I was recently on another site where the members were having a lively discussion about Michael Moore, Bush and the war in Iraq. One person posted, in my opinion, a rather frigtening statement. He was discussing the WMD debate and said that we were justified in invading Iraq because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Take a minute, let it sink in....
I think a rationale like this sets up a slippery slope. Here is the thought process it invokes: Well, we suspect (insert country here) has WMD's. Can we prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope. But heck, it doesn't mean that they didn't have them, so lets bomb the ever living crap out of them.
The American judicial system is founded on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The prosecution has the burden of proving a case. All the defense has to do is present reasonable doubt. Now, lets take this idea and apply it to the Iraq/WMD scenario. America (the prosecution) makes the case that Iraq (the defendant/defense) has WMD. But when the forensic investigators (Blick and the UN weapons inspectors) go to investigate the "crime scene", there is no evidence! Sure, there are places and things that could possibly maybe be used to make WMD's, but just because I posess a chemistry set doesn't mean I was cooking meth. That is reasonable doubt in my book!
Now, before some of you jump down my throat, attacking my patriotism and loyalty to the United States, let me clarify a few things. September 11th was a horrible day and I mourn the thousand of people who perished because of a Al-Qaeda's hatred and religious fanaticism. I believe that the Iraqi people were being ruled by an evil dictator. He was responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. But I do not belive in starting a war under false pretenses. Our judicial standards should apply abroad as well as at home. Otherwise we just become a bunch of hyprocritical bullies. Bullies that kill lots of innocent people. (yes, lots of innocents were killed on 9/11, but does that justify killing other innocents?)
I need hard evidence before I am going to make decisions that affect millions of people. Going to war based on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" seems to much like the witch hunts of yore. In those days a mole, wart, or flea bite was enough to condemn a person to having the mark of the devil and thereby being sentenced to death.
Cheers,
Jenna