he's told stories of a new plan to go safe from his dominate talks as russian president dmitri medvedev sits down with his iranian counterpart enough but not their shot on the sidelines of a key regional summit in his aversion on the bed of said russia will contain the impulse in tehran develop a peaceful atomic program. president obama urges lawmakers on capitol hill not to sign a trying to be ratification of the new films cost treaty between moscow and washington . it's no harder national security priority for the lame duck session of congress. stakes or american management screwed your clear and there are.

also in the u.s. the ledge gun front of big to boot claims american officials tried to force him into admitting to almost smuggling charges a while being extradited from bangkok to washington payne says he is not guilty as of all for diplomatic support of the russian businessman who can fix it could face life behind bars. next alun all see with a key nato summit all set to begin their takes an in-depth look at what the mission holds for the few shoulder organization.

welcome to the alone a show will get the real headlines with none of the mersey coming live out of washington d.c. now is the nato summit is set to begin tomorrow all eyes will be on portugal where leaders will discuss a new strategic concept for the military alliance to help bring it in to the twenty first century we're going to tell you what's on the agenda when we speak with our two producers straight out of lisbon then did the federal reserve just launch the equivalent of a nuclear war with its latest round of quality quantitative easing we're going to speak with peter schiff president of euro pacific capital on that then we'll bring you details on the first civilian trial of a guantanamo bay detainee. was found guilty of only one count out of more than two hundred eighty charges so as you can imagine people are already moving to call this a failure for the obama administration's efforts at civilian trials but if we really think about it isn't the bush administration the one to blame if you had

been tortured these people then maybe you'd be able to try them on a date the issue with attorney kelly sanden on off make the money that are progressives feeling defeated it sure looks like it with obama's less than enthusiastic attitude he seems to be supporting these states so we can't help but has obama lost it and there's something fishy going on between cyber giants and the obama administration the president's team wants access to all telecommunications devices at any point in time they want certain services like blackberries and skype to reconfigure their designs to make it easier for the government to act. yes all the information all while the obama administration is trying to establish new rules to protect consumer privacy some ask wired's ryan singel how the government is trying to reconcile these two completely opposite positions now let's move on tonight top story. tomorrow marks the beginning of the nato summit in lisbon portugal on the agenda redefining its identity coming up with withdraw all day for

u.s. troops in afghanistan and addressing a new list of threats but does anyone out there remember what nato's initial purpose was artie's lauren lyster give us a history of the north atlantic treaty organization. it was an alliance born of fear fear of the red army. fear of communism spread westward it was supposed to do rejoice was to defend western europe against the soviet union. those threats whether real or perceived were enough to help america gather its european allies to form a new military bloc he was now part of the to the signing of the north atlantic treaty which television reports the united states of america marketed nato is the world's hope for a better future united states keenly aware of its strategic role as a leader in the pre world has a large itself with other nations dedicated to the preservation of peace under nato

this so called preservation of peace legitimize the presence of u.s. troops and military bases from norway to turkey and massive military budgets and the position of the us as the leader of the western world. but the fall of the berlin wall changed all of that bringing with it the rise of this rhetoric it is a message of peace and goodwill and hope for a growing friendship and closeness between our two peoples the military alliance forged against the soviet threat was now deprived of its enemy. many expected nato to be dissolved and gorbachev thought he had to promise that nato would be kept at bay but he wasn't understanding that either would be. a common strategy of called gratian security a promise that nato broke over and over again in the post cold war years expanded both in mission and territory and the that the phrase of the day was expand or die

and as it expanded to include baltic states in eastern european countries so to distrust and tensions we will in another shower then use a military lawyer littering your borders will be. as if you read threats of abuse of the security of our country so what is this twentieth century alliance doing in the twenty first century world has one of identity crisis for a while we can severely by the seemingly endless afghan war the power of the block is in question along with the purpose of the combat mission most european countries know what it means to pay have been in the middle of a war so they are asking some hard questions who are we going to stand there how much are we willing to lose how many people are willing to give up in a situation where we were really not sure what the context of of the intervention is and if in the context of nato it's the united states whose goals are being served one to assure the american people that the threats we're dealing with for

