RECOMMENDED READING: “At The Heart Of The Battle For Egypt”

RECOMMENDED READING: “At The Heart Of The Battle For Egypt”

Recommended Reading Comments (0)

 U.S. media has reported on the struggle for control over Al-Azhar in Egypt, an important mosque and one of the oldest educational institutions in the Islamic world. According to a Washington Post report:

The revolution that began here two years ago with calls for justice and freedom has become a rout by Islamist forces that have racked up victory upon victory at the polls. But within Egypt and across the region, the real source of fears that the country is careening toward theocracy lies in an unlikely place: the ancient stone corridors of al-Azhar, a Cairo mosque and university complex that has long been known as a respected beacon of moderation. This month, the Muslim Brotherhood held funerals at al-Azhar mosque for members who were killed in clashes with secular demonstrators. That reputation is under threat, as far more hard-line elements of Egypt’s Islamic mosaic stage a rear-guard action for control. It is a battle that will gain newfound urgency on Saturday, when voters are expected to approve a draft constitution that gives al-Azhar extraordinary power to pass judgment on the religious merits of the nation’s laws. Al-Azhar leaders say they didn’t want the role but were pressured to accept it by adherents to a puritanical, Saudiinfluenced school of Islam known as Salafism, whose clout has surged in Egypt’s newly democratic era. “The Salafis want to make Azhar a part of the political system, which we are against,” said Abdel Dayem-Nossair, an adviser to al-Azhar’s grand sheik and a member of the assembly that wrote the new constitution. “We don’t like to put the law in terms of a religious dogma that says ‘ This is right’ or ‘ This is wrong.’ ” But under the new constitution, that is exactly what the millennium-old institution will soon be doing. Dayem-Nossair said he believes the Salafis insisted on the provision because “they think they’ll take over al-Azhar.” The fight over al-Azhar’s nature and role is one with profound implications for Egypt, but also far beyond. As much as anything, the Arab Spring uprisings and the tumult that followed have turned on the question of where Islam fits in society and who gets to interpret Islam. Al-Azhar has played a venerated role in that debate for centuries. It is widely considered the most distinguished center of Sunni Islamic thought, and it annually educates millions of students, many of whom travel here from across the globe.
Read the rest here.

Numerous earlier posts have covered the changing nature of Al-Azhar:

• A post from last November reported on a speech given by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi before Friday prayers at the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, his first speech ever at Al-Azhar  and where he called for Arabs and Muslims to unite In confrontation With Israel.

• A post from October reported that Salah Soltan, a notorious anti-Semite and formerly part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood,, had been appointed as Secretary General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIF) attached  to the Egyptian Ministry of Waqf. The appointment was made by the Minister Dr. Talaat Mohamed Afify Salem who has been described as a member of the Salafist movement in Egypt and as an “ally” of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Ministry of Waqf (Islamic Endowment) is reported to have influence over Al-Azhar.

• A post from May reported on what was describef as a “first-of-its-kind” meeting between Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Azhar leaders.

• A post from Npvember 2011reported that a Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo held at the Al Azhar Mosque was a “venomous anti-Israel protest” that featured calls to “kill all the Jews.

• In March  2010, a post reported on the appointment of Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed al-Tayeb as head of Al-Azhar, replacing Mohammed Sayed Tantawi who had died recently on a trip to Saudi Arabia. 

• In October 2008, posts reported on the election of Qaradawi to the Islamic Research Council of Al-Azhar. 

For other reports on the battle for control of Al-Azhar, go here and here.

