Chalmers Johnson interview

[January 2, 2004]

from the book

Hijacking Catastrophe

9/11, Fear and the Selling of American Empire

edited by Sut Jhally and Jeremy Earp

Olive Branch Press, 2004, paper

SJ. In March of 2000 you released a book entitled Blowback that became a big seller after 9/11. What is blowback?

Blowback is a term the CIA invented. It's a bit of jargon. Blowback means not just unintended consequences of foreign policy actions, but the unintended consequences of covert activities that have been kept secret from the American public. So blowback simply means retaliation. And when retaliation hits from the people who were on the receiving end of our covert actions, the American public has no way to put it in context.

SJ: How does 9-11 fit into this?

9/11 was almost the classic example of blowback. That is, it is almost surely the most important use of political terrorism in the history of international relations. But the terrorism here was carried out by people who were our former "assets," as the CIA puts it-former agents of ours, people whom we lavishly supported in the '80s in Afghanistan to serve our interests against the Soviet Union. Once the Soviet Union, in 1989, withdrew from Afghanistan, we abandoned them. The country fell into a disastrous civil war that was ultimately won by the fundamentalist-motivated Taliban, who instituted a repressive, religiously sanctioned regime in Afghanistan. The people who thought they were our allies, including most prominently Osama bin Laden, the son of a very wealthy Saudi Arabian family, a man who joined the CIA and the Pakistanis in recruiting militants from around the world to fight against the Russians.

Bin Laden was disgusted by the fact that the Americans simply walked away and abandoned the country that they had helped to devastate. I mean Kabul in the early '90s looked like Hiroshima, it had been so badly decimated. He was also disgusted by the fact that after 1991 we based troops for the first time in Saudi Arabia, allegedly to defend the House of Saud, the royal house of Saudi Arabia. This was insulting and aggravating to many patriotic Saudis because these Americans were infidels being introduced into a country whose government is charged with defending the two most sacred sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina. For the United States it was a stupid thing to do. Even if military force could have influenced in any way the stability of the extremely authoritarian and dictatorial government of Saudi Arabia, such force should not have been based in Saudi Arabia. It should have been put aboard aircraft carriers or something like that, which would have been every bit as effective as putting 20,000 American troops at Prince Sultan airbase. This then led Osama bin Laden to become an enemy of the United States.

In fact, 9/11 was late in the day. He had already attacked our embassies in East Africa, American troops elsewhere, and the USS Cole. The World Trade Center had also already been attacked once. This was not, as the president put it, an attack on our values or an attack on America as Americans. It was an attack on our foreign policy by people who felt deeply aggrieved by it. They turned to an almost classic example of terrorism-what the Department of Defense calls asymmetric warfare-an attack on innocent bystanders in order to draw attention to the crimes of the invulnerable. This also made clear that "innocent bystanders" only refers to workers in the World Trade Center. They were not innocent bystanders in the Pentagon. That was the right target for these people, and they went to it in a ruthless manner. But it was blowback, pure and simple.

The interesting thing to me is when, on the morning of September 11, 2001, I was called by my publisher to say that blowback big-time just hit, neither of us instantaneously turned to Arabic or Islamic terrorism. We thought that it could be Chileans, Argentineans, Indonesians, Okinawans, any number of people around the world who have deep and quite legitimate grievances against the United States. In those days, just after 9/11, I thought that probably one of the most tragic scenes I had ever seen on American television was American women standing in lower Manhattan holding up photographs of what they feared were their dead husbands, brothers, children, lovers, asking for information. As I stared at these pictures, I said, Of course. I've seen this somewhere before, haven't I? These are the women of Argentina and Chile, holding up pictures and inventing a new phrase in Spanish, "los desaparecidos," "the disappeared," because they didn't dare say what they knew full well-that with the support of the American government, these people had simply been seized and executed, usually tortured first.

