Jamil el Sayyed Attacking Saad Hariri

The Jade

The Jade

Legendary Member
Hala2 all what you care about in this mess is whether we support him or not ?
That's exactly my point since the beginning.

I would've preferred if the FPM and its supporters would just sit and watch scum beat each other.

File a lawsuit against him, shou nater ? No one is stopping you, but this is not the subject of this thread, so stick to the topic.
hehe, the last time I proposed that a collective lawsuit be filed against him, in this same forum, I was accused of stirring hate and even some people defended Sayyed as being innocent.
 
  • Advertisement
  • sarhay

    sarhay

    Well-Known Member
    My two cents on this matter is the following:
    -Jamil Sayyed was instructed to pursue his case in the Syrian judicial system
    - indicting non-Syrian citizens will allow the Syrian judicial system to request the Interpol-a Un body and syria is a UN member- to help them bring those suspect to court.
    - Individual suspect will refuse and argue it is a politically motivated case, then Interpol will concur and not follow suit.
    - The Special tribunal of Lebanon (STL) will issue its indictment; naming suspects.
    - if some of those suspect are Syrian or present on Syrian soil for that matter Syria can claim it's a political case and refuse to hand them in.
    - UN will ask assistance of superpower and the negotiation will start, who has the most bargaining chips will prevail.
    - Syria has an upper hand, so far, regardless of the STL indictment and they will argue from strong position.

    In the mean times, the powerless Lebanese will still be argue about jamil Sayyed and how bad he was/is and with counter arguments to such statements on and on and on ......
     
    Last edited:
    Jean

    Jean

    Legendary Member
    That's exactly my point since the beginning.

    I would've preferred if the FPM and its supporters would just sit and watch scum beat each other.
    Your point is off topic, since we're not discussing FPM's position on this matter, and there's no need to shove FPM in everything.

    Do you mind discussing the topic of this thread and staying away of FPM for a while ?
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    Can't we just sit and do nothing ?
    Can't we just concentrate our energy on other fights ?
    You're not sitting doing nothing, you're the one who has the most posts in this thread, do you see me posting in that thread? this how you don't waste energy on this subject: you just don't post!
     
    The Jade

    The Jade

    Legendary Member
    Your point is off topic, since we're not discussing FPM's position on this matter, and there's no need to shove FPM in everything.

    Do you mind discussing the topic of this thread and staying away of FPM for a while ?
    Actually, everything in this thread is about Sayyed's case and people's reactions about it.

    So it is exactly ON topic.

    I am discussing FPM's position, as you showed and discussed other parties' positions towards it.

    Dany,
    when I said, sit and do nothing, I was clearly talking about what should be done towards Sayyed.

    And what should be done is nothing
     
    Resistancefrom89

    Resistancefrom89

    Well-Known Member
    But the way I see it, I don't have any reason to say that the interantional tribunal is either American/french or Saudi.
    Are you sure you gave this a tought? If it is international, does it mean it is from Mars or Planet Moon or Sumatra? Who are the forces who installed this Tribunal?
    Who are the forces who will implement the decision of this tribunal? (those will not be the Angel of God implementing justice on earth)
     
    Resistancefrom89

    Resistancefrom89

    Well-Known Member
    That's exactly my point since the beginning.

    I would've preferred if the FPM and its supporters would just sit and watch scum beat each other.

    .
    I prefer seeing that FPM ensure that one would make it to the final round to have them both bleed to death; having Jamil el Sayed stopped by Hariri is too early in the game.

    First Hariri's Mafia need to go down, we need this hitman to do the job (it is not likely we will be able to find a hitman who is a Saint), and then we can think about arresting the hitman again.
     
    The Jade

    The Jade

    Legendary Member
    Are you sure you gave this a tought? If it is international, does it mean it is from Mars or Planet Moon or Sumatra? Who are the forces who installed this Tribunal?
    Who are the forces who will implement the decision of this tribunal? (those will not be the Angel of God implementing justice on earth)
    Does that mean that we shouldn't answer to international law anymore ?

    Should we become another Iran, North Korea or Cuba ?


    Do you want Lebanon to recuse itself from the UN and all international organizations ?
    Why don't you ask that Lebanon removes its support for any international tribunal ?

