Tribunal: fair or unfair?

[Positive Balance]

Many, many comments by members of this forum on the tribunal were quite negative. It was politically biased, had already reached conclusions, and was going to implicate Syria (and the generals) no matter what. It was a tool for M14, going to help them win the elections. I don't have time to dig up all the old posts on this, but I would think that most everyone remembers the accusations that were put to the tribunal.

Has today's decision changed your mind on whether the tribunal can reach an unbiased decision, and that there is such a thing as credibility of international proceedings?

---

Some old posts:

Thread: What will happen with the four generals...?

Observer with his usual prophetic foresight:

They will be released. Bellemare and Bremmretz both told Mirza that they are not interested with the 8 detainee (one of them has been released already).

Dark Angel responding to my argument that in a number of past international tribunal cases, suspects whom the West would have loved to see guilty, were acquitted, and that therefore it was highly unlikely that the trial would be politicized:

PB, i dont think a time will come where you can look back and say that the proceeds of the investigation and the subsequent tribunal can be fully trusted regardless of the final verdict or against whom the accusation will be driven. the reality of the matter is that there are pressure groups and power brokers all over the world, especially inside the united nations, and what appears to be neutral and impartial is actually always subjected to the will of the stronger. the mere fact that the assassination of hariri resulted in an international investigation while the slaughtering thousand others didn't get the international community to blink is proof enough about how subjective this whole procedure is.

....

the first investigation committee under detlev mehlis refused to explore any options other than the syrian track, the lack of professionalism, at least in terms of common sense and judgment, was flagrant to say the least. now that could very well be attribute to a mistake committed by mehlis, but i doubt that someone with his experience or anyone who could be appointed to such a position would commit such an amateurish mistake. once the flaw became obvious mehlis presented a real threat to the objectivity of the investigation, or maybe to its credibility; so he was replaced by more discrete folks. while that could have been motivated by a need to ameliorate the investigation process, it could also have been motivated by the need to add credibility to the final accusations, otherwise not many would buy them.

i can assure you that once the verdict is out, no less than 5 years down the road, it will always be questioned. if the syrians get the short end of the stick, the question will be could it have been a political accusation? if the syrians get vindicated, the question will be did they strike some kind of a deal with the west under pressure? and so on. the confidence level in the validity of the verdict will be very low, regardless of which conclusion is reached.

Taifoon responding to my same post:

According to my above thesis, this tribunal is nothing but a cooked political American soup, diluted in anesthetic stuff -and one ug of arsenic to be later increased as needed. It was set up for the sake of keeping this poor country at the americo/israeli mercy.. If, and only if, it reaches one day a conclusion, say a verdict, it will be served forward as far from the truth as Neptune is from earth.. So, why should we beforehand rely on self deception for the sake of feeding meager hopes?

Well, not the humblest of things, but let me also add what I wrote:

I doubt the tribunal will do anything based on political motivations. If you look at past similar cases, you'll find that in some cases real criminals have been acquitted because the legal standards in such cases are very high. I'm not sure you're insinuating that the conclusions and verdicts of the tribunal were hatched up in dark rooms in Washington DC and Riyadh, but if you are, I have to strongly disagree.

If you're just complaining about selective justice however, that's a different issue. Are you suggesting that finding whatever truth can be found through this tribunal will ultimately not be in Lebanon's interest? I.e. would it be better to not investigate this killing because we can't handle the truth?

I'm just not sure which of the two approaches you're taking here. Is the tribunal in your mind a political tool which will serve only to distort the facts and conclude whatever is in the best interests of those who control our fates, or is it a mechanism which DOES uphold the highest legal standards but which, because it is only selectively applied, is more harmful in existing than the alternative of ignoring this crime like most others in Lebanon? Are there any politicians in Lebanon now alive for whom if they were assassinated -- Heaven forbid -- it would be worth having an international tribunal?

Looking back, I think that last question may be especially pertinent giving the woeful inadequacy of our judicial system that has been exposed through today's decision of releasing the 4 generals*; the unfortunate cost of which will probably end up being that they will be perceived as national heroes.

*Lest this be misinterpreted: I mean that our judicial system has proven itself inept by keeping these 4 general imprisoned for 4 years when the international tribunal needed only a few days after being given the case against them, to order their immediate release.In other words, they should never have been imprisoned in the first place for so long when the evidence against them was clearly lacking.

