How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

November, 2009:

Why Climategate Is So Important

As I have said in many articles on this site, there is no significant man-made global warming. Yes, man certainly warms up local areas with blacktop and development, but his production of CO2 is not causing, nor will it ever cause, a climate change catastrophe. This is just the dogma of the global warmingistas. They want to separate you from your money, destroy western civilization, and gain more control over every aspect of your life. This video is an excellent presentation on the actual facts that Al Gore, and the powers that be, do not want you to know. There is a lot more to know about the subject, and you can learn that from other articles I have published, with their references, but this is a good, concise summary of some of the more salient points about the real science.
As many people have said, climate change is not about science; it is about politics and control. As Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister said: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

If you want to learn more, please review these articles, along with the references:
More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover

The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money

Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-Made Global Warming”

More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion

How Low Can Global Warming Wackjobs Go? Drowning Puppies Commercial.

What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!

Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science

More Evidence That Global Warming is Political, Not Scientific

I Hate To Say “I Told You So”….Never Mind

I actually love to tell you I told you so. A few months ago I said that “global warming” was a TOTAL SCAM. Now, we know that it is a TOTAL SCAM. Of course, you will not hear that from the “main stream media”. In fact, they will actually embarrass themselves by covering the Copenhagen Climate Control Conspiracy. There is nothing to support their claim of global warming, and there is nothing to support the threat of global warming. It is all a conspiracy to separate you from your money and savings. While we have speculated about this in the past, we now have proof; the global warmingistas’ e-mails and computer files and other files, that prove that the whole thing was just a scam to separate you from your money! This is an outrageous lie; this is an outrageous criminal offense. The perpetrators of this crime must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; they must not be allowed to walk free!

No Guns For Negroes: Gun Control Not About Safety, But About Disarming Those Government Dislikes

This is a great video from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership . It points out such tidbits as the fact that the 1968 US Gun Control Act is virtually identical to the laws passed in Nazi Germany in 1938 to prevent those that Hitler considered “undesirable” from having guns. It also points out that a person showing a gun prevents over 500 rapes and 1100 murders every day. The government is not restricting gun ownership because it wants to lower crime or prevent deaths. It is restricting gun ownership so that the common people are defenseless. As Thomas Jefferson wisely said:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Hitler said it in another way:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
— Hitler, April 11 1942

Rush Limbaugh had a great quip about the second amendment:

“You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.”

— Rush Limbaugh

This is very similar to Thomas Jefferson quote, which may be the best statement ever about the reason for the second amendment. And, remember, he helped write the Constitution, as well as some of the Amendments to the Constitution, so his words are not open to interpretation.

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“Hide The Decline” Animated Audio About Climategate

This is quite catchy! I like it. It is an animated audio from Minnesotans For Global Warming about climategate and the fudging of the numbers. Enjoy!

Two Incredibly Stupid Commercials Brought To You By The Global Warmingistas

There is a new commercial making the rounds created by the people that believe that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, that is global warming that is caused by man, as in CO2) will destroy the world, and of course kill the beloved polar bears. I guess these bears are being killed because people are flying around the world in airplanes. Oh, the horror! Imagine being so selfish and shortsighted as to get on an airplane and fly somewhere. (Lets not get into all of the private jets, and fleets of SUV’s, that Al Gore uses to get around.) I don’t know if this came out before or after the whole global warming scare was proven to be a scam, by the release of over 1000 e-mails, and hundreds of damning documents and software showing destruction of evidence, collusion, exclusion of science that did not fit “the agenda”, and other stuff this past week. But, it is really disgusting. And, from my point of view, even if there was man-made global warming that was killing the polar bears, who really cares? Most of us will never see a polar bear except in a zoo, or a stuffed one at Cabelas (great store.) Those who are forced to live among them would probably be happier if they were not around.

I can tell you one thing for sure; I bet this guy wished there were a few less polar bears.

And now, for one of the most horrible, biased, distorted, dishonest scare commercial I have ever seen. This is targeted at little children, and tells them that puppy dogs will drown and bunny rabbits will starve, because their evil parents do things like drive cars and heat their homes.

This is truly disgusting, especially in light of all that we are finding out through climategate relating to the scientific fraud and dishonesty involved in what used to be called “climate science”.

