In defense of Iraq

[Supercharts]

In watching Powell yesterday give his evidence that Saddam Hussein has WMD it occurred to me, during the ensuing ‘talking heads’ commentary , that the pivot point for many is a concept of proof.

We have divided between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Legality has entered as the most important criteria and it’s the Western concept of law. Accuse, provide evidence, provide a defense, and make a judgment. Once judgment is made either the defendant goes free or punishment is provided by the legal entity. Or perhaps some probation or monetary fine is applied.

As an exercise let’s turn this concept of proof around and ask what is Iraq’s defense to the charges of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. You are Iraq’s defense attorney and in that role you have to convince the UN Security Council that the charges against Iraq are false.

[The Don]

On the basis of "innocent until proven guilty", as Iraq's defence barrister I would place the burden of proof on the U.S

I also want to be clear on the charge or charges:

- Possession of WMD
- Possession of WMD with intent to supply
- Possession of WMD with intent to use

or is it one or more of the lesser charges:

- Conspiracy to withold information
- Obstruction of inspectors
- Consorting with possible terrorists

I would also ask that specifc evidence is directed against specific charges not blasted in all directions with the hope that some mud will stick somewhere.

I'd also like the chance to vet the jury and judge to ensure that there is no inbuilt bias

The we can start

[NoZed Avenger]

IMO, "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" do not necessarily need to apply to these situations.

And strictly speaking, Iraq is not being asked to prove and absolute negative -- that it has no weapons. Instead, it is being asked to show a limited nagative (or it can be argued, a positive -- what it did with known weapons).

For example, the US and UN can show (and have shown) that Iraq had tons of chemical and biological agent at the end of the Gulf War, as well as thousands of warheads designed to deliver those agents.

It is not up to the UN to show where those weapons went, it is Iraq's burden to show what happened to them -- as they were under Iraq's complete control at the time they disappeared.

If you turned a shirt over to the cleaners and that shirt disappeared without explanation, it is not your burden to show what happened to the shirt, but that of the cleaner's. "But I am being forced to show a negative -- that I do not have the shirt. You must prove that I still have the shirt."

Now, add that the cleaner has a dozen stores and delivery trucks running to each, and that as part of its efforts to "convince you" that it no longer has your shirt, it will allow you to search one store at a time, but not all at once and not the trucks. Oh, and it may own other stores that it has not told you about.

At this point, it is not up to the customer to provide a photo of the cleaner's owner wearing the new shirt in order to provide proof that something is wrong. (Even then, of course, the owner could always say that the photo was altered.)

Iraq developed a nuclear program while inspectors (headed by Hans Blix) pronounced them clean. The Iraqi's were caught by UNSCOM and still deny much of it.

Is there any doubt that the Iraqi's are still actively hiding evidence of WMD's from the UN inspectors?

I am not now asking whether that fact justifies military action; lets take this one step at a time -- is there doubt that the Iraqi's are hiding WMDs from the UN? If so, on what does anyone base that conviction? I'd like to see such a basis, because the Iraqi ambassador's response to the UN, that the US is lying about everything, seems a thin reed to rest against, especially given that particular government's past history and actions on this specific topic.

NA

[Skeptical Greg]

Request change of venue to Syria!!!

[Doctor X]

Has he retained Johnny Cochran?

That, in and of itself, is now recognized as a confession of guilt in most jurisdictions. . . .

--J.D.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by The Don
On the basis of "innocent until proven guilty", as Iraq's defence barrister I would place the burden of proof on the U.S

I also want to be clear on the charge or charges:

- Possession of WMD
- Possession of WMD with intent to supply
- Possession of WMD with intent to use

or is it one or more of the lesser charges:

- Conspiracy to withold information
- Obstruction of inspectors
- Consorting with possible terrorists

I would also ask that specifc evidence is directed against specific charges not blasted in all directions with the hope that some mud will stick somewhere.

I'd also like the chance to vet the jury and judge to ensure that there is no inbuilt bias

The we can start

You hit the nail right on the head here.

Most of the debate here is over whether Iraq does or does not possess WMDs or whether there is or is not sufficient evidence that it does.

However, resolution 1441 is quite clear in that it requires Iraq to cooporate fully with the UN inspection teams or face the consequences.

Powell may not have proven that Iraq possesses WMDs, but that is irrelevant. He has clearly proven that there is a complex and widespread effort to obfuscate and hamper the investigation. That makes it a breach of 1441.

So under 1441, Iraq is required to face the consequences. For France, consequences seems to imply: "we'll give you another 6 months not to cooperate"

[Doctor X]

Wait . . . actually a serious point [From you? Impossible!--Ed.]:

This is not a court of law. [Brilliant.--Ed.]

Saadam has already been found guilty--Gulf War I.

He has been on probation. He has failed to keep his visits with his parole officer. He has pursued weapons felons cannot have, he has associated with known felons, he listens to country-western music.

He is in violation of parole.

See?

[Cue Sounds of Crickets Chirping in the Cold, Still Night.--Ed.]

Fine! Fail to recognize the genius? I did not want to play anyways!

Maybe something on the Monty Python Tread. . . .

--J.D.

[Drooper]

"M'lud, I'd like to call my first witness. George Bush senior"

"Mr Bush, do you know the defendant?"

Bush points with dramatic flourish at Saddam, or his body double. "He was the one what done it!"

