The liar Barbara Starr (CNN-Iran)

Kristie Lu Stout (Hong Kong). As Iran continues to thumb its nose at the international community, there’s new talk, about stepped-up U.S. military contingency plans, for dealing with Iran. Barbara Starr has more.

Barbara Starr, cnn20100420t1128z)

Barbara Starr (Pentagon correspondent) (voice over video clips). Iran’s military on parade, this weekend. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying, Iran is now so powerful, no country would dare attack it.

Iran’s ultimate threat? It’s nuclear weapons development program.

But the White House, Monday, pointing out, the regime’s already had trouble, making weapons grade fuel.

Robert Gibbs (White House press secretary) (video clip). The rhetoric of Iran, and their nuclear program, does not always meet the reality, of what they’re capable of.

Barbara Starr. But while diplomacy is the top option, the Pentagon has stepped up planning, in case strikes are ordered. …”

Barbara Starr (CNN Pentagon correspondent, Virginia), reporting, “Iran nuclear standoff” (CNN International, World Report, “Nuclear Iran,” April 20 2010, 1125z), falsifying, statements by Robert Gibbs (White House press secretary) (White House, press briefing, Monday April 19 2010, 1740-1829z, 1:40-2:29pm.edt).

Liars league

Barbara Starr lied, when she said, Iran has a “nuclear weapons development program,” because she knows it to be an unassailable fact, that Iran has no such thing, so far as she knows.

Barbara Starr lied, when she claimed, that the White House said, on Monday, that Iran is trying to make “weapons grade fuel.” Robert Gibbs said no such thing (it’s his daily press briefing, she voiced-over, as her source).

In addition, it’s Barbara Starr’s business to know it, that Iran’s enrichment industry is safeguarded by the IAEA, which reports quarterly, that Iran has never exceeded the 5% (U235) enrichment limit Iran designated, for its underground fuel enrichment plant (FEP) at Natanz.

Or at its pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) either, a research and development facility, also at Natanz.

Until the U.S. violated its agreement, and its international obligations, a “material breach” of the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, article 4(2)), by objecting, menacing any country which would supply fuel for Iran’s IAEA safeguarded TRR (Tehran Research Reactor), and accept Iran’s offer to swap an equivalent amount of its 3.5% enriched uranium, as part payment (what U.S. officials said they wanted).

On February 9 2010, Iran began enriching to 19.75% U235 (LEU: low enriched uranium), to make its own fuel, for the TRR, which produces short half-life radio isotopes for cancer treatment. This, at its research enrichment plant at Natanz (PFEP), in an isolated 164-centrifuge cascade, under IAEA safeguards. (Gill Tudor, IAEA press release 2010/02, February 8 2010; IAEA INFCIRC/786, March 2 2010).

“Weapons grade” fuel, in general parlance, is 90% enriched (U235) (HEU: highly enriched uranium) (the U.S. Hiroshima uranium bomb was 80% enriched).

Barbara Starr presumably knows this elementary fact, because she’s been a reporter, on U.S. Defense Department topics, for more than 20 years, with Jane’s Defense Weekly, ABC News, and CNN.

Barbara Starr might say, she was reading a lying script, and she felt no reason to doubt it. If so, she’ll be quick to explain herself, and condemn the CNN liars, who put their lies in her mouth.

But I don’t suppose Barbara Starr is so ignorant, about an issue in her domain, U.S. leaders have crowed about it, for nearly a decade (Iran’s nuclear enrichment program).

Barbara Starr vomits her contribution, into a powerful stream of lies, about Iran, from CNN, and other broadcasters.

These endless, relentless, lies, they incite, aid and abet, facilitate, promote, dishonest, faulty, public policy, gangster enterprises, and violent crimes, by U.S. and EU officials, covert action, military strikes, complicity in Israel’s violent war crimes (looting, colonizing, abuse, felony murder).

These lies, by the media, preempt popular opposition (create doubt), embolden liars (validate their lies), marginalize whistle blowers (threaten abuse), build media consensus for the lies, and frame the truth as a media dungeon, a “sphere of deviance,” 1  to intimidate honest and diligent journalists, editors, publishers.

So they hope.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (Warlaw), April 20-21, 24 2010

_______

 1  “Sphere of deviance” explained, Jay Rosen (professor, Journalism Institute, NYU: New York University), “Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press” (PressThink, “ghost of democracy in the media machine,” January 12 2009), endorsing Daniel C. Hallin (professor, Department of Communication, UCSD: University of California San Diego), The “Uncensored War”: The Media and Vietnam (1986) (Jay Rosen: “easily the most useful diagram I’ve found for understanding the practice of journalism in the United States, and the hidden politics of that practice”).

_______

Advertisements

U.K. election, how the LibDems can win power, and BDS Israel

The LibDems can seize control, of the U.K. government, in the general election, to be announced tomorrow, for Tuesday May 6 2010.

U.K. foreign policy, at any rate.

That’s my guess. All they have to do is this:

Promise, to turn on Israel, to coerce Israel, to give up its violent war crimes (looting/colonizing), hand back the land and water Israel robbed, since 1967, tear down that wall (the 80% built on Palestinian land), and remove its 500,000 settlers, from Palestinian land.

Adopt BDS against Israel: boycott, divestment, sanctions, terminate relations.

There’s a big segment of the British public eager for this, probably all across politics. How many, I do not know, but plenty, millions.

There’s no reason not to vote for them. The LibDems economics man is the only person anybody wants to listen to, about the economy (Vince Cable), and whatever else their policies be, they’re satisfactory, no big changes. It’s a safe vote.

Can they can double their seats in parliament? if they adopt this policy? (now 10%, 63 of 646).

If so, they’ll be kingmaker, in a new coalition government, power to demand the foreign office, and agreement to enforce their Israel policy. See,State of the parties at 15 March 2010” (U.K. Parliament).

When the ship is headed for the rocks, politics is suddenly about risk, a time for leaders, to stand up, boldly, unflinchingly, and announce a new course, make their explanation, for their new plan.

In democratic election politics, the people have the power, to require a new course, on a single day, they can slam on the brakes, do a handbrake turn, and set off in a new direction.

But they must have leaders, to empower them, leaders who will put it to them, the voters, that new course, give them the choice, to elect those who promise to do it, set that new course, clearly, unambiguously, no ifs, ands, and buts about it.

This campaign pledge is bold, but poses little risk to leaders who will own it. It’s grounded in ethics, law, national security, human rights. It grabs the problem, and it solves it, in a big hurry, the root of justified worldwide hatred, the cancer of the military-industrial-legislative complex, the intolerable obscenity of the homeland security state, where the government considers every citizen the enemy, a possible terrorist.

The LibDems in the U.K. can show the way, to Americans, how to prove Hillary wrong, terminate the U.S. “eternal and forever” commitment to Israel, abruptly, on a single day, U.S. federal election day, every two years, when U.S. voters can turf out the entire U.S. Congress House of Representatives, and a third of the Senate.

The next U.S. election? Coming soon. Tuesday November 2 2010, “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,” in even-numbered years. 2 U.S.C. 7 (congress), 3 U.S.C. 1 (president).

_____

Notes:

The U.K. has 3 main parties, in the general election, and they now poll roughly like this: Labour (30%) (in power since 1997), Conservatives (40%) (Tories), the LibDems (20%) (Liberal Democrats).

It’s Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the two main parties — in the U.K., as in the U.S. — it matters not, between them, as to foreign policy. They compete, to pledge the greater allegiance, to Israel, to lie the boldest, the most creatively, about Iran (an Israeli initiative).

Enter the LibDems, the only party to vote against the attack on Iraq. They play along with Israel, Iran lies, as far as I know, I haven’t studied their pronouncements, obviously they don’t want to rock the boat, else I would have noticed it.

There’s no fixed date for the election, the Prime Minister can call one any time s/he pleases, but not more than 5 years from the last one, unless Parliament votes to abolish elections, or postpone them. The last day for this election is Thursday June 3, under the current 5 year deadline.

The Prime minister will announce it tomorrow morning (Tuesday April 6), for Tuesday May 6 2010, the U.K. general election, parliament dissolves on Monday April 12, so says the news.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (Warlaw)

The liar Susan Rice (Iran)

Susan E. Rice (U.S. ambassador to the U.N., CNN.sitroom March 31 2010)

Susan Rice. We will work with our partners in the Security Council, to mount serious, and intensified, pressure on Iran. We think, that the package of elements, that we have proposed, and that will be discussed, in further depth, will put meaningful pressure, on Iran.

And that’s our intention. It is, to make it clear, that Iran has a choice. And should it continue on the path, of refusing to engage seriously, with the United States, and other members of the international community, to give up its nuclear weapons program, then that pressure will intensify.”

Susan E. Rice (U.S. U.N. ambassador, New York City), CNN video clip (CNN International, World Report, “Nuclear Iran,” April 1 2010, 0701z, Anjali Rao, presenter, Hong Kong) (CNN International, The Brief, “Iran’s Nuclear Program,” April 1 2010, 1504z, Jim Clancy, presenter, Atlanta).

Liars league

Susan Rice lied, when she said, Iran has a nuclear weapons program, because she knows it to be an unassailable fact, that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, so far as she knows.

