Everyone likes to say, “Hitler did this”, and, “Hitler did that”. But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the slave-labor camps to WW2 was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

The German people of the late 1930s imagined themselves to be brave. They saw themselves as the heroic Germans depicted by the Wagnerian Operas, the descendants of the fierce Germanic warriors who had hunted wild boar with nothing but spears and who had defeated three of Rome’s mightiest legions in the Tuetenberg Forest.

But in truth, by the 1930s, the German people had become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery was both salve and slavery. Germans were required to behave as if they were brave, even when they were not.

It’s easy to look back and realize what a jerk Hitler was. But at the time, Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year in 1938. The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could and more importantly could not do. Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy’s choir of a monastery in his youth.

The reality was that the German people, as individuals, had lost their courage. The German government preferred it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But the German people didn’t wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding individual courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the German people simply pretended that the situation did not exist. And in that simple self-deception lay the ruin of an entire nation and the coming of the second World War.

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged by Hitler himself. They were afraid to. But so trapped were the Germans by their belief in their own bravery that they willed themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they could nod in agreement with Der Fuhrer while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoided the one situation which most required real courage; to stand up to Hitler’s lies and deceptions.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the “terrorists”, the German people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed. The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed.

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to Hitler’s deceptions, did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war.

But Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Hitler copied the parade regalia of ancient Rome, to remind the Germans of the defeat of the legions at the Tuetenberg Forest. Talismans were added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fell in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world’s first cruise missile and the world’s first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.

The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by that false image of courage, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war.

The Fourth Reich

The American people imagine themselves to be brave. They see themselves as the heroic Americans depicted by Western Movies, the descendants of the fierce patriot warriors who had tamed the frontier and defeated the might of the British Empire.

But in truth, by the dawn of the third millennium, the American people have become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery is both salve and slavery. Americans are required to behave as if they are brave, even when they are not.

The American people assume they are safe. They live in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government can and more importantly cannot do. Their leader is a devoutly religious man.

The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don’t wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist.

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government’s lies and deceptions. The vast majority of the American people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to the government’s deceptions, never question why Afghanistan would have done something so stupid as to attack the United States, and as a result, Americans find themselves in a war.

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks the US Government requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the “terrorists”. The American people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing. The temporary powers granted to the Bush administration will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany.

The US Government knows they rule a nation of cowards. The government has had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards can fight. The government has decorated the troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Talismans are added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fall in battle.

Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, the United States government has spent vast sums of money on wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, cruise missiles, and guided missiles, weapons that kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they are doing.
As mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine’s Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celebrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn’t easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes.

Tyrants become obvious only when looking back, after what they have done becomes known. The German people did not stand up to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse.

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world’s last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war.

No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation’s resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

It is naive, not to mention racist to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we’re Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people.

Unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgement with which we look back on the 1930s Germans.

A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations) are wars of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens.

The United Nations Charter

* Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

* Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Bush confesses to war crimes again during a White House speech on terrorism

George W. Bush’s speech on September 6, 2006, President Bush’s Speech on Terrorism from the White House amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that “our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ,” and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress.

The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes — Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.

The central myth of the Bush administration’s War on Terror is that the world faces an unprecedented threat from terrorism that renders obsolete the existing laws of war and international behavior.

The purpose of the Hague and Geneva Conventions is to provide all people with certain protections in times of war, to place some limits on the otherwise limitless human suffering that war inflicts. Arguably, governments have agreed to rules of war precisely so that they can continue to wage limited war without plunging their societies into the total chaos that would result from unrestricted use of increasingly destructive modern weapons against entire populations. The Geneva Conventions afford different status to different classes of people, giving rise to different protections for combatants, prisoners of war and civilians. However the notion that certain classes of people fall entirely beyond the protection of these Conventions is not a serious interpretation, unless one is talking of something other than human beings.

For eight years, U.S. government officials have justified unlawful actions with political arguments that have no legal merit. Now that the political tide has turned, Bush and his associates have behaved like other war criminals throughout history, marshalling what power they had left to shield themselves from the legitimate consequences of their actions.

There is evidence that America could have had an economic motive for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America’s decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan, especially in light of Bush’s substantial links with the oil industry. Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster, which triggered the “war on terror” military campaign, could have been prevented.

IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:

“The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines… The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.”
U.S. House of Reps., “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998

“The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across, Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges.”

“U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998

“CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.”
“U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998

The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.

The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11 disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center fell.

The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February 1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the attacks.

TIMELINE

3rd November 1998 - attacks stop US oil pipeline: Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August. An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. ~ BBC News, “US attack closes US project”, 3 November 1998.

2nd January 1999 - US strikes targets in Afghanistan: No sooner had the Taliban won a series of victories in the north, than the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies in East Africa. ~ BBC News, “Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict”, 2 January 1999.

15th March 2001 - allies invade Afghanistan: India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance’s capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries’ collaborative effort. ~ Janes International Security News, “India joins anti-Taliban coalition”, 15 March 2001.

3rd September 2001 - allies deploy huge task-force for “fictional” conflict: The aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious has sailed from Portsmouth to lead the biggest Royal Navy and Royal Marine deployment since the Falklands. HMS Illustrious is the flagship of three groups of warships travelling to the Middle East to take part in exercise “Saif Sareea 2”. More than 24 surface ships from Britain, plus two nuclear submarines, will be completing the 13,000 mile round trip. The operation, costing nearly £100m, will end with a major exercise before Christmas that will also involve the Army, Royal Air Force and Armed Forces of Oman. The strike force has been put together to take part in a conflict between the fictional forces of the so-called state of ‘Alawham’ and those of Oman. ~ BBC News, Carrier heads for the Middle East, 3 September 2001.

11th September 2001 - the war comes home to America: *** 9/11 ***

16th September 2001 - Bush prepares America to wage war overseas: “I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect’s [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries,” Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn. ~ BBC News, “America widens ‘crusade’ on terror”, 16 September 2001.

18th September 2001 - diplomat reveals 9/11 “response” began before 9/11: A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban even before last week’s attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. ~ BBC News, “US ‘planned attack on Taliban’”, 18 September 2001.

THE “WAR ON TERROR”: AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?

In 1998 US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in a speech to oil industrialists: “I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian” From 1995 until 2000, Cheney served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton, a Fortune 500 company and market leader in the energy sector.

Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil corporations had begun.

The ‘war on terror’ is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian. ~ BBC News, “Race to unlock Central Asia’s energy riches”, 29 December 1997.

“American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi.” ~ The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.

In May 2001, the mainstream media widely reported that the new U.S. Bush Administration had awarded the Taliban forty-two million dollars to support the eradication of opium production in Afghanistan. Less well known is the fact that, shortly after taking office, the Bush Administration had quietly resumed negotiations with the Taliban. In an important new book, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth (2001), French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie have revealed that the Bush Administration worked long and hard to “decouple” bin Laden from the Taliban and lay the foundations for U.S. diplomatic recognition and pipelines for oil and natural gas.

Brisard and Dasquie have drawn on numerous sources, including discussions with John O’Neill, the former FBI Deputy Director who retired in July 2001. Ironically, O’Neill then became security director for the World Trade Center, where he died in the September 11 attacks. According to the authors, O’Neill resigned from the FBI because the State Department had continually blocked his investigation into al-Qa’ida’s roots in Saudi Arabia. The authors report that O’Neill bitterly complained about the ability of the U.S. oil companies and their State Department allies to thwart an investigation that might offend the Saudi royal family and jeopardize U.S. economic interests in that country.

Brisard and Dasquie’s account of the negotiations between the Bush Administration and the Taliban between February and August 2001, provides a helpful framework for understanding the eventual U.S. decision to topple the Afghan regime after the tragedy of September 11. The authors have explained that Washington saw the Taliban as a potential partner who could provide stability in Afghanistan and benefit from the construction of pipelines by U.S. corporations. But, in a series of meetings in Washington, Islamabad, and Berlin, U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and invite other Afghan political forces to join their government.

When the Bush government refused to provide proof and evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 (the US FBI could not find any evidence to link bin Laden to 9/11) the Taliban equivocated over and eventually refused the US demands, U.S. officials threatened to take military action against them - a direct violation of the UN Charter Article 2, paragraph 4 “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” . As Brisard revealed in an interview in Paris, at one point in the negotiations, these officials told the Taliban, “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” As Jonathan Steele and his colleagues reported in the Guardian (”Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack,” Sept. 22, 2001), U.S. representatives told Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats at a mid-July 2001 meeting in Berlin that Washington was seriously contemplating this option. Although these U.S. officials have since denied making such a threat, former Pakistan Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meeting, confirmed their remarks in an interview with the Guardian reporters. Is it a coincidence that the deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history occurred just several weeks after negotiations with the Taliban broke down?

