So we have to ASSUME Saddam's got weapons, based on hearsay, because we can't possibly prove it? Sounds silly to me.
Perhaps you don't understand the term "burden of proof". We know, for fact, without question, that he HAD certain weapons (some from documents we found, others from disclosures he made early on, some from intelligence sources). This is stipulated, even by the French.
Pursuant to the ceasefire agreement, he was required to provide PROOF those items had been destroyed. He has refused to do so.
Under the terms of the UN Resolution, the burden of proof is NOT on us (or the inspectors) to discover the existence of WMD. Rather, the burden of proof is on Saddam to show that he destroyed them. If he can't prove it, he is guilty of possessing banned weapons. It is that simple.
Burden of proof is a critical legal concept, and if a person misunderstands it, he is likely to draw erroneous conclusions. |