So far as anybody else knows, either, in the U.S. government, or its conspiracy partners, the EU3 (P3+1, U.S., U.K., France, Germany).

And that’s powerful evidence, as in the case of Iraq, that her claim is untrue, as well as a lie.

“With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.” “Recent Media Report on Iran” (IAEA press briefing, 17 September 2009), reported, “no concrete proof that Iran has or has ever had a nuclear weapons programme” (UN News Centre, 17 September 2009).

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Especially, when you’re searching for it, with inspectors on the ground, for 7 long years (2,200+ inspector days), and with spies, and electronic surveillance, and defectors to bribe, and prisoners to torture.

The whole watching world learned that lesson well, and this lesson too: U.S. officials are bold liars, nothing they say can be believed, without unimpeachable evidence.

Especially, the P2, the two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council not promoting lies, Russia and China, they lived the Iraq lies. Russia repeatedly said (Putin, Lavrov), from the beginning to the end, they had seen no evidence, of any WMD, in Iraq. They repeatedly say the same, about Iran.

So, why does she feel the need to lie? Susan E. Rice, and her co-conspirators.

Who do they hope to deceive? with their lie. Who do they hope to empower to lie? with their lie. Empower to pretend to believe their lie? with their lie.

The media certainly, they empower with their lie, to spread their lie, with gusto.

That video clip is a separate lie, by CNN (anonymous producers, editors). CNN omitted an admission by Rice, when questioned by Wolf Blitzer (the origin of that clip), that her assertion is not an unassailable fact (as she lied), but rather a mere “assessment” instead.

That’s a second lie by Susan Rice, because U.S. intelligence makes no such assessment (a nuclear weapons program).

“Assessment” is a term of art, denoting that it is not a fact, so far as the assessment-makers know, they have no proof of it, it’s an hypothesis, based on no evidence, or ambiguous evidence, or inconclusive evidence, a guess, a speculation, a surmise, a possibility — not a “fact,” as the liar Susan Rice, and her co-conspirators, claim:

“We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate — and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely — to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge. These assessments and judgments generally are based on collected information, which often is incomplete or fragmentary. Some assessments are built on previous judgments. In all cases, assessments and judgments are not intended to imply that we have “proof” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.”

“What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language” (unnumbered page 4), Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, “Key Judgments” {135kb.pdf} (NIE: National Intelligence Estimate, November 2007, authors, anonymous, editors, NIC: National Intelligence Council, approved, NIB: National Intelligence Board, published, DNI: Director of National Intelligence, December 3 2007).

A liar ambassador to the U.N., a liar president, a liar secretary of state, a liar secretary of defense, a liar national security adviser, a liar chief of the joint chiefs of staff, liar military officials, liar intelligence officials, hundreds of U.S. official liars, dozens, hundreds, members of congress among them.

This is a ditto, of Iraq.

Will they expand their ditto? to its full scope? An economic blockade, malnourishing children, killing hundreds of thousands, denying “dual use” hospital equipment, supplies, ambulances, scientific equipment, water-sewer treatment chemicals, criminal targeting of cvilian objects (like Iran’s IAEA safeguarded nuclear facilities), a criminal war of aggression, killing hundreds of thousands, exiling 5 million, external and internal, maiming tens of thousands, orphaning, widowing, tens of thousands, hostage-taking, torture, murder, destruction, armed robbery, loss, homes, businesses, the life’s work of millions.

Sets their mouth watering, the most of them, their pulse quickening.

Susan E. Rice, and the company she keeps.

Susan Rice. The president has committed us to building adequate, and sufficient, and strong, pressure on Iran, to make clear to Iran, that it faces a choice. It can either give up its nuclear weapons program and, and rejoin the community of, of nations, or it can face increased isolation, and intensified pressure.

* * *

Wolf Blitzer. Do you have any doubt? that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb?

Susan Rice. Wolf, I think all of the evidence indicates, that their program is not as they state, for peaceful purposes only, that there is a military motive to it.

And that is our assessment.

And we have given Iran ample opportunity, in the context of the proposals, that we, and other members, of the P5-plus-1, have put forward, to demonstrate, that it is a peaceful program, with peaceful intent, and they have not been willing, or able, to do so.

So our conclusion is, that this is a serious potential threat, to us, and important partners in the region, and we are treating it as such.”

Susan E. Rice (U.S. U.N. ambassador, New York City), interviewed by Wolf Blitzer (CNN, The Situation Room, Washington D.C., March 31 2010, first hour, 1700edt, 2100z), transcript.

This is a nest of lies, by Susan E. Rice, a member of the president’s cabinet, no doubt obeying orders, from her bosses, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The opposite is the truth.

“All of the evidence indicates, that their program is” precisely “as they state, for peaceful purposes only.”

The “evidence” to the contrary is zero.

“Past outstanding issues”

Over several years, the IAEA investigated the history of Iran’s nuclear program, Iran answered questions, provided documents, access, to sites and people. The IAEA found, one by one, that claimed, or pretended, suspicions had innocent explanations.

Finally, the IAEA and Iran agreed, on a formal, written, work plan, to finish the job.

This agreement detailed the 6 remaining “past outstanding issues,” and required the IAEA to state all remaining questions about them. “Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, Tehran – 21 August 2007” (INFCIRC/711, 27 August 2007).

This agreed work plan specified that, when it was done, that was the end of the matter, and Iran’s nuclear activities would be treated under routine IAEA safeguards. This implied a report, from the IAEA, that all those issues were settled and no longer a concern of the U.N. Security Council:

“IV. General Understandings

1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities.

2. The Agency agreed to provide Iran with all remaining questions according to the above work plan. This means that after receiving the questions, no other questions are left. Iran will provide the Agency with the required clarifications and information.

3. The Agency’s delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran’s nuclear activities.

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.”

Six months later, the IAEA was obliged to report, that Iran had completed the agreed work plan, 100%, answered all the questions, provided all the documents, interviews, site visits, meetings, required by the agreed work plan, to the complete satisfaction of the IAEA.

Nothing remained for Iran to do, as to those “past outstanding issues” cited by the U.S. and the EU3, as the excuse, for the referral to the U.N. Security Council, 2 years earlier (GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006).

“53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings — in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine — or are not inconsistent with its findings — in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC.

Therefore, the Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage.”

The remaining two work plan issues were settled, previously, namely, (1) “plutonium experiments” (100mg) (GOV/2007/48, 10 August 2007), paragraph 10: “the Agency … now considers this issue as resolved,” and (2) “acquisition of P-1 and P-2 centrifuge technology” (GOV/2007/58, 15 November 2007), (a) “the 1987 offer,” paragraph 11: “the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements are consistent with other information available to the Agency concerning Iran’s acquisition of declared P-1 centrifuge enrichment technology in 1987,” (b) “early research and development” (1987-1993), paragraph 13: “Iran’s statements about this phase of R&D are not inconsistent with the Agency’s findings,” (c) “the 1993 offer and subsequent R&D” (1993-1999), paragraph 18: “information provided by Iran on the timing of these purchases and the quantities involved is consistent with the Agency’s findings,” (d) “acquisition of P-2 centrifuge technology” (1996, R&D 2002-2004), paragraph 23: “the Agency has concluded that Iran’s statements on the content of the declared P-2 R&D activities are consistent with the Agency’s findings”.

Therefore, by February 22 2008 — 2 years after referral to the U.N. Security Council — the entire history of Iran’s nuclear program was understood, by the IAEA, fully, completely, with no remaining “past outstanding issues,” no remaining questions or suspicions about them — except for one question, which had nothing to do with Iran, required no action by Iran.

Namely (paragraph 19), the IAEA awaited a reply from Pakistan, to confirm, that the 15-page uranium metal document (which the IAEA had also seen in another country, presumably Libya), that Pakistan also had it — Iran said, it was from Pakistan, where that document came from to them, in 1987, unsolicited, along with the items from Pakistan which Iran bought and paid for, viz, blueprints for P-1 centrifuges, and components of two sample centrifuges (GOV/2008/4, 22 February 2008).

“A.2. Uranium Metal Document

19. On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy from Iran of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and the machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispheres, which are components of nuclear weapons.

Iran reiterated that this document had been received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987 and that it had not been requested by Iran.

The Agency is still waiting for a response from Pakistan on the circumstances of the delivery of this document in order to understand the full scope and content of the offer made by the network in 1987 (GOV/2006/15, paras 20–22).”

Pakistan soon replied, corroborating what Iran said, as ElBaradei reported, in his next quarterly report (IAEA director-general) (GOV/2008/15, 26 May 2008):

“24. It should be noted that the Agency currently has no information – apart from the uranium metal document – on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies.

As regards the uranium metal document found in Iran, Pakistan has confirmed, in response to the Agency’s request (GOV/2007/58 para. 25), that an identical document exists in Pakistan.”

Under the work plan agreement (quoted above), Pakistan’s reply settled this — the last of the “past outstanding issues” — on these undisputed facts, to wit:

The 15-page uranium metal document was not created by Iran, it was not solicited by Iran, it was not used by Iran, for any purpose, it has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program, it is not a blueprint, it can not be used to make anything, it’s an advertisement, apparently, a description of something else Iran could buy from the network (a casting factory), it was given to Iran, by the A.Q. Kahn network, which also gave it to another country, presumably Libya.

