercontinental- and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, of course).
For the reason of possible usage in the retaliatory strike the “Granit” missiles are also designed to produce airbursts above the US cities – so they are equipped with special non-contact detonators for such reason, in addition to the usual contact detonators. I should mention also that the “Granit” missile has a very advanced inertial guidance system that also has a list of pre-loaded most important NATO targets. While flying above the ocean the “Granit” missile will scan and reconnoiter the operational theater and try to distinguish ship orders and especially aircraft-carrier battle-groups and to select the most important targets in the ship orders and to strike them in automated manner. If flying above the territory the missile will reconnoiter it too and will try to detect the most important stationary targets by comparing their coordinates with those pre-loaded in its warhead. Once encounter such targets the missile’s on-board computer will immediately select the most important target by the order of priority and the missile will strike it. So, once the missile was fired towards Washington D.C. it compared the two most important targets – the White House and the Pentagon and “preferred” to strike the latter one as being in its “opinion” the more important target. Perhaps I should mention that this is the most heavily armored missile in the world – it is made from very thick steel and in fact it could be compared with a flying tank or with a giant bullet. Due to its tremendous speed, weight and strength of its body this missile managed to penetrate six capital walls of the Pentagon building when it struck it on 9/11.
Ok, please continue.
You have to understand that now Putin can not afford to take his noble presidential words back and to admit that he was outright lying to the world community and that all nuclear missiles from the “Kursk” were indeed stolen. Some other solution is badly needed to meet the US demands for the “culprit” behind the Pentagon attack. And this “solution” was eventually found. The problem is that all “Granit” missiles, despite being made in the Soviet days, could only belong to Russia and to no other former Soviet republic.
Can you prove this?
Absolutely. The ‘Granit” is the Navy missile; it is not used by anyone except the Navy. In the Soviet Union there were four Navy fleets – the Arctic Fleet, the Pacific Fleet, the Baltic Fleet, and the Black See Fleet. Out of the four Russia inherited in its entirety the three fleets – the Arctic, the Baltic, and the Pacific ones. Only the Black See Fleet has been divided between Russia and Ukraine. However, the “Granit” missiles were in service only on the Pacific Fleet and on the Arctic Fleet; so such missiles could not have ended up in the hands of Ukrainians, even theoretically. All the “Granits” must have been inherited by Russia alone. However, to shift blame away from Russia for the Pentagon strike, the Russian officials had no chance than to blame that some “Granit” missiles were allegedly a part of the Black See Fleet and for sometime they were allegedly in the temporary possession of the Ukrainians during the turmoil caused by the Soviet Union collapse and by the consecutive dividing of its property (nuclear weapons and the Black See Fleet inclusive). For this reason the Russian secret service concocted a bogus back-dated paper-work which “revealed” that one of the heavy cruisers of the Black See Fleet was allegedly scheduled to be re-armed with the “Granit” missiles and for that reason in the last years of the Soviet rule several “Granit” missiles were allegedly transferred to the Black See Fleet and were kept there and eventually they allegedly ended up with the Ukrainians after the break up of the Soviet Union. And, from these Ukrainians these “Granit” missiles were allegedly “stolen” and thus ended up with the terrorists (who eventually fired one of such missiles into the Pentagon on 9/11). This version is ridiculous because even if you imagine that several “Granit” missiles were indeed kept in Ukraine, intended for the re-armament of that heavy-cruiser, as claimed, these missiles would never be kept in storage with their nuclear warheads attached. In accordance with the rules, in the Soviet Union, missiles were kept in one place, while the nuclear warheads were kept in another location, moreover, under control of a different department of the military. Only lay people who know nothing about the Soviet Armed Forces and their rules could believe such a version that it was allegedly possible for the “reckless Ukrainians” to lose the missiles and the nuclear warheads at the same time. The missiles with the attached nuclear warheads could only be stolen from one place – from a submarine in service. However, it seems that some responsible security officials believe (or “pretend to believe”) this ridiculous version with the “Ukrainian trail” which seems to successfully exonerate the Russians.
In this case the Russians are not guilty at all. Some “bad guys” who stole the missiles from Ukraine (and not from Russia) are allegedly guilty. Now they need the actual “bad guys”. Who, do you think, fits the bill? You guessed it, the infamous “Merchant of Death” and the “Lord of War”, thanks to the fact that his personality has been demonized long ago and everyone would easily believe that it was indeed Victor Bout who sells not only weapons, but NUCLEAR and even THERMONUCLEAR weapons to the highest bidder. That is exactly why the Russians and the Americans got into this seemingly strange agreement – to frame Victor Bout. It is not so strange in reality, if you try to analyze the actual circumstances – because both parties badly need to close the Pentagon case and they simply can not find any one better than Victor Bout for the role of the scapegoat who could sell such a missile to the terrorists. There is simply no one else in the world who could fit this role.
Let´s move to Bout´s alleged partner in the FARC deal, Andrew Smulian, who was arrested along with Victor. What happened to him?
The so-called “co-conspirator Smulian” was Bout´s former friend and a former business-partner. But in this particular case, Smulian was a “co-conspirator” of the DEA agent-provocateurs who framed Victor, rather than a Victor Bout “co-conspirator”. Unlikely you can be a “co-conspirator” to the one who is innocent. This is a clarification of terminology usage, if you don’t mind me being pedantic with such a correction. Andrew Smulian was the one who visited Victor in Moscow several times and presented him with business offers – particularly, he promised to find good customers for the last plane in Victor´s possession, still parked in UAE and which Victor dreams to get rid of in exchange for badly needed cash. As an aside, keep in mind that Victor was totally broke even before his arrest in Bangkok and to sell his last aircraft was a big deal for him.
Eventually Smulian lured Victor to Bangkok – to finally negotiate with the prospective buyers. During the negotiations, according to the US government documents presented in his case, Smulian introduced Victor to several people who allegedly looked Latin American and who allegedly spoke Spanish. These people were alleged to be from a Colombian revolutionary organization named FARC – which is basically a Marxist guerilla movement fighting the capitalist government of Colombia for decades. The deal to sell the plane was held in the hotel business-center. A few minutes after the meeting began, the Thai police and the American DEA agents from the US local Embassy barged in and arrested everyone – Victor Bout, his “friend” from Moscow (who was found to be an FSB colonel), and Andrew Smulian. Out of the three only Victor was naturally arrested and detained. Victor’s FSB colonel friend was immediately released, put on the first available flight and appeared in Moscow the next morning.