When the Taliban and other Afghan groups were formed to fight the Soviet Union war and occupation of Afghanistan US President Reagan (Vice President George H. W. Bush and 16th Deputy Director of the CIA Robert Gates) called them freedom fighters and welcomed them to the US White House. Now that the US is the aggressors and the ones occupying Afghanistan under military force the US Canada and other NATO countries calls those same freedom fighters terrorists and al Qaeda.

You would have to be pretty stupid to not see who the victims are in the US attacks and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is exactly what everyone in the US, Canada, England, France and other allies of the US are - unbelievably stupid. You are stupid because you cannot see the wrong that the US has done to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Do the math stupid. How many Iraqis took part in the hijackings of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is 0. How many Afghanistan citizens took part in the hijackings of 9/11? The correct answer is 0. How many foreign military war planes were used in the attacks of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is 0. What is the nationality of the accused mastermind of 9/11? The correct answer is Saudi Arabia. How many hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? The correct answer is fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Did the US attack the country that had the mastermind and the majority of hijackers that took part in attacks of September 11, 2001? The correct answer is no. The evidence is overwhelming that Saudi Arabia was the country that planned for and executed the attacks because a member of the Saudi royal family was the mastermind of the attacks and the majority of the hijackers were Saudi and Valerie Plame traced the financing of the 9/11 attacks to the Saudis yet the US went and attacked and now occupy 2 countries that had no part whatsoever in the attacks against the US.

You are all stupid for believing that the Afghan and Iraqi people are terrorists for attacking the US troops who have attacked their country, destroyed their homes and businesses and slaughtered their people. You are stupid for allowing your government to inhumanly torture innocent people whose only crime is defending their country and fellow countrymen from the unlawful war of aggression and occupation of their country. No matter where you go in the World each country has the same duty to protect their country and people from an armed attack from a foreign country. Each and every country have the exact same military code of conduct that bounds their citizens to the duty to defend themselves at all costs, including giving up your life in resistance to an attack and occupation. The United States Army Code of Conduct is duplicated around the World. Read the United States Code of Conduct and substitute the United States with countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Canada or any other country. The duty to fight and guard ones country and way of life is the same in every country in the World. Duty bound to not surrender, to fight on until you are dead, to command others to fight and resist, to be silent when captured is universal because you do so to defend your freedom and your right for you and your countrymen to be free from unlawful attacks and occupations by a foreign military force. The Afghan and Iraqi people are duty bound and have every legal right to defend themselves and their country from the unlawful US attack and occupation of their country. They are not terrorists or the enemy - the US, Canada and other participating NATO countries are the terrorists and the enemy.

If Canada, England or France was attacked by a foreign country, the people of those countries would immediately organize a resistance movement to drive out the attacking military forces. Resistance is the logical and most patriotic duty and action that any citizen can take up when faced with a foreign military occupation of their country. Those who resist attacks and occupation are the ultimate heroes. Taking up arms to defend your country and fellow countrymen is courageous and honorable. Iraqi and Afghanistan citizens are not terrorists they are their country’s heroes - defending their country and countrymen from the unlawful US attacks and occupation. US propaganda labels the resistance as terrorists. US propaganda is used because if the US people realized that the Iraqi and Afghan people are the innocent victims of the Bush administration greed for oil the US would not be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The US people don’t realize that it is solely the blame of the Bush administration and the Obama administration for the inevitable collapse of the US. The unlawful, unprovoked and unjustified wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan is bankrupting the US.

John McCain: “… after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region. Those “freedom fighters” were of course the mujaheddin in Afghanistan waging jihad against the Soviets, including one Osama bin Laden and one Zayman Al Zawahiri. We backed and funded them … we certainly supported the factions fighting alongside him, factions every bit as militantly Islamic as bin Laden–as even the State Department concedes.”

Canada’s JTF2 Black Ops unit delivering prisoners of war from the illegal US wars of aggression to the CIA/US forces for torture. Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced October 7 that the Canadian Armed Forces will join the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. The announcement came only hours after US and British warplanes began bombing Kabul and other Afghan cities. All the opposition parties welcomed Canada’s participation in the war of aggression against Afghanistan, with the exception of the New Democratic Party. NDP leader Alexa McDonough has opposed the US-led assault on Afghanistan, saying that the fight against terrorism should be waged under the aegis of the United Nations - according to the law. The unlawful mission has since been sustained and extended by both the Martin and Harper governments.

Last week the Canadian press revealed that the Canadian military, operating illegally in Afghanistan, are guilty of war crimes for knowing that every Afghan POW (prisoner of war) captured in battle and handed over to US controlled prisons were tortured. The story clearly shows that the Canadian government knew that the POWs were being tortured but ordered that it be kept out of the press. The Canadian government is guilty of war crimes, not only for torture but for simply participating in the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finland to prosecute the political leadership in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

Former leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany at the end of WWII for the very same crimes that are now being committed by the US, Canada and NATO. The Nuremberg trial was conducted by a joint United States-British-French-Soviet military tribunal, with each nation supplying two judges. Leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich faced four counts of indictment:

Count 1 - CONSPIRACY to commit crimes alleged in the next three counts.

Count 2 - CRIMES AGAINST PEACE including planning, preparing, starting, or waging aggressive war.

Count 3 - WAR CRIMES including violations of laws or customs of war.

Count 4 - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY including murder, extermination, enslavement, persecution on political or racial grounds, involuntary deportment, and inhumane acts against civilian populations.

All four counts apply to the military actions of the US, Canada and NATO against Afghanistan and it’s people. In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

The law of war is a body of law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). The law of war is considered an aspect of public international law (the law of nations) and is distinguished from other bodies of law, such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict, that may also provide legal limits to the conduct or justification of war.

Among other issues, modern laws of war address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity along with distinction and proportionality, and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering.

Laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians;
* Facilitating the restoration of peace - We are in year 8 of this war of aggression, the most evil of all war, against a country that did not attack and were not involved in any way in the attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 or any other country before then and since then.

Declaration of war

In the United States, only Congress which makes the rules for the military has the power under the Constitution to “declare War” . Declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by a Commander in Chief when called into actual service. The last time United States passed a bill with the title “Declaration of War” was in 1942, against Romania. Since then, the United States Congress has never declared war against any country. The US has never “legally” declared war against Afghanistan nor Iraq. The US government has only used the term “Authorization to use Military Force”. The fact that war was never declared against Afghanistan means that the war is illegal as it does not have the force of law. The US, Canada and NATO never declared war when they attacked Afghanistan. Their attack and occupation does not have the force of law. “Authorization to use military Force” is a gross usurpation of the United Constitution as Article Six establishes the United States Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land. The US is member of the United Nations and as such is legally required to abide by and adhere to the UN Charter. Article 2 of the UN Charter strictly forbids all signing members making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan

Despite what the US, Canadian and NATO leaders claim the United Nations never authorized the use of military force against either Afghanistan or Iraq. No such authorization could ever be given to any country because the UN Charter (an International treaty) states that it is illegal to threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

The UN Security Council issued two resolutions in 2001 in regards to Afghanistan. The first one that was issued concerning Afghanistan was less than 2 months before the 9/11 attacks - United Nations Security Council Resolution 1363. Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4352nd meeting, on 30 July 2001. It is this resolution that George W Bush fraudulent claims that the UN authorized use of military force against Afghanistan. The September 11, 2001 attacks had not even occurred yet. July 30 2001, according to everyone’s calendar, is 43 days before September 11, 2001. Nowhere in this resolution does it authorize use of force by any country. The next UN Security Council Resolution concerning Afghanistan occurs a month after the US, Canada and NATO attacks the innocent country of Afghanistan - Security Council resolution 1378. Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4415th meeting, on 14 November 2001. Again there is no mention of allowing the US or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. All UN Security Council Resolution for 2001 can be found at the following link: http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm. Nowhere is there any mention of allowing military force against Afghanistan. In fact United Nations Security Council Resolution 1366, Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 4360th meeting, on 30 August 2001, reaffirms the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts - “Reiterating the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming its commitment to the principles of the political independence, sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all States,”

Legal Afghan Resistance and illegal US Unlawful Combatants

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal. Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war, but only after facing a “competent tribunal” (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”, because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. According to the laws of war soldiers become unlawful combatants when they break specific provisions of the laws of war. The US fraudulently declares the Afghan resistance which are fighting in self-defense from the US unlawful war of aggression as unlawful combatants. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are not breaking any laws. The Afghan Taliban and other resistance groups are the only ones operating within the law as their fight is one of self-defense. The Taliban and other resistance groups are killing US, Canadian and NATO troops legally. They are the ones being unlawfully attacked by US, Canadian and NATO troops. They, the Taliban and the Afghan resistance, are defending their country and their fellow countrymen from the unlawful war of aggression, crimes against peace, war crimes against humanity that are being committed on a daily basis by the US, Canada and NATO.

