Quote:
Originally Posted by Positive Balance  If you have any proof of this, I recommend taking it public, or to the tribunal. By invoking international law, the 'other side' is exposing itself to moral criticism. That is, if you can prove that the evidence is fabricated, it wouldn't just exonerate the innocents being charged with a crime they didn't commit, it would tarnish those who purport to be acting with moral integrity.
As you undoubtedly already know, there have been allegations in the past of such things in international tribunals...
--- |
Proofs are public and it's been a scandal that the press have been relaying for more than 3 years.Here,take a quik look:
Released suspect, Syrian Ibrahim Jarjoura, was arrested in 2006 on suspicion he gave false evidence and mislead the investigation.
This is the third witness who recanted his testimony. One sits in a French prison,(Mohammed Zouhair Al Saddiq), one is now in Syria (Houssam Houssam),and Jarjoura is still in Lebanon. All three witnesses claim that they were pressured to testify against Syria.
The witness Ibrahim Michel Jarjoura said he was forced to offer a false and fabricated testimony against Syria at the international investigation committee into the assassination of former Lebanese Premier Rafik al-Hariri because he was under threats and pressures to do so. Jarjoura told Lebanese satellite NEW TV channel in an interview overnight that some Lebanese figures, particularly
Deputy and Minister Marwan Hamada, forced him, in return to some promises, to retell the fabricated story to the international probe and the Lebanese Attorney Said Mirza as well as Bahiya Hariri, sister of the slain Hariri. (...)
He added that Hamada and others told him to go to Ms. Bahiya Hariri house and tell her that he had information about who killed late Hariri without saying that he met Hamada.
They ordered him to tell Bahiya that he worked for the Syrian intelligence which trained him. “They made me memorize what I’m going to say to Bahiya…and tell her that Syrian General Hassan Khallouf and General Hassan Khalil had trained me to monitor figures in Lebanon, including the procession of Rafik Hariri.”
He said he told her what was ordered to state, and thought of escaping to report to his government but failed to do so as he was under constant monitoring by the Lebanese security.
------------------------------------------------------
Here is the one who now sits in a French prison,Mohammed Zuhair Al Siddiq,and noting that the French authorities have turned down the request of the Lebanese judiciary to question him.
First Mehlis report:
108. Mr. Saddik also gave information about the Mitsubishi itself and that the driver
eventually assigned had been an Iraqi individual who had been led to believe that the
target was Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (who happened to be in Beirut prior to the
assassination).
http://www.un.org/news/dh/docs/mehli...hlisreport.pdf
In a letter to the Syrian embassy in Paris he recanted his testimony, claiming that he "had been kidnapped":
The statement said Syria received a letter from another Syrian witness who has been identified by the report -- Mohammad Zuhair al-Siddiq -- stating that "he had been kidnapped and forced to make his previous testimony" to implicate Syria.
Syria denies slow UN cooperation | WORLD
Mohammad Zuhair al-Siddiq is now prosecuted on the charge that he gave false evidence and mislead the investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Houssam Houssam publicly recanted his testimony on national TV,and I'm sure that there is no one who didn't see him live that day.
A UN witness against Syria recants - International Herald Tribune
--------------------------------------------------------
Important remark:The 4 generals were arrested based on those false testimonies.Nothing else.
--------------------------------------------------------
Here is more:
CIA clandestine collectors reportedly were instrumental in aiding the United Nations' inquiry into the Feb. 14, 2005, assassination in Beirut of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
:SPECIAL SECTION : Redefining National Security: :Thin Ranks (1/1/06) -- www.GovernmentExecutive.com
---------------------------------------------------------
And a lot more....
So once again my conclusion:
Even if i have to accept the integrity of the tribunal,so far,everything points out at the fact that the whole process is corrupt and politicized,no matter the will or the best intentions of the judges.
This is what happens when a country compromises its sovereignty.It becomes vulnerable to others schemes.
And knowing in advance who is selectively presenting proofs to the tribunal and in the process, fabricating false testimonies,i only see problems ahead.
So my question again:
Even if i wanted to believe in the integrity of the whole tribunal,what guarantees do i have today,that further proofs won't be fabricated,and testimonies forged,in order to get some people to be dragged before this tribunal,whether as witnesses,or as accused,then be detained on their road back,for whatever other reason,not even related to the affair?
NONE.
Which means a lot of troubles ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Positive Balance And as an aside, Israeli sources have been speculating about a peace deal with Syria in which Syria, in return for peace, would get exonerated from this tribunal. So if this is considered a possibility, would it be possible that in certain circumstances, Israel would prefer -- and in turn the US might well support its ally -- a politicized outcome of the tribunal in which Syria is found wrongly accused? |
Let me be clear once again about this issue:
First,if Syria,Israel,US France or whomever gets indicted,I honestly don't care at all.
Because I do not believe or trust this whole charade,and mostly,because I don't really care anymore.
So I'm not here to defend or accuse anybody,but I'm only interested in keeping my country and its institutions from being harmed.
And so.if I see something wrong going on,I have the duty and the right to stand against it,without having to prove anything to anyone,especially since i believe that the old inquisitions and witch hunts methods,only reflect the weakness of the other side.
And this whole rhetoric based on finger pointing to people as being "with or against the truth" only makes me smile.
(please note that this is a general argument,not directed at you specifically)
Second,my main point was that this whole "international tribunal" is a fundamental breach to our state's sovereignty,and i explained that more than enough,at least in this post:
What will happen to the 4 generals after March?
Third,my subsidiary point,should i leave the argument about sovereignty aside,was that the whole danger in the process,was not the final judgment itself,but the trial period.
I personally think that the trial period will be elongated as much as possible,not by the court itself,but by the powers that are playing with the whole procedural process,in order to keep a sword,not above the heads of those who committed the crime,but above the Lebanese state.
And my main concern,is that those powers,will fabricate more false testimonies and forge more evidences,in order to push the court to call some key political figures,at least for testimony,if not direct accusations against them.(Notice that by the time they are being cleared,it would have been already too late)
And what we can be sure of is that many key figures,will definitely neither go,nor be handed to this tribunal.Especially if they should not have any guarantees.
I let you figure out the multiple catastrophic scenarios,and especially the one that shows how a power that needs to corner its enemies in Lebanon,can create a serious situation by simple instrumentation of the procedures of this tribunal.
1 false evidence and we're in a serious trouble.And this can happen anytime during the whole procedure that precedes the judgment.
Meaning that Lebanon is doomed to be unstable for years to come,and for what?
For a probable final deal between the powers that surround us.
How could that ever be acceptable,and how could we be so unfaithful to our country and to our sovereignty to accept such thing at the first place?
Some people only want their revenge and don't care about either the real truth or this country.
This I know and I understand.
But those who do not have anything to do with this whole mess,why should they agree on it?
It's because they are mislead,and taught to believe that this whole thing will "bring justice",or will "protect the country" from further assassinations or will "reveal the truth"or will "be good" to Lebanon...or...or...and other shady void slogans of that sort.
This is all a joke.How can one believe such tales and for how long?
Why should we jeopardize the sovereignty and the stability of our country for an assassination trial,at the first place? Nothing justifies jeopardizing the sovereignty of one own's country.
Sovereignty of a country is not just a light word.
And we jeopardize it and surrender it to foreigners,under the pretext of this international joke?
They even told us that the tribunal must be outside Lebanon for the procedure to take place in a calm and serene atmosphere...What a childish joke!
5th March 2009