All You Really Need To Know About “Global Warming”

There has been a lot written in the last few days about “global warming”. Those of us who actually looked at the data, and who actually thought about it, knew that there was no man-made global warming. It was a scam. It was a political power grab. It was an attempt at wealth transfer. It was an entree into “world governance”. It was never about the science. But, to sum it all up, here is a graph that shows what has happened with global temperatures, and what the global warmingistas (IPCC and CRU) predicted would happen. Personally, I may be stupid, but I don’t see the correlation. Do you?

SPPI8YRTo see my other articles about this, go to:

More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover

The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money

Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-Made Global Warming”

More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion

How Low Can Global Warming Wackjobs Go? Drowning Puppies Commercial.

What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!

Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science

More Evidence That Global Warming is Political, Not Scientific

More Global Warmingista Fraud: Gore’s New Book Cover

This story was just broken at the wattsupwiththat website. Al Gore’s new book “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” has a very deceptive bit of photoshopping on the cover. Of course, first of all, we all know there is no genuine climate crisis, as the recent leaks of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Center have proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But, as shown in the above breaking story, Al’s book cover is interesting. On the outer jacket, you see a picture of North America as you would expect to see it.


But then, if you open the cover, you see the ridiculous image below.


How stupid is that? It reminds me of the dumbest movie I ever saw, “The Day After Tomorrow”.

The_Day_After_TomorrowI guess I should cut Al some slack, since the book was obviously produced before the whole thing was shown to be a total scam, as I’ve maintained for years. But, you would think he might be a little more sensible. Note all of the hurricanes, but there is no known relationship between global warming (if it existed) and hurricanes. Also, note that Florida is almost gone, Cuba is gone, and so is much of Central America, in spite of the inconvenient  truth that Central America has many mountains over 6000 feet high. The hurricane near Florida is spinning in the wrong direction. Greenland’s 3000 foot thick ice sheet is gone, replaced by open ocean. (What happened to the Greenland under the ice? Did it “melt” from the extreme heating?)

This is just so totally wrong and shameful, it is hard to believe the main stream media is not all over it, especially given the fact that the leaked materials from the Climate Research Unit clearly show that the whole thing was about politics, transfer of wealth, and establishment of a “one world government”. It has nothing to do with science. Of course, your not hearing much about the leaks from the CRU from the main stream media, either. Could it be because they are co-conspirators? Probably.

How Can People Be So Stupid? added to Atheist Blogroll

How Can People Be So Stupid? has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

So Let Me Get This Right. If KSM Is Found Guilty, He Gets Life In Prison; If KSM Is Found “Not Guilty”, He Gets Life In Prison?

I know, I am just a stupid American. I may be a member of Mensa, and have a Master’s degree in solid state physics, and was actually a Ph.D. candidate before the clock ran out before I could finish my dissertation research. But, I have a question. Eric Holder has announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and the person who beheaded Daniel Pearl, will be tried in New York Federal Court, just a few blocks from the scene of the 9/11 terrorist attack. What is that about!? He is not an American citizen. (Unless you claim that he is in the country illegally, and thus subject to citizenship? Is the fact that we captured him in Pakistan and brought him to Guantanamo Bay defacto proof of citizenship? I am baffled. I know we want to grant citizenship privileges to illegal aliens, like Mexicans, but this is a bit too bizarre.)
But, be that as it may, now Eric Holder is saying that KSM should be tried in an American civilian court, just like any other common criminal. (Please, name one common criminal who slaughtered 3000 innocent civilians, and decapitated at least one other civilian citizen, to boot!)
Given that he was not read his Miranda rights (how ridiculous would that have been….in the battlefield…..Mr. Mohammed… have the right to remain silent……) Anyway, he was not read his Miranda rights. Thus, anything he said is not admissible in a civilian court of law. He was “tortured” (water-boarded.) While many say that water-boarding is torture, and it may well be, I say torture away if it saves AMERICAN LIVES. Apparently, it did, since he reportedly sang like a canary after his “re-education”. That probably saved many AMERICAN LIVES.
Do I have an “agenda”? Yes, I do not want to see American lives pissed away. I want to see Muslim murderers killed. I really don’t care how we get to that point, and I don’t think most Americans do, either. If someone is out to kill Americans, they must be killed. Period. End of discussion. No debate available.
But, here is the real problem. Because he was not “Mirandized”, and was supposedly “tortured”, nothing he said can be used against him. While I recognize the fact that Eric Holder has said that we have far more evidence against him than what he has “admitted”, I am nervous. After all, lets not forget that O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty”. Fortunately, he was finally put away for other crimes, but the travesty of that trial can never be forgotten. There is a reasonably high probability that KSM, and other co-conspirators, could be found “NOT GUILTY”.
What then? Well, Eric Holder says that we would keep him in jail, anyway. Say what? How can you incarcerate someone once they have been declared “not guilty”? THAT would be a true travesty of the American justice system.
I say, try them in a military court, and execute them, and I think most Americans would agree. To do anything else is to risk the total destruction of our government, our lifestyle, and our freedom.

