Tribunal: fair or unfair?

[>Watani<]

[Mich©]

The release of the 4 generals yesterday says nothing about the tribunal and its fairness. Ma hadan yrabbi7 jmeele regarding the release. It was not only long overdue, but shameful that they were even kept that long given that there was not single shred of evidence against them. According to the law, they should not have been kept longer than 90 days.
The tribunal didn't have a choice.

At this point, the judge may be fair, but what if he is changed? Who guarantees the fairness of the new judge? What if another Mehlis comes along?

The only choice we have is to wait and see... then we can judge.

[shadow1]

it doesnt matter if the tribunal is fair or not as long as it produces the right outcome. Otherwise it will be such a terrible anti-climax and not even funny.
If the end report is gonna be some legalistic jargon and no guilty verdict you'd have to feel sorry for these Lebanese politicians killed by phantoms and left a bitter legacy afterwards.

With that amount of money wasted on it, Lebanon can build a half-way decent Luna(tics) Park and have some left over money to buy remedies for the swine flu.

[Red Phoenix]

Originally Posted by shadow1

it doesnt matter if the tribunal is fair or not as long as it produces the right outcome. Otherwise it will be such a terrible anti-climax and not even funny.
If the end report is gonna be some legalistic jargon and no guilty verdict you'd have to feel sorry for these Lebanes politicians killed by phantoms and left a bitter legacy afterwards,

With that amount of money wasted on it, Lebanon can build a half-way decent Luna(tics) Park and have some left over money to buy remedies for the swine flu.

thousands upon thousands of (soon to be killed by the swine flu) lebanese are currently worried who killed rafic harriri through this tribunal (after their tv stations went bankrupt with lies).

somehow, this scene makes me wonder about the ironies of human fate..

[shadow1]

Originally Posted by Red Phoenix

thousands upon thousands of (soon to be killed by the swine flu) lebanese are currently worried who killed rafic harriri through this tribunal (after their tv stations went bankrupt with lies)

Entertaining ourselves with someone else's death is much better than refelcting on soon to be ours. Dont you think?
To tell you the truth I have a suspicion that those who are still holding the torch, havent noticed that few still care but most are just nosy and take-it-or-leave it kind of thing. Even the political dividends aren't as high as they once were and after this election and the tirbunal conclude, it's a forgotten history and newer assassinations might be more exciting.

somehow, this scene makes me wonder about the ironies of human fate..

It makes me wonder about the ills of idleness.

[Convergence]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

The issue of sovereignty is a very valid concern, I agree. But don't you think that the fact that these 4 generals were held for 4 years in Lebanon without trial is indicative of the inability of our judicial to objectively handle their imprisonment? And don't you think that the immediate repudiation of this detainment by the IT, as soon as it was posed with the issue, should at the very least reduce your suspicions about it?

Since you agree the issue of sovereignty is a valid concerd, you recognize that we have trade off between relying on a local corrupt institution or an international one with uncertain goals and a high degree of authority. There are pros and cons to both. How do you proceed from here to determine where along this trade off curve you want to be?

Is justice for Hariri's assassination even worth the possibility of such a powerful tribunal being used for shady purposes?

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

This is a catch-22. I can't argue against those. They either did the wrong thing and therefore are evil, or they did the right thing for the wrong reasons and therefore are evil. No reason can argue against such logic.

I was talking about "fairness", as subjective as the concept is. I did not mention "evil" anywhere.

It seems to me you are determined to reach a conclusion that the tribunal is "good". I just stated that no matter it's decisions regarding the generals, that does not mean it was "fair", even if it was fair to the generals. This is a fact.

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Convergence

Since you agree the issue of sovereignty is a valid concerd, you recognize that we have trade off between relying on a local corrupt institution or an international one with uncertain goals and a high degree of authority. There are pros and cons to both. How do you proceed from here to determine where along this trade off curve you want to be?

Is justice for Hariri's assassination even worth the possibility of such a powerful tribunal being used for shady purposes?