Self-defense is the act of defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from physical harm. In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person attacked to use reasonable force in their own defense and the defense of others. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

Canadian Criminal Code, Sections 34-37

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

The US, Canada and NATO are attacking the Afghan people and their legal Taliban governing body on a daily basis since October 7, 2001. The Afghan people and the Taliban are acting in legal self-defense of themselves and the defense of their country and fellow countrymen. The Afghan people and the Taliban are forced every day to use deadly physical force in defense from the unlawful life threatening daily attacks by US, Canadian and NATO forces. According to US, Canadian and International Law the US, Canadian and NATO leadership are guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, Murder and Torture.

War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”; including murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the killing of hostages, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity.

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the “laws of humanity,” as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

After World War I, the Allies, in connection with the Treaty of Versailles, established in 1919 a commission to investigate war crimes that relied on the 1907 Hague Convention as the applicable law.

In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c):

“Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”

The list of the specific crimes contained within the meaning of crimes against humanity has been expanded since Article 6(c) of the IMT to include, in the ICTY and the ICTR, rape and torture. The statute of the ICC also expands the list of specific acts. In particular, the ICC statute adds the crimes of enforced disappearance of persons and apartheid. Further, the ICC statute contains clarifying language with respect to the specific crimes of extermination, enslave- ment, deportation or forcible transfer of population, torture, and forced pregnancy.

To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to “destroy in whole or in part,” as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of “widespread or systematic” violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war—they apply in times of war and peace.

Crimes against humanity have existed in customary international law for over half a century and are also evidenced in prosecutions before some national courts.

All States can exercise their jurisdiction in prosecuting a war crimes perpetrator irrespective of where the crime was committed. It also means that all States have the duty to prosecute or extradite, that no person charged with that crime can claim the “political offense exception” to extradition, and that States have the duty to assist each other in securing evidence needed to prosecute. But of greater importance is the fact that no perpetrator can claim the “defense of obedience to superior orders” and that no statute of limitation contained in the laws of any State can apply. Lastly, no one is immune from prosecution for such crimes, even a head of State.

Guantanamo Bay - The US War Crimes Central

Guantanamo Bay is an illegal detainment facility located in Cuba. The facility is operated by Joint Task Force Guantánamo of the United States government since 2002 in Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order that stipulated (without legal authority) that the US military could indefinitely detain any non-citizen who was believed to be involved in international terrorism. After the US Justice Department ill-advised that the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp could be considered outside US legal jurisdiction, prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan and civilians kidnapped by the US government (CIA rendition flights) were moved there beginning in early 2002. After the Bush administration unlawfully asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that they were entitled to the protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3. No future date has ever been stated meaning the US government continues to violate the law in regards to handling prisoners of war - a war crime.

Guantanamo Bay is the symbol of the United States’ war crimes and crimes against humanity. It contains all the concrete evidence to successfully indict and convict top US government officials including George W bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, George Tenet, Joe Biden and Barack Obama for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. Guantanamo Bay is the United States’ War Crimes Central. It was created in violation of international laws and treaties. It was created by the US government under George W Bush in direct violation of international law. Everyone who has ever worked there or is now working there can be charged with war crimes because the facility contains civilians and prisoners of war who were captured in battle or kidnapped from their homes and illegally deported to the US detainment facility - Guantanamo Bay.

Individual or mass deportations of civilians and or POWs are war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined at the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, and war crimes under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. If there is enormous loss of life, deportation may constitute genocide, namely the intent to kill or injure, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, according to legal scholar Alfred de Zayas of Rutgers University.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 explicitly forbids deportations in conditions of war. “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” Also forbidden is the common practice of the occupying power deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. The convention allows the “total or partial evacuation” of any area where either “the security of the population or imperative military reasons” require, even outside the occupied territory, “when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement,” but the evacuated civilians must be returned to their homes “as soon as hostilities in the area have ceased.”

Guantanamo Bay has from the very beginning been created to usurp US law and International law. The US Justice Department knew that Guantanamo Bay was and is illegal and that is why the US government build it on Cuban soil, not on US soil. They asserted that since it wasn’t legally on US soil POWs and illegally kidnapped civilians would not be not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions but most importantly the US government would not be accountable for and would not be indicted, nor punished, for the crimes they commit at Guantanamo Bay, in direct violation of both US and International Law. They are wrong. The US government is accountable for their crimes. US Law states:

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. ~
US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 War crimes

Apart from the gross violation of International Laws and Treaties (deportation of civilian of an occupied territory, torture, the killing of hostages and the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war) by the US government, the US law that the US government is guilty of in regards to Guantanamo Bay is kidnapping. In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or asportation of a person against the person’s will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority.

The majority of prisoners held illegally in Guantanamo Bay are civilians. The majority of prisoners are not terrorists but civilians that the US government ordered the CIA to kidnap and deport to illegal detainment facilities including Guantanamo Bay. The majority of prisoners are civilians who were ordered kidnapped because the US government had no evidence to legally arrest them and the US government lacked the necessary evidence to legally extradite them. Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws kidnapping is a direct violation of the law. The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. The United States attacked Afghanistan after the Afghan Taliban government exercised this legal sovereign right and legal authority over the people within Afghanistan’s border. The US violated both US and International laws when they attacked Afghanistan - meaning that according to the law the US attack on Afghanistan was and is to this day illegal. According to International Law the Taliban and the state of Afghanistan did not have any legal obligation to surrender an alleged criminal (bin Laden) to a foreign state (the United States).

Because of international law and treaties the George W bush ordered the CIA to commence the “Extraordinary rendition” of anyone opposed to the illegal US policies - mainly Afghanistan and Iraq or any alleged criminal(s) the US government wanted but could not extradite legally. “Extraordinary rendition” is an extrajudicial procedure and policy of the United States in which suspects, generally civilians the US government claim (without evidence) are terrorists or supporters of terrorist organizations, are deported illegally to countries for imprisonment and interrogation (tortured). The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to illegally extract information from suspects using torture, while extradition is used to legally return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. The CIA Extraordinary rendition of suspects to other countries circumvents U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture. Guantanamo Bay is a US government facility that is used to circumvent US laws. It is a US government facility where the US government has willingly and willfully committed war crimes. The following is what the United States considers to be “War Crimes”. The US government is unequivocally guilty of war crimes - according to the following US law.

US Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 War crimes

Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character;…

(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—

(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:

(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.

(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.

(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.

In April 2004, Cuban diplomats tabled a United Nations resolution calling for a UN investigation of Guantanamo Bay.

In May 2007, Martin Scheinin, a United Nations rapporteur on rights in countering terrorism, released a preliminary report for the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report stated the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that, “Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.” Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.

Henry King, Jr., a prosecutor for the Nuremberg Trials, has argued that the type of tribunals at Guantanamo Bay “violates the Nuremberg principles” and that they are against “the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”

European Union members and the Organization of American States, as well as non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have protested the legal status and physical condition of detainees at Guantánamo. The human rights organization Human Rights Watch has criticized the Bush administration over this designation in its 2003 world report, stating: “Washington has ignored human rights standards in its own treatment of terrorism suspects. It has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and has misused the designation of ‘illegal combatant’ to apply to criminal suspects on U.S. soil.” On May 25, 2005, Amnesty International released its annual report calling the facility the “gulag of our times”. Lord Steyn called it “a monstrous failure of justice,”

On January 13, 2006, German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the U.S. detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the “advanced interrogation technique” known as “waterboarding”, calling it a form of torture: “An institution like Guantánamo, in its present form, cannot and must not exist in the long term.

In May 2006, the Attorney General for England and Wales Lord Goldsmith said the camp’s existence was “unacceptable” and tarnished the U.S. traditions of liberty and justice. “The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol,” he said. Also in May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture condemned prisoners’ treatment at Guantánamo Bay, noted that indefinite detention constitutes per se a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, and called on the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo facility. In June 2006, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in support of a motion urging the United States to close the camp.