Christopher Hitchens On Religion (Illustrated)

This is a brilliant, illustrated version of a speech by Christopher Hitchens on religion. He is one of the few, along with Richard Dawkins, who can really identify religion with the barbaric, backward, and yes, ridiculous, belief system that it really is. As is pointed out in this illustrated talk, I do not believe that most Christians (unlike many Muslims) REALLY believe what their church tells them. They give it lip service, but deep down, I don’t really think the majority believe the doctrines of their church. After all, to really believe what most religions tell you, you must totally disbelieve what science tells us. As time goes on, the evidence from science becomes so irrefutable that it is virtually impossible to still believe the old myths, lies, and legends told to us by religion and books like the Bible and the Koran. Sure, some people will continue to “believe”;there are some people, even today, who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and/or that the earth is flat. Those scientifically illiterate people deserve our ridicule, as well as those who believe in virgin birth, resurrection, the flood myth, and all of the other baggage associated with religious dogma. Christopher Hitchens says it like it is, and is very insightful.
Enjoy this presentation by a great writer and speaker.

For part 2.

The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money

The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money” by Joanne Nova is an absolutely fantastic booklet  that spells out the frauds committed by governments and “climate scientists” in promoting their one world order agenda. And, it does it in a way that virtually anyone can understand. As I’ve said many times, it is NOT about the science, and the treasure trove of hacked CRU files unearthed a couple of days ago proves that. There are many booklets, and even
detailed books, like the excellent volume “Climate Change Reconsidered”, by S. Fred Singer,

shown above, that describe the real, but suppressed, science of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. (It is a total fiction. It is a scam designed to allow for more government regulation of your life, bring in world government and destroy our sovereignty, and to transfer wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries.) But, some of these more detailed and scholarly works may be too scientific for the average lay person to understand. But, her booklet is designed for everyone.

Anyway, this booklet is excellent, and updated with some of the latest information, like the fact that the CRU  “lost the data” when it was faced with having to release the data under a Freedom Of Information Act demand. And, of course, the recently leaked e-mails discuss the deleting of e-mails in response to FOIA requests. That is a crime, not just scientific chicanery.

SNL Parody of Obama and Hu Jintao Meeting Tells It Like It Is

Too funny, but also, too true. Maybe actually a documentary, rather than a parody.

Some “Inconvenient Truths” About “Man-made Global Warming”

I’ve known that the belief in “Man-Made Global Warming” was basically a religion, based on myths, lies, and bad “science” for a long time. I’ve published articles to that effect.

More Evidence That Global Warming is Political, Not Scientific

Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science

What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!

More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion

How Low Can Global Warming Wackjobs Go? Drowning Puppies Commercial

As with religion, it was so obvious that the global warming hysteria was about politics,  money, and the control over populations, rather than about reality and science. I’ve had, and still have, a hard time understanding how people could be so “hoodwinked” by all religions.  Christianity is a 2000 year old religion clearly based on pagan and Egyptian mythology, and it survives, and has many otherwise intelligent, adherents.  Islam is a 1400 year old religion based on the sayings of an insane, epileptic, barbarian, pedophile. But, it is the fastest growing religion in the world, with some 1.2 billion followers. Mormonism is a religion founded by a womanizing con-man, in much the same way that Islam was founded by a womanizing, barbarian, con-man. But the similarities don’t seem to be recognized.  (The parallels between Islam and Mormonism are fascinating, and may be worthy of a book one of these days.)

