I sincerely doubt that the presumption of innocence
afforded to criminal defendants has anything to do
with the Iraq situation.
All the presumption really does is to place the burden on
the prosecution to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's not an "irrefutable" doubt standard, btw.
If the standard were "irrefutable", no one would ever get convicted of a crime.
In the civil arena, which would be more analogous here,
allocation of the burden of proof is key.
Here, as Oral pointed out, the burden is on Iraq to show compliance. Not the other way around.
Iraq has not only failed to show compliance, under whatever standard you choose to apply, but there
is substantial credible evidence of
non-compliance.
The bottom line question is whether you believe
Iraq poses a threat if indeed in possession of biological,
chemical and/or other weapons of mass destruction.
Given the magnitude of threat should Iraq have
these weapons, it seems ridiculous to even suggest
that Iraq is entitled to the "presumption of innocence."
This is a whole different ballgame, not a matter of whether one person goes free or faces criminal penalties.
I must say that whoever thought up this "where's the evidence" game was quite clever.
It supplied a facile response for those who did not
wish to evaluate the entire situation.
JMO. |