In June 2006, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter stated that the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on “the flimsiest sort of hearsay”. In September 2006, the UK’s Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who heads the UK’s legal system, went further than previous British government statements, condemning the existence of the camp as a “shocking affront to democracy”.

According to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell: “Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantánamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don’t need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it.”

The International Committee of the Red Cross inspected the camp in June 2004. In a confidential report issued in July 2004 and leaked to the New York Times in November 2004, Red Cross inspectors accused the U.S. military of using “humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions” against prisoners. The inspectors concluded that “the construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”

On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.

Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that “The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” War crimes are High Crimes under US and International Law. Kidnapping is a High Crime under US and International Law. Murder is a High Crime under US and International Law. Torture is a High Crime under US and International Law. With the long train of abuses and usurpations by the US government, by both the Democrats and the Republicans, it is the right, it is the duty of all Americans to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Being Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve them from responsibility under international law. That is not propaganda, it’s the law.

The Conservative government has rejected calls for an inquiry into a Canadian diplomat’s explosive allegations that Canada’s handling of Afghan detainees likely broke international law, saying the allegations were based on Taliban propaganda and baseless reports. Canada’s Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that testimony by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin regarding the Canadian military’s role in handing over detainees to alleged torture is not to be believed. Colvin told a committee of MPs that Afghan prisoners transferred by Canadians to local authorities in Kandahar were likely all tortured and that high-level officials in Ottawa looked the other way. Mr MacKay, the testimony concerns the adherence to the rule of law, specifically the violation of the rule of law. The Canadian government stated mission in Afghanistan is government propaganda as the mission was and is illegal. The day former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien committed Canadian military forces to an operation that International Law and Treaties clearly deems as a gross violation of International Law is the first day the Canadian government committed crimes punishable as crimes under international law. Mr MacKay is a war criminal as are Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.

Principle I ~ Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II ~ The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III ~ The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV ~ The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V ~ Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle Vl ~ The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

1. Crimes against peace:

1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

2. War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

3. Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII ~ Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

The Charter of The United Nations

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm With in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom….

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members….

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Chapter Vl: Pacific Settlement of Disputes

Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their disputes by such means.

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, are a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to Judeo-Christian tradition, were authored by God and given to Moses on the mountain referred to as “Mount Sinai” (Exodus 19:23) or “Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2) in the form of two stone tablets. They are recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to religious and moral laws the actions taken by the US, Canada and NATO are unlawful. Exodus 20:2–17 You shall not murder (directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being). You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness (To tell a lie. To say someone has done something they have not) against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. The US, Canada and NATO have violated not only their own laws but international laws and the laws written in stone by our maker - God.

‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” ~ Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:37-22:40

Canadian Criminal Code

Criminal Negligence (C.C.C. section 219 (1))

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Definition of “duty”

(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Causing death by criminal negligence

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 220; 1995, c. 39, s. 141.

Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221. Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 204.

229. Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 212.

Make no mistake Mr MacKay, we the people, will be coming for you and your co-conspirators and you and your co-conspirators will be charged with crimes punishable as crimes under international law. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and\or limitation. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as “the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression”.

The freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), a key document of the French Revolution. The Declaration provides for freedom of expression in Article 11, which states that:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”

Based on John Stuart Mill’s arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

* the right to seek information and ideas;
* the right to receive information and ideas;
* the right to impart information and ideas.

The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all.

The right to freedom of expression is also related to the right to a fair trial and court proceeding which may limit access to the search for information or determine the opportunity and means in which freedom of expression is manifested within court proceedings.

The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.

One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.

“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.”

Constitutional Law of Canada Section 2(b) of the Charter states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”

Barack Obama gave a speech at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City on April 16, 2009 where he shook hands with archaeologist Felipe Solis who died less than 24 hours later from “flu like symptoms”

President Obama’s school age daughters have still not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk. The Centers for Disease Control recommend that children ages 6 months through 18 years of age receive a vaccination against the H1N1 flu virus. At this time only children with chronic medical conditions are receiving the vaccination. The CDC says a regular seasonal flu shot does not protect against the virus. So, why would Obama declare a swine flu national emergency BUT exempt himself and his family from being vaccinated against the H1N1 (Swine Flu) virus? The answer is clear and simply. The H1N1 vaccine is not safe. Not only has it not been properly tested the vaccine contains the actual live swine flu virus. Because of this the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been ordered to treat any and all attempts to administer the H1N1 vaccine to president Obama or any member of his family as an attack on the president of the United States of America. Should the public insist Obama and his family be vaccinated Obama and his family will receive the harmless diabetic insulin (sugar) shot. Any attempt to inject any form of the H1N1 (Swine Fu) virus in Obama or any member of his family will be considered an attempt on the life of the president.

With Dad a world leader and Nobel Prize winner, Malia and Sasha Obama surely could have been first in line when vaccinations began for swine flu. They were not placed first because the vaccine is very dangerous. Soon after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the Obama girls have not been vaccinated people began to suspect that because they were not vaccinated the vaccine really must be dangerous. As part of damage control and to silence public opinion and outcry over the vaccine exemption for Obama and his family Michelle Obama’s spokeswoman quickly reported that the Obama girls got their vaccine at least two weeks after the first Americans received their shots. There is no proof of them ever being vaccinated, only the White House declaring they were.

As soon as it was thought Obama may have been infected with the Swine Flu when President Barack Obama gave a speech at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City on April 16, 2009 the order was given to consider any attempt by anyone to infect the president with the swine flu as an attempt on Obama’s life. The swine flu scare for Obama was regarded as a catastrophic breach of security because Obama was received by archaeologist Felipe Solis who died less than 24 hours later from “flu like symptoms”. The obituary claims Felipe Solis died from the swine flu but his death certificate claims he died as a result of heart failure. Makes one wonder if the story about the White House being evacuated and Obama being moved had anything to do with this since it occurred at roughly the same time that this Felipe Solis Swine Flu story was hitting the wires. Bury a major story with any other story that affects the president as a diversion.

Still think that the vaccine is safe? If the president of the United States has exempted himself and his family from the Swine Flu vaccine wouldn’t that be all the evidence needed to consider the vaccine unsafe? Obama didn’t become infected with the Swine Flu after he shook hands with a person who died less than 24 hours later from the Swine Flu. Wouldn’t that prove that the Swine Flu is not contagious? This and other observations have nothing to with conspiracy theories but with an actual conspiracy by the US government to infect the US population with the Swine Flu through their much publicised vaccine campaign. In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a “general intent” to violate the law.

While on the campaign trail for the US presidency in April 2008 Barack Obama joined John McCain in suggesting that there may be a link between vaccines and autism. At the height of his presidential campaign against Senator John McCain, Barack Obama declined the advocacy group Autism Society of America’s invitation to discuss health reform at a town hall meeting. But in a written response, the then-Senator promised to increase federal funding for autism research and treatment to $1 billion each year by the end of his first term in office. Autism is the only disease or disorder specifically mentioned in the presidential agenda published on the new White House website. On his official campaign website, Obama promised to appoint an ‘autism czar’ who would oversee research on autism, eliminate bureaucracy, and coordinate autism-related agencies at state and local levels. The website added that Obama would fully fund the 2006 Combating Autism Act, which earmarked nearly $1 billion in autism-related federal funding over five years.

On September 5, 2008, then Senator Barack Obama was questioned about childhood vaccine safety/choice. His response, “I am not for selective vaccination, I believe that it will bring back deadly diseases, like polio.” One year later Obama Urges All Americans to Get Vaccinated for Swine Flu.

H1N1 vaccine adverse reactions have included: Guillain-Barre (paralysis); Thrombocytopenia (spontaneous bleeding); anaphylaxis (life threatening allergic reaction); lymphadenopathy (diseased lymph nodes); convulsions; encephalomytis (brain inflammation/damage); optic neuropathy (optic nerve damage); syncope (loss of consciousness); and vasculitis (inflammatory destruction of blood vessels). (package insert: nasal spray) (package insert: injected)

H1N1 vaccine ingredients include: MSG (carcinogen: H1N1 nasal spray); 25 mcg/full dose of thimerosal/mercury (neurotoxin: Sanofi Pasteur multi-dose); formaldehyde (tested carcinogen); hemagglutinin (glycoprotein causes red blood cells to clump and attach to respiratory tract, causing infection); gelatin (allergen); polyethylene glycol p-isoctylphenyl ether (detergent).

