Burden of proof
Nov. 13th, 2002 11:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semperfionaIraq agrees to Security Council resolution (CNN)
I've just realized, though it's been the case all along, that the Security Council resolution leaves Iraq in the position of having to prove a negative: the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction. No matter whether the inspectors don't find anything, the US can still say "they must be hidden". Isn't this why the US legal system puts the burden of proof on the accuser? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Proving a negative is *always* impossible.
I've just realized, though it's been the case all along, that the Security Council resolution leaves Iraq in the position of having to prove a negative: the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction. No matter whether the inspectors don't find anything, the US can still say "they must be hidden". Isn't this why the US legal system puts the burden of proof on the accuser? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Proving a negative is *always* impossible.
