Hear Ye! Since 1998.
Please note: This post is at least 3 years old. Links may be broken, information may be out of date, and the views expressed in the post may no longer be held.
Jan 03


Does anyone else think the logic being employed here is strange?

The failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction “could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq’s noncooperation” with U.N. disarmament resolutions, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday. (CNN)


The Australian Government agrees [shame!] with the United States that finding no evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction may still provide the grounds for military action because the onus is on Saddam Hussein to show he has destroyed his banned stockpile. (SMH)

I wonder if that line could be used in court? “The prosecution thinks that the lack of a gun as evidence, could be evidence, in and of itself, of the defendant’s noncooperation. Therefore, he should be charged with obstruction of justice in addition to first degree murder.” How do you prove you don’t have something? Someone has their wires crossed, big time. (Update: This post is generating a lot of comments. Feel free to chip in.)