A military judge ruled Wednesday that the man accused of being the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks will stand trial starting in June 2028.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be prosecuted alongside others suspected of conspiring in the attacks: Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. …

The trial date was announced after a split federal appeals court last summer threw out a potential agreement that would have allowed Mohammed to plead guilty in exchange for sparing him the risk of execution. …

The road to prosecute Mohammed and other conspirators has dragged on for years, with the Obama-era military commissions system being tested for the first time — at times leading to lengthy challenges to its rules.

Defense lawyers have also argued that the holdup comes from what they say are the government’s efforts to hide details of torture used against detainees at secret CIA prisons before they were transferred to Guantánamo Bay.

We’ve heard plenty about that, actually.

Mohammed should have been tried in military court long ago. It’s not at all certain he will be tried in 2028, either. He is now 61 years old, so he could end up living out his years on Guantanamo.

Also:

Past trial dates have come and gone several times, and Schrama is the fifth judge to oversee the case.

Victims’ families have been outraged that they’ve yet to see justice done, with some relatives telling The Post Wednesday they hope the latest trial date will stand.

“We have been asking for a trial date for 20 years. Hopefully, this time it is for real,” said retired NYPD officer Jim Smith, whose wife Moira Smith died responding to the attacks.

“It’s all going to depend on the judge. We’ve been through so many, some good, but mostly officers who wanted nothing to do with this case,” Smith said. “Someone has to man up and take charge.”

Agreed.

But in Canada at the CBC, don’t call Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a terrorist. Word has come down:

“This week, I received a memo — presumably confidential — addressed to CBC News staff. It is authored by one Basem Boshra, who is the “Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News.” In Boshra’s memo, reporters are editors are told this:

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.”

Boshra states that all in bold letters, italicized, as if to emphasize the point. To make clear it is a directive, not a suggestion.

I can’t find much more about Basem Boshra, but the name is considered of Arab or North African Muslim descent. Oh, Canada!

The post Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: the wheels of justice grind slow appeared first on The New Neo.

An excerpt:

I am not going to present all the pros and cons of the research involved; that would require a book. But I will say that, having read a good deal of it, I come down fairly strongly at this point on the side of thinking the epidemic is almost entirely an artifact of statistics and diagnostic changes.

Increasing reimbursement also fuels the increase. And the vaccine connection theory was revealed a few years later to have been a hoax.

I also want to call your attention to a Frontline documentary I saw on television way back in 1993. It’s extremely sad and very well-done. The topic is facilitated communication in cases of profound autism. Parents desperately (and understandably) wanted to believe that their previously nonverbal autistic children were thinking deep thoughts and aching to communicate, and that the technique of facilitated communication had unlocked riches that had always lurked hidden within them. But it was actually – if not exactly a hoax, then a case of yearning and wishful thinking on the part of both health professionals and the relatives of the autistic children.

Here’s the link to the documentary:

The post Autism redux appeared first on The New Neo.

My impression is that it started with descriptions of many of the products of AI. Now that I look it up, I see that is true but that it began in 2025:

Merriam-Webster’s human editors have chosen slop as the 2025 Word of the Year. We define slop as “digital content of low quality that is produced usually in quantity by means of artificial intelligence.” All that stuff dumped on our screens, captured in just four letters: the English language came through again.

The flood of slop in 2025 included absurd videos, off-kilter advertising images, cheesy propaganda, fake news that looks pretty real, junky AI-written books, “workslop” reports that waste coworkers’ time… and lots of talking cats. People found it annoying, and people ate it up.

“AI Slop is Everywhere,” warned The Wall Street Journal, while admitting to enjoying some of those cats. “AI Slop Has Turned Social Media Into an Antisocial Wasteland,” reported CNET.

It’s a pretty apt word for that sort of thing. But the use of the term has spread so much that the expression itself threatens to become … slop. It’s used for poor arguments, for obfuscating BS, for bad research, for Arday’s doctoral thesis, for anything and everything in the communication field that a person doesn’t like.

The post Slop appeared first on The New Neo.

So many AI-narrated videos feature fake British accents – why?

The tone is posh and often supercilious – why?

There’s monotony.

Many mispronunciations, like “desert” for “dessert” or vice versa. Or like “read” present tense for “read” past tense.

There’s the pause at the end of a line of text even if it’s in mid-sentence.

Some feature a little exhaled sigh – “ah” – in an effort to make the voice seem human. It’s an effort that fails utterly.

But most annoying of all is when AI narration uses the first person. Who is this “I” of whom you speak, kimosabe?

The post AI narration appeared first on The New Neo.

The European Union passed several resolutions condemning Palestinian Authority educational materials containing antisemitism and glorification of jihad, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) has reported.