“20. … 15-page document … It did not, however, include dimensions or other specifications for machined pieces ….

22. … there is no indication about the actual use of the document … the Agency is aware that the intermediaries had this document, as well as other similar documents, which the Agency has seen in another Member State.”

GOV/2006/15, 27 February 2006.

Yet, in blatant violation of the work plan agreement (above), IAEA reports continue to cite that document as an issue Iran is required to explain. But the IAEA agreed, in the written work plan, there is nothing further to be said about that document, once Iran gave it to the IAEA. There is not a scrap of evidence, that this document has anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program, any more than a newspaper, or a telephone book (i.e., nothing).

“Alleged studies”

Separate from the “past outstanding issues,” long ago settled, under the agreed work plan (early 2008), the U.S. created new issues, by producing electronic images of alleged documents, shown to the IAEA (but not Iran), on a laptop computer, a PowerPoint presentation, produced by U.S. officials.

U.S. officials do not vouch for the documents.

U.S. officials produce no evidence of their origin. Nothing to show they came from Iran. No chain of custody, to show that other documents, from other sources, were not mixed with them.

U.S. officials conceal, what their experts say, their forensic examination, their opinion, about the documents, their authenticity.

Dogs that don’t bark. Compelling evidence, that U.S. officials know, or believe, the documents are forgeries, some of them, many of them, most of them. What other U.S. officials might know for certain, because they created them, and their Israeli partners, covert operators, in a conspiracy to lie.

For want of such authentication evidence, expert opinion, access to the documents, the laptop, the IAEA refuses to term the images of these documents as “evidence” and, instead, terms them “allegations,” collectively, the “alleged studies.”

Iran can not reply to these images, because U.S. officials refuse to show them to Iran, refuse to give the IAEA a copy of them, most of them. For the very good reason, presumably, that these images would soon be validated as forgeries, some of them, many of them.

The IAEA and Iran agreed how to deal with these images, the “alleged studies,” in a separate section of their written agreement — not part of the work plan for “past outstanding issues.”

The IAEA agreed to give Iran a copy of what alleged documents it could, from the alleged studies, and Iran agreed to reply, with its assessment of them:

“III. Alleged Studies.

Iran reiterated that it considers the following alleged studies as politically motivated and baseless allegations.

The Agency will however provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in its possession regarding: the Green Salt Project, the high explosive testing and the missile re-entry vehicle.

As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.”

On the provenance evidence, these alleged documents are probably supplied by Israel, via a cutout, to the MEK, which passed them to Germany. See, e.g., Gareth Porter, “Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group” (IPS: Inter Press Service, February 29 2008), copy (Antiwar.com), Gareth Porter, “Leaked Iran Paper Based on Intel That Split IAEA” (IPS: Inter Press Service, October 6 2009), copy (Antiwar.com), Gareth Porter, “IAEA Conceals Evidence Iran Documents Were Forged” (IPS, September 14 2009), copy (Antiwar.com).

Are the alleged studies, some of the images, created or doctored? by U.S. experts? Israeli officials? in a covert action? like “Operation Merlin”? where U.S. officials attempted to plant incriminating documents on Iran, fabricated faulty blueprints, for a firing block, and slipped it under the door, of Iran’s embassy, in Vienna. James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Chapter 9, “A Rogue Operation” (Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, published January 3 2006), excerpts, James Risen, “CIA used A-bomb plan as bait, U.S. gave flawed design to Iran” (Toronto Star, March 4 2006).

Looks that way:

“Questions had also been raised about the technical quality of the alleged Iranian designs for a missile reentry vehicle that was apparently aimed at accommodating a nuclear weapon.

Experts at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, who ran computer simulations on the studies, determined none of them would have worked, according to Washington Post investigative reporter Dafna Linzer, in February 2006.”

Gareth Porter, “The Leaking Game, Planted News Stories Show New Bid by West to Say Iran Seeks Nuclear Weapons” (CounterPunch, August 26 2009), citing, Dafna Linzer, “Strong Leads and Dead Ends in Nuclear Case Against Iran” (The Washington Post, Wednesday February 8 2006), also titled,Leaked stories taint Iran nuclear debate” (Asia Times, August 27 2009), “ElBaradei Foes Leaked Stories to Force His Hand on Iran” (antiwar.com, August 26 2009), and see, Gareth Porter, “
Iran and IAEA re-enter missile row
” (Asia Times, September 22 2009).

As far as I know, nobody ever made a bomb, from uranium, small enough, to fit on Iran’s missiles, warhead weight, one ton, a 2,000-pound bomb. Plutonium, yes, but Iran has no plutonium. Israel and the U.S., they have plutonium. Uranium is a very poor ingredient for a small bomb. The U.S. bombed Hiroshima, with a uranium bomb, but it was huge, weighed 9,700 pounds (4,409 kg, kilograms), the explosive core weighed 141 pounds (64.1 kg), 80% enriched uranium U-235.

Recently, a document, probably from Israel, was falsely reported, in The Times (London), as a genuine Iranian document.

It turned out be fabricated, intentionally misrepresented in the newspaper report, by dishonest reporter(s), editor(s), at The Times, historically a respected “newspaper of record,” now a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. May be the document is an invention, may be a retyped genuine document, with improvements, material added or subtracted, may be names of individuals from open sources, and anyway ambiguous, with innocent explanations, with no official paper, stamps, markings, which an authentic document would have. Justin Raimondo, “The Kamm Scam: Fake ‘Journalist’ Defends a Forgery: Britain’s leading neocon pushes fake Iranian ‘nuclear memo'” (Antiwar.com, January 4 2010) .

Presumably that’s an exemplar, of what’s on the laptop.

Like the green salt document, an innocent letter, having nothing to do with a nuclear program, but with mysterious handwriting on it, having nothing to do with the topic of the letter. But there is no handwriting on the original letter, furnished to the IAEA by Iran, hence a likely forgery, the handwritten note.

The IAEA did not produce any alleged documents, for Iran to reply to, for 6 months, until Iran completed the work plan.

Then, suddenly, the IAEA produced a few (February 3-5 2008), and then a few more (February 15 2008), when the U.S. recognized, that Iran had closed the nuclear file, by completing the work plan, Iran disproved all allegations, proved conclusively that its nuclear program was entirely peaceable.

Drip, drip, drip, new documents, it’s an endless road, a way to keep the file open, to perpetuate, forever, abuse of Iran, alleging Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but producing no concrete proof, because it’s impossible to prove a negative, the bomb program Iran doesn’t have.

A ditto of Iraq, when the IAEA reported, in about 1998, it had completely destroyed all traces of Iraq’s nuclear program, and the U.S. refused to accept that result, stating, that the U.S. would veto any resolution — declaring Iraq had complied with all its obligations in the nuclear file — so long as the Saddam regime remained in power, the actual facts didn’t matter, regime-change was the U.S. goal, an excuse to attack Iraq.

“54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. …

The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3-5 February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in response.

Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated.

The Agency’s overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions still not provided by Iran.

The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to Iran on 15 February 2008. …

In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard.”

In compliance with the work plan, Iran provided the IAEA its assessment, on May 14 2008, a “117-page presentation responding to the allegations” in the alleged documents which the IAEA supplied to Iran (GOV/2008/38, paragraph 15, 15 September 2008).

Missiles are not “nuclear facilities,” and the IAEA has no authority to demand access to them. In Iraq, the IAEA and UNSCOM, permitted themselves to be infiltrated by CIA agents, who installed electronic bugs, in facilities they inspected, and provided targeting information, to enable the U.S. to later bomb those sites.

Fuel for the TRR: Tehran Research Reactor

Contrary to the liar Susan Rice, her claim, Iran has a standing offer, to deliver its low enriched uranium, to be taken out of Iran, in return for fuel, for its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), proof of its peaceable intent, as Susan Rice claims to believe, until Iran actually does it, at which point it will prove nothing, she’ll be quick to say, the liar Susan Rice, because Iran continues to enrich uranium.

The U.S. demands, that Iran trust the U.S., export its uranium, and then wait a year or so, trust France, Russia, to deliver the fuel. A promise the U.S. made before, and then refused. Ditto France, they promised, and then refused. Ditto Germany, they promised, and then refused. Ditto Russia, they promised, and then refused (centrifuge plant, May 10 1995), ditto China, they promised, and then refused (uranium conversion plant), ditto Argentina, they promised, and then refused (uranium-dioxide conversion plant, fuel fabrication plant).

All those dittos were directly in response to abuse by the U.S., requests, urgings, threats, torts, demanding breach of contracts, each event a material breach, by the U.S. of its international obligations, under the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty), time after time after time, a long, revulsive, history of abuse, bullying, hooliganism.

Iran’s standing offer eliminates another ditto, and gives Susan Rice what she says she wants, a simultaneous exchange, just like at the shops, you pay your money, you get your merchandise, nobody has to trust anybody.

“Obama’s law”

But this is not what they want, else they would do it. What they want, Susan Rice, and her bosses, and their large conspiracy of liars, they want the U.N.S.C to adopt more sanctions — not because of Iran’s non-existant nuclear weapons program, or non-existant “military motive,” their lie.

