Guilty until proven innocent

wait, isn't it the other way around?

from JoeUser Forums
I was recently on another site where the members were having a lively discussion about Michael Moore, Bush and the war in Iraq. One person posted, in my opinion, a rather frigtening statement. He was discussing the WMD debate and said that we were justified in invading Iraq because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Take a minute, let it sink in....

I think a rationale like this sets up a slippery slope. Here is the thought process it invokes: Well, we suspect (insert country here) has WMD's. Can we prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. But heck, it doesn't mean that they didn't have them, so lets bomb the ever living crap out of them.

The American judicial system is founded on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The prosecution has the burden of proving a case. All the defense has to do is present reasonable doubt. Now, lets take this idea and apply it to the Iraq/WMD scenario. America (the prosecution) makes the case that Iraq (the defendant/defense) has WMD. But when the forensic investigators (Blick and the UN weapons inspectors) go to investigate the "crime scene", there is no evidence! Sure, there are places and things that could possibly maybe be used to make WMD's, but just because I posess a chemistry set doesn't mean I was cooking meth. That is reasonable doubt in my book!

Now, before some of you jump down my throat, attacking my patriotism and loyalty to the United States, let me clarify a few things. September 11th was a horrible day and I mourn the thousand of people who perished because of a Al-Qaeda's hatred and religious fanaticism. I believe that the Iraqi people were being ruled by an evil dictator. He was responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. But I do not belive in starting a war under false pretenses. Our judicial standards should apply abroad as well as at home. Otherwise we just become a bunch of hyprocritical bullies. Bullies that kill lots of innocent people. (yes, lots of innocents were killed on 9/11, but does that justify killing other innocents?)

I need hard evidence before I am going to make decisions that affect millions of people. Going to war based on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" seems to much like the witch hunts of yore. In those days a mole, wart, or flea bite was enough to condemn a person to having the mark of the devil and thereby being sentenced to death.

Cheers,
Jenna
politics
8,773 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The American judicial system is founded on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Tell that to the inmates of Guantanomo Bay

Now, before some of you jump down my throat, attacking my patriotism and loyalty to the United States

Isn't it sad that you have to make this statement. The term un-American to describe any questioning of current government policy is very sad.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you want a judicial analogy, I think that the burden for invading would be more along the lines of "probable cause" than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Saddam was "on probation" for invading Kuwait, and he was violating the conditions of his probation by impeding the inspectors.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The term un-American to describe any questioning of current government policy is very sad.


Welcome to the Joe McCarthy inferno of the 50s!

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
he was violating the conditions of his probation by impeding the inspectors.
Yeah, sure, and that's why he destroyed "missile tubes" that overreached UN specifications by a couple of miles.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, we suspect (insert country here) has WMD's. Can we prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. But heck, it doesn't mean that they didn't have them, so lets bomb the ever living crap out of them.
Heck, it doesn't mean that the evidence is absent! Classic. 


Psych: great article! There's no absence of evidence here or for that matter evidence of absence.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Were the bombings we did in 1998 justified?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, here's another way to look at the analogy. Let's compare it to a theoretical investigation of a pot grower:

1.) Police receive anonymous tip that an individual is growing pot. / Intelligence agencies around the world believe Iraq may have WMDs.

2.) Police acquire search warrant. / UN demands Iraq gives inspectors access to look for WMDs.

3.) Police arrive at suspects house, but suspect will not allow them into the back room. / Iraq refuses to allow inspectors to search everywhere.

4.) Police detain suspect and break down door to back room. / US invades Iraq and searches areas previously off limits.

And although you agreed that Saddam needed to be brought down because of human rights atrocities, you can still take this analogy to step five.

5.) No plants found, but back room contained a grave of someone who was murdered. / Mass graves uncovered in Iraq.

So if you really want to compare our actions to our legal system (which is a bit of a stretch), we still acted according to what we'd expect from our own police. Just because no plants were found in the back room doesn't mean the police weren't justified in exploiting their search warrant.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
However the police do not generally contain within their ranks members of the CIA whose sole purpose is to develop intel without the knowledge of either the police or the Iraqis; without much success in any case. A simple google search should bring up the complaints of the Atomic Energy people about the infiltration of their ranks in Iraq by counterproductive US spies.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not going to question your patriotism at all...honest differences of opinion happen everyday.

You just need to be prepared to accept the possibility that your "hard evidence" may come in the form of a bioweapon attack on Los Angeles or a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just need to be prepared to accept the possibility that your "hard evidence" may come in the form of a bioweapon attack on Los Angeles or a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.


You're right...most probably from North Korea, with whom we deal "diplomatically".
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, you're right. The problem with nukes, is that once a country has them, and we have our "hard evidence", it is a little harder to do anything other than diplomatically.

If I were China, which I'm not, I would be doing all I could to discourage North Korea's nuclear program. Following North Korea, her next nuclear neighbors will almost certainly be South Korea and Japan. Add to that India, Pakistan, and the remnants of the U.S.S.R, already nuclear powers, and that will be a neighborhood I wouldn't want to walk through at night (figuratively speaking).
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Well you have to admit that this statement is absolutely true, but generally I hear this line from war supporters who have still got their fingers crossed, hoping for WMD to show up. I wonder if that's really all they meant--because if this were their rationale for going to war, that would indeed be scary....and nonsensical...
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Who accused who here? Bush accused Saddam of having WMD, Invaded, didn't find any. What are you people talking about? Saddam let the inspectors in, Pac's analogy is irrelevant.