Former Bosnian Grand Mufti Addresses Middle East Halal Conference; Mustafa Ceric Once Urged Muslims To Conquer World Through Halalinagural

Former Bosnian Grand Mufti Addresses Middle East Halal Conference; Mustafa Ceric Once Urged Muslims To Conquer World Through Halalinagural

Daily Comments (0)

 Gulf sources are reporting that Dr. Mustafa Ceric, the former Grand Mufti of Bosnia, addressed the inaugural session of the Halal Congress Middle East in the UAE. According to a press release:

Close on the heels of getting mandates from the Organization of the Islamic Conference to prepare unified standards for Halal food and cosmetics, the UAE is in the global limelight again, thanks to the Halal Congress Middle East that has brought together the most influential and authoritative minds on Halal markets and standards to Sharjah. The inaugural two-day Halal Congress Middle East got under way on Tuesday, December 11 at Expo Centre Sharjah and is running concurrently with the Halal Food Middle East. UAE Minister of Education H.E. Humaid Al Qutami was the guest of honour at the opening ceremony. The inaugural ceremony was attended by Haji Abdul Malik Kassim, Minister for Penang State Government, Malaysia, and Chairman, Penang International Halal Hub, Malaysia; Dr. El Hassane Hzaine, Director-General ICDT (Islamic Centre for Development of Trade of OIC); and Saeed Obaid Al Jarwan, Second Vice Chairman, Sharjah Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Expo Centre Sharjah. “While the focus was on the multitude of business opportunities associated with one of the fastest growing industries in the world, the need for a unified standards system was heard loud and clear since all stakeholders in the industry very well know that a single Halal standard will ultimately harmonise exports and imports and ease market access to several regions,” said Saif Mohammed Al Midfa, Director-General of Expo Centre Sharjah. Held under the theme ‘Halal — global standard for quality, hygiene and safety’, the Congress’ inaugural session was addressed by Prof. Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of OIC; Humaid Al Qutami, UAE Minister of Education; Makhdoom Amin Faheem, Senior Minister and Federal Minister for Commerce, Pakistan; and Dr. Mustafa Ceric, The Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993 to 2012); and Saif Mohammed Al Midfa.

A post from December 2010 reported on comments by Dr. Ceric in which he was said to have urged the Muslim Ummah to conquer the world through Halal [food certified by Islam] movement.
Considered by some to be a leading “liberal” Islamic leader, Mustafa Ceric is tied to the global Muslim Brotherhood through his membership in the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), headed by Qaradawi and by his participation in the U.K.-based “Radical Middle Way” consisting of a wide range of associated scholars representing the global Muslim Brotherhood. ” While the possibility exists that Dr. Ceric could be being groomed as a successor to Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, in ill health of late, recent statements by Dr. Ceric put him at odds with Qaradawi and some of his religious rulings. Dr. Ceric has also participated in Holocaust remembrance events which would also seem to put him at odds with Qaradawi’s history of Holocaust denial/minimization. It should be remembered  that several earlier posts have discussed Dr. Ceric’s increasing visibility and importance within the global Muslim Brotherhood, noting that Ceric sees himself as a possible future leader of a “European Islam. It maybe that these actions may be designed to win greater acceptance for Dr. Ceric by European leaders while at the same time preserving his connection to Qaradawi by remaining part of the ECFR. A post from September reported  that Husein Effendi Kavazovic, the mufti of the northeast Bosnian town of Tuzla, had been chosen as the new Chief Mufti of the country’s Islamic Community, replacing Mustafa Ceric who held the position for 19 years.
In November a post reported that the World Association of Muslim Scholars (aka International Union of Muslim Scholars), headed by Youssef Qaradawi, was expected to send a delegation to the Gaza Strip that included Dr. Ceric.

BREAKING NEWS: Al Gore Sells Cable Channel To Al-Jazeera; Pockets $100 Million

BREAKING NEWS: Al Gore Sells Cable Channel To Al-Jazeera; Pockets $100 Million

Breaking News Comments (0)

U.S. media is reporting that the Qatari-based Al-Jazeera network has purchased a cable channel owned by former Vice-President Al Gore and his partners. According to an AP report:

LOS ANGELES — Al-Jazeera, the Pan-Arab news channel that struggled to win space on American cable television, has acquired Current TV, boosting its reach in the U.S. nearly ninefold to about 40 million homes. With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that cofounder Al Gore couldn’t make relevant. The former vice president confirmed the sale Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV’s mission ‘to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling.’ The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera’s reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English. Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a network called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists. More than half of the content will be U.S. news and the network will have its headquarters in New York, spokesman Stan Collender said. Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English’s website is from the U.S. ’This is a pure business decision based on recognized demand,’ Collender said. ‘When people watch Al-Jazeera, they tend to like it a great deal.’ Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation’s second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal. ’Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible,’ the company said in a statement.