So, why should I be surprised that people would adopt the religion of  “global warming”? After all, Al Gore, the poster child for global warming, is a failed lawyer and clergyman. (He went to grad school for both “trades”, but could not hack it in either case, so he decided to be a politician, like his father. I have a Doctor of Divinity, and I did not even have to be bothered with attending school for that particular degree. Yet, I can legally perform any religious ritual other than a circumcision, which I have no interest in performing. But, I digress.)

In a recent article in Newsweek, about his upcoming book “Our Choice”, Al Gore admits that most of the global warming (that he claims is happening) is not caused by CO2. Rather, it is caused by particulates and methane, and other things.)

The other issue where science could be an inconvenient truth for climate politics is the basic question of what is causing the greenhouse effect. Earlier this year Gore phoned two scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute, which is above the Manhattan coffee shop where the Seinfeld characters hung out. Drew Shindell, Schmidt, and colleagues run state-of-the-art computer calculations on how much various greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. The relative impact of each, they were finding, was different from what simpler models had suggested. As they reported last week in Science—findings that Gore got hold of last spring—methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols. Halocarbons have caused 8 percent of the warming; black carbon (sooty emissions from burning wood, dung, and diesel), 12 percent; carbon monoxide and volatile organics, 7 percent—and carbon dioxide, 43 percent.

Now, given that the world is about to vote on, and possibly impose, draconian taxes based on CO2, that is a major problem. Never mind the fact that many of the findings of the IPCC have been proven to be false, or, at best, misleading. (And these points are proven by recently uncovered e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit, whose computers were hacked some time in the last few days, as mentioned below.) Furthermore, many of the predictions made by the various computer models, while touted in the outdated IPCC report, have proven to be wrong, because their predictions are NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ACTUAL DATA. (Read some of the reports below for the latest data, and analysis of the data in the outdated IPCC report.) While Al Gore and his fellow conspirators would like to suggest that “the science is settled”, the science if FAR FROM SETTLED.

There are 10’s of thousands of scientists (including myself) who DO NOT agree with the findings of the IPCC. For information on the “other side of the debate”, refer to the following excellent documents that clearly show the current state of the art in climate science, and demonstrate the flaws and/or outdated information in the IPCC report.

Climate Change Reconsidered, by S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso

“Global Warming: A Debate At Last” by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Or, view the video in my sidebar, “The Great Global Warming Swindle“.

But, the situation gets even worse. As I pointed out in an earlier article, when investigators demanded access to the “raw” climate data, held by Hadley (Climate Research Unit), and upon which virtually all of the “global warmingistas’ ” thesis is based, rather than produce the data, it was “lost”. Say what?!? You lost what could arguably be called the most important data set in the world? You lost the data set that may cause governments to piss away trillions of dollars for no legitimate reason, and with no genuinely expected result? You lost the data set that may cause massive government programs and maybe even bring about “world governance”? (They don’t like that term.) Yes, you heard me correctly. They “lost” the data, just like your child may have claimed that the family dog ate his homework!

If various cap and tax schemes are implemented, it will cripple the economy of the world, while lining the pockets of the likes of Al Gore and some corporations.

But wait, it gets even better. Now, the Hadley center has actually been hacked, and actual e-mails from the various conspirators have been captured, along with other information. It was reported, today, that:

A 61MB zip file containing information stolen from one of the world’s leading climate research centres, was posted onto an anonymous FTP server in Russia, accompanied by a note saying:

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents

In total it is believed that the unknown hacker accessed 1079 emails (some of which are marked as “Highly Confidential”) and over 3800 documents. A spokesman for the Climate Research Unit confirmed the hack to the BBC.

I agree that that this information is “too important to be kept under wraps”. You can get the 61 Megabyte zip file at rapidshare, filedropper, or

It is about time that the whole global warming scam is being exposed. Those Russian hackers should get the Nobel Price, not Al Gore.

Other hack information:

This is huge. Probably the final smoking gun in the “climate change fraud”. In fact, one researcher called it “not the smoking gun, but a mushroom cloud.”