The evidence is clear. The US attacked 2 countries which did not attack the US or any other country or even threaten other countries in any way. The US attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq are declared “Wars of Aggression”, Crimes Against Peace” and “war Crimes” according to US and International Law. The evidence declares George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld and members of their former government as war criminals.

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition,” according to General Assembly Resolution 3314

The definition of terrorism is: 1. League of Nations Convention (1937): “All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public”. 2. UN Resolution language (1999):”1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

The US government does not recognize the legitimate use of violence by civilians against the US invader in the occupied countries of Afghanistan and Iraq and would, thus labels all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. The US government has labeled all resistance to their unlawful and unprovoked attacks and occupation as enemy or unlawful combatants. Ultimately, the distinction is political. In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. The US government War on Terror is a play on words as the US is engaging in wars of terror against all those who oppose US takeover of their natural resources - in this cases natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan and oil in Iraq. “U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) defined terrorism as: “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” It is ironic that the US Department of Defense has defined the actions their government has taken against the people of the United States, the people of Afghanistan, and Iraq and threats against Iran as terrorism.

As far as the US government is concerned everyone who opposes them are “terrorist” yet the victims of the US aggression are actually “freedom fighters”, defending their country and fellow countrymen from the unlawful, unjustified and unprovoked attack by the criminals in control of the US government.

Key criteria that define the US government as a terrorist state;

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” - Shock and awe was used by the Bush White House when they launched their cowardly and unprovoked attack against the innocent people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US attacks were pure acts of violence against the civilian population of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and Cheney committed terrorist acts against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. No hijackers were from either of those 2 countries. No foreign war planes attacked, bombed, or invaded the US on 9/11. No diplomat from either countries made any threats against the US or ordered the attacks against the US yet the US immediately made plans to violently attack them. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of terrorism, wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, perpetrated by the US government. Both countries are victims of the US violent unprovoked attacks that destroyed their country’s and slaughtered millions of their “civilian” population.

Psychological impact and fear – Terrorist attacks are carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government’s legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act. The US government put on quite a “performance” with their terrorist attack against their own country on September 11, 2001. Immediately the US government took control of the media in order to maximize the psychological impact and hyped the fear in the US public. Bush and Cheney carefully chose the World Trade Centers for they were a national symbol of the US financial power. Bush and Cheney are the real terrorists. Government documents revealed that the Patriot Act was drawn up even before the attacks of September 11, 2001 giving evidence of the attacks being premeditated.

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic. Rebuilding America Defense detailed the Bush White House political goal even before they stole the White House in the 2000 presidential election. The US Constitution clearly stated that “only” the House of Representatives can decide by vote when a tie occurs in a presidential election yet the George W Bush had his brother decide for the entire nation - through the ruling of one unelected state judge (judge was appointed by Jeb Bush). Rebuilding America Defense is a terrorist doctrine that laid out the entire political goal of the Bush administration.

http://www.newameric … AmericasDefenses.pdf

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harm’s way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific “symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings” that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists’ goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends. When the US government began their war of terror they immediately planned for and launched attacks against civilians. Shock and awe was a deliberate attack against civilians. The US government murdered over 1 million Iraqi civilians by the time George W Bush declared mission accomplished. Even to this day there are daily reports of US military strikes that killed civilians not any opposing army, navy or air force. The US government sees all those who resist their unlawful occupation as a threat to their goals in Iraq. Every day the US military is ordered on another mission their mission is always against civilians. They murder the innocent civilians as a warning to every one else who would dare to come forward and oppose the illegal occupation of their country. They murder innocent civilians including women and children to invoke perpetual fear in the general population.

Disguise – Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it. The Bush White House brainwashed the US public into believing that they are attacking and occupying other countries to protect the US and the people. They are falsely portraying themselves to be the good guys. The US Congress has known that Bush and Cheney mislead them yet to this day they have not done their sworn duty to make them accountable for their criminal acts against the US people and the innocent people of Afghanistan and Iraq. If you and I were to take the list of hijackers as evidence then the Bush government attacked the wrong country and killed the wrong people because according to the US White House the mastermind behind 9/11 was a Saudi billionaire with ties to the Saudi royal family and the majority of hijackers were Saudi. Their presented evidence declares that Saudi Arabia attacked the US not Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran. The Bush White House evidence clearly lays blame for the killing of US citizens on September 11, 2001 on Saudi Arabia yet they chose to attack 2 innocent countries. The 9/11 Commission Report was commissioned by the White House to hide and cover up the facts that Saudi Arabia helped the Bush administration attack the US.

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a “legitimate” government (and thus “lawful”) and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned - state terrorism. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. A perfect example is the cozy relationship between the US and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Saddam fought a proxy war for the US against Iran. Donald Rumsfeld was special envoy to Saddam and he personally hand delivered the Bell helicopters that Saddam used to drop the US made and delivered chemical bombs on Iran and the Kurds who tried to assassinate Saddam. Every day Bush and Cheney declared they were right and had the right to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. They both keep saying the World is behind them - that their unlawful attacks against innocent states is legitimate. To them torturing is legal because they sanctioned it. Both kept on citing executive privilege whenever another major war crime is uncovered, one that they ordered. Reality is that the attacks against the US on September 11, 2001, against Afghanistan and Iraq are all state sponsored terrorism - all committed by the US government.

Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In his report to the State Department, Justice Jackson wrote: “No political or economic situation can justify” the crime of aggression. He also said: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

Since September 11, 2001

Number of hijackers from Iraq on 9/11 = 0
Number of hijackers from Afghanistan on 9/11 = 0
Number of Taliban involved in 9/11 = 0
Number of Middle East attacks against the US = 0
Number of US civilians killed by Iraqi military = 0
Number of US civilians killed by Afghan military = 0
Number of US civilians killed by the Taliban = 0
Number of US civilians killed by Saddam Hussein = 0
Number of US civilians killed by Iran = 0
Number of Iraqi bombers used in 9/11 attacks = 0
Number of Afghan bombers used in 9/11 attacks = 0
Number of US citizens killed by bin Laden on 9/11 = 0 - When the US FBI was asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Number of US citizens killed on 9/11 by al Qaeda = 0
Number of Iraqi civilians killed by US = 1,000,000 +
Number of US citizens killed by Bush / Cheney and their administration on 9/11 = 3000+
Number of US Soldiers killed since 9/11 by Bush / Cheney and their administration and the Obama administration = 4000+

Never forget that millions of men and women went off to war to free countries from occupation by aggressive and imperialistic states. How many Americans gave their live so that others can be free? How many paid the ultimate sacrifice to free Europe from the occupation of Adolf Hitler? All of those brave souls’ sacrifice is now belittled and tarnished with the cowardly wars of aggression by the US government against innocent countries. The unlawful attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq by the government of George W Bush dishonors their memory and their sacrifice. What they fought against is now the policy of the US government. They fought to end occupations. They fought to free foreign states. They fought to end the war and bring about peace. The military and political objective of the US before Bush was to end a war as quickly as possible in order to restore peace. As soon as they liberated an occupied country they left because freedom does not mean replacing one occupier with another. What did George W Bush do? He attacked 2 countries without provocation. He attacked and killed millions of innocent people. He destroyed entire civilians cities, towns and villages. He murdered women and children. He tortured prisoners of his war. His occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is continued even today, even with a new president. He did not liberate Iraq or Afghanistan, he attacked and occupied them. Have you noticed that he and Obama have never uttered the words peace in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. They only spoke of and continue to speak of war. Obama promised that if he was elected president he would end the wars. He broke his promise as the wars go on with no talk of peace. The US is no longer a nation of peace keepers and peace makers. The US is a nation of war keepers and war makers. They are the real terrorists. They are the evil that we fought to the death to destroy. They are a mockery to the sacrifice of millions who paid the ultimate price so that others can be free and live in peace.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday that his government won’t buy vaccines for swine flu that have not been properly tested or from producers who won’t take responsibility for possible side effects.

Tusk told reporters that vaccine producers were pressuring governments to buy, but were also demanding that all responsibility and compensation for possible negative side effects fall upon government shoulders.

“Today we are dealing with great pressure from pharmaceutical firms … we are dealing with expectations that hundreds of millions of zlotys (dollars) will be spent on vaccine while no one wants to guarantee that it has no side effects,” he said.

He stressed that the few dozen swine cases in Poland have been mild and no deaths have been reported.

