If the claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq were tested in any court, U.S. or otherwise, they would be thrown out for lack of evidence.
With regard to U.S. standards of criminal evidence, that's probably true. With regard to civil evidence, I believe that what has been shown might be enough. But that assumes, in the first instance, that we do, would or should apply American legal conventions to this issue.
We don't in the U.N. or other such organizations. Why would we here, and now?
Furthermore, where you assert that in "court[s]...otherwise" the evidence would fail, well, without hearing more about your background, I'm inclined to view your position on that issue as purely speculative. And that's in addition to finding your assertion that simple, domestic courtroom proceedings should serve as a model for international deliberation laughable at best.
Key documents cited by the administration were shown to be forgeries!
Am I supposed to simply and unquestioningly take your word for it, or are you going to provide some evidence backing that claim?
You said that the administration's claims are "false." Where's your evidence that they necessarily are?
LPS5 |