Andrew Smulian allegedly escaped (i.e. escaped from the custody of the Thai police) and disappeared. Keep in mind, he allegedly escaped from a locked down hotel guarded by over 150 Thai commandos. Then, without anyone noticing his disappearance, he alleged flagged a taxi to the airport, with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Once at the airport, he allegedly bought a ticket with no money and no passport to the United States, the only country in the world that if arrested, he would be looking at 30 years to life in prison. This is the American version of the events. Mr. Andrew Smulian suddenly “appeared” in America and was arrested in New York for being an alleged “co-conspirator” of Victor Bout. There is confirmed information that Andrew Smulian has been turned to be a prosecution witness who would testify against his former friend. Smulian is not in jail in America – he is in a “protective custody”.
What is your opinion of Bout’s two lawyers: Lak and Chamroen?
Lak has been my lawyer for many years and naturally, I know him very well. I am the one who recommended him to Victor for his case in the first place. Lak was introduced to Victor on March 7, 2008 when Victor was first brought to the police station, i.e. before he was first brought to the court. When he was brought to the court Lak was there and the first defense statements – both spoken and written – were made by Lak. Lak was also the one who managed to get back Victor’s passport and all his personal belongings – mobile phones and Victor´s personal computer, even though the Americans demanded these items to be transferred to the United States. Lak managed to make a good deal with the local police to get all of these invaluable items back almost immediately to the United States government’s chagrin and disbelief. Later Lak was also working hard on Victor’s further defense in the criminal case and also on the extradition case, as well as on Victor’s own complaint for illegal detention. However, thanks to clandestine efforts of the Russian secret service, Lak was dismissed from the case and replaced with a new lawyer – Chamroen.
Chamroen was a shill for the American DEA and was introduced to Victor through a long chain of people who worked for the DEA as unofficial agents. But make no mistake – Chamroen, being a 100% proven shill for the Americans, was introduced by none other than the Russian secret service officials who were well aware of what they were doing: the Russians who introduced Chamroen to Victor KNEW FOR SURE that he was the American shill and, DESPITE this KNOWLEDGE, they still introduced him to Victor and highly recommended to use his services. Chamroen was the one who resisted and blocked all positive attempts to defend Victor and who conducted Victor’s defense in the extradition case in the most wrongful manner. He managed to make Victor to technically lose a 100% winnable case. In addition, Chamroen did his best to prevent what you called above “Bout’s camp” from submitting to the Thai court documents that might clarify the ridiculousness of the US charges and to serve as a real defense for Victor.
As you might sincerely expect, Chamroen was not cheap either – he cost Victor well over 100 thousand US dollars which is an absolutely fabulous amount of money by Thai standards. During the time when lawyer’s work was important – i.e. during the time the court of first instance was hearing witnesses and accepting documents – the case was under control of Chamroen. I was able to re-introduce Lak back to the case by a strange trick: he was no longer a lawyer of Victor, but a lawyer of Victor’s wife Alla, who submitted to the court an additional complaint against the illegal detention of her husband that was joined with the main extradition case.
In this capacity, Lak managed to get back to the case at the last moment; however, it was too late by then – the case was effectively lost by Chamroen, who intentionally failed to call right witnesses for the defense and who sabotaged cross-questioning of the witnesses of the prosecution. Despite being only Alla’s lawyer and not Victor’s, Lak, nonetheless, managed to somehow turn this case into something more favorable in the very last moment: instead of making Alla only a witness in the illegal detention’s case, he managed to make her the most important witness in the extradition case, despite all efforts of Chamroen to the contrary.
Alla’s testimony was probably the most powerful evidence ever added to the extradition case, thanks to Lak. Furthermore, Lak managed to object to the latest set of new “evidence” that the Americans attempted to submit to the judge at the last moment, when the hearing of the case was almost over. The Americans actually submitted the last set of new “evidence” under the silent approval of Chamroen, but Lak managed to stand up and loudly voice his objections (despite actually being a lawyer in a different case – i.e. technically having no right to do so) and thus the most dangerous addition to the case by the Americans was not accepted by the Thai court. So, you can make you own conclusions what is Lak and what is Chamroen. And eventually when Victor lost the case and was about to be extradited to America, Chamroen simply disappeared and it was Lak who managed to prevent Victor from being immediately extradited to the United States.
Just to clarify, did the jet actually arrive to Bangkok or did it turn back shortly after taking off from the United States?
The actual jet with the armed US court marshals arrived, but, thanks to Lak, went back empty.
What you are saying is absolutely shocking. Not as much for the treason of both the Russian government and Victor´s lawyer, but for the collective stupidity of people involved in the case. Why on Earth didn´t you say something and how is it possible that Victor and his wife didn’t realize what was being done to them? I am sorry, but this sounds utterly implausible.
For me it also sounds implausible and I could only wonder how could it happen that way. But, taking into consideration purely psychological aspects of the problem and also the fact that Victor and his wife are not seasoned criminals, but merely innocent people, it could be explained. The problem is that Victor does not know that he is the one who allegedly “sold” the missile that hit the Pentagon to the “terrorists”. It seems that only now, when he lost the case in the Court of Appeal (as I told him would long time ago), he began to slowly realize what really happened with him and who stood behind the entire affair with this frame-up. But before, he was confident that he was winning the case because his vigilance was effectively lulled by the false promises and by the irresponsible assurances of the Russian officials, which Victor, nonetheless, took seriously. Just imagine yourself in his shoes. You are behind bars and you are being constantly assured by officials from your country that everything is “OK” and everything is “under control”, moreover, you wife also constantly conveys you similar messages from the Russian officials in Moscow who promise the same things (don’t forget that while in Moscow Alla Bout was always invited by high-ranking government- and secret service officials and the mere fact that such “big guys” condescended to talk to her and, moreover, to assure her that everything was allegedly “under control” created the desired effect). Just imagine yourself in such a situation: would you doubt when the secret service officials and the government officials promise you all help possible and they promise it on behalf of the president of the state and all of it is being accompanied by corresponding public statements of the Foreign Ministry. Wouldn’t such a performance blunt your vigilance too?
