Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (44477)	9/16/2002 5:38:12 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Kumar - I think you are mistaken in your allocation of the burden of proof. Here is a better analogy, IMO: Saddam was accused by the UN of the crime of possessing WMD, pled guilty to the crime and was put on probation. As part of the terms and conditions of that probation, he agreed to get rid of his WMD. In order to make sure that Saddam complied with the terms and conditions of probation, the UN said he had to allow weapons inspections. He unilaterally changed his mind in 1998, before his probation was up. No more weapons inspections, he said. It's like a drug abuser who is on probation. Part of the terms of his probation is having to give urine samples to his probation officer whenever he is asked to. There is no requirement for probable cause. If he doesn't give the urine sample, or if the urine sample shows drug abuse, the probation officer tells the judge, and the judge sets a hearing date, and listens to the probation officer and the defense attorney, and then has the power to send the offender back to jail without a new trial. The burden of proof when you are on probation is to prove that you did what you were supposed to do.