Cheney and Iraq: Turning Justice on its head.

There are so many things to criticize about Cheney's speech this morning at the American Enterprise Institute defending the Bush administration's reasons for attacking Iraq more than 2 years ago. But the one thing that disturbs me the most is his claim that the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove it had no WMDs, and that the US invaded because Iraq could not do that.

This perverts one of the foundations of jurisprudence. It is up to the accuser to provide compelling evidence that the accused is guilty. The accused is not required to prove his/her innocence. If I am charged by the police with possession of an illegal weapon, it is up to the police, and the district attorney to prove that I do indeed possess an illegal weapon. I do not have an obligation to prove that I do not have an illegal weapon. Indeed, it is impossible for me to prove that I don't have an illegal weapon. The burden of proof is therefore on the prosecution. And if detectives/inspectors don't find illegal weapons, I cannot be convicted. I would be a miscarriage of justice if I were, and a further miscarrriage if, after I was convicted and my property was seized, searchers still could not find any illegal weapons. If my case had actually reached that point, and the charge that I possessed an illegal weapon could not be established in any way, I would expect to at least get my property back, along with an apology and compensation.

Apparently, the rules of law and common sense to not apply in Cheney's world, where it was up to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein to prove that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, an impossible challenge. The US invaded and (surprise!) found no WMDs, which crushes the misguided rationale for invading. Once again, the emperor has no clothes.

Thanks for reading. I'll go back to my brooding now. x(

says something does not make it so, re the burdon of proof item. That immediately got my attention as well.

This is exactly what I thought when Bush and gang were making the claim that Saddam must have WMD since he couldn't prove he didn't. Your analogy is apt. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. If something has been destroyed, where do you get proof of it? They'll try anything, and have from the beginning, but people are now waking up to the specious arguments they put forth for invading Iraq. Cheney is such an evil man and even his former friends are saying they don't know him anymore. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely. Last night when I watched "The Virgin Queen" I thought how similarly the intrigue and lies have grown in this country. I began to know how it feels to live under a monarchy or dictatorship. May we recover our country before it's too late.