Up until recently, the US legal system was based on the British system, under which a person is innocent until proven guilty. While, in many countries in Europe, including Belgium (I Googled it), the legal system was based on the Napoleonic Code, under which a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Now, the US has quietly shifted to the Napoleonic Code. Iraq is guilty until proven innocent. Domestically under the "Patriot" Act, anyone suspected of a connection with terrorism is presumed guilty, thrown in jail, held incommunicado without benefit of a lawyer, and not allowed to examine the evidence or confront his accuser; making it impossible to prove innocence.
And it's Europe that's now arguing that Iraq is...well, I can't quite bring myself to say innocent, nobody maintains that, but at least not-a-threat, until proven guilty by inspections.
What a wacky world we live in, eh?
--Robert
Current Events » in reply to The burden of proof
Ironic
The whole thread (39 posts)
- The burden of proof
- Not according to UNSC 1441
- Iraq is the plaintiff
- Re: The burden of proof
- Ironic
- No, the burden of proof is clearly on Iraq, not on the US or anyone else
- Re: The burden of proof