Enjoy reading.

Critical Considerations and Possible Consequences Of Civil Trial of KSM in NYC

This is an excellent article from that I thought deserved republication. As noted below, republication is allowed with proper attribution to Stratfor.


By George Friedman

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder’s decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.

We very carefully use the word “camp” rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.

War vs. Criminal Justice
The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.

An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course — World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.

It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are — members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.

International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions’ protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.

The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Ununiformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.

An Ambiguous Status
Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.

During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.

Holder’s decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.

Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.

Criminal law is focused on punishments meted out after the fact. They rarely have been preventive measures. In either case, they follow strict rules of evidence, require certain treatments of prisoners and so on. For example, prisoners have to be read the Miranda warning. Soldiers are not policeman. They are not trained or expected to protect the legal rights of captives save as POWs under the UCMJ, nor protect the chain of custody of evidence nor countless other things that are required in a civilian court. In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules. In this case, the capture was made without any consideration of these matters, nor would one expect such consideration.

Consider further the role of U.S. covert operations in these captures. The United States conducts covert operations in which operatives work out of uniform and are generally not members of the military. Operating outside the United States, they are not protected by U.S. law although they do operate under the laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. government. Much of their operations run counter to international and national law. At the same time, their operations are accepted as best practices by the international system. Some operate under cover of diplomatic immunity but carry out operations incompatible with their status as diplomats. Others operate without official cover. Should those under unofficial cover be captured, their treatment falls under local law, if such exists. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them, nor was it intended to.

Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.

A Failure to Evolve
The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions’ intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn’t fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn’t fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.

A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn’t apply and criminal law doesn’t work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn’t want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.

Therefore — and now we move to the political reality — it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.

In our mind, there is a very real possibility that Mohammed could be found not guilty in a courtroom. The cases of O.J. Simpson and of Jewish Defense League head Rabbi Meir Kahane’s killer, El Sayyid Nosair — both found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence — come to mind. Juries do strange things, particularly amid what will be the greatest media circus imaginable in the media capital of the world.

But it may not be the jury that is the problem. A federal judge will have to ask the question of whether prejudicial publicity of such magnitude has occurred that Mohammed can’t receive a fair trial. (This is probably true.) Questions will be raised about whether he has received proper legal counsel, which undoubtedly he hasn’t. Issues about the chain of custody of evidence will be raised; given that he was held by troops and agents, and not by law enforcement, the chances of compromised evidence is likely. The issue of torture will, of course, also be raised but that really isn’t the main problem. How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?

There is a nontrivial possibility that he will be acquitted or have his case thrown out of court, which would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Some might view it as a sign of American adherence to the rule of law and be impressed, others might be convinced that Mohammed was not guilty in more than a legal sense and was held unjustly, and others might think the United States has bungled another matter.

The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn’t evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.

Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.

Whatever the politics of this decision — and all such decisions have political dimensions — the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.

More Evidence That Global Warming Belief Is A Religion

As was recently reported in the Telegraph, a judge in Great Britain has ruled that belief in man made climate change is now, officially, a religion, and is entitled to religious protection.

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

The article later goes on:

In March, employment judge David Heath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.

But Grainger challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was “a scientific view rather than a philosophical one”, because “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.”

That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.

The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.

Now, we see further evidence that belief in man-made global warming is, in fact, a religion. The following is a controversial new cartoon that is showing in Great Britain. It is designed to not only make children believe that man-made global warming is real, but that it will cause the drowning of puppies and the starvation of bunny rabbits. I kid you not! And, to make matters worse, these impressionable children are lead to believe that this coming death and destruction is the fault of their parents, for doing normal things like driving cars and heating their homes.

When you see this, you begin to see that there may be some truth to man-made global warming being a religion. After all, what is a religion but an irrational belief in myths, lies, and legends. And, why are so many otherwise sensible adults religious? Probably because they were brainwashed, as children, by society and their parents to believe in religious nonsense. (Richard Dawkins has famously called this child abuse.) This brainwashing is very effectively used by Palestinians in poisoning the minds of their children, as seen in one of their “cartoon-like” children’s programs, shown below. (By the way, in case you have not heard of the “cartoon controversy”, where Mohammad was “defamed”, or ” dishonored”, because it was so widely censored in the West, I have them here.)