We knew that 9/11 was blowback, but we refused to say so. Rather than ever asking questions, like the most obvious forensic questions: 'What were the motives of these Saudi Arabian suicidal terrorists? We instead began to say that this was a clash of civilizations, that medieval Islam was attacking us because of envy for our lifestyle, or something of this sort. This was clearly a way of diverting attention from the fact that arguably, some very high-ranking officials of the American government bore at least partial responsibility for the deaths of close to 3,000 of their fellow citizens that day. That is, the line of descent from these particular terrorists goes back directly into Middle Eastern politics, the politics of oil, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, and in the same year the invasion by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan. Our determination, as we put it at the time, was to give the Soviet Union its Vietnam by recruiting young militants around the world, in a sort of modern version of the Abraham Lincoln brigade to fight against the Soviet Union. None of this was brought out.

The people surrounding the president were the authors of these policies. They should have come forward and talked about it, discussed it, identified it. They didn't do so. They remained silent. And that, to my way of thinking, is as great a crime against the Constitution as some of the others that have followed.

SJ: It's interesting that the further we get from 9/11, the more the attack on the Pentagon seems to disappear from public view, lost in the media coverage. Why might that be?

Clearly it's part of the propaganda waged against terrorism to argue that they are attacking what they, and everyone else would agree, are innocent bystanders. It's at least arguable whether office workers sitting above the 75th floor were legitimate military targets in an international struggle. There is no argument about the Pentagon. It's the place. It has troops in 130 countries around the world. It's the place that runs 725 military bases in other people's countries. Therefore the attack on the Pentagon is something that the neoconservatives who have been managing our foreign policy since 9/11 would obviously not have drawn attention to. It would be the same way if there had been an attack on the Central Intelligence Agency. These are the two tremendous sources of power in our government.

The Pentagon is not a Department of Defense. It is an alternative seat of government on the south bank of the Potomac River. Forty percent of its budget is totally secret. All of the budgets of the intelligence agencies are secret and in violation of perhaps one of the most famous lines in the Constitution: "The public shall know how its money is being spent." That's what turns the country into a democracy, rather than a kingdom or a monarchy or something of that sort. It hasn't been honored in this country since World War II. The Manhattan project was totally secret, buried in the defense budget. No one ever got the full details of it and that's been the case since the mid-1940s. But there is no doubt that the people managing our government today (with the mindset of imperialists) would like to avoid discussing the attack on the Pentagon. Because if you focus on it, then you start thinking why the Pentagon? Why our military? What are they doing that would cause people to hate us? And to ask the question is virtually to answer it.

SJ: Your latest book is called The Sorrows of Empire. For many A men cans "empire" is a very abstract term. Could you elaborate on why you believe America is an empire?

Classically, of course, empire simply means the acquisition, the domination, the military preponderance over foreign countries to bring them in some ways into your orbit, into your world. There are lots of different forms of imperialism, from colonialism to the satellite. The latter is a country whose foreign policy completely revolves around an imperial power, such as the famous satellites of the Soviet Union in East Europe and the American satellites today-places like Japan and South Korea, which cannot make a decision without getting the approval of Washington.

But the modern form of empire is manifest above all in the case of the United States, which likes to call itself a superpower. In this modern empire the equivalent of the colony is the military base. We have 703 of them in other peoples' countries. They stretch from Greenland to Australia, from Japan to Iceland. They are on every continent on Earth, except for Antarctica. In addition to that, we have some thirteen supercarriers that form carrier task forces that dominate the waters of the world. We can go anywhere with them. There's nothing that can stand up to them. And this empire has its own geography of closed-off areas, the base in which we often try to recreate American life abroad. There are 234 military golf courses around the world to keep the troops happy, and we supply airplanes to fly the admirals and generals to play golf or to go to the armed forces ski resort at Garmesh in the Bavarian Alps.

Not everything duplicates America abroad. A very large proportion of the armed forces today are female, but you can't get an abortion in the military hospital abroad. Last year there were some 14,000 sexual assaults on women in the armed forces. If you find yourself pregnant in Iraq right now, you have no choice but to go onto the market, so to speak, and try to negotiate an abortion in Baghdad, which I doubt is easy or pleasant. This reflects, of course, the religious fundamentalists that govern our country because, of course, you could get an abortion if you were in the United States.

