Who has a burden of proof?

Submitted by Boris Frenkel (United States), Nov 14, 2002 at 16:25

The Left is looking for a proof from the US on Saddam's links and intentions. However, they find unnecessary to provide any proof of US interests in oil being the reason for attacks on Iraq. Of course, because it sounds so logical and obvious!

Remember, police first arrest an individual suspected of commiting a crime, without providing all the proof, just based on probable cause, warrant and some evidence. Then, when a suspect is safely isolated from society, the justice process begins with the prosecution having the burden of proving this individual's guilt. If the suspect resists arrest, he/she can be taken by force and even killed before convicted in a court of law.

For that reason, the US/UN does not have to provide any proof of Saddam's guilt at this moment; there is sufficient probable cause to "arrest" him and, if he resists, ... well you know...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".