Chemical weapons finds

[tw]

Finding a nerve agent after the fact does not constitute a smoking gun. By definition, the smoking gun - the threat - must exist clear and obvious before war as to justify war.

The guy has a crooked nose. Therefore he must have been cooking up massive batches of explosive. What kind of justificaton is that? Even if investigators find that batch of explosives, the evidence would have been rightly thrown out of court. 'Smoking gun' evidence must exist before the act is legal - execution of search warrant OR war.

It does not matter if the cop KNOWs what the criminal is thinking. If the cop cannot first prove his knowledge, then the search warrant cannot be issued. If someone gets killed, well, that is unfortunately but necessary to preserve something more important - both rule of law and the purpose of those laws.

Whether nerve or chemical agents exist is irrelevant. I am quite surprised none were used in battle since I expected them to exist and to be used. However it still appears as if Saddam had zero WMD - or so few that the number rounds off to zero. Lots of speculation and still no proof.

Whether he did or not is irrelevant. The proof must exist before war starts - or there is no smoking gun to justify that war.