Victor and his wife had simply no reason to suspect the Russian officials in any wrongdoing in those days. You must be a cynic to be able to suspect the Russian officials in this situation, but Victor is simply too nice and too innocent for this. Furthermore, the Russians appointed to harm Victor’s position in the Thai court were professionals from the secret service and they know their job very well. They know how to make their lies sound plausible and convincing. It is difficult to deal with this type of the professionals when you yourself are simply an innocent person who has no criminal background, no previous convictions, not even encounters with the legal system prior to this, and no experience with the inner workings of the secret service. When you are an innocent person you simply can´t realize how dirty the actual world of the secret service is. Add here that neither Victor, nor his wife are lawyers and therefore the ridiculous method of defense that the Russian officials enforced on them might look quite “reasonable” for them and they failed to notice the dirty game behind it.
You know more about this case than anyone else. USG knows how dangerous you are. So does the Russian government. Have these governments tried to buy your silence or threaten you?
Yes, they have. The Americans on several occasions tried to either threaten me with the prospect of being arrested and charged with something or with some offers of cash. At first, they promised me an undisclosed amount of money if I would help them to get Victor to America by secretly harming his case in the court – in the same manner Chamroen did. When I refused, they said that they could still pay me for doing nothing, as long as I withdrew from this case, stopped visiting Victor in prison, stopped attending the court hearings and giving Victor and his wife advise. I refused that as well.
But when it comes to the Russian Government, they did not dare to offer me any money or to try to threaten me, because it would be just too dangerous for their own story. Don’t forget that while the Americans were open enemies of Victor, the Russians were openly “Victor’s friends”, so while the Americans could afford to offer money or to try to threaten someone who helps Victor and it would look natural, the Russians could not afford doing so, because otherwise they would betray themselves.
The Russians have never showed their dissatisfaction with my activities openly, they rather tried to harm my reputation by spreading vicious rumors about my alleged “cooperating with the Americans” and “Dimitri can not be trusted” and so on. In fact, these efforts yielded some result in the initial stage of the case – at one point I noticed that Victor’s wife suddenly stopped trusting me, and also as I have said that the Russians managed to get Lak dismissed and replaced with a new lawyer based on the same thing.
How valuable is Victor Bout to the United States?
If you mean that Victor Bout is allegedly “valuable” to America as an alleged “Merchant of Death” and a “Lord of War” you are dead wrong. Many people, who believe Western propaganda, think that Victor Bout is allegedly wanted in America for his involvement with illegal weapons trade as alleged by the Hollywood film, the book, and by hysterical Western publications. It is not true at all. You have to understand that Victor has never sold any weapons, whether legally or illegally, in Africa, in Asia or anywhere else. In his entire life he has never sold even a single Makarov pistol or a single AK-47, not to mention large quantities of Soviet-made or any other weapons. Yes, on several instances airlines controlled by Victor Bout and by his brother Sergei Bout indeed transported weapons, munitions, and even armed troops, but the problem is that these were NOT THEIR weapons, these were weapons of THEIR CUSTOMERS. Moreover, all of such customers were LEGAL CUSTOMERS. Wherever Victor’s or Serguei’s airlines transported weapons or armed troops it was ALWAYS governmental troops and the weapons always belong to the governments! Not once, did Victor Bout´s or his brother Serguei´s aircraft transported weapons of any illegal customers!
But people seem not to realize this obvious fact. Victor Bout can´t be turned into “an illegal weapons trader” by the hysterical Western media. Only the court verdict could do this. But not once during all these years has Victor Bout receive a summons to any court of law whereby someone sued him for being an illegal weapons dealer. There was not even a single attempt by any government, or by any public prosecutor, or by UN, or by any other organization, or by even a private individual to sue Victor Bout for his being an alleged “Merchant of Death”.
Why not, you ask? The answer is very simple: because no solid evidence exists that could be admissible in a court of law. The image of Victor Bout being an alleged “Merchant of Death” is based exclusively on the Hollywood movie, on Douglas Farah’s book, and on the bogus “UN report” concocted by a certain unscrupulous inspector, Johan Peleman. A number of Mr. Peleman´s former associates are willing to come forward and testify in the court of law that in every UN report, Victor Bout´s name was added to the final version of the report and that his name was absent in every preliminary UN report on arms trafficking. You simply can’t sue Victor Bout for being an illegal weapon trader based on the evidence compiled by the shameless Johan Peleman or bring to court the movie “Lord of War” as a substitute for the evidence. That is exactly why the Americans do not want Victor Bout for any illegal weapons trade as appears to many people around the world. If they really wanted him for that they would have done it long time ago. The evidence is simply not there.
The Americans wanted Victor for something else. And for this “something” his apparent Hollywood-inspired image of the “Merchant of Death” was not enough due to this being legally inadmissible in the American court of law. Certain REAL and PROVABLE charges must have been created in order to get him arrested for real. And the American officials found nothing better than to employ the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) for that reason. Since the DEA area of operations are drugs and drug dealers, their modus operandi is corresponding – to plant drugs on a victim and thus, to get the victim arrested. The very same approach was used in Victor Bout’s case: the DEA agent-provocateurs created a certain provocation that looked perhaps “normal” for a typical drug-policeman, but ridiculous to anyone else. The DEA sent their agent to meet Victor Bout. This agent, turned out to be Bout´s former friend, Andrew Smulian, who offered him a deal. But, instead of planting drugs on Victor Bout, the DEA planted bogus documents and falsified “intercepts” of alleged e-mail exchanges and alleged telephone conversations claiming that Victor Bout allegedly: 1) had in his possession portable anti-aircraft missiles; 2) was willing to sell them to FARC rebels in Columbia; 3) in doing so he was planning of- and willing to participate in murdering (sic) the US citizens/US officials working in Columbia.
Despite the fact that compared to the typical planting of real heroin on their clients the DEA failed to plant any actual anti-aircraft missiles on Victor, this ridiculous case was judged by the DEA superiors to be “solid” enough to be brought to court. And only after THIS provocation of the DEA, the US officials dared, at last, to arrest Victor Bout and to pass this matter to the court of law. Before that, they have simply nothing in their hands that would be admissible in the court-room. Therefore we can not even talk about alleged former “criminal activities” of Victor Bout in Africa or elsewhere in connection with his current case in the court. The current case is purely about his alleged attempt to sell the alleged “portable anti-aircraft missiles” to FARC in Columbia and nothing else besides that.
