Prof. Maule asks: > How does one prove the non-existence of WMD in Iraq? It would be much > easier if X said, "there are no drugs" and the searching officers found > drugs. > I suppose I'm puzzled by where the burden of proof would be and how it > would be satisified. (I'm not addressing the question of whether there > were or are WMDs in Iraq, or any of the other issues that would apply > with respect to national security concerns, reasonableness of reliance > on information, veracity of informants, etc. It's just that who is going > to prove that there were not, in late 2002 and early 2003, any WMD in > Iraq?)
I do not think that this question is legally relevant, but it is factually relevant. Think of it this way. A police officer swears out an affidavit alleging certain facts known by him to be false from his intelligence sources in order to get a warrant to search a house for illegal methamphetamines. Let's say that he alleged that his informant said that there was 16 tons of meth in the basement. Subsequently, a meth lab is found but no trace of meth. The police officer would have still committed perjury. Francisco Forrest Martin