In the EU’s report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2024, it called for any future funding to the PA to be conditional on the removal of “antisemitic content, incitement to violence and the glorification of martyrdom and jihad” from textbooks.

The European Parliament’s budget report emphasized that EU financial assistance and engagement “should support education that promotes peace, tolerance and coexistence.”

This may seem like a no-brainer. But although I first read about the phenomenon of the vicious Jew-hatred in Palestinian textbooks some time during the 1990s, until now I’ve been unaware of any particular European move against them, and certainly no effective ones. Whether or not the PA complies, Palestinian society is inundated with this sort of thing. But the textbooks are an important part of it.

Doing some research now, I discover this is not a new phenomenon with the EU, although at this point their statements seems a little stronger. Here’s an article from 2021 [my emphasis]:

A study commissioned by the European Union examined 156 Palestinian Authority textbooks and 16 teachers’ guides. Eighteen texts are from 2020, the rest from 2017-2019. The report said they present “ambivalent – sometimes hostile – attitudes towards Jews and the characteristics they attribute to the Jewish people” and their “frequent use of negative attributions in relation to the Jewish people…suggest a conscious perpetuation of anti-Jewish prejudice, especially when embedded in the current political context.”

The EU provides funding for the Palestinian education system …

So the EU helps pay for the education in hatred. The article goes on to say this:

In October 2021, Britain announced it would cease direct funding to Palestinian education in the PA. The government denied it; however, the decision was related to the EU report. According to an investigation by the Jewish News [UK], roughly $137 million was spent by Britain in the previous five years, including on the salaries of the Palestinian civil servants and teachers responsible for drafting the PA textbooks.

In 2022, a group of European Union lawmakers called on the European Commission to reduce funding to the PA if it continues refusing to purge its K-12 curriculum of materials that “incite schoolchildren to hate Jews and emulate terrorists.”

But guess what? Although it appears the funding was frozen for a very short while (the article doesn’t make it clear whether it was just the British funding or the EU funding), it was restored in 2022 pending still another study. How many studies do you need? The problem with the textbooks isn’t subtle, it’s huge and overt.

More history here:

According to IMPACT-se, this is the seventh consecutive year in which such condemnations have been issued.
“>In July 2024, the PA signed an agreement with the EU to reform its curriculum, affirming its commitment to the process, but not all of the EU’s guidelines for the removal of violent, extremist content have been met.

As of November 2025, according to an IMPACT-se report, PA textbooks and educational materials still include content that glorifies jihad and incitement to violence.

Hard to say whether it will end up mattering this time, but it continues to be unconscionable that the EU funds this.

The second piece of news is this from Sweden:

Maria Malmer Stenergard, Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced before parliamentary representatives that the government will no longer use the term “Islamophobia.” She described the concept as “problematic,” because, according to her, “it focuses on individuals’ irrational fears.”

Stenergard emphasized that the Swedish government will also seek to replace the term with “anti-Muslim racism” or “anti-Muslim hatred” in international bodies, including the European Union and the United Nations. Discussions on this matter are set to continue during the third week of May in Brussels.

The decision has been welcomed by the right-wing Sweden Democrats party. Charlie Weimers, a member of the European Parliament for the party, said, “Islamists have exploited the term Islamophobia to advance their agenda and secure EU funding.” He described the government’s action as “finally scrapping a fabricated concept.”

Faw Azzat, Secretary General of the Global Alliance for Peace and Justice (GAPF) in Sweden, also praised the decision, stating that the term Islamophobia was “coined by Islamists themselves to equate criticism of a religion with racism against people—a semantic trick dressed up as anti-racism.”

I think this is pretty meaningless as well. Whether it’s called “Islamaphobia” or “anti-Muslim racism,” the term is often applied not only to generalized hatred of Muslims but also over-applied to rational and realistic evaluations of the radical Islamist devotion to terrorism and violence against the infidel.

The post Small changes in Europe? appeared first on The New Neo.

O’Donnell on Sunday began reading a portion of the reported manifesto to Trump, saying, “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’”

“Yeah, he did write that. I’m — I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said. “I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated,” he said, later calling the CBS News senior correspondent “disgraceful.”

“You know, he’s a sick person,” Trump continued. “But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

Critics of O’Donnell on the right agree with Trump that it was a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question that amplified the quote on a major TV program, without O’Donnell remarking on the obvious falsity of the allegations – probably because the media and Democrats have fostered such allegations. “Pedophile” is connected to the constant Epstein misrepresentations, “rapist” is a misreading of the court case won by E. Jean Carroll, and “traitor” could apply to anything from fake Russiagate to fake Nazi.