This is the official “open” part of the story. However, there is also an official but “secret” part of the same story. Victor Bout is not really wanted in America for these absurd and non-existent portable anti-aircraft missiles. This ridiculous frame-up could never be successfully won by the US government in the US court. Victor, in reality, is wanted for something far more serious that can not be made public and can not be discussed in the courtroom in any open proceedings. I mean you can compare it with the case of the infamous nuclear bomber Timothy McVeigh who was openly indicted of using the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD, but in a form of the Ryder truck loaded with cheap fertilizer) against US citizens, but whose case was strangely conducted behind closed doors. The same thing is with Victor Bout’s case.
Of course, the US officials and especially those US officials responsible for legal matters are apparently reasonable enough to realize that they would never be able to win the ridiculous case against Victor based on the proceeds of the abovementioned DEA provocation primarily because no actual anti-aircraft missile have ever been found and not even an attempt to find such missiles has been made by the DEA.
Why do you think that is?
Because they knew that the entire story was invented and no missiles would be found anywhere. That is why they did not even attempt to go after the missiles. The real cause of the extradition attempt against Victor Bout is not these non-existent portable anti-aircraft missiles. The real cause is that the US Government in collaboration with the Russian Government secretly blamed an individual named “Victor Bout” for selling to the terrorists a Soviet-made “Granit” missile that struck the Pentagon on 9/11. And THIS is the real truth behind Victor’s case. And THIS secret part of the case the American legal experts plan to win in the US court behind closed doors. Because it appears that the Russian FSB has secretly concocted some “plausible” evidence that implicates Victor Bout in that alleged deal and the US officials appear to be gullible enough to believe the Russian colleagues and to believe that such “evidence” would lead to the successful conclusion of the still pending 9/11 Pentagon case. In addition, Victor is being secretly accused of selling portable nuclear weapons – known as “mini-nukes” or “suite-case nukes” to various terrorist organizations, ranging from the Columbian FARC to Osama bin Laden´s Al-Qaeda. Apparently, several recent real and alleged mini-nuclear bombings are secretly being blamed on Victor Bout. The most important of them is the infamous “El Nogal” nuclear bombing in Bogotá that was presented to the uninitiated as a “car-bombing”, in which, according to the US security officials, the same type of a mini-nuke was used as in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing.
Dimitri, you are a former nuclear intelligence officer of the 12 Chief Directorate of the Russian armed forces. Public Prosecutor’s August 26, 2009 appeal stated that BOUT conspired to provide GUIDED BALLISTIC MISSILES to the FARC. Are they suggesting that BOUT is involved in nuclear terrorism?
Yes. This is just a slip of the tongue. The Freudian syndrome. In the official paperwork of Victor Bout’s case in the Thai court, as well as in the official (a/k/a “public”) part of the US extradition request they do not talk about any “guided ballistic missile”. They talk about “portable anti-aircraft missiles” (that are small enough to be launched from one’s shoulder). However, behind closed doors, the US officials tried to convince their Thai colleagues that while the anti-aircraft missiles provocation against Victor Bout was indeed very crude and ridiculous, the real cause of the extradition for which Victor is wanted are far more serious, but, unfortunately, can not be disclosed to the general public or discussed in the court-room in open proceedings.
So, the US officials in order to convince the Thais to accept the extradition case despite total lack of evidence and despite numerous violations of Thai law, had no choice but to reveal the “awful truth” to at least some of the Thai officials. Therefore high-ranking Thai police and security officials, as well as a select few amongst Thai public prosecutors, know very well that Victor is wanted not for selling the small portable anti-aircraft missiles, but for selling the cruise missile with an unexploded 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warhead that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and narrowly missed incinerating the entire Washington D.C. thanks to its broken detonator.
But since Thailand is a non-missile and non-nuclear state, the Thais don’t see much difference between a cruise missile and a ballistic missile, so the public prosecutor mistakenly believed that the Pentagon was hit by a ballistic missile with a thermo-nuclear warhead, while in reality it was hit by a cruise missile with a thermo-nuclear warhead. But it is forgivable for the Thais to make such a mistake, because it is not really a big difference in this sense. However, there is a big difference when you compare a portable shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile that weighs just a few kilograms with a tens-of-meters-long ballistic missile that weighs many tons. While it is forgivable for a Thai public prosecutor (who is a military officer, by the way) to confuse the first two, considering that he is Thai, it is not forgivable for him (considering that he is a military officer) to mistake the second two with each other.
In the Security Council of Thailand there was a discussion that Bout is being blamed for the entire Pentagon attack on 9/11 – for both the missile and its thermo-nuclear warhead. Apparently, the public prosecutor picked up this idea from them and as a slip of the tongue, when he composed his appeal, he accidentally mentioned the “guided ballistic missile” instead of the “politically correct” “portable anti-aircraft missile(s)”. To answer the second part of your question – yes, Victor Bout is apparently wanted for nothing less then NUCLEAR TERRORISM. He is being secretly blamed for at least: 1) selling the Soviet-made “Granit” missile with the half-megaton thermo-nuclear warhead to the terrorists who later launched it against the Pentagon on 9/11; 2) selling at least 3 or more Soviet-made mini-nukes known as “RA-115” and “RA-116” to terrorists prior to 9/11 (at least so it appears from the “El-Mundo” newspaper’s article as of 16 of September, 2001, and also from John D. Negroponte’s [the former director of the US National Intelligence] official communiqué released right after Victor Bout’s arrest in Bangkok in March, 2008 – available here: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/tnt_03-08.pdf ); and 3) selling of weapon-grade enriched Uranium to terrorists – as appears from the actual course of actions against the FARC and particularly against Raul Reyes’ group in the Ecuadorian jungle only 5 days before Victor was actually lured to Bangkok to be arrested there.
For our readers’ benefit, can you explain the difference between ballistic missile with the thermo-nuclear warhead and cruise missile with the thermo-nuclear warhead.