example in afghanistan are not just against the u.s. and that the u.s. while it is still low the world's greatest power is no longer a power that can do everything by itself. and in its economic crises and turmoil it's unclear if member countries some facing austerity can even afford the promise to defend each other looking to the future of nato perhaps the biggest question is if they should even try i'm not sure what nato is in the twenty first cent. yeah it's still a military alliance on paper but i think it's not really feasible to defend every country so it's really become sort of a talk shop and i think it's outdated it's against that backdrop of historical and global challenges that we arrive here at this one the nato summit in lisbon where the alliance will vie for twenty first century relevance with the promise of new

strategic goals but whether new goals make any difference on the battlefields of afghanistan or to the waning support for that mission or to the disagreements among countries on everything from missile defense to nuclear weapons to military spending all remains to be seen lauren lyster r.t. lisbon portugal. so what can we expect from this year's today so much more earlier i caught up with archie producer lucy caffein of who is in lisbon right now to give us a preview i first mention the fact that nato secretary general anders fogh rasmussen is comment that this is one of the most important summits in nato history so i asked her if that feeling was obvious over there in lisbon. but i was walking past some other reporters doing their live shows here and there talking about the excitement that's palatable and the energy that you can almost feel in the in the room and you know it's a pretty pretty empty place behind me i don't know if you can see that there i mean if if the gauge of how exciting and important an event is at all seeing through the

local reaction to it i have to say that a lot of the folks that i've talked to on the street here in lisbon don't even know that this is taking place or what the nato summit is of course they are paying attention to another very important international meeting and that is the football match that took place yesterday between portugal and spain so on a more serious note of course you have to i think it's more of the the economic backdrop and the global backdrop against which the nato summit is taking place that is important disaster wars in afghanistan etc go ahead well tell me this because you know one of the first goals i was going to be revitalizing the alliance for the twenty first century because i know they have an evaluation of their strategic concept of what their purpose is since one thousand nine hundred ninety nine a lot of people would say that nato really has been suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis and especially i mean if you look at the fact that they invited russia this year. exactly i mean the irony is lost on nobody here you're essentially dealing with a twentieth century military alliance that was formed because of

a threat whether real or perceived by the united states of the invading soviet army as you saw it lawrence package it was more of a protective alliance versus the soviet union at the time and now russia is poised to play a hugely important role because the biggest conflict that this alliance is dealing with right now is the u.s. led war in afghanistan which of course it's entering its tenth year now costing billions of dollars a week and the russian russians help in terms of the supply routes helicopters etc is immensely important here so i think you hit the nail on the head there when you said that nato stressed trying to figure out what the heck it is in two days did. age now of course one of the things that everyone is expecting is for a review here of the strategy for the war in afghanistan and we've heard a lot perceiving this that two thousand and fourteen is going to be set as a deadline to withdraw combat troops and then yesterday before the summit even began we are ready heard nato officials saying well in fact it could go from two thousand and fifteen to beyond so i mean what do we expect any type of concrete

plan or deadline set. well i'm sure they're going to give us some pseudo concrete deadlines and throw around a bunch of dates twenty fourteen the end of two thousand and fourteen but i mean you have to remember that these are real life conflicts on the ground and they're not there is they're organic things that depend on conditions on the ground we heard so many deadlines for iraq that look we're still essentially involved in the conflict there the terminology has changed but there are still boots on the ground and i think it's going to be impossible for an international alliance to somehow just say ok x. y. z. is the date we're going to pull out that that's not something that happens i think what's more important is whether the united states is going to be able to continue to get help from its international allies in this war at a time when a lot of the europeans are massively cutting their defense spending something the that the united states is not exactly willing to do politically at the moment and whether or not they're going to continue to get the help that the americans that they desperately need in fighting a war that there's not