So yes, O’Donnell’s question was both inappropriate and designed to harm Trump. But I’m surprised that no articles and no videos I’ve seen discussing the exchange mentioned her truly pernicious followup question, which I bring you here:

Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: “Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?” coupled with a mildly incredulous look? That sentence in particular reveals the duplicitous, disingenuous nature of O’Donnell’s approach. She knows full well that Trump would interpret the manifesto quote as referring to him because of course it does (for one thing, it levels charges that have become common against him, and for another the charges are against a single person and not a group). And yet she pretends the subject of the quote is in doubt and she uses Trump’s understandable interpretation – really, there is no other one possible – to imply some sort of consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.

That’s what tells me what a nasty piece of work O’Donnell is, even more than the “pedophile, etc.” quote itself. And she sets it up by starting with another manifesto quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” This is an attempt to establish that the shooter was also targeting the entire group, so that her later “oh, you think he was referring to you?” question might give her pose of feigned doubt some supposed credibility.

The entire thing was a setup, IMHO. O’Donnell almost certainly knew that reading the quotes might get a rise out of Trump – as well it should – and would cause the interview to be discussed and watched more widely.

NOTE: If you watch the whole clip, instead of just the part I cued up, you’ll see how the left is spinning it.

The post What Norah O’Donnell said during the Trump interview after she quoted the shooter’s “manifesto” appeared first on The New Neo.

Nothing glazes my eyes over faster than reading law. Yet one like me would think a written law shouldn’t need to be determined, it should be cut and dry what it means. Seems that isn’t the case and hasn’t been for a long time.

I think I might have said something similar prior to going to law school. But if there’s one thing I learned there – really really learned – it was that it’s impossible to do as described. The phenomenon is not something recent, either. It’s something that’s an intrinsic and unavoidable part of law.

The reason this is true is connected to what Karl Popper pointed out about language itself:

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.

And that is true of all laws. One must try to write laws that are as clear and comprehensive as possible. But attempts to clarify all gray areas that can arise from a law will inevitably lead to laws that are incredibly lengthy and convoluted in their attempts to cover all bases, an attempt that always fails because life always serves up the unexpected and unforeseen. So these attempts at clarification often result in statutes that serve to make things murkier and more unwieldly.

That’s where courts come in. They are tasked with interpreting and applying laws. That’s how we get precedent and case law. And because it’s a matter of interpretation, we often get disagreements. The disagreements can be based on the definition of a word or phrase, the history of the people who passed the statute and what they said the law was about at the time, and the legal philosophy of the judges (which can be based on politics and how “elastic” they think a law should be).

It’s amazing that the legal system functions as well as it does, considering.

The post Law, clarity, and simplicity appeared first on The New Neo.

Never mind that a ceasefire followed, and that whatever threat he made was a negotiating tactic. Many of them were able to immediately pivot, with no sense of irony or shame, to some version of, “Trump TACO – he always chickens out, the coward.”

But you can search and search among them, as well as MSM articles on the subject, and it will be very difficult to find the full text of Trump’s actual threat. It’s not as though the text is long, either; it’s just a paragraph. One might think that before interpreting his meaning a person might actually read it and then quote it? But actually looking at the text and discussing it in any fair manner would ruin the anti-Trump propaganda message.

And they know they don’t need to do it. They count on their audiences (or people in general, and that includes Trump defenders) not to look it up. They just cite the first sentence for the most part, and then react to that.

But the whole thing is still up there for anyone to see. And here it is:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less redicalized minds prevail, maybe something wonderful can happen. WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and ocmplex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

This had been preceded by an Easter day post of Trump’s featuring the f-word (among other things) and starting with this: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran.”

How does any of this translate into nuclear weapons in anything except the Trump-haters’ fevered brains? Power plants and bridges (even if capitalized) don’t need nuclear weapons. And the “civilization” in that Tuesday message is quite obviously the “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death” that he threatens to end or supposedly (hopefully?) has already ended, being replaced by these supposedly “less-radicalized minds” with whom he’s now dealing. And that last sentence – “God Bless the Great People of Iran!” (with the capitalizations and the exclamation point) not only makes it clear that Trump has no intention of harming the ordinary population of Iran much less wiping them out, it is also in line with virtually everything he’s said and done up to this point.

So the misunderstanding by the anti-Trump pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists (hmmm; three m-words) is either willful or strikingly negligent or both. I believe it’s willful; I believe they did read the whole thing for the most part and understood it, but assumed their audience wouldn’t read it and that the first sentence could be successfully exploited for anti-Trump propaganda purposes. But if the pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists didn’t read the whole thing, that’s where the abysmal negligence would come in.

You can read more of their reactions here as well as here.