Some independent health experts have been advising vaccination after a recent surge in flu cases in neighbouring Ukraine saw more than 700,000 cases and 109 deaths of people with flu-like illness in recent weeks. Of the 109 deaths fourteen of the fatalities were swine flu cases, Polish news agency PAP reported, citing Ukraine’s chief doctor Oleksandr Bilovol. Immediately the World Health Organization said that the swine flu virus has become the predominant flu strain worldwide despite the contradicting evidence that proves that the swine flu accounts for a very small fraction of the deaths of people with flu-like illness.

While most people recover from the illness without needing medical treatment, officials are seeing severe side effects from the vaccine in people under 65 - people who are not usually at risk during regular flu seasons.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is the only leader who is actually doing his job to protect his people. He is the only one who sees the swine flu vaccine for what it is and has ordered tests be done on the vaccine. The US, Canada, the UK, France and other nations have all jumped onto the drug pushing wagon with little or no regard for the health and safety of their people. All seem to be speaking for the drug companies instead of protecting their people who voted them into office. Not one has actually looked at the possibility that the vaccine may actually be more dangerous to the public than the actual swine flu virus. Not one has done what Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has done and actually sent vaccine samples off to labs to be tested. A simple toxicology test would show everyone that the vaccine is very dangerous and even lethal. Putting a sample of the vaccine under a microscope would reveal that the vaccine is contaminated as it contains the live swine flu virus. A simple and cheap $59 microscope with a 900X magnification bought at Canadian Tire reveals the live swine flu virus in the vaccine. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is a true leader. The same cannot be said for US President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Both have become drug pushers for the pharmaceutical companies.

Health Care Bill will make criminals of you if you don’t have the money to pay them.

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person or persons unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.

Extortion requires that an individual or individuals make a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money “willingly” and “knowingly” as elements of the crime. The threat only has to be made (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Today extortion is mainly committed by two sectors within our economy. One sector is Government, and the other sector is Business.

Federal, State and Local Governments simply create laws that take our money out of our pockets. As a matter of fact, they wrongfully assume the legal authority to take away all of your tangible, intangible and Real property for reasons of their own, regardless of what you have to say or do about it.

City, County and State Governments levy taxes to pay the cost of keeping everyone healthy and safe. Those are Real Estate taxes, sales taxes and other fees to keep Public services available for its people. So too, Federal taxes insure that our Country Government keeps us safe from Foreign enemies and allows us to live a reasonably healthy and happy life as a citizen of the United States of America.

Then again, as a result of political corruption and greed, those two sectors have also unfairly raised the cost of everything that we need in order to stay healthy and alive. They are the biggest cause of inflation within our economy.

The people who we trust to insure our well being are just lazy and corrupted by business, and are no less guilty of extortion than organized crime groups. If they aren’t solving the problem, they must be part of the problem.

Real Estate, sales and other taxes have all increased far beyond the average rate of inflation. Natural disasters, the undeclared wars, the on going loss of jobs to Foreign Countries and the inflow of illegal drugs have and will continue to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet, our elected Politicians, corrupt or not, continue to do nothing worthwhile to solve any of those very serious problems.

On Friday November 6, 2009 ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care extortion bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

The Health Care Bill makes an attempt to legalize extortion whereby the US government threatens outrageous fines and 5 year jail terms if anyone fails to purchase government controlled health care insurance. The demand imposed by the US government requiring everyone to pay or face fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years is sufficient to commit the indictable offense of extortion. In essence the US government becomes an organized crime group with the passing of the health care extortion bill by the House of Representatives.

Within the bill is a Max Baucus provision to the “Public Option”. That provision is tantamount to extortion and places everyone at risk of paying upwards of a fine of $250,000 for not affording to pay for health insurance that tends to cover next to nothing. Such a perversion of any health care bill that imposes this insurance tax on the public is draconian and submissive to corporate gains and demands and not the people’s needs or wants and decreases the ability for us as the consumer to negotiate premiums with the already negligent and deplorable insurance providers.

To add salt to the wound the Obama government health care bill will cost a whopping US$894-billion over 10 years. If the bill is passed what will the US people get? They will get a government-run insurance plan that imposes a very heavy tax increase on everyone to help pay for it. If anyone doesn’t buy their health insurance they will be fined up to $250,000 and imprisoned for 5 years. According to the law that is clearly extortion. What does the law say about people who commit the crime extortion? US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 872;

“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. “

Wake up Americans. The Iraqi people, the Afghan people, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Muslim extremists are not your enemy. You own government is your enemy. Your government took away your rights and freedoms. Your government illegally spies on you. Your government tortures people. Your government kidnaps and imprisons people without due process of the law. Your government attacks and injures you whenever you exercise you right to free speech and legally petition your government for change. Your government robbed you and gave $trillions to the bankers of the privately owned Federal Reserve banks. Your government was the one who infected you with the swine flu virus.

United States Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) virus is a lab created biological weapon that was taken from Fort Detrick to Mexcio in April 2009. The virus was taken from Fort Detrick’s biological weapon research lab on April 16, 2009, 1 day after the nation petitioned the US government for change during the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Revolt. When the first case of the swine flu was reported in the U.S. the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division unit at Fort Meade Command immediately recognized the symptoms described by the media and the WHO as being one and the same as those associated with certain viruses kept at Fort Detrick. Army investigators initiated a probe into the disappearance of deadly pathogens at Fort Detrick’s infectious disease laboratory in Frederick Maryland on April 22, 2009. The three small vials containing viruses causes a mild flu like illness but can also cause brain inflammation and death. The missing vials were developed for use as a biological weapon but far less lethal than some other agents the lab works with.

What was the motive behind the Obama government intentionally releasing the swine flu virus? Why would the US government launch such an attack against its own people? The answer is the target of their attack. The answer is senior citizens. Because over 50% of the nation’s wealth is held by senior citizens. Because over 50% of medical care costs goes to senior citizens. What weapon does the US government have that can be used against a select group of people? The answer is biological weapons. How will they use these weapons? The answer is bioterrorism. Bioterrorism is terrorism by intentional release or dissemination of biological agents (bacteria, viruses, or toxins), A bioterrorism attack is the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs (agents) used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants. These agents are typically found in nature, but it is possible that they could be changed to increase their ability to cause disease, make them resistant to current medicines, or to increase their ability to be spread into the environment. Terrorists use biological agents because they can be extremely difficult to detect and do not cause illness for several hours to several days.

Bioterrorism is an attractive weapon because biological agents are relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain or produce, can be easily disseminated, and can cause widespread fear and panic beyond the actual physical damage they can cause. This description of bioterrorism describes exactly what is occuring with the Swine Flu virus outbreak. The US media is being paid by the US government to cause widespread fear and panic beyond what the swine flu virus can actually do. They have successfully created an atmosphere of panic, as across the US, millions are lining up for hours to receive the intentional limited supply of swine flu vaccines.

They have repeatedly warned that millions will die if they don’t get vaccinated. But how the public will be infected is intentionally left out of their news conferences and multi $million swine flu vaccine ad campaigns to coerce you into getting vaccinated. Millions have been infected with the swine flu only through the vaccines. Millions more will be infected, not natural but through the vaccine. The vaccines contains a highly concentrated dosage of the live swine flu virus. The actual swine flu virus is not contagious. The only way for it to spread from person to person is by mosquitoes or vaccine syringe. In order for the actual virus to cause severe illness and even death is for it to be injected directly into the blood stream. A mosquito bite does that and so does a vaccine syringe. The vaccine is a specially made cocktail of the actual live virus and added dangerous and lethal adjuvants and banned chemicals. The formula will make certain groups mildly sick for a few days but the main target group will die. The main target group is seniors.

Seniors are the main target of this biological attack because as stated before, they hold over 50% of the wealth and account for over 50% of all health care costs. The swine flu vaccine will kill millions of senior citizens because they are already on some sort of medication or receiving treatment for an existing ailment such as hypertension, cardiac problems, diabetes, joint pains, kidney infections, cancer, tuberculosis and eye problems. These disorders require proper and in some cases prolonged treatment. To the US government this group of people are seen as an unnecessary burden on their health care system. Seniors don’t spend their life savings on health care. They buy much cheaper health care insurance to cover the very high medical costs for the care that they will require for the rest of their lives.