It's a complex world that no one fully appreciates. Take on old British base that we run today, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, from which we flew all three of our main strategic weapons, the B-52, the B2, the B-1 for the attack on Iraq. We have no problems on Diego Garcia, because when we acquired it from the English, we deported every single indigenous person to the Seychelle Islands where they sit today in poverty. Okinawa is another classic case. It is the poorest, most southern of the Japanese islands. It's an island smaller than Kawai in the Hawaiian Islands, and there are 38 American military bases on it. The choicest 20 percent of this island is occupied by massive military installations, including our largest military base in East Asia, which was built for thermonuclear war. The modern empire today is not the old empire of colonies. It's not the empire of neo-colonialism (except in the case of Latin America), but is instead the empire of huge military reservations. In Britain they're all disguised as Royal Air Force bases. It also includes Germany, Italy, a series of bases ringing the Persian Gulf, four being built in Iraq as we talk, two new bases in Uzbekistan, in Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia. That's the empire today.

SJ: But isn't it a dangerous world? Don't we need to protect ourselves?

It's a dangerous world, no question about that, but the empire is not a response to that. What are the functions of this empire? What is it there for? There are about five things that it does, none of which, it seems to me, in any way makes the American public safer.

One is military preponderance over the rest of the world, to simply ensure that no rival begins to develop power that could, in any way, challenge the United States. This was stated by Paul Wolfowitz when he was in the Department of Defense back in 1992 and it is now official policy-that we will stop other countries from creating power that could be used against us in the future, or could create a balance of power, and this extends to outer space.

Second, of course, oil. The control of petroleum resources is a fundamental aspect of international relations. The irony of all this is we could totally free ourselves from dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf by technological means of conservation that are available right now. If you simply would produce a fuel-efficient automotive industry in America, you could end our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, we are profligate in our use of fossil fuels. The Chevrolet Suburban weighs three tons and gets about ten miles a gallon. It doubled its sales after 9/11. The symbol of the United States after 9/11 became, here in Southern California, someone speeding down the freeway in a very heavy SUV with an American flag attached to his radio antenna.

A third purpose of the empire is to conduct espionage on everybody. We can listen to any e-mail, any fax, any telephone call anywhere on earth. We even have submarines for penetrating and tapping fiber optic cables, the only form of communications that doesn't send off a bouncing ray that can be picked up by satellites and things of this sort.

The fourth function of the empire is to serve the interests of the military industrial complex. We are, by order of magnitude, the largest suppliers of munitions anywhere on Earth. Most Americans are not aware of how terribly important the Pentagon is to our national economic life. Arms are not normally-certainly not in the most important amounts-sold by the manufacturers. They're sold through the Pentagon itself, where some 10,000 people work on foreign military sales. It's supplying weapons of all sorts to people around the world. A huge business has developed to support this-about a half-million American soldiers, spies, teachers, contractors.

The fifth function is to make life pleasant for people who exist today in our volunteer armed forces. When I was in the Navy; in the Korean War, conscription was in effect. A young man in America had to make a decision. Were you going to go in the Army, were you going to go in the Navy? What were you going to do? You had to do something. It was an obligation of citizenship to serve in the armed forces. It is not today. It has not been since 1973. People who serve in the armed forces are volunteers. They are not a citizen army as much as the Pentagon would like to have you pretend they are. People join the armed forces today largely to escape one or another dead-end of our society; Minorities such as African Americans are more widely represented in the armed forces than they are in the work force at large.

The broader function of empire is simply imperialism. It's this kind of ideology that has grown up in the wake of the cold war, propounded quite openly by what we are calling neoconservatives in America, which identifies the United States as a colossus athwart the world, a new Rome, beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends. We don't need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, "It doesn't matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us." That's very much the ideology that's at work today.

SJ: What stake do ordinary Americans have in the empire. Does it do them harm? Do they benefit from it?

I've tried to lay out in my new book, The Sorrows of Empire, the costs of empire. They can be grouped in four general areas. One is perpetual warfare: one war after another after another. We become a warfare state. The system is set up to go to war. We're going to find wars. We've already had two major wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, just since the turn of the century.