It’s certainly possible to critique Trump’s use of the word “civilization.” It was purposely hyperbolic, although the rest of the paragraph made that more clear. And of course it’s possible to criticize the war itself in good faith, for various reasons. But to pretend Trump was ready to use nukes and that he should be impeached for that? No, that’s not done in good faith.

It’s also instructive to see some newer posts from Trump, such as this:

All U.S. Ships, Aircraft, and Military Personnel, with additional Ammunition, Weaponry, and anything else that is appropriate and necessary for the lethal prosecution and destruction of an already substantially degraded Enemy, will remain in place in, and around, Iran, until such time as the REAL AGREEMENT reached is fully complied with. If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the “Shootin’ Starts,” bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before. It was agreed, a long time ago, and despite all of the fake rhetoric to the contrary – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE. In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest. AMERICA IS BACK!

Or this, intended to counter various MSM lies:

The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN on the Iran negotiations which was meant to discredit the people involved in the peace process. All ten points were a made up HOAX – EVIL LOSERS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

I saw that 10-point plan discussed in the MSM and even by some on the right as though it was agreed on by Trump. That seemed preposterous on the face of it, but people were taking it seriously.

We also have this from Trump:

Numerous Agreements, Lists, and Letters are being sent out by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.A. / Iran Negotiation, in many cases, they are total Fraudsters, Charlatans, and WORSE. They will be rapidly exposed after our Federal Investigation is completed. There is only one group of meaningful “POINTS” that are acceptable to the United States, and we will be discussing them behind closed doors during these Negotiations. These are the POINTS that are the basis on which we agreed to a CEASEFIRE. It is something that is reasonable, and can easily be dispensed with. It’s very much like Fake News CNN last night, headlining a “source” that had no power or authority to write a Letter claiming great authority. President DONALD J. TRUMP

I’m not fond of Trump’s writing style myself. But I think I understand its purposes and I often see its effectiveness. I’m not grading him on style points, even if I’d wish for a more elevated one. I’m grading him on accomplishments.

So far, in a little over a month, Iran’s leadership and capacity for war have been very considerably degraded. A year ago, if someone had told you those thing would be happening in that short amount of time with very little loss of US life, you’d probably be in awe. And this thing isn’t over yet, either.

The post Trump’s actual statement in his “civilization” threat, and the reactions to it appeared first on The New Neo.

“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was,” the president continued. …

“Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.”

This was done in coordination with the government of Nigeria, which provided the intelligence for the strikes.

When I emphasize the message aspect of this action, it’s because I think that was paramount. I don’t think it was so much about killing these particular individuals, but rather about saying, “You’re not safe anywhere, even if you’re not directly killing Americans.” I believe the goal is to have a chilling effect on the group as a whole, and on other similar groups around the world.

It’s also an interesting move of Trump’s in terms of the “America First!” part of the right that is also Christian. People such as the abominable Tucker Carlson focus on stirring up the idea that Israel is out to harm Christians in the Middle East, which is a preposterous assertion, and sometimes ignore – as Carlson does – the far greater war of Islamic extremists against Christians both in the Middle East and in Africa. This attack and these statements make it clear to people such as Carlson where Trump’s priorities lie, and challenges them to comment.

I am also struck by Trump’s language. It’s the sort of thing – the antithesis of diplomat-speak – that gets so many Trump-haters agitated and claiming that Trump’s a stupid boor. Here he speaks in almost cartoon-like language; one almost expects him to write SHAZAM!! However, I see this is very purposeful and part of his unequivocal message: I have power, and I mean business, and I mean for you to understand that.

The post Trump sends a message to ISIS in Nigeria appeared first on The New Neo.

TIM WALZ says that people are driving by his house and using the term ‘retard.’

“This creates danger… we know how these things go, they start with taunts, they turn to violence.”

Well no, Tim. The term “retard” is rude, but doesn’t usually lead to any violence – except, perhaps, in Nazi Germany, where they killed disabled people as “life unworthy of life.”

In this country, however, calling someone “Nazi” or “Fascist,” as the left is inclined to do, is more likely to lead to violence against the person so labeled. And in fact, as luck would have it, Walz himself has used terms like that for people on the right, or even for law enforcement. For example, here he called ICE agents “modern-day Gestapo” (he mispronounced the word, but it was clear that’s what he meant). And here’s some of Walz’s oh-so-gentle rhetoric about Trump:

Those words are far more likely to incite violence compared to “retard,” which is very mild in comparison.

And of course, during the 2024 campaign Walz called himself a “knucklehead,” which means “a stupid, bumbling, inept person.” He was being too kind. Knave and fool.

The post What’s in a name? That which we call a knucklehead by any other name would smell as sweet appeared first on The New Neo.