[Wardad]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
...I always thought the onus of proof was on the prosecutor and not the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty and all the junk that disallows unlawful persecution is the cornerstone of all modern justice systems. Why should Iraq be any different?

Askan[/QB]

Why is Iraq different?

To expand on your analogy of defendant and prosecution:
Iraqs ruling regime is a proven violent offender. An offender that has repeatedly violated the conditions of parole.
An offender has the burden of proof and must report to a parole officer.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression over oil fields with Iran.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime started a war of aggression with Kuwait.
Many good people, on both sides, were slaughtered in the resulting conflict.

Iraqs regime kills it's own people who dissent. It also targets the whole family and rapes the women.

So before we morn the Iraqi dead from this war. Let us morn the Iranians, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi dissidents who were killed before.

note:
In the US, the legal system is getting bolder about corrective involvement in cases of domestic (family) violence. I think this change in attitude has been carring over to foreign policy. Since Just Cause can be used to breach the family sanctuary, why should national sovereignty be an exception?

[ March 26, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: Wardad ]