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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (162027)	2/24/2003 9:52:20 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1584348

-Z, re: We think our intelligence is great, yet our intelligence is what the inspectors are supposedly using, and they haven't really found anything significant based on it. It would be a "bad" thing to tell Iraq everything we know about targets already programmed into cruise missiles. Steve

To: SilentZ who wrote (162027)	2/24/2003 9:55:56 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584348

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.

To: SilentZ who wrote (162027)	2/24/2003 10:00:46 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584348

We think our intelligence is great, yet our intelligence is what the inspectors are supposedly using, and they haven't really found anything significant based on it. Let's say I bury 1000 tons of "stuff" (say chemical agent) somewhere in California. Then I say, okay, its in California. Now you go find it. What is the probability that you and your staff, of say 300 people, could you find the "stuff" within a reasonable time? Assume, for purposes of the illustration, that no person in California was willing to assist you for fear of death.