Seniors don’t invest their money in stocks and bonds. Seniors park their money in banks, some even stash it away somewhere in their own homes. The majority of seniors own their own home and being seniors they already have everything they need. They won’t buy anything until they actually need something. If you do the math and calculate the real worth of seniors you may also see why the Obama government intentionally released the swine flu virus to target and kill seniors. Most seniors have clear title (debt free) to their homes with home equity values anywhere from $100,000 to several $100,000. On top of that seniors have accumulated very large life savings. The senior citizens’ real estate assets and money is the target of the Obama government. The US government is bankrupt. The US government needs money fast and lots of it. If they don’t the dollar will fail and the nation will collapse. The only group of people with real wealth are senior citizens but the US government can’t get at the senior citizens’ property or wealth quick enough. Savings are not earning so they cannot be taxed, only the interest on the savings. What bank these days offers high interest or any interest at all on savings? Seniors have lived in the same house for decades. As most seniors live in older homes their property value doesn’t increase enough for the government to raise their property taxes. So the US government came up with a sinister plan to kill millions of senior citizens with a virus they created in a lab - the swine flu virus. With already compromised immune systems seniors cannot fight both their existing illness and the swine flu virus.

By killing seniors the hold on $trillions in wealth will be broken. Any senior citizen who dies without a will will have their wealth transfered directly to the government. Seniors with a will and surviving children will leave their wealth to their children. Their surviving children will waste no time to quickly spend their newly acquired wealth. What took their parents decades to save will be spent literally overnight. This wealth transfusion will rocket the economy out of the recession - that being primary and 1st of 2 goals for the US government. Killing millions of seniors will also - according to Obama and his government - solve the health care crisis.

Doctors and hospitals are expressing concern that the FluMist vaccine could endanger people because it contains live H1N1 virus. Their concern is that the FluMist can be a pandemic waiting to happen?

Hospitals in Colorado and elsewhere are shunning the FluMist H1N1 vaccine, a nasal spray that contains live swine flu virus, because of fears it will infect people with weakened immune systems and underlying health conditions and cause their death.

“Several metro area hospitals said they won’t be taking the FluMist because they don’t want to endanger patients.”

Lois VanFleet, infection prevention specialist at Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in Lafayette, expressed concern that doctors and nurses who inhaled the live virus while administering it could infect patients whose immune systems are compromised. This would actually spread the virus instead of preventing it. The effects could be lethal for those patients with already weakened immune systems and underlying health conditions.

The live virus contained in the nasal spray is weakened but it is a live virus which can be transmitted from person to person for up to three weeks. The sharp increase in the number of people who have become infected with the A-H1N1 virus is directly linked to the nasal spray as the nasal spray is spreading the virus not only amongst already sick people but healthy people. The nasal spray spreads the virus much easier than the actual virus could because the virus is a higher concentration of the live virus and the mist cannot be contained or confined to just the person receiving the nasal spray.

The fear is that the nasal spray will contribute to a wider pandemic, which will then provide governments with the crisis they need to make the injectable vaccine mandatory. This would accelerate the move to a state of emergency, cripple the US health care system, and would result in the “need” to have the military take control. All public assemblies, including courts, would be prohibited, thereby satisfying a condition for the imposition of martial law, mass quarantines, and forced vaccinations for the rest of us.

According to the Mayo Clinic, the swine flu scandal of 1976, when more people died from the vaccine than the actual virus, was what caused the live virus to be removed from future vaccines. A law was passed that banned the use of any live virus in any vaccines or influenza drug. However, the government, the WHO and the CDC have all admitted that FluMist contains the live virus. That means they are admiting to commiting a crime, breaking the law, because by law they are strictly forbidden to use any live virus.

“It has been documented that the live viruses from the vaccine can be shed (and potentially spread into the community) from recipient children for up to 21 days, and even longer from adults. Viral shedding also puts breastfeeding infants at risk if the mother has been given FluMist,” writes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, one of the most outspoken physicians in the country on the hazards of vaccines and vaccination.

FluMist’s own package insert reads as follows, “FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days.”

“The warning is specifically directed toward those living in the same household with an immunocompromised person, but the on-going release of live viruses throughout the community may be a significant risk to everyone who has a weak, or weakened, immune system,” writes Tenpenny, pointing out that if one takes into account a plethora of health conditions that could be classified as contributing to immunodeficiency, as much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed.”

“An ever greater concern about FluMist is the contents within the vaccine. Each 0.5ml of the formula contains 10 6.5-7.5 particles of live, attenuated influenza virus. That means that between 10 million and 100 million viral particles will be forcefully injected into the nostrils when administered. The viral strain was developed by serial passage through “specific pathogen-free primary chick kidney cells” and then grown in “specific pathogen-free eggs.” That means that the culture media was free of pathogens that were specifically tested for, but not a culture that was necessarily “pathogen-free.” The risk that the vaccine may contain contaminant avian retroviruses still remains,” warns Tenpenny.

The main ingredient in the GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis vaccines contain a LIVE VIRUS, an attenuated virus meaning it’s a weakened form of the swine flu virus. Attenuated vaccines can be deadly and cause virus shedding, when a person is injected with an attenuated live virus the organism moves through the human body possibly infecting the host and then exiting through the feces, mucous membranes and saliva glands of the inoculated person. This is called ‘virus shedding’ and can last for weeks. Both Novartis and GSK vaccines will also contain MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant that when combined with a live attenuated virus becomes many times more potent and deadly.

GlaxoSmithKline’s version of the swine flu vaccine has been confirmed to contain Thimerosal, a preservative for vaccines mainly composed of highly toxic mercury. Mercury is the 2nd most toxic metal on the planet and is known to cause autism and other neural injuries in children. The vaccine also contains formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical most commonly used for embalming dead bodies for preservation.

If half of the U.S. population is vaccinated with this swine flu vaccine imagine how virulently deadly this swine flu will be on an annual basis. The swine flu vaccine program will contribute to a wider pandemic, not solve it.

One of the pharmaceutical companies developing the nasal spray vaccines is Baxter International. They were charge earlier this year with releasing batches of vaccines from a lab in Austria that were contaminated live bird flu virus, otherwise known as H5N1. If it is considered a criminal offense to include a live virus in a vaccine, whether it be the bird flu virus or the swine flu virus why hasn’t the WHO, the CDC, the drug companies and the Obama government been charged? Existing law makes it very clear that the use of a live virus in any vaccine is banned, forbidden and illegal yet the FluMist contains the a live virus, a direct and intentional violation of the law.

Quarantine is voluntary or compulsory isolation, typically to contain the spread of something considered dangerous, often but not always disease. The purpose of such quarantine is to prevent the spread of contamination, and to contain the contamination such that others are not put at risk from a person fleeing a scene where contamination is suspect. There are laws that make it standard protocol to quarantine people who have been infected with a contagious and deadly disease or virus. The first astronauts to visit the Moon were quarantined upon their return at the specially built Lunar Receiving Laboratory to protect the human race from the possibility of a space borne micro-organism that could infect and destroy the human race.

From day one the WHO and the CDC has warned that this influenza outbreak has the potential to kill millions. Even the possibility of the swine flu causing the death of hundreds of people was cause for the US government to immediately quarantine all those who were diagnosed with the virus and everyone who came in contact with the infected person or persons. That fact that no such protocol was ordered by the WHO, the CDC or the president means that the Swine Flu is not as dangerous or contagious as what is being claimed by the WHO, the CDC and Obama. The fact that no one to date has been quarantined means a political agenda and conspiracy to allow the influenza virus to spread in order to kill millions or a conspiracy to force millions to be vaccinated against a virus that is not any real threat to mankind so that the drug companies can profit. If there was a real threat of millions being killed by the swine flu virus it was the job, the duty of the WHO, the CDC and Obama to protect the public and order all infected people to be quarantined to control the spread of the virus that could cause the death of millions.

The Bible mentions the separation of infected people in order to prevent the spread of disease as early as 1513 BC, as recorded in Leviticus chapter 13 of the Old Testament.

Narrated Saud: The Prophet said, “If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 71, Number 624)

The discovery of the contagious nature of infectious diseases and the use of quarantine to limit the spread of contagious diseases was introduced by Abū Alī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in The Canon of Medicine, circa 1020.

The word “quarantine” originates from the Venetian dialect form of the Italian quaranta giorni, meaning ‘forty days’. This is due to the 40 day isolation of ships and people prior to entering the city of Dubrovnik in Dalmatia - Croatia (formerly known as Ragusa). This was practiced as a measure of disease prevention related to the plague (Black Death). Between 1348 and 1359 the Black Death wiped out an estimated 30% of Europe’s population, as well as a significant percentage of Asia’s population.

Quarantine law began in Colonial America in 1663, when in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox, the city of New York established a quarantine. In the 1730s, the city built a quarantine station on the Bedloe’s Island.