A ballistic missile is launched vertically and it travels with speeds comparable to the first cosmic velocity well above the Earth atmosphere on a ballistic trajectory – meaning its engines bring the ballistic missile into what we call “space” and then its warhead falls towards its target from space in the same manner as would a meteorite. You can roughly compare a trajectory of a ballistic missile with a trajectory of a football when a goalkeeper strikes it from his area into the other half of the football pitch. A cruise missile is much slower when compared to the ballistic missile – its speed is just sub-sonic or slightly super-sonic and a missile travels to its target (and delivers its warhead to it) in the atmosphere – in the same manner as would do a typical jet-fighter. In the case of particularly the “Granit” missile which is very expensive and very advanced, its speed is about 2.5 Mach while traveling in the cruise altitude and it is decreased to only 1.5 Mach when the missile descends and sets itself to the final path of attack – that is parallel to the ground (exactly as it was demonstrated in the actual 9/11 Pentagon strike). But when it comes to the actual thermo-nuclear warhead there is no difference. You will not feel any difference when a half-megaton thermo-nuclear warhead suddenly produces a blinding white flash and in the next few milliseconds incinerates you with its intensive thermal radiation. It does not matter if such a half-megaton warhead was delivered by a ballistic missile falling from space, or by a horizontally flying cruise missile. The effects of the actual thermo-nuclear explosion and the destruction caused by it will be undistinguishable.
Victor Bout’s name is often mentioned along with the alleged sale of X-55 missiles to Iran and China. Can you tell us more?
This is a kind of “controlled leak of information” that was afforded on purpose in order to create some “grounds” and so to convince some officials who are not entitled to know the full truth, but who could be fed some half-truth. The story with the X-55 illegal sale was just a cover-up story that was concocted to distract attention from the real culprit – the awful “Granit” missile. To talk about the “Granit” missile that hit the Pentagon is TABOO. It is off limits. Only very few high-ranking US security officials (as well as high-ranking security officials of Russia and of some highly-trusted US allies) are entitled to know that it was the “Granit” missile. For the rest, it is taboo to know this word. But many people know that it was the missile (and many also know that it was a certain Russian- or Soviet-made missile) that hit the Pentagon. But the problem is that those who know or suspect the awful truth are much more than those who are entitled to know it in full detail. Therefore to feed the “half-truth” for those not entitled to know the full truth, the story with the alleged X-55 has been concocted.
Secondly, even from the technical point of view the story with the X-55 can not be true – that missile is not technically capable of penetrating 6 (six!) capital walls of the Pentagon as was demonstrated in the 9/11 attack. Only one missile in the world – the “Granit” – could achieve such a penetrating feat. That is to say that the Americans and the Russians together are trying hard to cover up the real truth behind the Pentagon attack, while trying in the same time to apprehend and to bring to justice someone [allegedly] responsible for the actual attack. Hence the persecution against Victor Bout. Hence the ridiculous stories about the alleged illegal deal with the X-55 missiles (that are also nuclear-capable, by the way – don’t miss this point: the fact that X-55 missiles are nothing less than “nuclear-capable” is always being diligently mentioned along with the claims that Victor Bout and his companions allegedly sold these missiles from Ukraine to Iran).
I understand that the first question the DEA asked Bout during their interrogation of him is the name of the cruise missile he had sold to Iran. Why would they ask him that?
Yes, it is true. The first question asked of Victor after his arrest was not about the ridiculous deal with the non-existent shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles that were allegedly intended for the Columbian FARC. The first question was about the alleged cruise missile Victor allegedly sold to Iran. This was because those mid-ranking DEA operatives were low enough not to be entitled to know the full awful truth – about the “Granit” cruise missile, but were fed by their superiors the half-truth – about the alleged “X-55” cruise missile that was discussed in the previous question.
A great deal of effort has been made by mainstream US and European press to link Bout with FARC and uranium. What do they have to do with Bout?
The US security officials have a double task actually. One: they have to close the case with the missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Two – they also have to close several cases where mini-nukes were really or allegedly used in disguise of the so-called “suicide” and “non-suicide” “car-bombings”. The most important – the case of nuclear bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 on an anniversary of Hiroshima bombing, the 1996 Khobar Tower nuclear bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma nuclear bombing, the 2002 Bali nuclear bombing, the 1993 first nuclear bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, several recent nuclear bombings in Iraq, Pakistan, Algeria and Saudi Arabia that were reported to the gullible plebs as “car-bombings”, and also the El-Nogal nuclear bombing in Bogotá in 2003, as well as the previous nuclear bombing in Bogotá in November 1999, both blamed on the FARC. As not too many specialists in nuclear weapons are available for consultation, it is possible to present to the lay people a notion that it is allegedly possible to produce a self-made low-caliber nuclear bomb made out of Uranium (while in reality all mini-nukes are made exclusively out of Plutonium and have nothing to do with any Uranium).
Well, is it possible to produce a homemade low-caliber nuclear bomb?
Thanks to the general ignorance of the people (many security officials and high-ranking politicians inclusive) in regard to the nuclear weapons, the abovementioned mistaken belief is widespread: indeed many security officials and politicians sincerely believe that it is possible to obtain 50 kg (single critical mass) of highly-enriched Uranium-235 on the black market and to make a mini-nuke out of it. In reality it is impossible to make any “mini-nuke” out of Uranium even in an industrial process, not to mention in the cottage industry, but many gullible folks believe to the contrary. Therefore a few unscrupulous individuals who really stood behind those nuclear “car- and truck-bombings” shamelessly exploit such gullibility. In the particular case with the FARC group led by Raul Reyes they planted on them almost 50 kg of weapon-grade Uranium-235 that was hidden around Reyes’ camp in the Ecuadorian jungle, then they murdered Reyes and additionally created some bogus computer files planted into Reyes’ computer where it was claimed that Reyes and his group were allegedly responsible for the 2003 nuclear bombing in Bogotá and were also seeking more weapon-grade Uranium. The gullible security officials who understand little about the real nuclear weapons technology would not miss the point as was suggested – when they encounter the 50 kg of REAL weapon-grade Uranium around Reyes’ camp while knowing for sure that both – 1999- and 2003- bombings in Bogotá were indeed mini-nukes bombings. However, this theater should not mislead serious people: both bombings in Bogotá, as well as 1995 Oklahoma bombing and the rest of well-known and little-known nuclear “car-bombings” was made with mini-nukes made out of PLUTONIUM and NOT URANIUM, and so the 50 kg of Uranium-235 planted to Reyes’ camp should not dupe any serious person into believing otherwise.