a lot of political interest in political will for that really remains to be seen that's going to be the big issue for obama here now with defense spending is definitely an issue especially when the u.k. announced earlier this year that they are actually going to be making large cuts to their defense budget and certainly we've heard critiques from u.s. officials saying that hey you guys you can forget about your nato responsibilities here but let's talk about barack obama really quickly too because of course the start treaty is something that he's pushing really hard right now at home to get through you know in this lame duck session already we have senators that are trying to turn their backs on it clearing john kyl is this being discussed over there in lisbon. it's going to you know the russians and the americans are going to be meeting on the sides but really the most important thing that everyone's going to be looking towards the russians for is what what role will russia feel comfortable in taking with the with the missile defense shield system and whether or not nato

is going to be able to you know essentially do it enforce the system in a way that doesn't threaten the various countries and how they're going to implement it now in terms of start i mean barack obama is facing so much pressure at home as well as internationally the start treaty was supposed to be his biggest accomplishment his biggest foreign policy accomplishment and we're seeing that he's finding so much difficulty in terms of getting agreement abroad for for his various policies whether or not he can come home with some sort of a win some sort of a consensus internationally is going to be a big test for him because you know the lame duck sessions come in and i don't see that much more policy was on the table for the white house now we have the financial test of course just last week in south korea at the g. twenty now another foreign policy task in lisbon for the nato summit lucy thanks so much. thank you. and now still to come on tonight's show he was on trial for two hundred eighty five charges related to the nine hundred ninety eight bombings of u.s. embassies in africa but

a jury in new york already convicted the former getting the detainee on one count so some are criticizing our court system saying of this verdict just isn't enough but our justice system isn't the problem here it's our views of torture that is and is the federal reserve setting off an economic version of nuclear war going to speak with peter schiff president of euro pacific capital and author of the book how an economy grows and why it crashes to get his take on the. wealthy british soil. it's time to. go for it. market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cancer a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to conjure reports

on our. culture is the same of you i can tell you the other day when the soviets were to say i mean we are to the end of the second grade war major nazi leaders were put on trial for war there is no doubt such crimes were committed. the federal reserve's announcement of a second round of quantitative easing and an injection of six hundred billion more dollars from their printing presses into the economy well that didn't gain barack obama any friends at last week's g twenty summit in south korea but as the international community focusing on the fed's moves more than americans are my closing our eyes are we just waiting for an impending financial disaster down the line well peter schiff president of euro pacific capital and author of the book how to connally grows and why it crashes says that the fed's move is the monetary equivalent of a nuclear war earlier i caught up with him and first i asked him to explain the

whole nuclear war analogy. by i don't think is a nuclear war that we're waging war against other countries we're trying to wage war against ourselves in that we're debasing our dollars through quantitative easing in fact want to pay to be easing is basically default sedition on the part of the u.s. government that we really can't pay or dads and so the federal reserve is going to have to create money out of thin air in order to finance u.s. government spending well you know a lot of people have seemed a little lost here you know there's been a lot of critique about but no one really seems to have a concrete answer for what a better idea is except for yourself you say that you know if we really want to get the economy back on track then we need to raise interest rates dramatically so why is that i have yet i have a much better idea it's called free market capitalism you know government intervention created this crisis the government kept interest rates much too low for too long the government insured and subsidized and guaranteed loans that never

would have been made in a free market and in the process they distorted the u.s. economy dramatically to the point where it's an unsustainable we have too much consumption we have too much borrowing we don't have enough savings in production and this is all the result of the government trying to micromanage the economy they're doing are horrific job that is stop we do allow the market forces to restructure our economy and on it in a viable way now would you say that there is a currency war that we are currently and i mean you wrote that you think that the u.s. the federal reserve's move to inject six hundred billion more dollars into the economy was really the first punch. well i mean if that is going to weaken the dollar but you know whether other countries decide to weaken their own currencies in response it's a shame that other countries get involved in this because they're only hurting themselves the winners in a currency war are the people who don't participate because their citizens benefit because they they gain

