Imagine a world where the accused are responsible for presenting proof of their innocence regardless of the accusation and despite of the lack of proof against them.

Your neighbor is murdered. Prove you didn’t do it.

Someone is raped in an adjoining town. Do you have proof you didn’t rape her?

The logical fallacy in such a requirement is obvious. There are innumerable events in this world having nothing to do with you, and yet, not in your wildest dreams could you present evidence that you were so detached from those events. That’s why the accuser must bare the burden of proof. The accused need only bare the defense to that proof.

In the effed-up world of Bush logic, it’s much easier to lay the burden of proof on the accused (unless, of course, it’s Bush that’s being accused). This conveniently eases the process of initiating the Bush administration’s ’foreign policy’ initiatives.

For example:

Prior to the Iraq invasion, Donald Rumsfeld made his interpretation of the UN Resolution unmistakably clear:

"The United Nations resolution did not put the burden of proof on the United States or the U.N. to prove that Iraq has these weapons," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. "The U.N. resolution put the burden directly on Iraq to prove that it is disarming and that it does not have these weapons."

However, when the accusation was focused on the Bush administration, such a policy did not apply:

In other words, Iraq must prove a negative, and is refusing to do so. Almost a year to the day before Rumsfeld’s remark, Fleischer was asked why the administration would not release details about meetings with energy companies such as Enron Corp. to prove that nothing untoward occurred. Fleischer replied: "You’re asking us to prove a negative, and that’s a road that we’re not traveling."

The Bush administration effectively peddled its influence to the UN -- promoting the frame that it was Iraq’s duty to prove their compliance with the UN resolution -- a virtual impossibility. This was illustrated in a January 2003 Report from UN Inspector Hans Blix:

"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Mr. Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page catalog of Iraq’s chemical and biological arms programs that provided an exhaustive account of ways in which Saddam Hussein has failed to prove that he has eliminated illegal weapons. "

In September of 2003, an Iran delegation stormed out of a closed-door meeting with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog that set Iran an October 31 deadline to prove it had no secret atomic weapons program. The toughly worded resolution gives Iran -- branded by Washington last year as part of an ’axis of evil’ with pre-war Iraq and North Korea -- one last chance to prove it has been complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).... a treaty that the Bush administration abandoned long ago.

Placing the burden of proof on the accused (Iran) works in many ways for the Bush administration. Iran cannot prove it does not have a ’secret atomic weapons program’. What can they do? Present a memo that says, "We absolutely promise that we have no nukes. Really!"

This opens the door for a brand spankin’ new Bush invasion, "Since the Iranians could not present conclusive proof of their innocence, then they are obviously guilty. Onward Hooooooo!"

The reason for such a tactic is obvious: the accuser simply cannot prove that the accused is guilty. Thus, they shift responsibility for proof and claim erroneously and disingenuously that the accusers’ lack of proof-of-innocence is proof of guilt.

The sad part is that most people don’t recognize the warped lack of logic involved and thus jump on the accuser’s bandwagon. It’s a tactic often used by the bold (audacious?) who stand in a weak position.

This tactic can also be use in a more mundane setting and should be recognized for what it is: Bullshit.

One Liner: "Prove me wrong"

Essentially, you can make an accusation, assertion, or opinion (be sure not to slander or libel) and then demand that your opposition prove you wrong. At worst they take their time and energy to go through the trouble to successfully prove you wrong. All the while, the accusation has been made and the intent of the accusation has been fused into the minds of onlookers. Most of them will never even be aware that you were proven wrong.

This was brilliantly and maliciously illustrated with the supreme effectiveness of the Swift Boat Veterans’ attacks on Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. Although virtually everything they said was a total fabrication, their initial accusations had a profound effect on the electorate and impacted the election to a degree that easily shifted perhaps several points away from Kerry.

"Once accused, always accused...always guilty."

In a more direct setting, the most basic and effective Defense goes something like this:

"You want me to prove that it is not true because you are incapable of proving it is true. In essence, you’re lying. And if you’re not, then prove me wrong."

or

"You’re the one making the whacko accusations. Prove that you’re not lying."

It’s sad that we have to be aware of...or even consider using such tactics, but that’s the way it is in the nightmare world of Bush logic.