    If an international tribunal was to try the killers of members of your family, would you refuse it ?
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    And what should be done is nothing
    Jamil El Sayyed is on the frontline of our war to uncover, catch and punish those behind the false witnesses, with all that it implicates, and to bring to trial the heads of the regime that was put in place since 2005 and many of those involved with foreign intelligence services like the Mossad and others, deleting once and for all Fer3 El Ma3loumet (or reforming it), and putting for good, and out of business, people like Rifi, El Hassan and Mirza.

    I don't know if you noticed it, but the battle has already begun, from SHN's speech about the hunt for the false witnesses and those behind them, to GMA's declaration of war against Fer3 El Ma3loumet....to Jamil El Sayyed's latest declaration...

    It's all within the same scope, and within the same front, and we will all be there for it...

    Again, staying in the back seat and watching is not an option.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Why don't you ask that Lebanon removes its support for any international tribunal ?
    The Lebanese State's cooperation with the STL is illegal from many angles, one of them being that it was decided through a so-called treaty that was not negotiated and signed by the President and not ratified by the Parliament.

    Legally, it does not exist.
     
    Jean

    Jean

    Legendary Member
    نقلت معلومات صحفية عن مصدر قانوني بارز أن لبنان ملزم تطبيق مذكرات التوقيف السورية، مفندا ذلك بقوله إن هناك اتفاقا قضائيا سوريا-لبنانيا يعود الى العام 1951 وهو ملزم باعتباره معاهدة دولية بين دولتين مستقلتين يلتزم كل طرف منهما بالموجبات التي اخذها على عاتقه ومن ضمنها ما يطاول الشأن القضائي تحديدا، سواء لجهة تبادل التبليغات او المذكرات، وبالتالي فيما اذا كان لهذا الاتفاق ان يطبق تصبح التبليغات السابقة واجبة ومذكرات التوقيف الحالية واجبة التطبيق.
    وأكد المصدر القانوني ان هناك نوعا من الصلاحيات القانونية، ما بين ما يسمى الصلاحية الذاتية والصلاحية الاقليمية والصلاحية الشخصية والصلاحية الشاملة، وضمن اطار هذه الصلاحيات يمكن من وجهة نظر قانونية بحت ان يكون هناك امكانية لاقامة دعوى امام المحاكم السورية فيمااذا ثبت ان هناك من تضليل للتحقيق او افتراء وليس شهادة زور عملا بقانون العقوبات اللبناني، لأن شهادة الزور وشهود الزور لا يمكن ان يوجدوا قانونا الا اذا كانوا قد ادوا الشهادة امام المحكمة نفسها، والا فإن اي محاولة لتضليل التحقيق او محاولة الافتراء عملا بالمادتين 402 و403 من قانون العقوبات تجعلها خارج اطار شهادة الزور ولكنها لا تمنع الصلاحية الشخصية ولا الشاملة للدولة السورية في المحاكمة اذا كان احد ممن ضلل التحقيق سوريا واقيمت الدعوى بهذا الشأن، وهذه هي النقطة التي نفذ منها قانونا اللواء المتقاعد جميل السيد للادعاء امام القضاء السوري.


    source: elnashra

    Can we get more details about this ? is there anyone here who can explain further ?
     
    coralie

    coralie

    Legendary Member
    Ya khayye (or okhte :) ),
    I seriously couldn't care less about who killed Rafic Hariri.

    I am not defending the international tribunal, and I have my own opinion about it and I would gladly discuss it in its own thread.

    I am just rejecting the obvious syrian interference in our affairs.
    I am also denouncing the fact that scums like Sayyed are being shown as the victims here.

    That's all there is.

    But I won't start defending the syrians' arrest warrants just because the International Tribunal is allegedly bad.
    no one is asking you to deffend or to condemn anything objectivity in these cases is the best .

    when those 33 mafiosis serve a certain agenda and create/invent false witnesses to mislead a whole international investigation just to accuse Syria this become Syria's right to go after them . this has nothing to do with interfering in our affairs . the 33 were playing with fire let this fire burn them now .

    if our dear rullers had B*** enough to make things right and if our juridical system was not in a coma all this would have been avoided . but when your rullers were part of this dirty game and when your juridical system become 3abd el ma2mour what can we expect ?

    if the IT was realy made to serve justice this whole story of false witnesses would not have a place in our political scene . w fehemkon kfeyeh !

    for those who are asking FPM to condemn these warants i say why should we ? those 33 mafiosis commited forgery they took this country to hell for the past 5 years with all the bull about the IT , the investigations and the accusations , they lied to the people they filled their heads with all sort of hate and they are still doing so with the full protection of their respective leaders. let this genius governement do the job !
     
