They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that
Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US

Bush never said Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks...just that
"We've had no *evidence* that Saddam Hussein was involved with September
the
11th." Of course, that statement was made last September...before
Hussein's
capture.

Under US law, at least until the Bush fascists took over, "no evidence"
meant you were acquitted.

No, not really. It simply meant that despite overwhelming circumstantial
evidence, charges would be held up pending further discovery of hard
evidence.

You see the decision to go to war with Iraq as the trial. I see it as the
serving of an arrest warrant. The trial hasn't even begun and liberals have
already circled the wagons in his defense.

You don't have much of an understanding of the US legal system. To
obtain a warrant for a serious crime, you have to have some pretty
substantial evidence. We've got none against Iraq, at least none that
relates to the reasons the idiot in the white house stated for going in
there.

And once you have a suspect arrested, you have to go before a grand jury
to get an indictment.


--
Email sent to is never read.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that
Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US

Bush never said Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks...just
that
"We've had no *evidence* that Saddam Hussein was involved with
September
the
11th." Of course, that statement was made last September...before
Hussein's
capture.

Under US law, at least until the Bush fascists took over, "no evidence"
meant you were acquitted.

No, not really. It simply meant that despite overwhelming
circumstantial
evidence, charges would be held up pending further discovery of hard
evidence.

You see the decision to go to war with Iraq as the trial. I see it as
the
serving of an arrest warrant. The trial hasn't even begun and liberals
have
already circled the wagons in his defense.

You don't have much of an understanding of the US legal system. To
obtain a warrant for a serious crime, you have to have some pretty
substantial evidence.

Such as the violation of a UN resolution?



We've got none against Iraq, at least none that
relates to the reasons the idiot in the white house stated for going in
there.

I'm glad you qualified your statement...'cause it would have been pretty
irresponsible to claim we had "no evidence" against Iraq.





And once you have a suspect arrested, you have to go before a grand jury
to get an indictment.

In this scenario, the UN was the legislative branch...and passed a
resolution declaring Iraq in violation of prior UN resolutions. Congress was
the grand jury...and they almost unanimously granted an indictiment.

You don't have a very good understanding of how the world legal system
parallels the US legal system.