They want the U.N.S.C. to impose more sanctions, on this ground, that Iran “refuses to live up to its international obligations,” viz, Iran will not obey previous U.N.S.C. resolutions (demanding Iran suspend its enrichment industry).

That’s what Barack Obama decreed, at the U.N.S.C. meeting he chaired, that a U.N.S.C. resolution is “law,” even if it’s objective has been accomplished, even if its asserted facts and opinions were since proven wrong, and anyway changed, even if it’s illegal, outside the jurisdiction of the U.N.S.C., to adopt it.

That’s the new law of the world, Obama decreed.

So why lie? that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. To what end? It matters not, according to Obama’s law. All that matters, he says, is this, to wit, the U.N.S.C. ordered Iran to do something, and Iran won’t do it. That’s sufficient. Whether it’s right or wrong, outdated, illegal, that matters not.

And the emperor’s butler nods in obedience, promotes his master’s orders, Gordon Brown (U.K. prime minister). He told the Chilcot inquiry, that he would urge, and vote again, today, to attack Iraq. It doesn’t matter, he said, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It only matters, that Saddam refused to obey U.N.S.C. resolutions, as Brown claimed to believe, that’s reason enough, he said, to destroy Iraq, the lives of millions of its citizens. Even if the object of those resolutions was long before accomplished, the destruction of his WMD, his accounting records too, at the same time, in 1991, before the U.N. BW inspectors arrived.

At the U.N. security council, Obama pronounced the new world order, as he would have it, that 9 nations can order all other nations to do, or not do, as ordered, and that’s “law,” Obama decrees, binding on the whole world (except the United States).

Behold. A new monarch is born. A resurrection. Le loi c’est moi. A new age dawns, the rule of the 9 tyrants.

I first heard this notion, when I watched a repulsive speech, delivered, by the U.K. U.N. ambassador, on an earlier Iran resolution. He said the same, that the resolution is “law,” and Iran must obey it.

A thuggish character, a bully, with a gangster air, spitting his words through clenched teeth, he soon disappeared, from the stage, I paid him no mind. But, in hindsight, he was speaking for the conspiracy, their secret agreement, how to destroy Iran’s lawful enrichment industry, with no proof, no evidence, of Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.

All the conspiracy has to do is get 9 yes votes on the U.N.S.C., and job done. Those votes are easy to get, by lying about the facts, flattery, bribes, threats.

Unlike the U.K.’s ambassador, Barack Obama is a Harvard lawyer, and so I conclude this: If you want your son or daughter to be either ignorant, or a bold liar, or both, then send them to Harvard Law School.

I don’t believe Barack Obama is ignorant. I believe he’s a bold liar, about matters of life and death, an intolerable character flaw, which he can, however, renounce, by a public confession and adopting policies based on truth, not fiction.

Presumably, Obama was desperate to conceal, from the public, including his own citizens, the fact, that the U.N.S.C. resolutions on Iran might be unlawful, that Iran has a good argument, a good reason to disobey them, that Iran had done nothing wrong, at the time, or since, and all questions then cited, about Iran’s enrichment program, those questions were long ago answered, the IAEA reported, long before Obama made his speech.

Barack Obama surely learned it, at Harvard Law School, that the likes of the U.N. Security Council is not a king, it’s a creature of law, with its hands tied, authorized to deal with a narrow topic, threats to international peace and security.

But, Iran’s IAEA safeguarded nuclear enrichment industry, that was not a threat, at the time of the first resolution, said the Russian and U.K. foreign ministers.

This fact accounts for a conspicuous omission from the resolutions, the negotiated absence, of any declaration of a threat, any finding of a threat.

There being no threat, the U.N.S.C. has no jurisdiction to order the U.S., to shut down Boeing Corporation, its airliner manufacturing industry, an Airbus competitor.

And equally, no jurisdiction, to order Iran, to shut down its uranium enrichment industry, even though it might take away business, in the future, from the tyrants.

In the meantime, after the first resolution, and over time, Iran disproved, to the 100% satisfaction of the IAEA, 100% of the concerns about Iran’s enrichment industry, claimed at the time, to justify referral to the U.N.S.C. in the first place, chiefly the Pakistani origin, on IAEA swipes, of some microscopic particles of enriched uranium.

Iran, at the time of that referral, was in 100% compliance with its safeguards agreeement, said the IAEA — and had been, for more than 2 years previously — and that’s why Iran claims, the IAEA Board of Governor’s had no legal authority to make the referral in the first place, to the U.N.S.C. (GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006).

The numerous material breaches, of the NPT, by the U.S. and by all the other powerful countries bullied by the U.S., determined to violate Iran’s treaty rights, to develop atoms for peace projects, seizing Iran’s money and property, breaching supply contracts–

That abuse — led by the U.S. — that law-breaking, by the U.S., and those it bullied, that is the very reason cited by Iran, for conducting its small number of lawful laboratory experiments, without reporting them to the IAEA.

And, that reason is a legal justification, for what Iran did, to protect its rights. That’s what the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, says, the customary international law it enunciates.

A 100% legal justification for Iran’s decision to not report those lawful laboratory experiments, with a quantity of uranium, so inconsequential, that, if enriched, and if you sneezed, it would vanish:

“[T]he quantities of nuclear material involved have not been large … The total amount of material, approximately 1.8 tonnes, is 0.13 effective kilograms of uranium.”

GOV/2003/40 (IAEA, 6 June 2003), page 7, paragraph 33 and footnote 6.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (t.reg. 18232)

“Article 60. Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part. …

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: …

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.”

Iran gave the U.S. ample opportunity, on many prior occasions, to demonstrate, that the U.S. was willing, to obey its international obligations, under the NPT (nuclear nonproliferation treaty), and facilitate Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, atoms for peace.

Then, on March 23 2005, Iran did it again. Iran offered, among many other things, “immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment” (INFCIRC/648).

This is the result, Susan Rice and her conspiracy say they want, what they say will “demonstrate, that it is a peaceful program” — what Iran offered to do, 4 years earlier.

The U.S. pretended it didn’t exist, Iran’s offer, it never happened, ditto the U.S. puppet negotiators, the EU-3 (U.K., France, Germany).

A few months later, they issued an ultimatum, that Iran must shut down, permanently, its uranium enrichment industry, and trust them, the U.S. and the EU-3, to supply Iran its nuclear needs, what they had already promised to do, when they signed the NPT, what they already refused to do, many times since. (INFCIRC/651, August 5 2005) (“a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors”).

It’s obvious to me, what Jack Straw later admitted, the goal of the U.S.-EU3 conspiracy, from the beginning, was to deny Iran its enrichment industry, even though it’s IAEA safeguarded, and there’s no evidence of any nuclear weapons program.

This conspiracy attracts big support, from thousands of people, on secret DoD-funded consulting contracts, in think tanks, universities, media, and in the complex (military, industrial, congressional). Turmoil, fears, violence, adventure, it all keeps the money flowing, campaign contributions, gifts, trips to Israel, weapons sales to Arabs, weapons give-aways to Israel, thousands of liars, talking on TV, testifying to Congress, strutting big smiles, hundreds of thousands, millions, gloating gangsters, robbing their neighbors’ lands and water.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (Warlaw), updated April 18 2010

Iran’s report (infcirc/785) of defaulted contracts for nuclear fuel

____________________

U.S., France, Germany: dishonesty, theft, breach of contract, breach of the NPT

____________________

Iran delivered this document to Yukiya Amano, the new director-general, and asked him to give a copy of it to all 151 IAEA member countries.

Amano posted an image-only pdf, on iaea.org, where nobody can find the text of it, because no internet search engine can read it, index it, return it as a search result, no human being can search, copy, print its text, it’s an image, with no keystrokes.

Hence, this blog, where I post it properly, a text-pdf, with text which can be found, indexed, searched, copied, printed, if the search engines aren’t ordered to keep Iran gagged.

INFCIRC/785 (IAEA, 2 March 2010) {image and text: 616kb.pdf} {iaea image only: 296kb.pdf} (“Communication dated 1 March 2010 received from the Resident Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency regarding assurances of nuclear fuel supply”), distributing Iran’s report, examples of breach of contracts, by the U.S., France, Germany, to supply nuclear fuel (“The root cause of Iran’s confidence deficit vis-a-vis some western countries on assurances of nuclear fuel supply”).

And here’s its full text (below), also posted by Fars News Agency (nn=8812101396, March 1 2010), “Tehran Reminds IAEA of West’s Dishonesty in N. Cooperation with Iran.”

Other important Iran documents — likewise posted by the IAEA as image-only pdfs — are posted here, as text-pdfs: https://warlaw.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/iran-iaea-docs-pdf-image-text/

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (WarLaw), March 10 2010.

____________________

The root cause of Iran’s confidence deficit vis-a-vis some western countries on assurances of nuclear fuel supply

1-Iranian nuclear fuel in the United States

According to the contract between the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and the AMF Company of the United States, the American company was obliged to replace the 93% enriched fuel with fresh fuel for Tehran Research Reactor, and addition to enhancing the power of the reactor from 5 to 10 MW and upgrading its capabilities to a more advanced type, called TRIGA. The fuel assemblies were ready for shipment to Iran in 1980 but the American Government, contrary to the contract and its legal obligations, neither permitted the company to export the fuel to Iran nor to refund over 2 million dollars paid by Iran before the Islamic revolution (1979).