"M'lud, the prosecution rests."

[Supercharts]

Iraq defense:
We [Iraq] are a sovereign nation and what we do within our boarders is our own business. Unless the UN can prove agression by us outside of our boarders there is no right for outside interference in our internal affairs.

[Doctor X]

Unless the UN can prove agression by us outside of our boarders there is no right for outside interference in our internal affairs.


Judge: while the Crown failed to bring forth charges for your client's previous acts of aggression outside of his borders, the Crown eventually brought action for the invasion of Kuwait. Duly tried and found guilty, your client entered into a parole agreement which, as the Crown has clearly demonstrated, your client has abrogated numerous times with beastliness of forethought. Despite efforts and patience from the parole services to rehabilitate your client, he persists in his behavior.

Therefore, I have no choice other than to revoke his parole and reimpose his sentence.

Thus, he shall be taken from this Court to a place of execution where he shall be hanged by the neck until dead, and may Some Anthropomorphic Conception have mercy on his consciousness!

Right . . . now a spot of lunch. . . .

--J.D.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Judge: . . . .

Right . . . now a spot of lunch. . . .

--J.D.

(To bring both of your last posts together):

" . . . I caught the foreman of the jury eyeing me! Cheeky devil."


NA

[Doctor X]

HA!

Or to use the old Rumpole story, the hungry judge, not really paying attention, stares at the clock during testimony until his stomach demands action:

Female Witness: Then I felt the accused shove his hand under my blouse!

Judge: We'll just leave it there until 1 o'clock, shall we?

In all seriousness, the discussion of the "justness" of war remains a valid consideration no matter what side of the issue one currently supports.

--J.D.

[The Don]

If the case can be tried on civil grounds then only "balance of probability" has to be proved. That seems to be a lower bar to have to jump over (apologies for the dangling preposition).

What are the court's rules.

Does Saddam have an alibi like "I was goaded into it because of the support I received from the West during the Iran/Iraq war"

Don't get me wrong, Saddam seems to be a terrible terrible man, I'm just exercised by the questions of "why now?" and "what happens afterwards?"

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Iraq defense:
We [Iraq] are a sovereign nation and what we do within our boarders is our own business. Unless the UN can prove agression by us outside of our boarders there is no right for outside interference in our internal affairs.

Sir! What you do within your own boarders may be one thing but what you do within day-scholars is quite another!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
In watching Powell yesterday give his evidence that Saddam Hussein has WMD it occurred to me, during the ensuing ‘talking heads’ commentary , that the pivot point for many is a concept of proof.

We have divided between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Legality has entered as the most important criteria and it’s the Western concept of law. Accuse, provide evidence, provide a defense, and make a judgment. Once judgment is made either the defendant goes free or punishment is provided by the legal entity. Or perhaps some probation or monetary fine is applied.

As an exercise let’s turn this concept of proof around and ask what is Iraq’s defense to the charges of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. You are Iraq’s defense attorney and in that role you have to convince the UN Security Council that the charges against Iraq are false.

having WMD by itself is not a crime, as the US has so clearly demonstrated.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Judge: while the Crown failed to bring forth charges for your client's previous acts of aggression outside of his borders, the Crown eventually brought action for the invasion of Kuwait. Duly tried and found guilty, your client entered into a parole agreement which, as the Crown has clearly demonstrated, your client has abrogated numerous times with beastliness of forethought. Despite efforts and patience from the parole services to rehabilitate your client, he persists in his behavior.

Therefore, I have no choice other than to revoke his parole and reimpose his sentence. Bailiff, whack his pee pee --Cheech and Chong.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


having WMD by itself is not a crime, as the US has so clearly demonstrated.

Correct. But having WMD is a violation of resolution 1441. So is not cooperating with the weapons inspectors. And, in case you have forgotten, this resolution was passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. So possession of WMD by Iraq has different implications than possession of these same weapons by the US or most other nations for that matter.

[Doctor X]

The Don:

I'm just exercised by the questions of "why now?" and "what happens afterwards?"

The "why now" is before it is too late--we have dithered for 12+ years now.

The "what happens afterwards" is GO TO DISNEY LAND!!! HA!HA!HA! . . . Ha! . . . heh? er . . . um . . . anyways, that is a very good question and concern. I wish I had the information to make a cogent argument that could convince you. I am afraid I am a bit at the same state in considering whether or not to invade Europe. I do not believe the Allies had a coherent plan for Europe, but they had to act.

Jon_in_London:

HA!HA!HA!HA!

Incidentally, they showed the Michael Jackson thing--I just saw an except of the "highlight" of why he sleeps with children . . . EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

A friend who loves The League of Gentleman found "Legs Akimbo: Put yourself in a Child" a bit disturbing!

--J.D.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by The Don
Don't get me wrong, Saddam seems to be a terrible terrible man, I'm just exercised by the questions of "why now?" and "what happens afterwards?"

What happens afterwards? Well, since the US really isn't that good at nation building, I suggest we let the French do it. That would allay their fears that we are in this only for the oil. They could then protect their oil interests after the war. (As opposed to how they're doing it now, by being obstructionist, IMHO.)


Not that the French are that much better than we are at nation building, but if they fail, then our prestige won't drop. Besides, wouldn't it be nice to just go in, win the war, and leave? Nice and simple.