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: Bilow who wrote (59201)	11/27/2002 10:11:42 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>> would you really make the assumption that anyone who refuses to talk to the police is guilty?<< No, because the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution expressly prohibits this. The main reason for the Fifth Amendment is to prohibit obtaining confessions through torture. I assure you that innocent men do NOT take the Fifth. However, there are presumptions which can be drawn from behavior. For example, when someone runs from the police, it is perfectly permissible to infer that he is guilty. In criminal law, all presumptions are rebuttable, so the accused may rebut the presumption of guilt by persuading the finder of fact that he was running for a different reason. The finder of fact is not required to believe his explanation, and is entitled to place great weight on the presumption of guilt. I suppose the term I am looking for is "circumstantial evidence." I hope that engineers don't rely on circumstantial evidence. I know that lawyers, judges and juries do. I don't have to search very hard looking for alternative explanations. I just have to pick the one that is more likely. In civil cases, the burden of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence," which means more than 50-50. 51-49 is good enough. In a criminal case, the preponderance of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the emphasis is "reasonable." One does not have to exclude all possibilities, only the reasonable possibilities. I don't see any reasonable reason for Saddam to resist inspections. If it doesn't matter whether he allows inspections or not, why not allow them? Then he can complain to the UN and the Arab League and so forth that he's done everything he could. Instead, he put himself into the position where nobody was on his side, not even Syria. The race is not always to the swift, nor victory to the strong, but that's the way to bet. Ring Lardner.

To: Bilow who wrote (59201)	11/27/2002 11:19:21 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, There are parts to your argument about the current situation between the US and Iraq that I find compelling. Let us presume that your analysis is accurate. In that case, what is Bush thinking? He has wagered so much of his credibility and the credibility of his office on solving the Iraq problem that I find it hard to understand an end game that leaves Saddam in power. Sure, maybe there is a coup and everybody gets to declare victory. I can't imagine Bush betting so heavily on that outcome. Under your scenario, how does Bush get the big win he needs to match the size of his bet? Thanks, Paul