Tribunal: fair or unfair?

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by Libnene Qu7

The Farteen are trying to cover their shame by saying how fair the IT is. The fact is that is hasn't started, and the past 4 years have gone in vain for the "truth" seekers. What happened yesterday is very fair when you consider how the Farteen intentionally tried to politicize the IT from day one, all being based on personal vandettas. We will soon see Sa3doune returning to his home country because if it wasn't Syria that did it, then he doesn't care.

Then if you believe M14's arguments have been a sham all along, why is it legitimate to use the IT's decision yesterday as proof of how wrong they are? I mean, if the IT is nothing else but a tool in the pocket of the US, then it's decision yesterday means absolutely nothing.

Show me proof of an international tribunal which, regardless of the motivations for setting it up, decided something illegally, based on fabricated evidence, or for political reasons framed innocents, I may be more inclined to believe arguments such as those of DA. Otherwise, I continue to believe that the IT is the best option we have at uncovering the basis of all the accusations made left and right the past 4 years, whether they vindicate or disprove M14's rhetoric.

[LebArmenian]

the tribunal is fair .

the problem was that at the beginning the 1st prosecutor ( detliv mehlis ) was a fun loving guy who was easily bought. what does hariri have ? money ( akid not brains ).

so they bought mehlis and he did write interresting scenarios that would work well if it was a hollywood movie ( remember mr X (aka nabih berri) calling mr Y , etc etc, ) ( side note , in this stupid scenario , the supposed killer called the presidential palace after the bombing too !!!! ).

mehlis did his time and they didnt renew his contract, the ones who came after him worked to improve the image of the international tribunal , ( there are some people who stupid law to practice it in a truthfull way as they are people who study it to make some huge money out of it ( like mehlis ofcourse) . ) and finally , Belmar a fair man did the right work and told the truth about those 4 generals, they had nothing to do with it.

im sure that belmar knows alot more then this simple fact. he must have a clue about who helped mehlis writing the scenario ( cough cough marwan,feris,hasan cough cough) and hopefully those were be put on trial and justice will prevail.





























(And im also sure that we will never find out who did it )

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by LebArmenian

the tribunal is fair .

the problem was that at the beginning the 1st prosecutor ( detliv mehlis ) was a fun loving guy who was easily bought. what does hariri have ? money ( akid not brains ).

so they bought mehlis and he did write interresting scenarios that would work well if it was a hollywood movie ( remember mr X (aka nabih berri) calling mr Y , etc etc, ) ( side note , in this stupid scenario , the supposed killer called the presidential palace after the bombing too !!!! ).

mehlis did his time and they didnt renew his contract, the ones who came after him worked to improve the image of the international tribunal , ( there are some people who stupid law to practice it in a truthfull way as they are people who study it to make some huge money out of it ( like mehlis ofcourse) . ) and finally , Belmar a fair man did the right work and told the truth about those 4 generals, they had nothing to do with it.

im sure that belmar knows alot more then this simple fact. he must have a clue about who helped mehlis writing the scenario ( cough cough marwan,feris,hasan cough cough) and hopefully those were be put on trial and justice will prevail.

I fully agree. The way Mehlis behaved was very suspect, and therefore I would love to find out why he behaved as such, why he was appointed in the first place (no prosecutor anywhere behaves like this).

(And im also sure that we will never find out who did it )

Frankly, I probably agree. Even if we do find out who did it, as Dark Angel pointed out, it will never be accepted by a significant proportion of Lebanese and therefore the costs of "the truth" whatever it is may simply be too high. Jack Nicholson may have said it best.

[Dark Angel]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You don't believe in the concept of the law as it exists purely as a tool for the strong with which to batter the weak into submission?

yes i stand by that. The true purpose of the law is to control. Justice is simply a more pleasant mask to look up on, the sugar wrapping around the bitter truth.

you're not a lawyer by any chance? you seem to tackle the subject as if you've taken an offense straight to the heart.

[LebArmenian]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

I fully agree. The way Mehlis behaved was very suspect, and therefore I would love to find out why he behaved as such, why he was appointed in the first place (no prosecutor anywhere behaves like this).Frankly, I probably agree. Even if we do find out who did it, as Dark Angel pointed out, it will never be accepted by a significant proportion of Lebanese and therefore the costs of "the truth" whatever it is may simply be too high. Jack Nicholson may have said it best.

he used to spend his time between monot and maamltein . that gives you a general idea about what kind of lifestyle he enjoys. ( akid akid akid i have no problem with that lifestyle ) . maybe he liked partying hard and to the extreme and his new friends ( cough cough marwan ) got a thing or 2 on him and black mailed him ?

this could be a possibility no ?

or the men loves money and hariri has loads of money ?