When it comes to Victor Bout if you carefully review available public sources you will find out that: 1) Victor Bout’s alleged connection with the FARC was mentioned in the same list of “evidence” allegedly “found” in Reyes’ computer right next to Reyes’s attempt to buy 50 kg (single critical mass enough to make one atomic bomb of Hiroshima yield) of weapon-grade Uranium-235 and alleged Reyes’ responsibility for the El-Nogal “car-bombing” (that is known to be nuclear to any and every security official); and 2) Alleged “international channels” by which the alleged “portable anti-aircraft missiles” of Victor Bout were allegedly transported – namely: Russia-Armenia-Romania-Denmark-Netherlands’ Antilles-Columbia strangely coincides to the country with the alleged rout of transportation of the weapon-grade Uranium that was obtained by Reyes and indeed found around his camp after Reyes was murdered by the Americans on March 1, 2008 – just 5 days prior to Victor Bout’s arrest in Bangkok. Anyone is welcome to make his own conclusions.
Add here that the US officials actually exploit two levels of the “truth” in regard to the WTC demolition during 9/11 events. Just imagine that there are quite a lot of mid-ranking security officials and politicians who are advanced enough to know that kerosene can not “melt steel” into fluffy microscopic dust and that “ground zero” in pre-9/11 English language had no other meaning than “a place of a nuclear explosion”. Therefore these types of people would not swallow the plebeian version of the “planes brought down the towers 9/11 truth”. Some “higher” and more plausible version of the “truth” needed to be invented to satisfy them. So according to the intermediate level of the 9/11 “truth” (that is intended to satisfy the mid-ranking security officials and mid-ranking politicians both in America and abroad), the Twin Towers of the WTC, as well as the building #7 of the WTC, were demolished by 3 mini-nukes that allegedly belonged to Osama bin Laden’s operatives. You can find a confirmation of what I mean in the article “Mi Hermano bin Laden”, published in the Spanish daily, El-Mundo, on September 16, 2001. However, once you claim that the WTC was demolished by the three Soviet mini-nukes allegedly bought by Osama from Ukraine, then, being a responsible security official, you should also find Russian or Ukrainian nationals who first stole these mini-nukes for the Soviet nuclear arsenals and who actually sold such awful weapons to the terrorists. Isn’t’ it? Hence another attempt of the Americans – to implicate Victor Bout into trading in mini-nukes and in weapon-grade nuclear materials, in addition to the missiles with half-megaton thermo-nuclear warheads that usually fly around and strike pentagons. It appears that Victor Bout was made a scapegoat just for everything that is nuclear. Add here is where the Americans began their unprecedented persecution against Victor Bout only after 9/11 and in an apparent connection with 9/11. Read the “nuclear” communiqué of John D. Negroponte (available here: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/tnt_03-08.pdf ) that was released immediately after Victor’s arrest in Bangkok in March 2008 and that was directly connected to his arrest and moreover, entirely devoted to his arrest. And compare that communiqué by John D. Negroponte with the abovementioned “El Mundo” article about the 3 mini-nukes bought by Osama from Ukraine and allegedly used for destroying the three WTC buildings on 9/11 and surely you will not miss the main point. There are two more additional moments that could clarify the alleged “nuclear” connections of Victor Bout, FARC, and actual so-called “car-bombings” and “truck-bombings” (spots of which are being strangely called by the strangest nuclear name “ground zero”). First of them occurred soon after Victor Bout’s arrest.
About two weeks after his arrest there was a video published on YouTube showing Russia Today footage titled “Merchant of Death denied bail in Bangkok”. As you know, anyone registered as a YouTube user could post a comment under a video. Guess what was the very first comment published by some alleged “Victor Bout’s friend” under that video? This is what the comment said: “180 Compact Russian Nukes are missing, soon US will get a nuclear apocalypse up its ass”. How do you like the comment? Or you prefer to believe in coincidences? In the world of intelligence there is a saying: There are well made and badly made operations. Coincidences do not exist. Especially when soon after this comment appeared, a real nuclear explosion occurred in Dubai on March 26, 2008 – in the city where Victor Bout was kicked from and where he lost all his former airline business. You can see details of this nuclear explosion on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRws9eHvVgw or you can read (between the lines) here: http://www.arabianbusiness.com/514699-explosion-in-al-quoz-in-dubai?ln=en – please notice words such as “mushroom cloud” and “civil defense” in that article. By the way – when I noticed that YouTube provocation and compared it against the mini-nuke’s explosion in Dubai a few days later I immediately complained about this to the security official at the local Russian Embassy in Bangkok. And what do you think happened? The next day the provocative comment/promise about “180 stolen mini-nukes” and the “nuclear apocalypse” was removed from YouTube.
Luckily, I made a screenshot of the YouTube web page with that comment still there, so I still have it. Oh, I almost forgot it. Since I was involved with Victor Bout’s legal defense here in Bangkok right from the next day following his arrest – i.e. from March 7, 2008, I understandably attracted a lot of attention from the US side. The local DEA officer – Mr. Derek Odney, responsible for Victor’s apprehension in Bangkok on March 6, 2008, invited me to drink coffee and to “discuss something” around mid-April. Since I was curious to know what they would ask me about Victor and also perhaps I could have a chance to ask them something that would clarify the mystery of the case I agreed “to drink coffee”.
Derek showed up with someone who appeared to be from another department, perhaps from the US military intelligence or may be from the CIA. The conversation began in a roundabout way and with no mention of Victor Bout. They asked me to help the DEA to catch certain drug dealers in Bangkok. On the surface it may seem logical, considering what the DEA does, but certainly not normal, considering the actual circumstances – I was helping Victor Bout and his case had nothing to do with drugs. Anyway, this discussion about the drugs and drug-dealers slowly moved on to something different: Derek´s companion asked me if I knew anything about a black market nuclear materials, particularly enriched Uranium and how much, in my opinion, such weapon-grade Uranium could cost on such a black market. Out of politeness I expressed my humble opinion on the subject, adding that it is only my humble opinion, but I don’t know the exact figures, because I am not involved in illegal trade in nuclear materials.