In Canada under the Quarantine Act, all travellers must submit to screening and if they believe they might have come into contact with communicable disease or vectors, they must disclose their whereabouts to a Border Services Officer. If the officer has reasonable grounds that the traveller is or might have been infected with a communicable disease or refused to provider answers, a quarantine officer (QO) must be called and the person is to be isolated. If a person refused to be isolated, any peace officer may arrest without warrant.

A QO who has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, after the medical examination of a traveller, can order him/her into treatment or measures to prevent the person from spreading the disease. QO can detained any traveller who refused to comply with his/her order or undergo health assessments as required by law.

The WHO declared a pandemic for the swine flu on June 11, 2009. Dr Chan said: “We have evidence to suggest we are seeing the first pandemic of the 21st Century. “Moving to pandemic phase six does not imply we will see increased in deaths or serious cases.” During the press conference the WHO declared that the current pandemic seems to be moderate and causing mild illness in most people. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for calm. “Let me stress: this is a formal statement about the geographical spread of the disease. It is not in itself a cause for alarm,” he said. And the WHO does not recommend closure of borders or any restrictions on the movement of people, goods or services.

If it is causing mild illness in most people what is with all the fear mongering hype to get people to be vaccinated for the swine flu? If the Swine Flu is as dangerous as they claim why hasn’t anyone followed standard protocol to contain the spread of the virus? Why hasn’t no one been quarantined to stop the spread of the virus? Make up your mind, the WHO, the CDC and Obama. Is it contagious or not?

If it is contagious and could actually cause the death of millions that makes the WHO, the CDC and Obama liable for each and every death as a result of the Swine Flu because they failed to protect the public by quarantining all those who were the first ones infected by the virus. They might have made a law to protect the drug companies and everyone administering the vaccines but there is no immunity for the deaths of all those who have died and will die of the swine flu. Negligent homicide is any unlawful homicide which is the result of simple negligence. An intent to kill or injure is not required. Simple negligence is the absence of due care, that is, an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care of the safety of others which a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.

Obama shared a flight aboard Air Force One with Swine Flu Infected Marc S Griswold.

Saying the new H1N1 virus is “unstoppable”, the World Health Organization gave drug makers a full go-ahead to manufacture vaccines against the A-H1N1 influenza strain. Every country will need to vaccinate citizens against the swine flu virus and must choose who else would get priority after nurses, doctors and technicians, said Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research. The WHO and the CDC have determined that the H1N1 virus is contagious and is spreading from human to human. They have made a false statement to that effect without offering any proof that authenticates their claim.

All the evidence says that the H1N1 virus is not contagious and is not spread from person to person. The H1N1 virus is spread by vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs. The biggest piece of evidence that supports our report that the H1N1 virus is not contagious and is not spread from person to person was given by the US government. US De Facto president (Kenyan born not natural born US citizen) Obama wasn’t infected with the H1N1 virus even though a member of his security detail, who flew on the Air Force One with Obama, was declared as US patient zero for the H1N1 virus.

Air Force One and every other jumbo jet are all pressurized air chambers. The cabin of every large jet, including Air Force One, is pressurized and recirculates the air for the entire flight so if the H1N1 virus was contagious everyone on board One Force One would have become infected with the H1N1 virus including Obama, but only one person was. The White House stated that even though Obama shared the same flight as a person with the H1N1 virus Obama was never in any danger of contracting the H1N1 virus. Everyone else on the flight was not infected. The special agent for the security detail for Obama flew back from Mexico to the US aboard a US Commercial airline to Dulles international Airport in Washington DC. That flight was full of people who were making connecting international flights from Washington. The agent was sick with the H1N1 virus when he boarded that plane yet no one else on that flight contracted the H1N1 virus. The US government made no attempts to quarantine the passengers of that flight nor did they track down anyone from that flight to test them for the H1N1 virus. They took no action because the H1N1 virus is not contagious and is not spread from person to person as these 2 flights clearly have shown. During a press conference Swine Flu Patient Zero Marc S Griswold, the special agent for the security detail for Obama stated: “We’ve been told we’re not contagious. We’re already past the seven-day mark for that.”

Lab tests after lab tests have given the exact same results. The Swine Flu virus survives untreated for a maximum of 7 days. In every and all tests the results are the same. Heat kills the influenza virus including the H5N1 and the A-H1N1 viruses. Both these influenza A viruses are naturally killed after 30 days at 0ºC (32ºF) (over one month at freezing temperature) as well as 6 days at 37ºC ( 98.6ºF) (one week at human body temperature). Studies have shown that human influenza viruses generally can only survive on surfaces for between 2 and 8 hours. Sunlight also destroys the viruses.

Evidence unequivocally states that the A-H1N1 virus is not contagious and is not spread from person to person and lab tests also unequivocally state that the A-H1N1 is naturally killed by body heat so there is absolutely no need for any vaccine as there is no A-H1N1 virus pandemic.

The human body is fully capable of killing all influenza and viruses. It is only after treatment that the body is unable to kill the virus. The treatment is what kills people because the treatment interferes with the body’s natural ability to defend itself, repair itself and cure itself. The immune system protects the body from potentially harmful substances. The inflammatory response (inflammation) is part of innate immunity. It occurs when tissues are injured by bacteria, trauma, toxins, heat or any other cause. Every treatment is designed to produce profit not a cure. Every treatment ever administered for influenza and other man made diseases and viruses, including the HIV virus was done to prevent the body from healing itself naturally. Treatments only prolong the disease or sickness so that the drug industry and the health care industry can profit.

The immune system is a collection of cells, structures, and organs that exist to identify, contain, and destroy foreign invaders (such as bacteria or viruses) or abnormal cells before or after they harm the body. The immune system can be thought of as a small army that is always “on guard” to protect the body. Invading organisms and abnormal or cancerous cells are generally identified by the immune system through proteins known as antigens that are located on the surface of all cells, whether they are normal or malignant. Special receptors located on the immune cells lock on to these antigens. Just as a lock will only close with the right key, an antigen will only lock with a specific cell from the immune system. When an antigen and an immune cell lock together, the immune response begins, and the body acts to destroy, remove, or wall off the foreign invaders or abnormal cells.

The primary defense which the human body has, to stop the spread of all viral infections is to produce a fever. The fever is not a symptom of disease, but is actually the body’s primary anti-viral immune system. The fever stops the telomeres on the ends of viral RNA from making copies of itself.

The telomeres are like a zipper which unzips and separates the new RNA copy within miliseconds, but the telomeres are temperature sensitive and won’t unzip at temperatures above 101F. Thus the high temperature of the fever, stops the flu virus from dividing and spreading. It is an immune system response which only mammals have developed to prevent the spread of viral flu infections, which mostly 99% come from the more ancient dinosaur-like earth life forms called birds. Almost all influenza is a form of “Avian Flu.” A few influenza forms come from other dinosaur-like life forms, the modern reptiles, but these are usually classified as very rare tropical diseases, since that is where most reptiles live.

The doctors in the early 1900’s didn’t know about that, and even today few if any doctors are aware that fever is not a symptom of disease, but is the primary and only way for the human body to stop viral infections. If you stop or reduce the fever, viruses are allowed to divide and spread uncontrolled throughout the body.

Normally the progress of a flu is that a virus enters the mucous membrane lining of the lungs, enters cells, then makes many copies of itself, which causes the cell to expand to such an degree that it bursts open. The new viruses then cloak themselves with a coating taken from the old damaged cell wall, thus hiding themselves from the human body’s own T-cell antibody immune defense system. To the body’s immune system the new viruses simply appear to be pieces of the body’s own lung tissue.

By creating a fever, the viral infection is slowed down sufficiently so that the body’s T cells can find the swollen infected lung cells, surround them and metabolize (literally eat) the damaged cell with strong acids which also breaks down the RNA viruses into basic amino acids. This effectively “kills” the viruses so that they can’t reproduce.

Scientists question the Who and the CDC

Articles in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and The Lancet Infectious Diseases questioning the drug’s effectiveness in young children.

The BMJ article concluded that both Tamiflu and GSK’s Relenza (zanamivir) offer only a modest benefit to children under 13 with the virus, and that Tamiflu’s side effects can be as severe if not worse than the symptoms of swine flu itself.

The Lancet Infectious Diseases article, based on research carried out by the University of York, conclude that:
1) doctors are prescribing drugs like Tamiflu far too readily and
2) young children are suffering more from the side effects of antivirals than from swine flu itself.