Tribunal: fair or unfair?

[tae]

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?

The judges who were behind this must be questioned and the ones who are resonsible must be trialed

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by tae

The judges who were behind this must be questioned and the ones who are resonsible must be trialed

lol ok, and then released like Frem... :)
Are you serious? really ma zel el kada2 msayyas who will try them?

[tae]

I don't care whether the 4 officers are good or bad, if they are bad, put them in jail for what they did .. ekhir hammeh ..
I'm trying to say here that the judges who were involved in this issue should be trialed, they don't fit at all as judges and they are dangerous.
If you really care about building a country, investigating this issue should be on the top of your list. The presence of such judges is dangerous.

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by tae

I don't care whether the 4 officers are good or bad, if they are bad, put them in jail for what they did .. ekhir hammeh ..
I'm trying to say here that the judges who were involved in this issue should be trialed, they don't fit at all as judges and they are dangerous.
If you really care about building a country, investigating this issue should be on the top of your list. The presence of such judges is dangerous.

The problem is of course with the judges, but the real problem is with the corruption that places the judges where they are, when judges are not chosen based on merit and they are chosen when they don't deserve their position then they owe those who appointed them services.
The problem is with corruption, to2seem el jibne. Lately new judges were appointed and Aoun complained that it was to2seem jibne. Nobody cared, the problem is the political leadership, if you solve this then we can solve every other problem. The Mirza thingy is just a symptom, the real disease that should be eradicated is corruption and wasta.

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

The problem is of course with the judges, but the real problem is with the corruption that places the judges where they are, when judges are not chosen based on merit and they are chosen when they don't deserve their position then they owe those who appointed them services.
The problem is with corruption, to2seem el jibne. Lately new judges were appointed and Aoun complained that it was to2seem jibne. Nobody cared, the problem is the political leadership, if you solve this then we can solve every other problem. The Mirza thingy is just a symptom, the real disease that should be eradicated is corruption and wasta.

True.

But the corruption in the judiciary power is really huge and most probably today,now that the Syrians are out, independent by itself, to a very large extent.

Let me give you a hint:

The febs unjustly imprisoned the 4 generals. We know that it is for political reasons. But to be more precise, it is rather for power control reasons.

Yet, there was one who was spared and "kindly" asked to step aside:3addoum. If there was someone who really deserved jail:It was him.

Remember that his face was also on the posters in the March 14 2005 demo?

It's the judiciary that protected him and made a cover for him,by making a deal with those corrupt mafia government.

Lahoud did not make such a deal to protect his officers.The judiciary did.

There are a lot of more details...but i'll stop here for now.

[Danny Z]

Originally Posted by Abou Sandal

True.

But the corruption in the judiciary power is really huge and most probably today,now that the Syrians are out, independent by itself, to a very large extent.

Let me give you a hint:

The febs unjustly imprisoned the 4 generals. We know that it is for political reasons. But to be more precise, it is rather for power control reasons.

Yet, there was one who was spared and "kindly" asked to step aside:3addoum. If there was someone who really deserved jail:It was him.

Remember that his face was also on the posters in the March 14 2005 demo?

It's the judiciary that protected him and made a cover for him,by making a deal with those corrupt mafia government.

Lahoud did not make such a deal to protect his officers.The judiciary did.

There are a lot of more details...but i'll stop here for now.

Well this means that judiciary is still independent then

What did Hajj do anyway, wasn't he Hariri's man? why did they imprison him he wasn't even Lahoud's man

[Amirkani]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

lol ok, and then released like Frem... :)
Are you serious? really ma zel el kada2 msayyas who will try them?

kada2 el-kada2 :)

And if they are msayyassen too, then kada2 el-kada2 el-kada2... ye3ni Rabbnah :)

---------------------

[Abou Sandal]

Originally Posted by Danny Z

Well this means that judiciary is still independent then

What did Hajj do anyway, wasn't he Hariri's man? why did they imprison him he wasn't even Lahoud's man

Yes...Independent in a way

Hajj M3attar...He didn't do anything at all...His only curse was that, to thank him for his loyal services as head of his own ISF protection squad, for long years, Hariri nominated him as head of the ISF, right before leaving office.

Ma Le7i2 Yethanna El M3attar.

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by Orange Patriot

I think we're past fair or unfair.

Its more like joke or no joke?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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 .

Thanks for the replies; I agree with all your points, to a degree.

Orange Patriot: you're confusing the IT and the investigation. They're not the same thing. What the IT has done today was to show how the investigation so far has not done what it is supposed to do, which is to find sufficient evidence to allow for the detention of these suspects; in fact, they may not even be suspects anymore at all, and maybe never should have been. I think the fact that the IT made the right decision here shows above all that it is NOT a joke, and that the standard of evidence is very high in this case, as in other international tribunals.

Souss: this is true, but then all the accusations being made on how the IT was going to biased and politicized and would scapegoat certain individuals and countries were premature also. This to me is unacceptable is it undermines the credibility of an institution unfairly. To those people who complained bitterly about Lebanese sovereignty being given away to a supposedly highly politicized, unfair, corrupt tribunal, would you really rather have had the Lebanese judicial system be responsible for handling this case??? Is it not a good thing that the instant the IT was given the responsibility for determining whether or not continued detention was valid, it said no they must be released right away? Does this not tentatively indicate that the tribunal will not haphazardly base its decisions of weak, flawed, tenuous evidence?

Coralie: you're right. Clearly there were a lot of accusations early on that led to expectations, and huge mistakes were made that fed the flames. For instance, Mehlis didn't do a great job in making the investigation seem unbiased and such. I wonder what will happen if the investigation leads to a direction in which its supporters would rather not see it go...

[Convergence]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

To those people who complained bitterly about Lebanese sovereignty being given away to a supposedly highly politicized, unfair, corrupt tribunal, would you really rather have had the Lebanese judicial system be responsible for handling this case??? Is it not a good thing that the instant the IT was given the responsibility for determining whether or not continued detention was valid, it said no they must be released right away? Does this not tentatively indicate that the tribunal will not haphazardly base its decisions of weak, flawed, tenuous evidence?

Hello Positive Balance,

To those people who complained bitterly about Lebanese sovereignty being given away to a supposedly highly politicized, unfair, corrupt tribunal, would you really rather have had the Lebanese judicial system be responsible for handling this case???

You should be asking why a unique form of international tribunal was set up specially for the Hariri case, one aspect of which involves concessions of sovereignty to an international body even though it is using Lebanese law? That alone would make one think that the motives behind tribunal are embedded within this tailor made first of it's kind tribunal.

Yes I would rather have the Lebanese judiciary responsible. Better the evil you know than the one you do not. International bodies can be assigned supervision and transparency watchdog rolls, but I do not feel comfortable giving an international body this much power over domestic affairs, especially a new experimental body that has not been tested in previous similar cases.

Is it not a good thing that the instant the IT was given the responsibility for determining whether or not continued detention was valid, it said no they must be released right away?

It is a good thing assuming the generals where innocent, and there is no reason to think they were not.

Does this not tentatively indicate that the tribunal will not haphazardly base its decisions of weak, flawed, tenuous evidence?

No it does not. Delaying holding of the generals for too long under mounting pressure compromises it's credibility in the eyes of the public. They were released now before the elections instead of waiting only two more months, if anything this is an indicator that the IT is concerned with it's public image for some reason. Being concerned about the credibility you project to the public, is not sufficient to make you credible. The two should not be confused. Ever heard of the credit card scammer who spends years building good credit, until he pulls off one big theft? I am not saying this is the case but it is a possibility.