2-Iranian nuclear Fuel in Germany

According to the contract between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Germany before the Islamic revolution in 1979; Germany was obliged to provide the fuel for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. While 70% of the manufacturing of the fuel was almost over, it suspended the activity in 1980. Following years of claims and counterclaims, finally according to the decision of the Court, Siemens Company of Germany (substituting former KWU) was instructed on 18 June 1982 to deliver 110 tons of enriched uranium (LEU) in the form of UF6 and 392 tons of tails to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government of Germany, contrary to the contract and its legal obligations, did not permit the transaction to be made. Almost a decade past, till Iran had no choice but to sell its uranium to European enrichment company, EURENCO, on 23 July 2003.

3-Iranian nuclear Fuel in France

According to a contract signed in 1977 the COMOREX Company of France, agreed to convert uranium concentrate to UF6. However following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the French Government, contrary to the contract and its legal obligations, has not yet permitted the said company to deliver 50 tons of natural uranium in the form of UF6 to Iran in spite of the decision of Lausanne Court. Regrettably the 50 tons of Iranian UF6 is yet illegally detained in France.

4-Iran’s share in Eurodif Enrichment Company

EURODIF is a multinational company that operates in the field of uranium enrichment. France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Belgium established Eurodif in December 1973. Pursuant to ups and downs, including the withdrawal of Sweden in March 1974 & Italy changing its stocks, Iran became indirectly Eurodif stock holder through a French-Iranian Company named Sofidif (60% COGEMA Company of France & 40% Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, respectively). The distribution of shares of Eurodif is: France 56/66.7%, Italy 11/11.1%, Spain 11/11.1%, Belgium 11/11.1% & Iran 10%. In addition, Iran gave one billion dollars loan to the Atomic Energy Commissariat of France.

It is indeed a matter of utter surprise and deep regret that a country holding 10 percent of a prestigious company called Eurodif and having paid to it one billion dollars of loan at a crucial time, contrary to all legal and commercial principles, has not yet been able to receive the slightest bit of the enrichment services neither for its Tehran Research Reactor nor for its Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. This is addition to the aforementioned 50 tons of natural uranium in form of UF6 still hold in France.

________

The above mentioned examples are among several evidences of noncompliances of some western countries with their legal and contractual obligations creating confidence deficit on assurances of nuclear fuel supply. Such is the trend of logic of power which is, unfortunately, oblivious to all what is right and just. The IAEA Member States will surely be vigilant to see how their Agency would react to this just cause and call of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

KSM’s defense

Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to “wake the American people up.” Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples.”

Defense Trial Exhibit 941 {1.6mb.pdf}, paragraph 15, page 11, United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui (E.D. Va. criminal no. 01-455-A), quoted by, Ray McGovern, “Shining Light on Roots of Terrorism: What We Might Learn From the Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” (CounterPunch, November 16 2009) (copies: cn, aw, ich, cd, rr).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed explains — what Americans have been lied to about, for 30 years — that what Israel is doing in Palestine is not politics, it’s violent crime.

And so too the U.S., backing Israel, the very same violent crimes, via complicity: inciting, conspiring, aiding and abetting, facilitating, RICO.

These violent crimes, by the U.S. and Israel, are the war crimes of looting and colonizing, (1) armed robbery of Palestinian land (60%) and water and (2) transfer of foreigners to live there (500,000 Israelis). This, the territory occupied by Israel, in the 6-day 1967 war, “occupied Palestinian territory” (1967 oPt): Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (unlawfully annexed by Israel).

Before Israel was born, this identical violent criminal enterprise, which Israel has replicated, was prosecuted — by the U.S., U.K., France, Russia (Soviet Union) — at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals, when the Germans did the same thing, in Poland, looting farmland, expelling its owners, importing ethnic Germans to take over the farms. Like Israel, the German occupiers, they too had their bureaucracy, laws, courts, paperwork, to make it all look legal, their armed robbery.

Details,Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israeli settlement war crimes,” discussing, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT 1945-1946) (“plunder of public and private property”) and The RuSHA Case (NMT 1947-1948) (“Germanization and spoliation” “planned to exploit the people and material resources … to reduce it to a vassal state … creating islands of German settlements in the more fertile regions … in order to engulf the native Polish population and accelerate the process of Germanization … to bring thousands of German subjects … for purposes of settlement … to confiscate the property — particularly the farms — of the Poles, the Jews, and all dissident elements … confiscation provided land for the new German settlers and enabled the conspirators to reward their adherents”).

In addition, the violence Israel inflicts, with U.S. complicity, to accomplish its violent war crimes, and tend them, to make them stick, this violence is likewise a war crime, the felony murder of more than 8,000 Palestinians, felony arson (destruction) of their property, buildings, orchards, kidnapping, torture, apartheid abuse, and much more.

These U.S.-Israeli violent war crimes have continued for decades, a continuous promise of more of the same in the future.

Do the victims of these violent war crimes have a legal, violent, remedy?

Yes.

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed demonstrated it, with his wake-up call, on 9/11 (if he did it).

A prima facie belligerent reprisal. An eye for an eye. With the aim to “wake the American people up,” to encourage them, to elect decent people, who will stop it, U.S. complicity in Israel’s violent war crimes.

The law of belligerent reprisals permits targeting most civilians, and civilian objects — like the twin towers, attacked in New York City, on 9/11 (September 11 2001) — like Hamas rockets, fired at Sderot, a town in Israel, bordering Gaza. This (otherwise criminal) targeting is legalized, for the purpose of trying to persuade the opponent to stop its violent war crimes.

The U.S. says it’s legal. And its biggest NATO allies agree, U.K., France, Germany, Italy. They reject the change to that settled law, in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, and Israel rejects the whole protocol, and the notion of international law, any restraint on its behavior. See,Blockade, targeting, capture, self-defense, reprisals.”

If you never heard of this, then you are an item of evidence, in a future criminal prosecution, of hundreds, thousands, of U.S. officials and their gangster partners, who have combined, to lie to you for 30 years, to conceal it from you, this information, to confuse you, and so wage their violent crimes, and pretend it’s their victims who are the terrorists and criminals.

U.S. government criminal complicity began with Ronald Reagan (1981), his administration, and rapidly intensified, as the neocon gangsters, in his administration, encountered no resistance, to their violent crimes.

Decades of pleading, by the victims, and their friends, has produced no result, only more and more violent crime, faster and faster, by this violent criminal axis, U.S.-Israel.

On these facts, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a hero (if he did it), a valiant law enforcement officer, the whole world owes him a debt of gratitude. His innocent victims? sacrificed, by the gangster U.S. officials, a small price others paid, to feed their violent criminal greed.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fashioned a brilliant prima facie belligerent reprisal (if he did it), a law enforcement action, a legal remedy, hoping, to awaken the American people, to inspire them, to action, at their federal elections, every 2 years:

To seize back control of their government.

To throw the Israelites out, from Congress, from the White House.

To elect decent people, who promise to do it, purge Israelites, from all departments of government, and all government contractors, cut-off their money, their secret DoD contractor funding, fronted through think tanks, newspapers, broadcasters, universities, wherever U.S. taxpayer money reaches their pockets.

And to turn on Israel.

Terminate all aid to Israel, especially the biggest political slush fund in the history of the world, a $3-billion annual cash deposit, on the first day of each U.S. fiscal year (October 1), into a special Israeli bank account, with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, no questions asked, no strings attached, no accounting required, or audits, or reports, or explanations.

Promote prompt international sanctions, against that violent criminal gangster regime, until they withdraw their 500,000 illegal settlers, back inside their own borders, return the land and water they robbed, and tear down that wall, the 80% they built on Palestinian land, as the law requires (U.N. I.C.J., the 15-judge world court, 2004, linked below).

KSM surely wants to present this defense (if he did it), because that’s the justification he claims. It’s a valid legal defense, if the facts support it, the U.S. government agrees, claims that very defense for itself, as a legal justification.

The main facts, which justify it, are beyond dispute: (1) violent war crimes by Israel, (2) continuously, a continuous threat, (3) complicity by the U.S., (4) Bin Laden gave the U.S. notice, a demand, an ultimatum, to stop it, U.S. complicity, in his two declarations of war (1996, 1998), (5) the U.S. and al-Qaeda both declared war on each other long before 9/11.

The U.S. will always dispute. The U.S. nearly always claims, the U.S. is legally entitled to wage war but its opponents are not, that they are terrorists, not lawful combatants, non-state actors, not “belligerents,” or that the action is a MOOTW (military operations other than war), not an “armed conflict,” and this deprives its opponent of legal rights, the U.S. claims. The U.S. made these claim in all these events: Marine Corps barracks bombing (Beirut 1983), Grenada regime change (1983), Panama regime change (1989), Blackhawk down (Mogadishu 1993), U.S. embassy bombings (Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, 1998), U.S.S. Cole (Aden 2000), Afghanistan regime change (2001).

On the merits, it’s plain to me, that KSM is entitled to believe, and to act on his belief, that if al-Qaeda has enough legal personality for the U.S. to wage war against (as the U.S. claims), then it likewise has enough legal personality to wage war back again, and certainly has the right of belligerent reprisals.