    J

    jmh

    Active Member
    But if your only hate for him, stems from the fact that at some point in time, you and him were fierce political opponents, and that he was very efficient in executing the orders of his superiors and the law of the State, then your war with him is over a long time ago and you need to turn the page, just like you did with his superiors and others, and just like he did with you.

    Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?
    From what I understand, you are saying that Sayyed was simply "very efficient in executing the orders of his superiors and the law of the State", so everyone should forgive and forget. Yet elsewhere you attack Rifi and others as thugs and criminals. I'd like to know what the difference is. Why is one enacting the "law of the State" and the other is a simply a thug?

    Does this distinction have any integrity or coherence at all?


    Now for what concerns this specific topic, any citizen has the right to pursue his rights before any jurisdiction and country he deems it necessary.

    But if you want to reject a foreign legal proceeding, as an alleged matter of principle, which is not legally justified by the way, then you need to apply the same principle you claim, on all foreign legal proceedings. Starting by the STL.

    And I see were your usual double standards prevents you from that.
    On the question of double standards, you might need to take a look at what you wrote above.

    As for the question of jurisdiction, very few national judicial systems have declared themselves as having universal jurisdiction, and that has only been for crimes against humanity and so on. (Belgium and Spain have tried it, but kind of unsuccessfully.) So far as I know, Syrian law doesn't include crimes that it will prosecute universally. I'm pretty sure it's not part of Syrian law because Syria wouldn't want to encourage that kind of infringement of national sovereignty. So do they have jurisdiction over perverting the course of justice in Lebanon? Surely not?
     
    J

    jmh

    Active Member
    The Lebanese State's cooperation with the STL is illegal from many angles, one of them being that it was decided through a so-called treaty that was not negotiated and signed by the President and not ratified by the Parliament.

    Legally, it does not exist.
    Rightly or wrongly, it was a Chapter VII decision by the Security Council, not a negotiation between the UN and the Lebanese government. So it's existence is beyond question.

    It's legality might be arguable. (Was this a matter of "international peace and security"?) But its constitution occurred through legal procedures under international law, and had nothing to do with Lebanon's government.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Rightly or wrongly, it was a Chapter VII decision by the Security Council, not a negotiation between the UN and the Lebanese government. So it's existence is beyond question.

    It's legality might be arguable. (Was this a matter of "international peace and security"?) But its constitution occurred through legal procedures under international law, and had nothing to do with Lebanon's government.
    And the reason for that were the Hezbollah MPs and their "allies", if memory serves us well, or at all!! They were going to oppose it and turn the country upside down, so Chapter 7 was the UN's preferred course of action. This is why the Tribunal can continue if the UN wants it to, no matter what Lebanon or the Lebanese government does.

    My guess is that the Tribunal will continue, an indictment will be issued. Thereafter negotiations will continue with the relevant parties in the region (not the gov of Lebanon), except the international community would have gained an additional card. This case may remain open for a very long time...
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Jamil El Sayyed is on the frontline of our war to uncover, catch and punish those behind the false witnesses, with all that it implicates, and to bring to trial the heads of the regime that was put in place since 2005 and many of those involved with foreign intelligence services like the Mossad and others, deleting once and for all Fer3 El Ma3loumet (or reforming it), and putting for good, and out of business, people like Rifi, El Hassan and Mirza.

    I don't know if you noticed it, but the battle has already begun, from SHN's speech about the hunt for the false witnesses and those behind them, to GMA's declaration of war against Fer3 El Ma3loumet....to Jamil El Sayyed's latest declaration...

    It's all within the same scope, and within the same front, and we will all be there for it...

    Again, staying in the back seat and watching is not an option.
    You are knowingly transforming the Tribunal into a political pissing match against the current government. All of this is well orchestrated with enough propaganda to reach the moon! :)

    Your camp may fool a few but shouldn't fool the majority who should be able to see right through this thinly veiled strategy. Your FPM allies, most of them know well what I am talking about, except choose to not to tackle it because it is not politically convenient for them to do so. I do not appreciate their approach but it is what it is...

    This tribunal is all about holding accountable, and for the first time in this country's history, some of those behind political assassinations. It has international legitimacy, it is conceived through chapter 7 and is independent of the hijacked Lebanese political system.