a stronger currency i mean look what's happening in china right now china is actually toying with price controls price control will be more damaging to the chinese economy than inflation but the inflation is the result of the currency war it's the result of china trying to keep its currency too low that is producing inflation because we're exporting our inflation in america to china and now china needs to deal with it but they can't try to just you know fight be inflation by trying to hide the symptoms because of it is all the money they're printing to artificially maintain a low value for their currency china should let its currency rise that is the best solution to their inflation problem and that will force america to have to deal with this problem now do you think that and terms of the american dollar because for now right everyone is just trying to play catch up with that is it a matter of if and are excuse me of when and not just if it gets replaced as the world's reserve currency. but it's it will the u.s. dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency at some point so that's just

a question of when but that is what will replace it will there be another currency such as the euro or and began or the chinese r. and b. will another currency emerge as the reserve currency or will the world not have a reserve currency a dog which i would prefer i would prefer to see all central banks using gold is reserves as a predominant reserve asset not other other currencies and i think we'd have a much more stable monetary system and we would have a budget better checks and balances on reckless government spending and borrowing if they had to borrow and spend real money while some people would say oh because there are proponents and called out there like yourself that there is a gold bubble forming green with out of the. i'm not at all i mean gold rising could simply be inverse of currency is losing value and so it doesn't reflect a bubble at all and if you debase your currency prices have to rise particularly the price of gold so that's all we're seeing and you know if you want to compare

the price increase to gold to what happened to assets that were in bubbles i think you know you are no where is near a bubble territory certainly the average investor owns noble maybe if everybody own gold and everybody own more bold in stocks you might have a point but right now it's just a small fraction of the population that owns gold and in fact if you look at central banks their holdings of gold relative to their foreign exchange reserves are at record lows so gold is under owned by foreign central banks if you look at gold as a percentage of financial assets it's still relatively low so it's an under owned asset i could have been a ball now i want to switch courses a little bit very quickly and if we go back to the financial crisis i think well yesterday the f.d.i.c announced they're going to be launching and that's again gens into fifty banks or fifty executives of failed banks but in a lot of people out there would say well hey why only going after the guys who's

banks failed not the ones who actually got bailed out by the government. and the ones that might fail in the future one of the problems is the f.b.i. see itself we should not have an f.b.i. city it should be abolished the f.b.i. see is at the root cause of our banking problems it's because the f.b.i. see insurers deposits that banks are so reckless because the positives don't care what the banks do with their money because the government guarantees their accounts the bank should know this and so they have incentives to take greater risks because that's the way they get the plazas by offered by taking risk and operating better yields or better services but no banks compete based on safety which is what they would do in a free market but since the government removed all the free market regulations and substituted its own regulations that is the problem because bank regulators do not do is going to job is the free market you know they're not regulating for the right reasons they're highly susceptible to being captured by the industry they regulate

their problem to. take bribes or kickbacks or just be corrupt the market is the best way to regulate banks on fortunately we're not allowing that to happen parallel thank you very much for joining as always a pleasure to get your very unique take on that. as if by that you can be my date was the conventional wisdom that was going to the united states and the united states achieve greatness we became the wealthiest country in the world because we are here to free market thinking we had more of a capitalist economy the reason america has fallen so much is because we've abandoned those principles thank you so much for joining. thank you. ahmed ghailani the first detainee from guantanamo bay to be given a civilian trial in federal court received his verdict yesterday he was found guilty on only one count of conspiracy to blow up

a government building and acquitted on more than two hundred eighty other charges of murder and conspiracy relating to the one nine hundred ninety eight bombings of the u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania he now faces a sentence of twenty years to life in prison but despite the many years of jail time ahead of him there are a lot of critics out there who are unhappy with the sentence who have reignited the fierce debate over the obama administration's attempts to restore the role of the traditional criminal justice system and handling terrorism prosecutions but i think the real question is should they have expected this outcome this is what happens when you torture people now joining me from chicago to discuss it as attorney kelly saindon partner of belong here shapiro and franklin kelly thanks so much for joining us again nice to see you tell me this are you are you disappointed with this verdict we got yesterday. i am disappointed with the verdict because i think any time a prosecution tries to prosecute someone on two hundred eighty counts and the only succeed on one that's