The New York Time reports on the pivotal role played by Mr. Gore in the sale who will personally be receiving $100 million:

Al Gore’s Current TV was never popular with viewers, but it was a hit where it counted: with cable and satellite providers. When he co-founded the channel in 2005, Mr. Gore managed to get the channel piped into tens of millions of households — a huge number for an untested network — through a combination of personal lobbying and arm-twisting of industry giants. He called on those skills again after deciding in December to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera for $500 million. To preserve the deal — and the estimated $100 million he would personally receive — he went to some of those same distributors, who were looking for an excuse to drop the low-rated channel, and reminded them that their contracts with Current TV called it a news channel. Were the distributors going to say that an American version of Al Jazeera didn’t qualify, possibly invoking ugly stereotypes of the Middle Eastern news giant? “The lawyers for the carriers couldn’t find their way around it,” said a person briefed on the negotiations who described them on condition of anonymity.

The NYT also cited Mr. Gore’s additional praise for the network:

Their global reach is unmatched and their coverage of major events like the Arab Spring is thorough, fair and informative.

 A post from September reported that Wadah Khanfar had resigned as the Director General of Al-Jazeer and that same post detailed his close ties to Hamas and the Global Muslim Brotherhood. An analysis posted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs also notes these same ties but expands upon the networks connections to the Global Muslim Brotherhood:

The meteoric rise of the network and its increasing popularity have led many political and media commentators in the Arab world to wonder exactly who or what was behind what appears to be its main purpose: encouraging opposition and promoting incitement against Arab regimes, exposing the corruption of their leaders and their entourage, while holding to an extreme Arab nationalist attitude against the US and Israel and extolling the values of conservative – and sometimes extremist – Islam. It did not take long for one name to emerge: the Muslim Brotherhood. This hypotheisis is supported by a number of facts. The director-general of the network, Wadah Khanfar, was a member of the organization in Jordan, where he was arrested. Today he is one of the closest advisers of the emir. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is also a member of the inner circle of the emir and is known to work closely with Khanfar. Both support Hamas. Arab researchers have succeeded in uncovering a number of other Brothers working for the network, but it is surmised that there are many more. The general consensus is that Qaradawi is the visible tip of the iceberg. In an article published in 2003 in the London-based Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat, Maamun Fendi, a well-known Egyptian liberal thinker today living in the US, wrote that some 50 percent of the network’s personnel belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. He added that their influence in Qatar was rising both in the network and among government circles. According to him, the Brotherhood had intended to hold its world summit in Qatar in 2003 but had to scuttle its plan when it became known. These summits are usually held in a European capital far from Arab countries, in conditions of the utmost discretion, if not secrecy. Fendi believes that Qatar, by embracing the Brotherhood, an extremist Islamic organization quite popular in the Arab world, while hosting American bases, has found the perfect formula against retaliation by Arab leaders and attacks by all other Arab and Islamic extremists including al-Qaida.

Last month,  Bloomburg News posted an article titled ”Rising Islamist Movement Has Small But Wealthy Patron” that looked at tensions resulting in the Gulf as a result of Qatari funding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. A series of other recent posts have detailed the growing importance of Qatar to the Global Muslim Brotherhood:

• A post from October reported on the visit to Gaza by the Emir of Qatar described as the “biggest diplomatic victory” for Hamas since taking power five years ago. A post from earlier that week reported on the announcement of the biggest contribution of reconstruction aid for Hamas-ruled Gaza since the destruction accompanying the Israeli-Gaza conflict four years ago. 