The U.S. became a violent, criminal, rogue state because its officials fear no consequences, no restraint, no punishment. The U.S. has a Nazi-clone legal system, exempting the government, and its officials, from court proceedings, about all international violence (with very rare exceptions). The U.S. practically never has to justify its arguments in a court.

One exception was the invasion of Panama, an unusual legal proceeding, when the judge rejected the U.S. argument, held the invasion was an international armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions applied. U.S. v. Noriega, 808 F.Supp. 791, at 795, 803 (S.D. Fla., No. 88-79-Cr, December 8 1992, judge William Hoeveler) (“However the government wishes to label it, what occurred in late 1989-early 1990 was clearly an ‘armed conflict’ within the meaning of Article 2.” “The implications of a less-than-strict adherence to Geneva III are serious”).

If the trial judge denies it to KSM, his right to present this defense — a complete justification and exoneration of the 9/11 attacks, by reason of the continuing violent war crimes by the U.S. — that trial judge will, prima facie, commit judicial murder, if KSM is convicted, imprisoned, executed, for which s/he, the judge, can be prosecuted convicted, imprisoned, executed.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (WarLaw), March 6 2010.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (U.N. I.C.J.: International Court of Justice, The Hague, Advisory Opinion, July 9 2004) {8mb.pdf, source, UNBISnet}, ICJ summary {129kb.pdf, source}, series, I.C.J. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/273 (July 16 2004) {469kb.pdf, UNBISnet, browse}.

Iran’s reply (infcirc/786) to Amano (iaea gov/2010/10)

Here is Iran’s reply, to the new director-general of the IAEA, his first report on Iran, a lawyer, who’s been at the IAEA, more than 4 years, with the duty to know the facts, which he decided to lie about, in his report (Yukiya Amano).

The IAEA posted Iran’s reply as an image-only pdf, and so the text of it, what Iran says, can not be found on the IAEA’s website, it cannot be indexed, searched, copied, printed.

I extracted that text (with an OCR program), and I post it here, where it can be found, indexed, searched, copied, printed, what Iran has to say, in reply, to Mr. Amano:

INFCIRC/786 (IAEA, 2 March 2010) {image and text: 1.26mb.pdf} {iaea image only: 895kb.pdf} (“Communication dated 1 March 2010 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency regarding the implementation of safeguards in Iran”), distributing Iran’s reply to IAEA GOV/2010/10 (“Explanatory note by the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA on the Report of the Director General on implementation of Safeguards in Iran (GOV/2010/10)”).

It’s not IAEA practice, to post image-only pdfs, of documents received from member countries. I’ve seen plenty, posted with searchable pdf-text, a combination of IAEA text attaching a document, the whole being a text-pdf. But, I haven’t looked at every infcirc, may be there are plenty, from other countries too, also posted as image-only pdfs, may be there’s an innocent explanation, may be it’s not an intentional decision, by anonymous operatives, at the IAEA, to conceal it from the public, the text, of what Iran has to say.

This is not the first important document, from Iran, the IAEA posted as an image-only pdf. Others, I also extracted the text, and posted them too, linked from here: https://warlaw.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/iran-iaea-docs-pdf-image-text/

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (WarLaw), March 3 2010
reposted INFCIRC/786 (text-pdf), April 16 2010

Hillary Mann Leverett assesses Obama’s integrity

She speaks for me.

Does she speak for you.

Barbara Serra (presenter). One very final question, to you.

Do you think Obama was naive, at the start of his presidency, when it came to Iran.

Hillary Mann Leverett. I’m very reluctant to say that, as someone who supported him.

And for the first several months, I blamed it, on the appointment of his senior advisers, who I thought, were not up to the task, or supportive of his policies.

But at this point, I do have to really question, whether the strategic impulses he articulated, so eloquently, were really heartfelt.

Hillary Mann Leverett, Raymond Tanter, interviewed by Barbara Serra (presenter), “Iran” (Aljazeera English, Washington D.C. studio, Tuesday February 3 2010, 9:30pm.et, at 9:41:51) (aje-20100204t0230z,024151z).

– Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
February 7 2010

Rankings: 24-hour TV news

RTV launched an American daily newscast, live, from the belly of the beast, on January 14 at 4pm, 4 half hour newscasts, split by an hour of discussion and analysis (The Alyona Show, 6pm.et, 2300z) (RTV newsroom, Washington D.C., 4:00-8:30pm.et, 2100z-0130z).

A few months back, I decided to investigate this, english language TV news, the 24-hour news channels on the satellite.

I bought 8 TVs (need a couple more), 12 tuners, and turned them all on, at the same time, a regular newsroom. Now, I can’t imagine watching only one TV, it would bore me stiff.

You soon know what the story is, and then a very interesting drama develops, who will say what (if anything) about it, what facts will they add or subtract, what lies will they tell, what spin, what inferences will they strive to induce. I mute them all, and then switch among them, for audio, and click the usb recorders on and off (big files).

Here’s how I rank them, 12 of them, over 4 months (September 22 2009 to January 14 2010):

1. Press TV (Tehran), the best news on the satellite, bar none, head and shoulders above the rest, it’s big, a website to match, with archives. They originate a large amount of news, from many reporters, on the ground, much of that news, days and weeks, before it appears (if ever) on other channels. They’re everywhere. Something happens, practically anywhere, up pops a young person, a local national, a ptv microphone, giving a report, interviewing a witness, an analyst, the camera panning the scene. It’s a jolt. A high-tech time machine. An abrupt return to the past. An era decades disappeared, before news morphed into entertainment, lies, and propaganda, in the U.S. and U.K. too. Calm, courteous, presenters, a lot of guest interviews and discussion, live events, and a collection of wonderful programs, daily news analysis (1832.gmt), daily “round the world with reporters,” a new documentary every day (in parts over several days, some of them), Iran Today news, Iran (learn about it), debates, interviews, opinion, Fineprint (twice weekly news critique).

2. Al Jazeera English (Doha), second best. Less news, but good news, Inside Story (daily news analysis, 1730.gmt), good programs, debates, interviews, documentaries, fewer reporters. Spoiled by lies about Iran, but the least worst liar about Iran, and mostly honest about Israel.

3. France 24 (Paris), third best. A lot of news, international and France, in about equal proportions, excellent studio discussions with guests, themed collections of weekly news (americas, europe, africa, maghreb, france, health, environment, more), a daily and weekly print news review, lies about Iran and Israel. A large number of presenters, reporters, excellent, courteous, knowledgeable, stylish.

4. RTV (Moscow), fourth best. Excellent news, but not much of it, which they originate, superior programs, news-talk and interviews, under-funded, looks to be, a big shortage of people, few reporters, hence, much repeat of each day’s programing, but with some few live interruptions, updates, live talk, late in the day. Update: RTV launched a 5-hour American daily newscast on January 14 at 4pm.et, 4 half hour newscasts, split by a one hour discussion (The Aylona Show, 2300z), live, from the belly of the beast (Washington D.C., RTV newsroom, 4:00-8:30pm.et, 2100z-0130z). Looks like Russia decided to pay up and beef up, join other foreign broadcasters, and grab news audiences in the U.S. and elsewhere, abandoned by U.S. broadcasters who lost interest, it’s no longer of concern to them, that news costs more than it earns, but delivers much more value than it costs, democratically speaking, and in esteem.

5. BBC (London). Fifth best, excellent domestic U.K. news and politics, but BBC News committed suicide, about two years ago, on international news, sparse, very aggressive lies, about Iran and anything else touching Israel, joins the U.S., bullying Venezuela, Cuba, and their friends. Some daily programs are broadcast in the U.S., on public radio, and cable/satellite TV, obviously tailored to reinforce U.S. propaganda attacks on its own citizens, by the government and broadcasting elites.

6. Sky News (London). Sixth best, excellent presenters, and an honest foreign editor (Tim Marshall), much better than the BBC on the tiny amount of international news they originate — surprising, as it’s a Rupert Murdoch channel (News Corporation) — but much less international news than even the BBC. I have the feeling Sky News has a woefully small international staff, practically nobody, it seems. Domestically, very good on U.K. news and politics, equal to the BBC, in quality, but not quantity.

8. CNN (Atlanta), seventh. The worst news on the satellite, bar none (CNNi, Europe, Middle East programming). Insufferable, endless, inconsequential fluff, extensive commercial advertising interruptions, some few serious programs, spoiled by editorial dishonesty, hard-driving, breathtaking, lies, about Iran and Israel. Good on live breaking news, except for excessive filling, with rehash and repeats. I agree with Ted Turner, buried in acquisition debris (Time-Warner, AOL), his “For the Record” interview on Bloomberg TV, when asked what he would do, if he had his old job back (founder, CEO, of CNN), “Less talk, more news.”

These I haven’t ranked:

9. CCTV-9 (Beijing). Good news and interviews, but I haven’t studied their schedule. They originate news and features about China, an excellent interview program (Dialogue), worldwide news with video from other channels, but they don’t originate much news outside asia, don’t seem to have many reporters on the ground elsewhere. The world’s leading country this century, I expect they’ll decide to grow, with reporters on the ground everywhere the country goes.