[NMA]

Tribunal is totally unfair, i will never believe in it no matter what.
it is corrupted to the bones, the 4 generals got released cuz it was a HUGE mistake ma 3erfeen keef yetla3o menna, other than that the whole int'l tribunal is ****

[Abou Sandal]

Fair or unfair remains to be seen. So far so good.

But as for "the international investigation" and the process that accompanied it, it is now proven, that it was flawed and politicized at some point.

Which brings to the following: Just because something is imported from the West, doesn't necessarily mean that it is made for our well being, or necessarily motivated by good intentions, or is necessarily without flaws (L Frenj Brenj).

So we'll keep a watchful eye.

[coralie]

it is not about fairness it is about truth and justice .

until now we do not have anything solid all the witnesses turned out to be fabricated , liars , comediens .

until now the investigations did not get to any evidence to be able to accuse a person or a groupe or a "regime" "country" .

basically after 4 years of investigations with different investigators we have nothing solid .

the question for me should be will this tribunal succeed in its mission ? i am not sure ... because i believe that those behind the crime are the same behind the tribunal .

[Convergence]

The international tribunal mandated to try the assassins of Harriri is the first of it's kind. It sets the precedent of an international UN affiliated body responsible for delivering justice to a crime perpetrated to an individual rather than a state or a group. Another feature making this trial unique is that it will use Lebanese law rather than international law.

The bias or non bias of the international tribunal notwithstanding, why was such a unique experiment in international law set up of for the case of Harriri's murder? If Lebanese law is used to try the suspects, why is an an international court under Chapter 7 needed rather than a Lebanese court?

Given a highly polarized Lebanese political scene with competing factions having different foreign alliances/agendas and given that this international tribunal can transcend and override many aspects of Lebanese sovereignty, it is hard believe that it will be shielded from the currents of political bias and power brokering under the table deals.

To answer the question, I do not believe it is fair or believe the primary objective of the trial is to deliver justice because of the factors above.

The release of the generals a tad bit before the elections is interesting. I think we can all agree that the timing of releasing the generals hurts Feb 14 in the upcoming elections. Releasing them after the elections however, will hurt the credibility of the IT since it will be perceived as helping Feb 14's anti-Syrian momentum by withholding the release till after the votes are cast. We are left with three possibilities:

- The IT really is not biased, and elections had no impact on the timing of the release.
- The IT despite being biased towards Feb 14, gave higher priority to gain credibility in the eyes of the public at the expense of Feb 14 performance in the elections.
- The powers controlling the IT struck a deal with Syria, and it is now a pro Syrian IT!

Well, that was my two cents on the matter :)

[Orange Patriot]

I think we're past fair or unfair.

Its more like joke or no joke?

[Souss]

Good thread, but perhaps its time hasn't yet come.

It's too early to judge whether the Tribunal is fair or not. Only after seeing the evidence presented, and what the result of the trial is can we really judge whether it was fair or not.

[tae]

the question now is who is the one who will have to pay for detaining these officers for 4 years. This was a mistake and someone has to pay for it.

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by tae

the question now is who is the one who will have to pay for detaining these officers for 4 years. This was a mistake and someone has to pay for it.

Dude

People get shot in Lebanon, some are paralyzed forever some die from it. We know who did it, they even say they did and yet nobody pays for anything. Do you think that someone will pay for just 4 years in prison? What would Mark Howayek feel if they are compensated and he is not, or what about the family of the marada guy that got shot but LF or the Kate2bi who got killed in Zahle or the men that were beaten by N Tueini's bodyguards in Achraffiye or the FPMer that got stabbed by LFers at his University. Who actually pays for doing something wrong in Lebanon?

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

Dude

People get shot in Lebanon, some are paralyzed forever some die from it. We know who did it, they even say they did and yet nobody pays for anything. Do you think that someone will pay for just 4 years in prison? What would Mark Howayek feel if they are compensated and he is not, or what about the family of the marada guy that got shot but LF or the Kate2bi who got killed in Zahle or the men that were beaten by N Tueini's bodyguards in Achraffiye or the FPMer that got stabbed by LFers at his University. Who actually pays for doing something wrong in Lebanon?

Well then it's only to highlight that it is time for serious change and the opposition will clearly have a lot to do, once in power.

Vote for change