• A post from August reported on the plans for an Egypt-Qatar summit where the Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was to receive the Emir of Qatar. AP had reported  earlier that Qatar was granting Egypt a $2 billion loan to help the country’s troubled economy.

• A post from March reported that the Deputy Chairman of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was visiting Qatar for meetings with Qatari official. 

• An earlier post discussed the relocation of Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal from Syria to Qatar in yet another sign of the country growing importance as a center of the Global Muslim Brotherhood

In addition, a series of recent and important Global Muslim Brotherhood events have been held in Qatar illustrating the increasing importance of the country to the  Global Brotherhood. Other items of interest include:

• A Gulf newspaper recently posted an article by academic Dr. Ahmad Jamil Azem titled “Qatar’s Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood Affect Entire Region.” 

• The Atlantic Council Web site recently posted an article titled ”Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood: Between a Present with Qatar and a Future with Libya” that discusses the future of Qatari-Egyptian relations in light of the failure of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood to prevail in recent elections. 

• The Voice of America recently posted an article that discusses the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in driving Qatari foreign policy.

Mario Draghi: Dangerous Dictator?

Monday’s edition of the Telegraph newspaper carried a headline, “Mario Draghi: More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-Il.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... m-jong-il/

The comparison is an interesting one from one perspective: The late president of North Korea was a dictator having supreme authority, accountable to no one. Mario Draghi, president of the bank that is dictating fiscal policy to the world’s largest trading bloc, the European Union, is accountable to no other authority than himself.

As an extension of this comparison, Kim Jong-Il virtually held the world to ransom with the threat of nuclear war. Draghi currently holds the world to ransom with the threat of the collapse of the means of exchange with which much of the EU enacts its global trade—the euro.

Kim rattled his nuclear sabers to scare off the world. The latter is scaring the world into a fear of a global financial collapse of nuclear proportions.

It’s an interesting comparison.

Largely an unknown till he assumed control of the world’s largest central bank on November 1, Draghi has been developing a more public persona of recent date. His most recent interview was with the Financial Times. It contains some interesting vignettes that somewhat explain Draghi’s intransigent stand on the euro crisis.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ea01b862-27da-1 ... z1hO3F1Uwk

“It is a sometimes legalistic—at times, even theological—debate,” the FT writes (emphasis added). That is a point not yet seen by the vast majority. There is a “theological” entity at the root of all this, playing its hand extremely carefully, given its almost-2,000-year history.

“The important thing,” Mr. Draghi says, “is to restore the trust of the people—citizens as well as investors—in our continent. We won’t achieve that by destroying the credibility of the ecb. This is really, in a sense, the undertone of all of our conversation today.”

It is just possible that this Jesuit-educated son of Rome is in tune with the Vatican’s plan for a “new evangelization” of Europe, to “restore the trust of the people,” the true “undertone” behind German elites leading the “conversation” behind closed doors in Rome, Berlin and Brussels.

Either way, the Financial Times interviewer did sound a realistic warning: “… 2012 may well mark the moment when the euro’s fate is settled.”

Aware that grave dangers face the eurozone economies in the new year, Mario Draghi loosed the purse strings of the European Central Bank (ecb) on Wednesday. As the Washington Post reported (December 21):

The European Central Bank announced Wednesday that it is loaning about $640 billion to European banks for an unusual three-year term as part of its effort to free up credit tightened by the eurozone’s government debt crisis.

Statistics released by the Frankfurt-based ECB showed that 523 banks signed up for the loans, the largest infusion of cash since the euro became the common currency of a number of European nations in 1999. In all, 17 nations have adopted the currency, which was seen at its inception as a boost to economic stability but has in recent months come under withering and perhaps fatal attack.

Some see this latest move by Draghi to ease EU banks liquidity as a trick designed to circumvent EU treaty obligations that currently restrain the ecb from becoming the lender of last resort to EU member nations’ governments.