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by Dark Angel

yes i stand by that. The true purpose of the law is to control. Justice is simply a more pleasant mask to look up on, the sugar wrapping around the bitter truth.

you're not a lawyer by any chance? you seem to tackle the subject as if you've taken an offense straight to the heart.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not a lawyer. (Heaven forbid!)

I just have enough indirect experience of how justice works to believe in it despite its imperfections, and I find it dangerous when it is attacked for the wrong reasons. Especially by someone as intelligent as you.

Of course justice isn't written by the weak. But then the same is true with democracy. Does the fact that only 99.99% of people believe that raping a child is wrong mean that the lone child rapist is being unjustly controlled by evil laws designed merely to target him? How about if 10% believe a speed limit is too low, does that mean it is ok to break it? What about the 80% that believe women shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as men? Or the 70% who believe taxes are evil and shouldn't be paid? Or the 50% of young men who don't want to be drafted to defend their country?

Anyway let's agree to disagree on this and end it at that?

[Yellow]

guys,

in some sense I think that you're both right.
Law, history, even democracy are written by the majority but it's not always a bad majority. In many cases it's a good bunch of people trying to figure out what's best for the whole. They fail many times but they also achieve some good results in many other times.

I find with respect to the 4 officers that it is not a question of law as much as common sense. I am against attacks against the law but I'm 100% behind finding out why this happened in order to prevent it from happening again.

Like if some random guy (who turns out to be liar later on) goes and tells the authorities that I'm a the one who did whatever horrible act. Does that justify putting me in a cell for 4 years?!

Law, history, democracy may not be perfect or absolute but truth is!
And I think that the only thing worth fighting for in this or in any other situation is the truth.

[Dark Angel]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not a lawyer. (Heaven forbid!)

I just have enough indirect experience of how justice works to believe in it despite its imperfections, and I find it dangerous when it is attacked for the wrong reasons. Especially by someone as intelligent as you.

Of course justice isn't written by the weak. But then the same is true with democracy. Does the fact that only 99.99% of people believe that raping a child is wrong mean that the lone child rapist is being unjustly controlled by evil laws designed merely to target him? How about if 10% believe a speed limit is too low, does that mean it is ok to break it? What about the 80% that believe women shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as men? Or the 70% who believe taxes are evil and shouldn't be paid? Or the 50% of young men who don't want to be drafted to defend their country?

Anyway let's agree to disagree on this and end it at that?

There is a difference between the concept of justice and that of the law. Justice flows from values attributed to humanity overall, the same values that make rape and murders fundamentally wrong. while the law is an attempt to impose a set of rules on you as individual in terms of what you are allowed and what you are not allowed to do, and while these ‘does & donts’ can get easily confused with 'right & wrong', they are not the same and they do not flow from the same set of values.


Check this one for example, in some states in the US, it is illegal (ie against the law) to enter strip clubs unless you’re more than 21 years old, but you can work there as a stripper if you are 18. See, that’s a law that’s in sharp contradiction with the concept of justice.

Courts all across the world apply the laws very often without any consideration to justice, for example, the court system in the USA has sentenced dozens of people to long terms in prison, sometimes even for life, for crimes that were committed prior to invention of DNA testing. Later on DNA analysis showed that these were the wrong guys, and they are not positive matches. Most of these folks continue to serve their sentence in jail, because the law doesn’t allow them to appeal or they can only appeal after 10 or so years. that’s a violation of justice itself, and the law is being used to enforce an injustice in this situation.

I am not arguing against laws, I am just pointing out that they are at the service of a purpose other than justice.

we disagree :)

[Positive Balance]

Originally Posted by Dark Angel

we disagree :)

This is going way off topic, so as much as I'd love to respond to everything leading up to (and strengthening the truth behind) these 2 words, I'll leave you the last word and leave it at that. Goodnight.

[Bee]

يمكن تكون المحكمة عادلة.. بتمنى هالشي
ولكن هذا لا يعني ان يكون هناك محكمة لإغتيال شخص لبناني شيء طبيعي..
الطبيعي ان المحكمة تكون لبنانية.. مش غلط يكون في مساعدة اجنبية ولكن الغلط ان تكون المحكمة اجنبية بالكامل
هيدا انقاص من سيادة لبنان.. يا سياديوا الكاتورز