The second great cost of an empire is the weakening of civil liberties. Right now as we talk the fourth and sixth amendments to the Constitution are dead letters. We have given the President the power to incarcerate an American citizen in violation of habeas corpus, not read the charges to him, not allow him to defend himself, not give him an attorney, not have the evidence against him presented to him. That's the Sixth Amendment. Gone. The Fourth Amendment, freedom in your own property; in your own home, from government surveillance-thanks to the Patriot Act, that has been largely suspended. The FBI and the CIA can now do clandestine espionage on your personal activities, for example, the Internet sites you visit, and no judge can stop them. These are serious developments. They're far enough advanced in my belief to say that I doubt very much that the Constitution of 1787 actually still prevails today. Hannah Arendt, the famous political philosopher, noted that tyranny can always prevail over others, but its cost is the transformation of its own society; Militarism and imperialism go together. They have an unbelievably corrosive effect on republican liberty; on the balance of power, on the separation of power. It leads to the Imperial Presidency, to the trappings of empire, to the expansion of the Pentagon into any number of areas that it was never intended to be in.

We have today a Northern Command, located in Colorado, allegedly to defend the country against an external attack We have never created such a command before, even during World War II, because we feared that it could become a focus for a military takeover. General Ed Eberhardt, the current commander of the Northern Command, has said that we might have to interfere with laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted after the Civil War to prevent the military from interfering in civil elections and things of that sort. General Eberhardt said that the circumstances might develop in which we would have to abolish that. And I thought as he said it, "You don't realize, General, that the Posse Comitatus Act is there to defend us from you." That's why it was originally enacted, and today it's under continuous assault by the President, by his associates, by the Department of Justice.

The third great cost of empire is a tendency toward official lying, toward propaganda on the part of our political leaders, the refusal to be candid with the people, and the growth enormously of official secrecy; The best example is the speech given to the UN council on February 5, 2003 by Secretary of State Cohn Powell, telling us of the tremendous threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We now know in detail that virtually everything Cohn Powell said was a lie, and he knew it was a lie, and the people like George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency; who was sitting behind him, above all, knew that it was disinformation. That now becomes common, and it's a terrible cost to the republic.

There was also the President's 2003 State of the Union address. I have to admit that as a professor of international relations I simply find it unimaginable that in the most authoritative speech the President gives every year, the State of the Union, a speech given to a joint Session of Congress and broadcast all over the world, you could have the president put in intelligence known to be false by our hyper-secret, very expensive intelligence agencies. The president and his advisors put in this intelligence stating that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire raw uranium from a source in Africa when we knew that that was not true. It was a piece of fake intelligence. It is quite literally unbelievable that the President could make such a statement, that his advisors could have allowed him to make such a statement. I would have to say today that it would be an extremely naive person who would take any statement of the federal government at face value, who would not attempt to verify it through their own personal sources, sources they trust, and find other ways to confirm what the government is saying.

The fourth cost is bankruptcy, imperial overstretch. The current defense appropriation bill signed by the President in November of 2003 allocates $401 billion for the military; That does not include any of the $150 billion for Iraq. Let me offer a comparison to show the folly of this. Britain, on the eve of World War I, had trade surpluses running to maybe 7 percent of GDP. It was a rich country. It could afford a mistake and still get over it. The US is running trade deficits that amount to maybe 5 percent of GDP. And if the world starts deciding that the dollar is not nearly as attractive a place to keep their savings as maybe the Euro, then the American house of cards starts to crumble almost at once. The financial basis for that happening is there. As Herb Stein, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, once said, "Things that can't go on forever don't." 'What we're talking about right now is that the rigged American economy can't go on forever, and it's not rocket science to say so. Perpetual war, the loss of civil liberties, the lack of trust in government because they don't tell the truth, these are outrageous and unpleasant political developments, but they don't necessarily spell the end of the United States. Financial bankruptcy does. It brings it down.

SJ: There's been a lot of focus on the neoconservatives within the Bush administration. They obviously didn't invent American empire, but they have been described as radical enthusiasts for it. Do you think "radical" is a good way to describe them and their foreign policy?