“Reports in Paris suggested some governments also hope the loans will make it possible for banks to buy government debts when cash-strapped governments issue bonds early in 2012. In effect, the reports said, this would be an indirect way of having the ecb become the lender of last resort for indebted governments—something it is forbidden from doing directly by its founding statutes”.

On the euro’s fate hangs the fate of the global economy. The test year is 2012, beginning with the EU governments’ bond auctions in the first quarter of the year. What other cards does Mario Draghi, the “war dragon” of the ECB, have up his sleeve?

The time is fast approaching when Mario Draghi, unfettered president of the most powerful bank in the world—the European Central Bank—will prove whether or not he is, indeed, “more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il”!
Top

Will69ease
Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6879
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:32 pm

PostFri Dec 23, 2011 9:33 pm » by Will69ease

Something Powerfully Prophetic Happened in Brussels Last Week
Image

As European Union leaders and the head of the European Central Bank (ecb) met in Brussels for what was billed as a make-or-break summit for the eurozone, the pope was praying to mother Mary for a suitable outcome. No doubt he was seeking the endorsement of the queen of heaven on the Holy Roman alliance that has emerged between Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and Rome’s man presiding over the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi.

The Economist even transferred Benedict’s title momentarily to Draghi, calling him “Pope Mario.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlema ... /eu-summit
Draghi’s Holy Roman agenda was set during October by a group of Vatican elites, operating under the aegis of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with release of a memorandum titled: “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of a global public authority.” As the Trumpet pointed out at the time, the strength of the memorandum was in the statement proposing “that globalization be regulated by a global public authority”.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8762.7511.0.0
The ecb may not yet be global, but it does now hold the control of all mechanisms needed to effectively administer the newly developing fiscal union that will prevail in the largest trading bloc on the planet—the European Union!

Since taking on the presidency of the ecb, Mario Draghi has moved swiftly to consolidate his position as the second-strongest voice in Europe to that of Angela Merkel—some would even say his voice is now the strongest, particularly following his impeccable performance during last week’s EU summit. Some pundits are even noting that Europe is no longer dominated by a German and French partnership. They claim that any remaining influence that President Nicolas Sarkozy once had in effective EU leadership has been quickly overtaken by Mario Draghi. Predominant leadership in the EU is no longer a Merkel-Sarkozy affair. It is now dominated politically by Merkel and monetarily by Draghi.

In fact, considering Draghi’s allegiance to mother Rome, one could even theorize that the woman of Revelation 17 is already mounting the beast, with Draghi now being the singular public voice calling the tune applying the tourniquet on European debt.

So, what did really happen in Brussels last week, and how does it affect you? For affect you it will—in the pocketbook, where it hurts the average consumerist Anglo-Saxon citizen most.

One Roman personality came to the fore last week during a time when the whole world’s political focus was on Brussels—Mario Draghi. This president of the European Central Bank, having only taken office November 1, held the world’s financial system to ransom for two days during which European heads of government considered, then yielded to, the demands he had crafted for an EU fiscal compact.

The upshot was that 26 of the 27 EU nations have implicitly capitulated to those demands, Britain being the only real dissenter from the initiative to join Draghi’s fiscal compact.
http://euobserver.com/19/114561
Mario Draghi is now the most powerful technocrat in Europe and possibly—given that the EU is the world’s largest trading bloc—the most powerful technocrat in the world!

There was a multitude of commentary on the recent EU summit, most of it missing the point that one personality had emerged from it garnering power of a nature that Hitler’s economics minister, Dr. Walther Funk, could once only dream of. Though Funk had a similar vision to that of Draghi’s European fiscal compact, he never did quite achieve it during the last time that Germany and Italy attempted fascist rule over the European continent. Now European fiscal union is about to become a reality, though it will eventually embrace far less than the 26 nations which have for the moment agreed to sign up to it.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/283 ... -the-brink

Now that the dust has settled, consider the prophetic reality of what resulted from the EU summit last week.

In his booklet Who or What Is the Prophetic Beast? Herbert Armstrong pointed to the correct interpretation of the great prophecy on the current resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, declaring:

In the 17th chapter of Revelation we find a beast, and a woman—a great, wealthy but fallen woman—who was riding the beast. The Bible describes the symbol “woman” to mean a church (see 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7; Ephesians 5:22-27). On the other hand, “beast” is a symbol of a kingdom, or empire. …

The beast of Revelation 13 is not the woman who rode the beast—the beast is the government, and the woman is a church.

The beast of Revelation 13 is the Roman Empire!
You can download or order for free:
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?page=book&b=387
(written in 1952 by the way)

Now consider that prophetic revelation in relation to that which happened last week in Brussels.

“At least there is hope. Grim-faced European leaders gathered in Brussels on December 8 for their summit to save the euro with the news that Pope Benedict xvi was praying to the Virgin Mary for the sake of Italy and Europe. He should also spare a prayer for Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank” (Economist, December 9).

The context within which the pope prayed that prayer to his queen of heaven ought to be electrifying to any true student of biblical prophecy.

Under the headline, “Pope highlights Mary’s role as ‘woman of the apocalypse,’” Catholic News Agency reported the following (December 8):

Pope Benedict xvi reflected on the biblical description of a “woman clothed with the sun” in his remarks at Rome’s Spanish Steps on the 2011 Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

“What is the meaning of this image? It represents the church and Our Lady at the same time,” the pope told the crowd …. “Before all, the ‘woman’ of the apocalypse is Mary herself.”

The 12th chapter of … the book of Revelation describes the glorification and persecution of “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Pope Benedict … gave listeners his insight into the connection between the Virgin Mary and the church, portrayed in the Apocalypse through the single image of the sun-clad woman. … He stressed the world’s need for the hope brought by the “woman clothed with the sun”—“especially in this difficult moment for Italy, for Europe and for different parts of the world.” …

“For this also we, especially on this day, never cease to ask with filial trust for her help: ‘O Mary … pray for us who have recourse to you.’”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... pocalypse/
It is interesting to note the symbolism here. On the day of the Vatican’s Feast of the Immaculate Conception, that Jesuit son of Rome, Mario Draghi, submitted the uniquely conceived fiscal compact with the demand that all EU nations sign up to it—a demand that was acceded to by all except Britain the following day.

“As the dinnertime negotiations stretched into the wee hours of Friday morning, leaked drafts of a communiqué indicate that the summiteers intend to agree to a ‘fiscal compact’ to ensure the stability of the eurozone. These words matter: They are the same ones that Mr. Draghi had used a few days earlier in a Delphic judgment that many interpreted to mean that he would intervene more heavily in the bond markets, once the politicians had delivered a more credible system to impose budget discipline.
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2011/ ... 01.en.html
“The leaders seemed to be appealing directly to Mr. Draghi to deploy the ‘big bazooka,’ which only he controls, to protect big and vulnerable sovereigns like Italy and Spain” (Economist, op. cit.).

No wonder the Economist referred to Draghi as “Pope Mario”!

Do we truly see what is so rapidly happening in Europe right now?

It really has to do with a small group of elites in Europe setting up a system that ultimately will lead to the fulfillment of that prophecy that Herbert Armstrong warned would be a soon-coming reality.

What happened in Brussels last week was just one more significant step toward implementation of an iron-clad fiscal union, ultimately to consist of ten nations which yield up all sovereign power to one singular overarching authority that your Bible terms “the beast” (Revelation 17:12-13).

Overseeing that beastly power as its major spiritual influence is a great church described as a woman riding the beast. These two will implement a system which, for a brief moment in time, will literally dictate terms of trade, globally!

“And he causes all … to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads … that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark …” (Revelation 13:16-17).

That Germany has unquestioned dominance, politically and economically, in Europe is now unquestioned.
That the pope’s man, Mario Draghi, has unrivaled control over Europe’s central banking system and the control of the mechanisms that will be used to address Europe’s current financial crisis—the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility—is a fait accompli.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

In effect, a Jesuit-trained Roman mind, receiving his spiritual direction from the vicar of Rome, is in total charge of Europe’s new fiscal compact which he not only had a large part in forging—and naming—but the control of which he has demanded and got!

Not for nothing did Mario Draghi state last Friday, “It’s a very good outcome for the euro area, very good.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 ... good-luck/

Well, we shall soon see for whom this compact is deemed “very good,” for it is destined to work not only against Britain, but against its Atlantic partner America in a powerful way. Ultimately, it will affect global financial transactions to the point that the impact on Anglo-Saxon economies will be devastating!

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/mario-draghi-dangerous-dictator-t64709.html#ixzz2H7dTk9tz

Mario Draghi: Dangerous Dictator? : News & World Events

Mario Draghi: Dangerous Dictator? : News & World Events

Freedom From War The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

--------

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

• The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
• The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
• The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
• The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

• As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
• Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
• Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
• Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
• Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

• The nuclear threat would be reduced:
     All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
     The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
     States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
      States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
     A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
• Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
     Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
• Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
     The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
     An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
• Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
     The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
     States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
• U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
     Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
• An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
     Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
     It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
     It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
• States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
     States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
     A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
     States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

• Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
• Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
• Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
• Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
• On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
• The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
• The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

• States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
• The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
• The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
• The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Appendix

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek --- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program --- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force--including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147

Keith Olbermann & Constitutional Law Prof Jonathan Turley On Military Commissions Act

Keith Olbermann & Constitutional
Law Prof Jonathan Turley
On Military Commissions Act
MSNBC
10-18-6

To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I'm joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

 

As always, sir, great thanks for your time.

 

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR:  Thanks, Keith. 

 

OLBERMANN:  I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

 

Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?

 

TURLEY:  It certainly does.  In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.

 

And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless.  You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.

 

So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board.

 

OLBERMANN:  Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?

 

TURLEY:  It does.  And it's a huge sea change for our democracy.  The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president.  In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations.

 

Now we must.  And people have no idea how significant this is.  What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system.  What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.

 

It couldn't be more significant.  And the strange thing is, we've become sort of constitutional couch potatoes.  I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, "Dancing with the Stars."  I mean, it's otherworldly.

 

OLBERMANN:  Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation?  And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today?

 

TURLEY:  Well, you know what?  I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over-taking almost absolute power.  It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy.  And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.

 

And so we may have, in this country, some type of ueber-president, some absolute ruler, and it'll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial.

 

It's something that no one thought-certainly I didn't think-was possible in the United States.  And I am not too sure how we got to this point.  But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country.  What happened today changed us.  And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon.

 

OLBERMANN:  And if Justice Kennedy tries to change us back, we can always call him an enemy combatant.

 

The president reiterated today the United States does not torture.  Does this law actually guarantee anything like that?

 

TURLEY:  That's actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn't believe it.  You know, the United States has engaged in torture.  And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death.

 

The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture.  We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners.  We treated it as a war crime.  And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for.

 

Who are we now?  I know who we were then.  But when the president said that we don't torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set.

 

OLBERMANN:  That same individual fell back on the same argument that he'd used about the war in Iraq to sanction this law.  Let me play what he said and then ask you a question about it.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

BUSH:  Yet with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few.  Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously?  And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

OLBERMANN:  Does he understand the irony of those words when taken out of the context of this particular passage or of what he perceives as the war against terror, and that, in fact, the threat we may be facing is the threat of President George W. Bush?

 

TURLEY:  Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds.  And I think you can feel the judgment of history.  It won't be kind to President Bush.

 

But frankly, I don't think that it will be kind to the rest of us.  I think that history will ask, Where were you?  What did you do when this thing was signed into law?  There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts.  But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.

 

OLBERMANN:  Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I think we've done a little bit of what we could have done, and...

 

TURLEY:  That's true.

 

OLBERMANN:  ... I'll see you at Gitmo.  Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University.  As always, greatest thanks for your time, Jon.

 

TURLEY:  Thanks, Keith.