If there is a reasonable chance that "justice" as you mention it is in fact Justice, meaning the tribunal is fair, then yes it is definitely worth it. There is a strong correlation between the non-prosecution of political assassinations in Lebanon, and the continuation of such assassinations. Going after the criminals in one case (Hariri or other) is a first step to eliminating assassinations from our political life.

Originally Posted by Convergence

I was talking about "fairness", as subjective as the concept is. I did not mention "evil" anywhere.

It seems to me you are determined to reach a conclusion that the tribunal is "good". I just stated that no matter it's decisions regarding the generals, that does not mean it was "fair", even if it was fair to the generals. This is a fact.

It doesn't mean it wasn't either, right? In fact it hints that it is going to be fair. In your opinion, what are the metrics that should be used to judge whether the tribunal is fair or not?

Thanks,

[Convergence]

Originally Posted by Souss

If there is a reasonable chance that "justice" as you mention it is in fact Justice, meaning the tribunal is fair, then yes it is definitely worth it. There is a strong correlation between the non-prosecution of political assassinations in Lebanon, and the continuation of such assassinations. Going after the criminals in one case (Hariri or other) is a first step to eliminating assassinations from our political life.

If there is a reasonable chance, then I would agree. It is my opinion however, that the chance is close to zero.

No one still has any thoughts on why a tailor made tribunal was set up for Hariri's case setting a precedent in international law? Surely he is not the first high profile politician to be assasinated.

Originally Posted by Souss

It doesn't mean it wasn't either, right? In fact it hints that it is going to be fair. In your opinion, what are the metrics that should be used to judge whether the tribunal is fair or not?

Thanks,

As I said before there are three possibilities. Either the tribunal is fair, or it was trying to market it's credibility, or its now pro Assad for the most part due to some power brokering deal. I disagree that release of the generals hints to it being fair, from my perspective it hints to possibility three more than anything.

I do not know what metrics make a tribunal fair, as fairness is a very fuzzy concept. To say that it seeks the truth regardless of political bias is not sufficient for me, because of the selective justice argument mentioned before in this thread. Furthermore, different countries and intelligence services might feed the tribunal selective information to manipulate it's outcome even if the trial itself was of high legal standards.

[Souss]

Originally Posted by Convergence

If there is a reasonable chance, then I would agree. It is my opinion however, that the chance is close to zero.

No one still has any thoughts on why a tailor made tribunal was set up for Hariri's case setting a precedent in international law? Surely he is not the first high profile politician to be assasinated.

If the tribunal had continued the detention of the 4 generals, then a strong argument could be made that the chance is close to zero. But other than that, I see no valid argument, whether by looking at the current tribunal or other past ones.

Regarding the reasons behind the creation of the tribunal, certainly geopolitics played a role. At the time of Hariri's death and in subsequent months, there was a favourable environment at the Security Council that allowed the tribunal to go forward. Hariri's connections to certain world leaders must have also helped. In most if not all other cases, these conditions were not present. It doesn't mean that in Hariri's case, we should forego the opportunity to prosecute and punish criminals, on the contrary.

Originally Posted by Convergence

As I said before there are three possibilities. Either the tribunal is fair, or it was trying to market it's credibility, or its now pro Assad for the most part due to some power brokering deal. I disagree that release of the generals hints to it being fair, from my perspective it hints to possibility three more than anything.

I do not know what metrics make a tribunal fair, as fairness is a very fuzzy concept. To say that it seeks the truth regardless of political bias is not sufficient for me, because of the selective justice argument mentioned before in this thread. Furthermore, different countries and intelligence services might feed the tribunal selective information to manipulate it's outcome even if the trial itself was of high legal standards.

I think all we can do at this point is speculate. As I mentioned, we have to wait and see how the proceedings go, what the outcome is and the quality of the evidence presented. These are the metrics I would use. I also think we should distinguish between the Tribunal's fairness and its success, which would give the following outcomes:

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by Souss

What does "Successful" pertain to in this matrix, Souss? Because i wonder how does non-credible evidence still yield "Successful".