Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Occhidiangela]

Doubts as to reasonability are moot. They are also a standard in a court of law, which is an artificial environment. International geopolitics is "jungle rules." (Sad but true, though the progress toward a greater amount of rule of law is there, thanks to the support of nations like . . . The United States and its European allies.)

Let's consider the International Law of the Sea, a rather complex series of agreements and protocols that are continually under assault by one party or another who want to finesse a line here and there for economic advantage.

Who and what enforces the International Law of the Sea? Well, the Freedom of the Seas has been enforced by the Royal Navy, then the US Navy, for about 300 years. A clear case of Might makes Right in action, for the benifit of international law.

A few years back, the Canadian Navy "pulled over" a Spanish fishing vessel. Did you read the Spanish side of that event at the time? You might, or might not, be surprised at how the characterization of that incident in Spain was different from what the press on this side of the Atlantic wrote about it.

"Reasonable doubt" and "beyond reasonable doubt" are standards well tried in contexts where the law is pretty well defined: within the finite context of a sovereign nation. Outside that box, you are playing a different game, called "politics," rather than the game called "justice."

Now, is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" a good standard to try to achieve politically? Hell yes. Is it necessary? No, but when one can't do it, one must accept that the political advantages down stream will contain a great deal of risk, and or "downside."