10. NHK World (Tokyo). Long time pros. I haven’t studied their schedule, but I’ve seen some good interviews, news talk, original Japan news, politics, features, and worldwide news, with video from other channels, but they also don’t seem to have many reporters on the ground outside asia. They started a year ago (February 2009) (english language, 24 hours), Japan’s main broadcaster, they can make a big impact, if they decide to do it, invest in it.

11. Euronews (London). A consortium of European broadcasters, I’ve seen little unique to them, mainly voice-over narration of other people’s video, not reporters on the case originating reports, or news-talk analysis. But, I haven’t watched it much, or studied their schedule, so maybe they have some gravitas features I haven’t yet discovered.

12. Bloomberg (New York City). Charlie Rose, weekday interviews, a courteous, intelligent, host from the South, with good manners, but, like most of his guests, when the topic is Israel, or anything touching it — like Iran, Georgia, Middle East, Muslims — Charlie Rose turns psychotic, a liar. Bloomberg has one weekend half-hour political news show (“Political Capital”), a sometimes weekend debate (QED2), and weekend interview show (“For the record”), mostly repeats. It’s main output is financial news, which I rarely watched.

Missing. Subscription news channels. I only studied the FTAs (free to air). So, no NDTV 24×7, India’s “premier English language television network,” pity, as Indians usually grasp the point, and don’t lie about it. And none of the domestic U.S. news channels (Fox, MSNBC).

These foreign broadcasters, investing big money, in honest people, news, analysis, discussion–

These are powerful, new, democratic forces, and that guarantees, they will soon gain big audiences, and empower them–

I do hope the knowledge they impart will provoke a voter uprising, in the U.S., to throw the Israelites out, overturn the entire U.S. congress (keeping its few honorable members).

U.S. voters have the chance to do that every two years, to throw out the entire House of Representatives, and one-third of the Senate, and elect new members.

I hope they’ll do it, elect new members, who promise, in their campaign pledge, to impose sanctions on Israel, harsher and harsher, until that gangster regime disgorges the fruits of its 42-year violent crime wave, the armed robbery and colonization of Palestinian territory (two war crimes), which Israel occupied in the 1967 war. See, Charles Judson Harwood Jr., “Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israeli settlement war crimes: plunder, colonizing, murder, arson.”

By doing good, U.S. citizens will also be rewarded, with the dissolution of the obscene DHS, Department of Homeland Security, zero its budget.

You don’t need to screen airline passengers, treat your own citizens as criminals, fear foreigners, when you are an honorable, honest, society.

The best defense which ever existed, still exists, if you earn it.

And, it’s free.

Respect.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (WarLaw)

Afghan survey 2009, BBC-ABC-ARD (December 11-23, D3 ACSOR)

Liars league

Another BBC lie, as usual.

That’s my guess.

They concealed who paid for it, who did it, and the methodology, as usual.

The result enthuses, how deeply in love the Afghans are, with the United States of America, its military, and the welcome armed occupation, of their country.

My guess is, the pollsters are likely sustained, by secret DoD-funded consulting contracts, staffed, serviced by U.S. military personnel, CIA, MI6, or their contractors. The pollsters are D3 Systems Inc. (Vienna Virginia), and ACSOR, its Afghan creation.

And, my guess is, the poll too was likely paid for, nearly 100%, by a secret U.S. military-funded contract, with token payments for show, from the fronting agents, viz, BBC (the World Service is itself funded 100% by the U.K. Foreign Office) (the BBC does not claim it paid any money), ABC News (U.S.), ARD (Germany).

Money talks, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it’s a very simple matter to discover — surprise! surprise! — that Afghans believe whatever you want them to believe.

If that’s what the paymaster wants, it’s easily accomplished, by blatant lies, a fiction (the usual U.S. military method), or by carefully selecting whom and where you poll, with what questions, under what circumstances.

The report conceals its methodology (if any):– who, where, how selected, interviewed by whom, where, in who’s company.

And, the pollsters too, and the survey management, designers, consultants, contributors, paymasters, they’re all anonymous. For good reason, I presume, so the audience won’t burst out laughing, I imagine, in ridicule.

Reputable pollsters, their credibility is grounded, on their reputation, named individuals, they proudly own their work, list their names. Liars-for-hire, they have reputations too, a good reason to conceal their names.

The BBC webpage claims — what the poll conceals — “The survey was conducted in all of the country’s 34 provinces”.

If so, then a single Afghan in each province, on the U.S. military payroll, or other government supporter, that would justify that materially misleading statement, a liar would claim.

Poll of Afghan opinion, 11-23 December 2009 {780kb.pdf} (“This survey was conducted for ABC News, the BBC and ARD by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR) based in Kabul, a D3 Systems Inc. subsidiary. Interviews were conducted in person, in Dari or Pashto, among a random national sample of 1,534 Afghan adults from 11-23 December, 2009.”), reported, Adam Mynott (BBC world affairs correspondent), “Afghans more optimistic for future, survey shows” (BBC News, London, Monday 11 January 11 2010, 11:00.gmt).

There are plenty of neighborhoods in Afghanistan, where pollsters can find honest answers, their paymaster might want to hear, the many backers and beneficiaries of the U.S. military enterprise. The usual winners, in the many countries, where the U.S. military selects, and rewards, who be the local “good guys.”

And plenty of poor folks too, they’ll give the same honest answers, in urban areas, protected by a foreign military occupation.

And everybody else?

Well, when men with guns come calling, and read you a list of questions, take careful note of your answers, and your name and address, and pay you money, for your trouble:–

It’s just a case of figuring out, or taking hints, what answer they want to hear.

– Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
January 11 2010

____________________

Update

ABC News, publishes the report under the title, Afghanistan: Where Things Stand (2009 National Poll of Afghanistan) {240kb.pdf}, reported, Gary Langer, “Views Improve Sharply in Afghanistan, Though Criticisms of the U.S. Stay High: ABC News-BBC-ARD National Survey of Afghanistan” {pf} (ABC News, New York City, January 11 1020)

ABC posts an anonymous webpage, “ABC News/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll — Note on Methodology{pf} (January 11 2010). This details a plan of how to select whom and where to interview. ABC does not vouch for the truth of this anonymous, hearsay, account, or that this plan was actually implemented, or that its results were honestly tabulated, into the final report, by the pollsters, or by their masters.

Like the BBC, ABC too does not disclose who paid for it, the survey, does not claim it paid any money, and does not name any individuals in the pollster organization. Hence, like the BBC, the ABC account of this poll is also untrustworthy.

Lies by U.S./U.K. officials, and by the U.S. and U.K. media, are so extensive, on so many topics, especially about Iran, and especially lies by the U.S. military (which I presume secretly paid for this survey), I am unable to believe anything they say, on any topic, which cannot be independently verified.

The use of polls, to persuade public opinion, is a tool a fascist military enterprise can use, to obtain the money and power it desires, to pursue its agendas. Likewise secretly funding think tank liars, media figures (reporters, broadcasters), which the U.S. military, and CIA, also secretly do.  – CJHjr (January 11 2010, 0600am)

Censuring ElBaradei (Iran)

Liars league

He marked his final meeting, with a big lie:

Mohamed ElBaradei. Iran’s failure to notify the Agency of the existence of this facility until September 2009, rather than as soon as the decision to construct it or to authorize construction was taken, was inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement.

This is mere argument. It’s not unassailable fact, as he pretends.

(IAEA Board of Governors, Vienna, November 26 2009), referring to an underground construction site, 20 miles north of Qom, for a backup uranium enrichment facility, named Fodor, IAEA safeguarded, designed, Iran says, to preserve its Natanz technology and knowhow against bombing, which the U.S. and Israel repeatedly threaten, a prima facie war crime, see, Bombing Iran’s IAEA safe-guarded nuclear facilities.

Yes, Iran agreed to that new notice rule, in a letter (February 26 2003) — at least ElBaradei says it says it (GOV/2003/40, 6 June 2003, paragraphs 6, 15) (he didn’t post the letter for the rest of us to read). That new notice rule, ElBaradei says, appears in the 1992 “modified Code 3.1” (which he also doesn’t post), what he terms “Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement.” ElBaradei says (GOV/2007/22, below), it’s an agreement under article 39 of Iran’s 1974 safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/214).

But Iran revoked that letter, 3 years later (February 6 2006) — as Iran promised it would do — 2 days after the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council (GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006). ElBaradei didn’t post this letter either (GOV/INF/2006/3), but he quoted from it, 2 weeks later (GOV/2006/15, 27 February 2006, paragraph 31):

1. As stipulated in Para 7 of INFCIRC/666, from the date of this letter, our commitment on implementing safeguards measures will only be based on the NPT Safeguards Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency (INFCIRC/214).

2. From the date of this letter, all voluntarily suspended non-legally binding measures including the provisions of the Additional Protocol and even beyond that will be suspended.

Iran’s first paragraph restores the 180-day notice rule (6 months), in the original, unmodified, Code 3.1 (also not posted), which ElBaradei describes thusly (GOV/2003/40, above, paragraph 15):

The Subsidiary Arrangements General Part in force with Iran from 1976 to 26 February 2003 included what was, until 1992, standard text which called for provision to the Agency of design information on a new facility no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility….