    The false witnesses diversion and smoke screen has no bearing on this Tribunal credibility. It is just that a smoke screen and propaganda tool that your camp is using to distract people and change the nature of the discourse and the refocus the attention of the street on another political "quest".

    I do hope and am optimistic, that there are enough clear minds in Lebanon that can see through the "opposition's" plans...

    Those supporting HA in opposing the tribunal are doings so out of fear. They may use different terms in explaining their support, but it boils down to fear. The people of the south (and Shiites in general), HA injects fear in their minds to make them malleable to its every whim, they do not fear HA but HA creates, nurses and fosters enough fear for them to keep them compliant, in addition to the financial and social services of course... Others are afraid to lose their own political bounty and line up with HA to protect their interests, others are afraid of HA turning the country upside down in a conflict and support HA in the name of the greater good, and under the guise of "the tribunal isnt worth it, we are doing the right thing!" but in reality it is FEAR.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    From what I understand, you are saying that Sayyed was simply "very efficient in executing the orders of his superiors and the law of the State", so everyone should forgive and forget. Yet elsewhere you attack Rifi and others as thugs and criminals. I'd like to know what the difference is. Why is one enacting the "law of the State" and the other is a simply a thug?

    Does this distinction have any integrity or coherence at all?
    The difference is very clear, and has to do with the difference between "simply following orders in accordance with the policy of the State" and "comitting crimes and conspiracies against the State and its people".

    The effective difference is that Rifi and El Hassan seem to be behind terrorist cells and intelligence with the enemy. They cannot say they were just following orders, because the State policy officially considers such orders to of the level of high treason.

    But if it happens that those 2 are not involved in such acts, then yes, they will should only demoted from their functions for incompetence and cannot be legally tried, unless they are involved in any other common crime.

    On the question of double standards, you might need to take a look at what you wrote above.
    Don't assume quickly before you get a clear idea and understanding about what you're reading.

    As for the question of jurisdiction, very few national judicial systems have declared themselves as having universal jurisdiction, and that has only been for crimes against humanity and so on. (Belgium and Spain have tried it, but kind of unsuccessfully.) So far as I know, Syrian law doesn't include crimes that it will prosecute universally. I'm pretty sure it's not part of Syrian law because Syria wouldn't want to encourage that kind of infringement of national sovereignty. So do they have jurisdiction over perverting the course of justice in Lebanon? Surely not?
    First, we are not in a case of crime against humanity. So let's not confuse things here.

    Second, the Syrian judicial system, like any other, has its own set of rules that determine their jurisdiction.

    One almost universal criteria that all judicial systems invoke for declaring their competence, is the involvement of nationals in the crime that is being presented to their court.

    Which is obviously the case.

    Now whether any judicial decision a Syrian (or any foreign) court takes, can be applied in Lebanon, is another story. Too complicated to explain here. But it is up to a Lebanese court to decide of its validity and regularity and possible application on the Lebanese ground, anyway.

    So no matter what, there is no infringement of Lebanese national sovereignty.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Rightly or wrongly, it was a Chapter VII decision by the Security Council, not a negotiation between the UN and the Lebanese government. So it's existence is beyond question.

    It's legality might be arguable. (Was this a matter of "international peace and security"?) But its constitution occurred through legal procedures under international law, and had nothing to do with Lebanon's government.
    I'm not talking about the way the STL was established.

    I'm talking about the "treaty" of cooperation between the Lebanese State and the STL.

    This "treaty" has no legal ground. Therefore, Lebanon must cease cooperation with the STL immediately, until a legal treaty is signed and ratified.

    Clear now?
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Now whether any judicial decision a Syrian (or any foreign) court takes, can be applied in Lebanon, is another story. Too complicated to explain here. But it is up to a Lebanese court to decide of its validity and regularity and possible application on the Lebanese ground, anyway.

    So no matter what, there is no infringement of Lebanese national sovereignty.
    The infringement may have already occurred, through occupation-inspired laws drafted under the occupation's gun, that may still be in the books... You know more about such things than many of us given your background in law.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    I'm not talking about the way the STL was established.

    I'm talking about the "treaty" of cooperation between the Lebanese State and the STL.

    This "treaty" has no legal ground. Therefore, Lebanon must cease cooperation with the STL immediately, until a legal treaty is signed and ratified.

    Clear now?
    The point is, it doesn't matter if Lebanon cooperates or not, or whether there is a treaty or not. The Tribunal was conceived under chapter 7 and is independent of the Lebanese political and judicial systems.
     
    Top