In turn, I asked them if they were asking me this question because of highly-enriched Uranium that was found around Reyes’ camp in the Ecuadorian jungle? They told me that yes, they wanted to know the answer to that question for exactly that reason, because the US Government took that matter very seriously. The most laughable was that no alleged “portable anti-aircraft missiles” were mentioned during that conversation, but only the FARC Uranium alone (and neither any “portable anti-aircraft missiles” in connection with Victor Bout were mentioned in Reyes’ computer, but only the weapon-grade Uranium purchase deal and the FARC responsibility for the nuclear “car-“bombings…) This was my first conversation with Mr. Derek Odney.
Let´s fast forward to today, Dimitri. Where is Victor at and what´s left for him as far as his defense options.
Victor Bout is still in Bangkok, to be more exact in Nonthaburi province (on the outskirts of Bangkok) inside the high-security Bangkwang prison, known to many people as “Bangkok Hilton” thanks to the famous movie of the same name. He was transferred there from the Bangkok Remand Prison on August 20, the day his court verdict which ordered the extradition was read.
To answer the second part of your question is not so easy. Several defense options are available but I would prefer not to disclose them publicly, because the Americans will read this interview with great interest and they might take certain countermeasures. But surely something is pending when it comes to the legal means to defend Victor Bout. His lawyer, Lak, is still there and he is working hard on his defense. Despite Victor´s extradition case appearing to be “final” after the Appeals’ Court verdict, it is not so “final” in reality. Many things can still be done, God willing.
Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s point man on Pakistan and Afghanistan, has died following a second round of surgery to treat a heart condition. Officialdom and the corporate media are in mourning. Praise for the one-worlder gluts the media.
“The international community is praising the legacy of veteran U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who died Monday at the age of 69 while serving as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan,” reports the CIA propaganda outfit, Voice of America.
“You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan,” he told his Pakistani surgeon before he was sedated for his final surgery, according to the Washsington Post.
Holbrooke was Clinton’s ambassador to Germany. He was a Wall Street investment banker and a senior advisor to Lehman Brothers, the global financial services corporation that cooked its books at the end of each quarter to make its finances appear less shaky than they really were.
He was also a former Vice Chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Holbrooke was among prominent politicians who may have received favorable mortgage deals from Countrywide, the failed mortgage lender. Countrywide’s V.I.P program may have bent rules to offer Holbrooke and his family members a multitude of better mortgage deals which saved them thousands of dollars on interest payments.
He brokered a “peace treaty” with Yugoslavia’s Milosovic under the threat of NATO airstrikes. In 1999, Clinton unleashed the U.S. military on Yugoslavia for 78 days. The Pentagon dropped 20,000 tons of bombs and killed thousands of women, children, and men.
Richard Holbrooke was an ardent globalist. Along with the notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger and his boss, the globalist kingpin David Rockefeller, Holbrooke was a member of the American Friends of Bilderberg.
He was a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and formerly served on the Advisory Board of the National Security Network, an organization founded by Rand Beers, who now serves as a bureaucrat in the Department of Homeland Security.
Holbrooke was also a member of the globalist outfit the Trilateral Commission along with his buddy, Henry Kissinger.
The CFR, Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are dedicated to stripping U.S. sovereignty and creating world government.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
It is interesting Holbrooke, as Obama’s point man in Afghanistan and Pakistan, called for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan. It is tantamount to a deathbed conversion to peace and sanity by a globalist who was responsible in part for the continued destruction of that impoverished country.
On March 30, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y., picture, left) and 15 co-sponsors (including Republican leaders) introduced S. 679, the “Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act.” The measure would remove the “advice and consent” requirement for many executive branch appointments, giving the President unchecked power to fill key administration positions.Ostensibly, the bill enjoys bipartisan support because its sole purpose is to relieve the backlog of unconfirmed appointees by eliminating the confirmation requirement for about 200 offices.The process by which heads of executive branch departments are appointed and confirmed is set forth by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The “Appointments Clause” provides that the President:
… shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
If this bill passes, the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers as a protection against tyranny will be eliminated, as well as the concept of enumerated powers.
This history of the delicate system created by our Founders was synopsized in an article published by The Heritage Foundation:
When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.
The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.
Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head.
If enacted, S. 679 would erase these barriers between the branches and shift the powers of appointment in such a way that the very foundation of our Republic would be weakened under the crushing weight of a powerful executive branch.
In light of this impending imbalance, it must be inquired as to what could compel Congress to legislate away its own power? Why would the Senate willingly abdicate its role as bulwark against executive despotism?
Arguably, the answer is a desire to reduce its workload and improve the efficiency of government.
To exchange rightful power for a more streamlined appointment process seems like a ripoff. As The Heritage Foundation says:
The Congress should not reduce the number of Senate-confirmed appointments as a means of dealing with its cumbersome and inefficient internal process for considering nominations. Doing so gives away Senate influence over a number of significant appointments, does nothing to improve the Senate process, and still leaves nominees whose offices require nominations mired in the Senate process. The proper solution to the problem of a slow Senate is to speed up the Senate rather than to diminish the role of the Senate. The Senate should look inward and streamline its internal procedures for considering all nominations. The proper solution also is the faster one, as the Senate can accomplish the solution by acting on its own in the exercise of its power to make Senate rules, while S. 679 requires approval by both Houses of Congress.
The following lawmakers have appended their names to the bill as co-sponsors:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a bottleneck in the nomination and confirmation pipeline, one solution is for the executive and legislative branches to work within the framework of enumerated powers to remove the blockage.
Alternatively, however, the Congress could obviate the problem by reducing the size of the bureaucracy through an absolute refusal to sign off on the creation of any department, program, or agency that isn’t specifically authorized by the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution. That would eliminate the number of executive offices for which appointments would be necessary, thereby dissolving the confirmation clog by the application of the undiluted principles of constitutional liberty.
Last month, The New Yorker magazine reported on how POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian told President Obama to his face that “prosecuting whistleblowers would undermine his legacy.”
One of those whistleblowers being targeted is Tom Drake, a National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who is less than a week away from his first day in court. Drake is being prosecuted not for sharing classified information with the media, but instead is being charged with having information—including UNclassified materials—in his possession that he used in cooperation with a Defense Department Inspector General audit of a program that wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and may have put your civil liberties at risk. As Danielle told the President, “Drake was exactly the kind of whistleblower who deserved protection.”