Oh, and by the way Asud, Palestine was a Christian city long before Mohammad was even a cataract in his mother’s eye, and you don’t see mainstream Christians rampaging and demanding a “return to their homeland”. So, get over it!

How Low Can Global Warming Wackjobs Go? Drowning Puppies Commercial.

Unlike the words “military intelligence” (think Ft. Hood situation), that don’t belong in the same sentence together, “environmentalist” and “wackjob” are nearly inseparable (think Al Gore). In a new low, a commercial has been circulating in the United Kingdon that tells children that common activities (like driving a car and heating a home) will cause puppies to drown and rabbits to starve. This is truly low.

A Lecture on Manners and Protocol that Obama Needs To Hear

Thanks to Right Pundit Media.

How Much Did Hasan Nidal Wire To Jihadi’s?

It is an interesting situation. Hasan Nidal gave out his business card (which I reported on earlier) along with his furniture, before he butchered 13 fellow soldiers, and wounded dozens more, at Ft. Hood. Before going on his rampage, he gave away much of his furniture, including an “air mattress”.
Say what? Here is a guy making almost $100,000 per year as a psychologist, and he is living on an air mattress? (Don’t get me wrong, I have a “SleepNumber Bed”, that I bought in 2003, and I love it. It is, basically, an air mattress. But, I don’t think that is what the authorities are referring to when they speak of an “air mattress”. I think they mean just that; an air mattress.)
When you look at his apartment, after the FBI moved in, it is basically an empty room, except for a prayer rug and an industrial grade shredding machine. If the report from Atlas Shruggs is accurate, then I have Shredder Envy, since his shredder is much bigger than mine, and I have a big one. But, I have a reason to have one. My clients don’t want their inventions and discoveries released to the public. What was Hasan’s justification?


WHAT WAS HE SHREDDING? Inquiring minds want to know. My guess it was not the latest issues of Playboy and Penthouse, although he was, reportedly, a frequent client of a local strip club. (As was Mohammad Attah, and fellow 9/11 cretins.)

Anyway, this will be interesting. I don’t expect to ever hear the truth about the matter from the government. They are too tied to political correctness, and beholden to the criminal likes of CAIR, to ever come out with the actual truth. But, Boobus Americanus had better wake up. There ARE terrorists among us. We HAVE been infiltrated. They KNOW US. We DO NOT KNOW THEM.

The important thing, that you will probably never hear from the government, is that something happened to Nidal Hasan’s money. He was obviously not spending it on himself. He was living so far below his means that it is almost rediculous. My guess is that the bulk of his income was going to jihadis, like Osama bin Laden, and others. The revelation of where his income was going is the most important part of the investigation, but I bet we hear little, or nothing, about the money trail.


How Real World Leaders Act When Greeting Each Other

I just came across this, and it is priceless. It shows how real world leaders act, when greeting other world leaders. Barack Osama’s behavior is not only disgusting, but dangerous.
You will need to copy and paste the above link into another browser to see the atrocities. Please do so.
It is sad to see how low the “commander in chief” has stooped, ER, bowed, ER, curtsied.

Brigette Gabrielle Tells It Like It Is

How can our news media and politicians be so stupid, and, complicit? Those of us who have been following the activities of Muslims, and their effort to take over the world, have known about this for years. But, apparently, our government is either not aware, or complicit in, the intention of Islam to take over the world.

Sure, I hear you saying, this is ridiculous! Islam only represents 1.3 billion people. It is a minor player in the politics of the world. (Um, I’m sorry, but 1.3 billion sounds like a lot of people to me, but then, I’m just a simple  Islamophobe. What is an Islamaphobe? It is a person who is afraid that Islam may take over the world. As an atheist, I am an especially Islamophobic person, since the Koran, and hadiths, clearly say that I should be simply killed. As an atheist, I am not offered the “opportunity” to be subdued, and pay the Jizya. I must simply be killed. Well, I will not submit, and I will not be killed, without a fight. You try to kill me, and I will take out many of you, before you take me out.)

Brigette Gabriel produced an excellent video about the insanity of political correctness, and Islam: