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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bid Buster who wrote (25187)	2/5/2003 11:58:18 AM
From: gypsees	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57110

The only reason he has to prove this stuff is that he said he got rid of it. So why not show how/when and where he did it? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. And since we are on the end that contains the big fat bulls eye, I am not big on giving him any trust or benefit of the doubt. Of course, I would not be considered PC in many of my opinions ;o)

To: Bid Buster who wrote (25187)	2/5/2003 1:17:22 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57110

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.