Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Court of Law Indictments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Court of Law Indictments

    Hello,

    Many people have asked the United States of America to offer some solid evidence that Saddam is indeed hiding something powerful as a crate of WMDs. I have found this interesting, but worthy to compare.

    Here in America, we have the justice system based on the jury trials and "reasonable doubt." The prosecutors are responsible for proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty of any crime he may have committed. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, not the defense. It's just the same as Powell's presentation to the Security Council.

    It's a matter of fact, that quite often the defendents are found guilty with so much little evidence, mostly a few drops of DNA, foresnic evidence, but sometimes with no murder weapon. It's rare to see a case with HUGE and MOUNTAIN of evidence being presented against a certain defendent, even more rare in the cases of white-collar defendents.

    It's interesting to note that here in America, many lawyers have said to me that had Powell presented the same evidence to a jury, it's more likely Saddam would be indicted and eventually found guilty, even without the benefit of pictures of WMDs being pasted across in the headlines. The lawyers said to me, Powell has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam is hiding something.

    CAUTION NOTE: none of lawyers said to me that Saddam does have WMDs for sure, there's no definite proof of this, but even so, in American justice, the one does not have to have a murder weapon to prove beyond reasonable doubt to find him or her guilty.

    If the international community insisted on this, then, it has proven that it failed to act responsibily in deciding the case according to the evidence present.

    That the international community is willing to be blind to such charges and plenty of limited evidence being presented.

    That the international community refused to at least consider that Saddam is indeed hiding SOMETHING, and given enough time, he will avoid making the same kind of mistake again.

    MY OPINION: I honestly believe we have "probable cause" to invade Iraq and look for documents of hiding WMDs, will we never find WMDs stored away somewhere? Probably not, let's be realistic, there's no way Saddam will give America the satisfication of finding these WMDs even in event of his possible death.

    If the international community has refused to act like "a court of law" then what there is hope of participating in the international community and expect it to act properly and responsibily?

    Dan
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    Re: Court of Law Indictments

    Originally posted by Cheetah772
    Hello,

    Many people have asked the United States of America to offer some solid evidence that Saddam is indeed hiding something powerful as a crate of WMDs. I have found this interesting, but worthy to compare.

    Here in America, we have the justice system based on the jury trials and "reasonable doubt." The prosecutors are responsible for proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty of any crime he may have committed. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, not the defense. It's just the same as Powell's presentation to the Security Council.

    It's a matter of fact, that quite often the defendents are found guilty with so much little evidence, mostly a few drops of DNA, foresnic evidence, but sometimes with no murder weapon. It's rare to see a case with HUGE and MOUNTAIN of evidence being presented against a certain defendent, even more rare in the cases of white-collar defendents.

    It's interesting to note that here in America, many lawyers have said to me that had Powell presented the same evidence to a jury, it's more likely Saddam would be indicted and eventually found guilty, even without the benefit of pictures of WMDs being pasted across in the headlines. The lawyers said to me, Powell has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam is hiding something.

    CAUTION NOTE: none of lawyers said to me that Saddam does have WMDs for sure, there's no definite proof of this, but even so, in American justice, the one does not have to have a murder weapon to prove beyond reasonable doubt to find him or her guilty.

    If the international community insisted on this, then, it has proven that it failed to act responsibily in deciding the case according to the evidence present.

    That the international community is willing to be blind to such charges and plenty of limited evidence being presented.

    That the international community refused to at least consider that Saddam is indeed hiding SOMETHING, and given enough time, he will avoid making the same kind of mistake again.

    MY OPINION: I honestly believe we have "probable cause" to invade Iraq and look for documents of hiding WMDs, will we never find WMDs stored away somewhere? Probably not, let's be realistic, there's no way Saddam will give America the satisfication of finding these WMDs even in event of his possible death.

    If the international community has refused to act like "a court of law" then what there is hope of participating in the international community and expect it to act properly and responsibily?

    Dan
    Isn't there a witty American phrase that goes something like this: 'Put up or shut up.' ?

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm no jurist, but wouldn't the case be closer to that of a probationer or parole? Saddam after the Gulf War was in effect put on probation and like any probationer he must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Theoretically, the suspicious activities which Secretary Powell pointed out on Wednesday, if true, would be enough to revoke his probation.

      Comment

      Latest Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X