Prosecuting Al Gore for crimes against humanity
Crimes against humanity are the business of the world court currently
the 2002 treaty of Rome.
Although the treaty incorporates several definitions of what constitutes a crime against
humanity the reality is that rules on what is, or is not, a crime against humanity are
politically determined and correspondingly highly flexible. Thus Obama communications
director Anita Dunn considers perhaps forty million Chinese and Tibetan deaths (and the subjugation of
a billion humans) mere collateral damage in Mao's great social experiment - while the
President's mentor, Bill Ayers, exonerates Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and Kim il Sung
on the same grounds.
In principle, however, the "crimes against humanity" charge can be brought if:
- the alleged crime directly or indirectly involves
a widespread attack on a civilian population resulting in the deaths of persons
in more than one political jurisdiction;
- none of the governmental actors in the affected jurisdictions both considers the alleged
crime criminal under its own national statutes and has both the power and the will to
prosecute and possibly punish the offender or offenders; and,
- there is reason to believe that one or more persons knowingly committed the actions
leading to the deaths and those actions were not undertaken in response to national
purpose or necessity.
If it can be proven that the alleged crime has been committed and falls under the
jurisdiction of the world court, the elements of proof require either public acknowledgement
of guilt by those accused or:
- proof that the accused did take whatever actions are alleged;
- proof that the actions taken produced the harm to humanity;
- proof that the accused could reasonably foresee that the actions taken would result in
the harm to humanity; and,
- proof that the accused had some personal
motive for taking the actions despite their consequences.
In Mr. Gore's case:
Mr. Gore's first line of defence will be that no crime has been committed and that, in any case,
the World Court would have no jurisdiction. Both of these are political defences: if
the current world wide cooling significantly affects crops in 2012/13 and two billion
people die from starvation and civil disruption, those defences will fail.
- the harm is the starvation of millions today and possibly billions tomorrow.
- the proximate cause of the harm is the policies sold the world under the global warming
Specifically, the conversion of a major portion of the world's food production
capability to fuel production and the diversion of social resources to counter-productive uses such
as carbon sequestration, led directly to both higher prices for available foods and to
absolute food scarcities while enormously increasing world wide population
vulnerabilities to crop failures.
- Mr. Gore's role in this is widely known and well documented.
- that the results were foreseable is proven by the fact that many people did foresee them and did
loudly, repeatedly, and publically warn Mr. Gore and his followers of these consequences.
- Mr. Gore's motivations may be imputed from a combination of:
- the consistencies between his aspirations as a politician
and the world wide recognition and power he's gained from leading the global warming advocates;
- the fact that his assets were valued in millions of dollars
on leaving office as Vice President of the United States and
are now valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars; and,
- the fact that his own actions, everything from his use of personal jets to water and power
consumption rates at his Tennessee estate, show that he does not practice - and therefore presumably
does not actually believe in the value of - the constraints he preaches.
In his legal defence
Mr. Gore can be expected to argue necessity: basically that the deaths are
due to economic dislocation incident on saving the rest of humanity from the horrors of global warming
and worldwide energy resource depletion. Unfortunately for that defence, however:
- global warming would actually be net positive for the earth's life carrying capacity;
- there is no evidence
that greenhouse gases affect the earth's climate in any significant way (the supporting material presented
as "evidence" in his movie was largely fabricated); and,
- There is no worldwide energy shortage. Not only does the petrochemical supply respond to price, but we have nuclear power available to us.
More generally, the earth is not a lifeboat - we cannot significantly reduce the supply of resources on earth
by using them. When we burn petrochemicals, for example, nothing is lost: one set of chemical bonds is
replaced by another at a marginally lower energy state - meaning that, Gore et al to the contrary, the present
petrochemical supply is infinitely renewable through the application of nuclear energy to petrochemical
reconstitution from little more than air and water.
Since this situation speaks for itself: the harm has been done and he's clearly the leader and chief
beneficiary among those who did it; the conclusion is inescapable: if brought to trial on crimes
against humanity, Mr. Gore would surely be convicted.
And one more thing: if the present solar minimum does signal sufficient global cooling to
significantly affect worldwide food production next year, history may eventually credit Mr. Gore with
more than two billion deaths - ten times the direct totals achieved by all of the left's favorite facists
Paul Murphy, a Canadian, wrote and published The Unix Guide to Defenestration.
Murphy is a 25-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related