I think they are extremely radical, and I think they have hijacked American foreign policy. General Zinni of the marine corps called them "chicken hawks," war-lovers who have no experience of barracks life or of war, who are abstract enthusiasts of empire, who have concluded that we are a good empire and that what the world needs is an empire. They compare us to Rome, knowing almost nothing about Roman history and what happened to the Roman Republic, which was at one time very much a model for our own Constitution. It fell apart on the same things that are pressuring our society today, imperialism and militarism. But the neoconservatives, at the very end of the first Bush administration in 1992, had already begun to make a classic, catastrophic error that could ultimately cost the Americans their country. They concluded that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that we had won the cold war, that in some way or another we were now utterly the dominant power.

The truth of the matter is that both of us were in the process of losing the cold war. It was a losing proposition that had largely been over since the '70s as far as any threat of a Soviet-American military exchange goes. We reacted to the end of the cold war not by demobilizing, as we did at the end of World War II, and returning to civilian pursuits. We instead did everything in our power to prop up cold war structures in East Asia, in Latin America, and to try to find a substitute for the Soviet Union that would justify the huge cold war apparatus and keep it in being. Many theorists began almost at once to supply something that the Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex wanted: a new rationale for our military apparatus. They began to say that the new policy for the US must be to maintain preponderance over the rest of the world and that there should be no sources of power, hostile or allied, that could ever challenge us in any military manner. When this was first enunciated in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, a classic chicken hawk if there ever was one, it was largely derided at the time.

One of the interesting things to me is that these neocons all existed in the first Bush administration, but they were kept carefully under control. They worked for the government, but they were kept under control by Brent Scowcroft, who was President George H. W Bush's national security advisor-not exactly a genius but a prudent old cold warrior. The thing that's different is that after the appointment of George Bush in 2000, and then the crisis of 9/11, they've come forward. They have no restraints on them.

While they were out of power during the Clinton administration, they created something called the Project for the New American Century, in which they propagandized their ideas. They also began to have in their ranks a strong element representing the Likud Party in Israel, or at least that element of Israeli politics associated with Anal Sharon, a famous Israeli general. They began to worry about places like Iraq and Iran, which Israel had identified as potential threats and rivals to its power in the Middle East. They had elaborate ideas about transforming the Middle East into what they said would be a democratic renaissance. It just seems almost insane on the surface of it that people who know almost nothing about these societies, know nothing about their history and how they were created, know almost nothing about the antagonism throughout the Middle East over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for so many years, that they should imagine such things.

They were biding their time until 9/11 became precisely what they had said they needed a year earlier, a "new Pearl Harbor" that they could use to implement their program, something that could mobilize the public to the danger they're in, would allow them to exploit it. Within almost days after 9/11, Rice had convened the entire National Security Council with the question, "How can we utilize this event in order to transform American foreign policy?" Within hours of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was talking about the need for a war against Iraq, without any evidence that Iraq had participated at all in 9/11. It was implausible on the surface of it. Osama bin Laden is rather obviously motivated by a deep commitment to the fundamentals of Islam, whereas Saddam Hussein and the Bá'ath Party are radically secularist. But these neocons literally hijacked American foreign policy. They wanted to go to Iraq first, but we now have evidence from inside the administration that they were warned off because the public wouldn't see the connection with Iraq. So they chose Afghanistan.

The Pentagon has propagandized what they call a stupendous military victory in Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that the US went back in and bribed the warlords that had been defeated in the Afghan civil war to reopen it. They had been defeated by the Taliban and we offered them air support. This was not a particularly brilliant or edifying military strategy at all. It very quickly overthrew the Taliban but it also very quickly recreated in Afghanistan the kinds of preTaliban conditions that had given rise to fundamentalist mujahadeen terrorist activities. We see today that Afghanistan is once again the world's largest supplier of opium, and the attempt to write a new Afghan constitution appears to have collapsed in Kabul because of the ethnic realities of the country.

But then their real mission always was Iraq. And as we know, they began, catastrophically, to invent excuses for a war with Iraq: that it possessed weapons of mass destruction that were a major threat to our lives, to the lives of our allies in Britain and in Israel, and that Saddam Hussein had in some ways had some relationship with the Saudi Arabian terrorists that actually carried out the suicidal missions of 9/11. None of this proves to be true. It has been among the most embarrassing things for the governments of Britain and the US that have ever occurred. However, we know from public opinion polls that the public still believes that Saddam Hussein was in some ways responsible for the terrorist assaults on the US. Since, as a matter of fact, there is not one iota of evidence for that assertion, they must believe it only because that's what the President and his aides have repeatedly said. It's also been hammered home through a failed media that has simply parroted what the administration put out.

The neocons are in some trouble today. They did say that they believed our troops would be welcomed with open arms, that Iraq would be fabulously wealthy because it is the second largest source of petroleum reserves on earth, and we could easily step in and take over and profit from them. None of these things has proven true. An Iraqi freedom fighter, an Iraqi nationalist (just like a Vietnamese nationalist in the '60s), will resent foreign invaders in his country who are dominating his life, who are humiliating him in front of his family, who are barging into his house brandishing weapons in front of his children-that man until the end of time wants to kill Americans and is going to keep trying to do it. It is an unmitigated disaster to have gotten into this, and it is largely the result of allowing policy to be made by naïve, ill-informed people who were allowed to capture our government, and by a president who is ill-suited for the job in terms of training and background, who was not elected to office but was appointed by the Supreme Court, and therefore had dubious authority from the outset. This combined with a National Security advisor, Rice, who herself seems in over her head. She is an authority on a country that no longer exists, the former Soviet Union, who does not seem able to perform the role of National Security Advisor effectively, to coordinate a very diverse government and to have original and intelligent strategic thoughts of her own.

SJ: Given these failures, what, then, is the most effective way to fight terrorism?

The first thing is not to react exactly as the terrorists want you to react. There's no question that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda could not have imagined that they would succeed so wildly beyond their dreams. George Bush has played to the hilt the role of sucker, of being drawn in, responding improperly and unintelligently, to the attacks of 9/11, perhaps exploiting it for short-term political advantage to himself, to provide the legitimacy that he did not get from the Supreme Court in the first months of 2001. But the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have legitimated and generated throughout the world unbelievable support for Osama bin Laden. Americans don't seem to understand that Osama bin Laden is not the same thing as Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein

has genuine enemies inside Iraq, people who suffered under his rule and had ample reason to want to see him gone and to seek revenge against the Ba'ath Party. Osama bin Laden didn't rule anybody, and there's nobody in the Arab world who feels that Osama bin Laden has betrayed them. My wife and I spent a good deal of time traveling in Indonesia. I guarantee you that anywhere on Java today you can find boys wearing tee shirts with pictures of Osama bin Laden, saying "Islamic Hero."

The primary technique of terrorism is to try to elicit a damaging overreaction, usually meaning the militarization of the affair, leading to the loss of life by innocent bystanders. When we do it we call it "collateral damage." But it means all those people killed by our hightech bombing in Afghanistan or by the occupation forces in Iraq have got brothers and fathers and uncles, and those people are determined to gain revenge, gain respect for their families. We who lost the Vietnam War should have understood that most of those fighting against us were not communists. They were defenders of their country against what they saw as easily identifiable foreign invaders. And we lost it. We lost it badly because they were prepared never to give up. We now have the people who created this disaster, like Robert McNamara, acknowledging that. It is a bad testimony to the United States and our sense of history in this society that we who lost the Vietnam War could have so quickly forgotten what it meant.

SJ: How did we get out of this situation?

The crisis that we face today is essentially a Constitutional one. James Madison, the primary author of our Constitution, said that the most important clause in the Constitution is the one that gives the elected representatives, the people, the right to declare war. He then went on to say that it is a power that never should be given to a single individual. No person can assume that responsibility. In October 2002, our Congress gave up the power to declare war to the president. He can do it when he wants to, on his own decision, using nuclear weapons if he chooses. And we gave that power to him without even a debate. I believe that means the Constitution was betrayed. The president does not actually sign, or take an oath, to defend the people of the United States. He takes an oath to defend the Constitution. That's what he didn't do. He instead betrayed the Constitution. It is a Constitutional issue, and the candidate that runs against him should raise that issue directly, emphasize the rights of the people in the country, in the Constitution, and republican liberty. That's what the election needs to be fought about. If it's not, then we probably have to assume the United States is starting to tread the same path as the former Soviet Union and that it will soon, because of these pressures, start to unravel.

Hijacking Catastrophe

Home Page