Prosecuting whistleblowers for their cooperation with authorities will have a chilling effect throughout the federal government at a time when we need whistleblowers to identify waste, fraud, abuse, threats to our civil liberties, and other misconduct.
There is not (or there should not be) a national security exemption to accountability in a democratic society—yet going after a whistleblower like Drake is the antithesis of accountability. The White House should tell the Justice Department to exercise prosecutorial discretion and drop its case against Drake.
In addition, the White House should redouble its efforts from last year and prioritize passage of a new whistleblower protection bill that affords whistleblowers, including those in the national security field, better protections. Despite a new policy issued by the Justice Department in 2009, the state secrets privilege continues to be used in excess. The privilege is invoked to shut down lawsuits, including some that seek accountability from the U.S. government in cases that allege unlawful activities ranging from wrongful kidnapping and imprisonment to a massive warrantless wiretapping operation that violated the U.S. Constitution and the law.
If you don’t know much about the Drake case, or want to know more, there is a plethora of resources available:
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is representing Drake (although not as his criminal defense). Some of GAP’s efforts and other information on Drake can be viewed here.
Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the non-profit Federation of American Scientists, has been diligently chronicling significant filings during the pre-trial phase of the case and presumably will continue to do so if the trial begins. His archive gives the public free access to the court filings. Aftergood has also closely tracked other developments in the Drake case. He recently wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the prosecution of Drake on charges of unauthorized retention of classified information is a mistake, and that the Obama Administration has mishandled the case.”
Whether you are pro-Obama, anti-Obama, or apolitical, it is clear that the framework for handling national security whistleblowers is fundamentally flawed, and is generally hostile to them. The Drake case is a line in the sand.
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO’s Director of Investigations.
NYPD’s Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna has been identified on Twitter as the police officer that pepper sprayed female protesters being held behind a police corral that was filmed and uploaded to YouTube. From the video it appears as if the women were blocked in by police and not allowed to leave. Seemingly without provocation Deputy Inspector Bologna sprays the women casually and walks away.
Protest supports are tweeting the phone number of the NYPD’s 1st Precinct to get people to call and complain.
@anonops: Call Mr. Bologna and ask him why he pepper sprayed innocent people? (212) 334-0611 #AnonOps #OccupyWallStreet
“Extraordinary rendition”:The court refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The case involved five terrorism suspects who were arrested shortly after 9/11 and said they were flown by a Boeing subsidiary to overseas prisons where they were tortured. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited national-security risks in dismissing the men’s case last year.Religion: The justices turned aside a challenge from atheist Michael Newdow to the use of the words “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office.
Whistleblower law: The justices ruled 5-3 that information acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request cannot be used to trigger a False Claims Act lawsuit.
School admissions: The court let stand lower-court rulings against four non-Hawaiian students who asked to remain anonymous while challenging a private school system’s admissions policy that gives preference to those of Hawaiian ancestry. The challengers, who applied for admission to Kamehameha Schools in the 2008-09 school year, wanted to file their lawsuit anonymously because of concerns of public humiliation and retaliation if they were identified.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.
The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.
Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool.
“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
She said the Fourth Amendment’s “core requirement” is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.
“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?” Ginsburg asked.
An expert on criminal searches agreed, saying the decision would encourage police to undertake “knock and talk” raids.
“I’m surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in,” said John Wesley Hall, a criminal-defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark. “I’m even more surprised that nearly all of them went along.”
The court in the past has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, the Fourth Amendment “has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.” One exception to the search-warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police also may pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.
The Kentucky case arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, Lexington police officers rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.
But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect.
The Kentucky Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, saying any risk of drugs being destroyed was the result of the decision by police to knock and announce themselves rather than obtain a warrant.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision Monday, saying police had acted lawfully and that was all that mattered. The defendant, Hollis D. King, had choices other than destroying evidence, Alito wrote.
King could have chosen not to respond to the knocking in any fashion, Alito wrote. Or he could have come to the door and declined to let the officers enter without a warrant.
Alito took pains to say the majority was not deciding whether an emergency justifying an exception to the warrant requirement — an “exigent circumstance,” in legal jargon — existed. He said the Kentucky Supreme Court “expressed doubt on this issue” and that “any question about whether an exigency actually existed is better addressed” by the state court.
All the U.S. Supreme Court decided, Alito wrote, was when evidence must be suppressed because police had created the exigency. Lower courts had approached that question in five ways.
The standard announced Monday, Alito wrote, had the virtue of simplicity.
“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, “warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”
But “there is a strong argument,” Alito added, that evidence would have to be suppressed when police did more than knock and announce themselves. In general, he wrote, “the exigent circumstances rule should not apply where the police, without a warrant or any legally sound basis for a warrantless entry, threaten that they will enter without permission unless admitted.”
Ginsburg, dissenting, said the majority had taken a wrong turn.
“The urgency must exist, I would rule,” she wrote, “when the police come on the scene, not subsequent to their arrival, prompted by their own conduct.”
The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police faced an emergency situation in this case.
Michigan state police (or should we say police state?) have been using a handheld mobile forensics device to steal information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The high-tech device works with 3000 different phone models and can bypass passwords to process “Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” according to CelleBrite, the company behind the device. “The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps.”
So, without a warrant, without people even knowing it, police has the power to look into your entire phone’s memory, including deleted phone data. With geotags, it can retrace pretty much everywhere you’ve went with that cellphone. Since most people have their cellphones at less than 5 feet from them at all times, well, there you go.
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.
The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.
ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.
“Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide,” ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. “No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure.”
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
“Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device’s capabilities. “The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps.”
The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
“With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity,” Fancher wrote. “A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched.”
The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.
EFF activist Eva Galperin interviews EFF criminal defense attorney, Hanni Fakhoury, on the newest edition of Line Noise, the EFF podcast. Whether law enforcement wants to search your home computer, tries to browse through your smart phone at a traffic stop, or seeks to thumb through your camera at customs, you should know your rights.
Learn more about your privacy rights by reading our Know Your Rights guide, or test your skills with our quiz.
This edition of Line Noise was recorded on-site from the San Francisco studio of Bamm.tv
Welcome to the Police state America! (May 16, 2011, by sandyqrt) 