Iran’s second paragraph revokes — what everybody agreed was voluntary and non-legally binding — Iran’s suspension of its enrichment activities, for 27 months (Tehran agreement, October 21 2003, Paris agreement, November 15 2004, INFCIRC/637), while the IAEA satisfied itself, that what Iran said was true, namely, the microscopic nuclear particles the IAEA found on its swipes at Natanz (before start-up), those particles were not from a nonexistent, secret, enrichment facility, but rather were imported from Pakistan, on the centrifuges Iran purchased from the A.Q. Khan network. Iran’s purchase was legal, did not violate the NPT, did not violate the safeguards agreement, and no agreement, and no law, required Iran to report that purchase to the IAEA, because, ElBaradei says, centrifuges are not a “nuclear facility,” absent nuclear material, in non-microscopic quantities (GOV/2003/40, above, paragraph 8):

[A] centrifuge component production facility is not a nuclear facility required to be declared to the Agency under Iran’s NPT Safeguards Agreement.

Iran’s second paragraph also revokes the Additional Protocol Iran signed (December 18 2003), and immediately implemented, pending ratification by the Majlis, Iran’s parliament. This too, everybody agreed, was voluntary and non-legally binding.

The next year, ElBaradei claimed Iran’s revocation was not valid, because he didn’t agree to it. He said he wanted to visit another construction site — which he had previously visited, before referral to the U.N. Security Council — a new nuclear research reactor at Arak (I-40), years away from completion. May be, he was merely testing Iran’s resolve.

Iran refused and reminded ElBaradei, that the 6 months rule applied — until the U.N. Security Council closes its agenda on Iran, and relations can return to normal. ElBaradei didn’t post this letter either (GOV/INF/2007/8, 29 March 2007), but he quoted from it, 2 months later (GOV/2007/22, 23 May 2007, paragraph 12):

12. On 29 March 2007, Iran informed the Agency that it had “suspended” the implementation of the modified Code 3.1, which had been “accepted in 2003, but not yet ratified by the parliament”, and that it would “revert” to the implementation of the 1976 version of Code 3.1, which only requires the submission of design information for new facilities “normally not later than 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material for the first time.” In a letter dated 30 March 2007, the Agency requested Iran to reconsider its decision.”

ElBaradei said, Iran’s February 2003 letter “cannot be modified unilaterally” (GOV/2007/22, paragraph 14). He cited the 1974 safeguards agreement, which permits amendments, with the consent of both parties: “The Subsidiary Arrangements may be extended or changed by agreement between the Government of Iran and the Agency without amendment of this Agreement” (INFCIRC/214, article 39, “subsidiary arrangements”).

Two years later, the IAEA legal adviser (Johan Rautenbach) agreed with his boss (“Statement by the Legal Adviser,” IAEA Board of Governors meeting, March 2-9 2009). That was ElBaradei’s old job (IAEA legal adviser, 1984-1993).

But there’s higher law, as both these lawyers well know, and didn’t mention:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (t.reg. 18232)

Article 49. Fraud. If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty. …

Article 60. Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part. …

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: …

(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/RES/56/83 (January 28 2002), A/RES/62/61 (December 6 2007)

Article 22. Countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act

The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation towards another State is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter State in accordance with chapter II of part three.

_______________

Iran has been the victim — for more than 2 decades — of relentless, abusive, material breaches of the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty), by the United States, and by the conspiracy the U.S. leads (mainly with the EU3: U.K., France, Germany).

This is a lengthy history, sordid, despicable, immoral, dishonest, seizing Iran’s property at the docks, bought and paid for (armed robbery), taking Iran’s money, then refusing to deliver the nuclear fuel, or give the money back (theft), threatening, cajoling, other nations, who contracted or intended to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, electricity power stations, other lawful nuclear items (the threats are blackmail, “unwarranted demand with menaces” “with intent to cause loss to another”; the cajoling, a treble-damage tort, “actionable interference with contractual rights,” “tortuous interference with contract”).

This conspiracy (U.S., EU3) violates the NPT, which requires them, instead, to facilitate Iran acquiring everything it needs for its atoms for peace projects:

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 729 UNTS 168 (t.reg. 10485, dep.UK)

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

The material breaches, by the U.S. and its conspiracy, create legal remedies for Iran. These remedies include Iran’s legal right to conceal, from the IAEA, activities which are lawful under the NPT, but which (otherwise) should be reported under the safeguards agreement. A tiny amount of uranium hex gas, lawfully imported from China, in about 1990, was the principal item Iran kept secret from the IAEA, exercising its lawful right to pursue its atoms for peace projects, in the teeth of the unlawful conspiracy arrayed against it.

Lately, Iran was tricked and deceived by the U.S.-EU3 conspiracy, who pretended they had no objection to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, they merely wanted Iran to give the IAEA time to investigate their swipes. Iran agreed (Tehran agreement, October 21 2003), suspended enrichment for 27 months, and cooperated with the IAEA to ElBaradei’s satisfaction, as his quarterly reports attest.

The conspiracy next said they wanted to discuss the safeguarding of the enriched uranium (Paris agreement, November 15 2004, INFCIRC/637).

Iran agreed and offered, among many other things, “immediate conversion of all enriched Uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment” (March 23 2005, detailed in INFCIRC/648), the exact result the conspiracy now claims it wants, more than 4 years later.

But the conspiracy refused to consider Iran’s offer and demanded permanent suspension of enrichment, instead — “a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors” (INFCIRC/651, August 5 2005).

Whereupon Iran realized it had been tricked, defrauded, by a dishonest international conspiracy, which had lied, which was determined to coerce the complete, permanent, closure of Iran’s safeguarded enrichment industry — a repudiation, by the conspiracy, of the very object of the treaty, atoms for peace.

This unlawful demand, first by Bush, now by Obama, remains in place. Nothing will change, until Obama decides to get over it, get used to it, obey his treaty obligations, and accept Iran’s safeguarded enrichment program.

This unlawful demand, by the conspiracy, is the basis — as Iran explained it at the time — for the legal remedy Iran devised for itself, its decision to revoke all the extra cooperation with the IAEA, until the conspiracy relents, and returns to compliance with the NPT, accepting Iran’s safeguarded enrichment program, which the NPT is designed to permit and safeguard.

This is Iran’s carrot, to tempt the conspiracy to abandon their rogue life, return to the family of law-abiding nations. Iran’s standing offer, to resume its extra cooperation with the IAEA (GOV/2008/4, 22 February 2008, paragraph 55):

The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information.

Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, “if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA”.

Iran provided this full cooperation, for 27 months, before the nuclear file was sent to the Security Council. But the conspiracy realized (as in the case of Iraq), that Iran was providing the international inspectors with access and cooperation, and the inspectors were examining, and clearing, all the conspiracy’s accusations, one-by-one, inspecting all the sites the conspiracy claimed were suspicious.

As with Iraq, the conspiracy’s accusations — which they cited, to justify referral to the U.N. Security Council — one-by-one, the IAEA disproved them, proved, that each and every one of them, the conspiracy’s accusations, are untrue.

This fact, ElBaradei certified, one-by-one, in his quarterly reports.

_______________

Double check

But is ElBaradei a liar.

In my opinion, any lawyer, properly informed, can reasonably believe, that an honest court, applying international law, would likely agree, or could reasonably agree, that Iran’s revocation, in 2006, of its 2003 letter, was legally valid, a proper exercise of its rights, conferred on Iran by material breaches, of the NPT, by the U.S. and by its conspiracy partners.

In my opinion, such a lawyer would be a “liar” if s/he concealed that opinion and asserted the contrary to be a fact.

In my opinion, any official receiving that opinion, from a lawyer s/he employed, that official (like ElBaradei, himself a lawyer) would be a “liar” if s/he asserted the contrary to be a fact, keeping that legal opinion secret.

But did it slip ElBaradei’s mind? did it not occur to him? that Iran has a valid legal argument? that the 180-day notice rule applies? that Iran’s notice was timely, of its Fodor construction site?

Could be. Iran has expressed its arguments in political terms, and has not cited (to my knowledge) the customary international law, enunciated in the U.N. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (fraud, material breach) and in the U.N. I.L.C. draft Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (countermeasures).

But this is not the first appearance of this legal issue. ElBaradei and his legal advisers had 7 long years to apply their minds to it.

Because this same law also exonerates every single one of the minor reporting faults originally alleged against Iran, after Iran timely reported its Natanz construction site, during the IAEA 46th General Conference (September 16-20 2002) (GOV/2003/40).

And, ElBaradei has often said, Iran has fulsomely, and frequently, explained to him, the reasons for its caution, in reporting its activities, all of them lawful under the NPT, namely, to protect itself from the determination, by the U.S. conspiracy, to unlawful disrupt Iran’s lawful activities.

So if ElBaradei is not a liar, then he and his legal advisers (Johan Rautenbach, Simon Hannaford, Laura Rockwood, Wolfram Tonhauser), one or more or all of them, are negligent lawyers, and negligent international civil servants.

And that’s nearly as bad, because death, destruction, arson, theft, blackmail, violent covert action, kidnapping, bombing, unconscionable abuse, are the result.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr (Warlaw)

{more to come}