According to The Guardian, June 23, 2008:
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Having just awarded Lou Dobbs an Unglued Idiot of the Day award for June 19, I now find James Hansen using similar language calling for placing oil company executives on trial as Mr. Dobbs did in calling for President Bush to be impeached for allowing the tomato salmonella outbreak.
As was the case with Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Hansen has not identified a law that was violated by the executives, since in fact none exist, but simply declares that they have committed “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Mr. Dobbs alleged that President Bush had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the only grounds available to support impeachment (unless a salmonella outbreak falls under treason or bribery).
Once again, liberals show either monumental ignorance or disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Hansen, you cannot make up laws to punish legal acts after the fact.
In fact, Article One, Section 9, of our Constitution specifically prohibits our government to establish ex post facto laws.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.
Mr. Hansen, not only are there no laws on the books that would provide for prosecution of oil company executives, there are no injuries to serve as a basis for prosecutions. Of course, the only way such laws could exist is if the First Amendment were suspended enabling laws to be passed making disagreement about man-caused global warming a punishable crime.
Mr. Hansen, why single out oil company executives for punishment when there are over 31,000 scientists who also are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? Isn’t that selective prosecution?
Of course, if it’s being influential that counts, why not prosecute longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok.? He stated, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it." Then Senator Inhofe cited a recent poll proving his point. (The British don't believe it either.)
Or how about Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” exposed the fallacies of blaming climate change on mankind’s activities?
Or the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman? He's "highly critical of global warming alarmism."
Or how about prosecuting me? Unlike many of the other skeptics, I and my blog would welcome the publicity.
Quick, before someone shows you a copy of the Constitution, swear out charges against me!