KOS - The News behind the News

Britain May Legalize Catholic Monarchy
November 27, 2009 - From theTrumpet.com
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6754.5277.0.0

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that he wants to scrap the 300-year-old law that forbids a Roman Catholic becoming monarch. Brown said that he would discuss the issue with other heads of governments on the margins of a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad on Friday. He also said he wanted to change the ancient rule of primogeniture, which puts men ahead of women in succession to the throne.

Allowing a Catholic monarch would mean changing the Act of Settlement of 1701. Brown told the House of Commons on Wednesday that he believes the Act of Settlement is out of date. Changes of this magnitude, however, can only be made if all the realms that have the Queen as their head of state agree to them, Brown told the Commons. “That is why it is important to discuss this with all members of the Commonwealth including countries such as Australia and Canada,” he said.

Historically, Buckingham Palace has been opposed to any such changes. But today, many believe it is sympathetic to the idea. Repealing the Act would have complicated legal ramifications, causing existing legislation to come under review and alteration, including the 1707 Act of Union. In addition, a Catholic on the throne of Britain would technically be the head of the Church of England.

British history contains centuries of power struggles between Britons and Catholic popes. England broke from the Vatican in 1534 under King Henry viii, establishing the British monarch as head of the Anglican Church. But now the pope is gathering the Anglicans back into the mother church. Talk of the obstacles to a Catholic monarch being abolished is another part of this trend. For more information, see our article “The Vatican’s Attack on Britain.” •


Obama may reverse another Bush policy and join the ICC
By Mr. Schwammenthal, editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574519253095440312.html

The Hague: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague. The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC's founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

"We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan," Mr. Ocampo told me. "There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government." Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, "there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture."

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out. Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that "we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned."

The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has—so far—established a record of cautious jurisprudence.

Mr. Ocampo is famous in his home country for prosecuting military juntas as well as starring in a reality program where he adjudicated private disputes. And in his first six years at the ICC, he pursued real evildoers. He indicted Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony, militia leaders from the Congo and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, responsible for the genocide in Darfur. Yet collecting information about possible war crimes by American soldiers smacks of just the sort of politicized prosecution critics of the ICC had always warned about.

Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding—a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm—is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval.

There is also the issue of whether Predator strikes of unmanned drones targeting terrorist leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan—as carried out in the very first week of the Obama presidency—are part of the bombings he's looking into. Mr. Ocampo chuckled and answered evasively. "We have people around the world concerned about this," he said, and when pressed, added, "Whatever the gravest war crimes are that have been committed, we have to check."

"Gravest" is the operative word here. The court was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," as stated on the ICC's Web site. This would suggest that even if U.S. soldiers have committed war crimes by the prosecutor's definition, the ICC would have no reason to get involved as those transgressions would surely be insignificant compared to the butchery in places like Sudan or Congo.

Mr. Ocampo's own words, though, suggested that he disagrees. I asked him if he was going to prosecute the worst crimes in his jurisdiction or the worst crimes in a particular case, such as Afghanistan, irrespective of how they compare to crimes around the world. He paused before answering.

"Normally," he said (another pause) "we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . . ." Mr. Ocampo didn't finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: "Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation."

This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court's mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor's preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans.

In any event, the ICC's very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself.

"That is the new world," Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. "If this is the 'new world,' why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?" Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world—which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated.

"You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That's what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards," he explained. "I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don't, I shall investigate. That's the rule and we have one rule for everyone."


KOS Message from Camp David, Maryland, Thanksgiving Day 2009
http://www.galacticroundtable.com/profiles/blogs/new-kos-message-from-camp

Gordon Brown has announced he plans on changing the Monarchy Rules in Britain's Constitution. He says he is doing this because the rules are from the 1700s and they are outdated. The Truth is, St Germain, was at Buckingham Palace last Saturday, November 21st. The Palace was put on lock down because Diana and Dodi were there with Charles and Camilla. They all four sat attentively listening to their instructions on how the change of succession would take place. He told the four of them Diana and Dodi will be taking over the Monarchy in England. Not only that, but the roles will change in many ways. Diana and Dodi will be heralding in a new form of government in England.

Similar changes will happen in other places. As the 13 families leave the stage, so to speak, their old ways of ruling the people will dissolve and new ways will take their place. These new governing bodies will be formed in the months after the Announcements. We will not be using the old systems based on control.

St. Germain went to Gordon Brown, who very soon will also be leaving the stage, and told him today he must, as the UK Leader, go to the press to Announce the Monarchy will never be the same. He is not revealing Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip are no longer alive in the Palace, and no longer participating in any daily running of the Palace. These announcements will happen at the time of disclosure. Gordon Brown is making public there will be wide spread sweeping changes in the Monarchy and they will be happening soon. Many UK citizens will be very pleased with the changes. This will be the most publicly known Monarchy change, but in several of the EU Nations, similar changes will be taking place.

Interesting news about the U.S. not being a Member of the ICC because it did not ratify the the Rome Statute. Here is the kicker. Any country who DID ratify the Rome Statute, and falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC, can make a War Crimes arrest of ANY SOLDIER OR THEIR GOVERNMENT LEADERS IN CONFLICTS ON THEIR SOIL. Afghanistan ratified the Rome Statute in 2003. Any Country where the United States has bases, soldiers, or is in any way located, who is a member of the ICC, may bring War Crimes charges of any foreign country participant, or their Government Leaders, all the way up to the Executive Branch. [This would bypass the corrupt World Court.]

By using Universal Jurisdiction and this rule, together, there is no World Leader in any Country who has immunity from Prosecution. It is Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for keeping the United States out of the ICC. She did this to save her bacon. There are 110 Countries who are Member Nations of the ICC and 38 Countries who have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. China, Russia, India, and the US will not dodge charges of War Crimes, just because they did not ratify. If they are on foreign soil committing War Crimes, they are under the jurisdiction of the ICC just by being in one of the 110 Countries who are Member Representatives. When we say The Change Over is Happening Now, we mean, hold on to your hats, it is about to get very very interesting.

Today at Camp David, I met with President Obama and St Germain. There were two others at the meeting. There was a Video Conference with Ashtar and others on the Ships. We were discussing the Master Plan related to revealing Galactic Presence and explaining the arrests and changes in governments around the World. There are operations which will be choreographed together in a sequential flow. The final preparations are at hand. Regarding the meeting at Camp David, later next week: What I can say is, the reason the press sites for the meeting is misleading. They are guessing at things they have no knowledge of.

There are all kinds of rumors flying out there. For the sake of the military families and their children, I would like to avoid any speculation. Just know, there is much to gain for the dark Hats if an escalation were going to take place. Continue to put out the message that We are not going to buy into False Evidence Appearing Real. The President has waited for weeks to have this meeting to discuss Afghanistan and there are very few people who know what he really will say. He is writing his own speech for that meeting. We will let the Sirian Commander tell you what he wishes to say.

The Time For Peace is now.
KOS [King of Swords]

Rich N

http://richjn.blogspot.com/



-----------------------------