a problem or what do you think we have that problem was i mean couldn't you say that well it's because they didn't really have any concrete evidence against him because the only witness who did have that concrete evidence well they tortured him so they couldn't use it. well sure you can say that you can say that the prosecution didn't have the things they need to prove their case and the judge ruled that maybe it was out because the law to testify when you was when coercive tactics were used to get information from him so sure absolutely you can say that they didn't have the arsenal but if that's the case then why two hundred eighty well what do you think should have been done instead do you think that he should have been you know taken to a military commission should they have only tried him on one or two counts so we know what would have been the better solution there. well i think one or both of what you just said would have been the better solution i think it when you throw two hundred eighty counts in the jury you're asking for trouble first of all because that's a lot of information to process and just to go through knows the jury was

deadlocked for a while and i think people just get tired and frustrated when they have to sort through all of these papers and listen to things and then they're going through and they start to seem repetitive a lot of the counts are very similar so i think that's a problem i also think that he had this band before a military tribunal it's possible that different witnesses and different evidence would come in well in fact you know i was doing a lot of research on this today and from what i found out the current rules governing the military commissions commissions also bar the use of torture obtained evidence also you know to the exact same accents as the civilian courts do so they wouldn't really have been able to use any other information here you know i mean should they have i you know you are saying that two hundred eighty counts can be a lot for injuring to take in but you would think that murder right that would be v the one that stands out the most to them all they got him on was conspiracy one count because the well the problem with the murder count was that the gentleman that claims to have sold him the explosives didn't come in so it's prosecution

saying he did this without any concrete proof and i think that just because the idea of that torture came into play doesn't mean that the military tribunal would have ruled the same way although the judge in this case put that in his footnote that he thought that it would have gone the same way but one thing that this judge did do was. pave the way if you will excuse me to open the door for these cases to go forward saying that the right to a speedy trial wasn't violated and the fact that this guy was detained for a number of years doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted so he did pave the way for future cases but i i don't know for certain that had it been in military tribunals would have gone the same way or what do you think is going to happen from here on out because clearly people are saying that this is the test case for the obama administration and since it really. didn't go favorably for them since it was in the hands down guilty verdict that now you know everyone is going to protest any further civilian trials even more like do you think that hamann is ever going to get one. well that's that is the ongoing debate because again i've been

a proponent of a lot of these military tribunals do i think it is going to get to trial yes can i guess which way no because a lot of people are saying justice was served we went through our system a lot of people are actually thrilled that they got one conviction because twenty years to life is a very severe conviction so even if you would have stacked multiple guilty against this guy now he has a chance to appeal in a likelihood if you were to prevail that he could get out but realistically that's not going to happen so he is now going to be serving probably the rest of his natural life in prison so does that does it change anything no i think the other thing is they were trying to show that this could be peaceful and that there wouldn't be upwards and there wouldn't be security issues but mom is a bigger deal than this guy so i don't know if that's going to hold true here but everyone's up in arms because you know in america we like our pound of flesh and this one while it is a victory because they were able to convict and this is the rest of his natural

life is probably going to be behind bars we wanted the big kahuna we wanted two hundred eighty across the board this is never going to see the light of day and it didn't happen now tell me this you know one of the things that i find the most disappointing as i hear like you're saying a lot of people are saying that justice has been served i for one think that yes this is proof that our justice system actually works because this means also that the jury was not only looking at the case but they're also checking the government in the meantime checking the government's actions which included torture which is something that they're supposed to be doing but glenn greenwald point of the south say that no matter what the verdict was the obama administration basically made the point that they couldn't imprison him indefinitely anyway under the laws of war so was this just a show trial what's the point if our country is just going to keep indefinitely detaining all these men and women. well if it is the point it is a show trial i think i think that if we don't think that we have a solid case that it's likely the government's going to hold someone that absence of public.