تقارير: ميقاتي التقى نصرالله في خلال فترة الأعياد

Same cheap boring rhetoric ..."the US-Israeli conspiracy" against poor innocent little Nasrallah... Go hide deeper underground!

chickenshit come out and play

who is this creature????? he sits like king and discusses budgets? can he count in the first place?

Nasrallah should get it in his thick skull that the STL will not cease operation despite all his barkings...
Hassouni...What is the alternative to try and bring to justice who committed these henious crimes?? Or do want us to just think that all the victimes have died by slipping on a banana skin!!!!

lol shab, you da man yo! abaday!

Amazing fact(s): a self-confessed atheist **worships** the party of "God"........( pun intended )

minx we want truth, and justice. not a carnival like the stl

profile: i worship no one. i support our national resistance. atheist yet patriotic.

@minx: mowaten iranian also wants the truth and justice, not through venues like the "carnival" STL, but rather through transparent independent judicial investigative authorities typically found in his beloved iran or syria and chaired by a mullah or ayatollah from Qom. Silly minx, that is how people like mowaten seek the truth and eventually find it.

calling me iranian is a very worn out rhetoric, but since you guys pretend the STL is not a joke, explain the following:

the source: http://www.stl-tsl.org/x/file/TheRegistry/Library/BackgroundDocuments/RulesRegulations/STL_Rules_of_Procedure_and_Evidence-En.pdf

Rule 110
Disclosure by the Prosecutor
Subject to the provisions of Rules 115, 116, 117 and 118:
(A) the Prosecutor shall make available to the Defence in a language which the accused understands [...]
(i) copies of the supporting material which accompanied the indictment [...]
(ii) [...] copies of: (a) the statements of all witnesses whom the Prosecutor intends to call to testify [...]

>>up to here we agree, this is logical, any trial in the world requires that the prosecution presents proof and testimonials on which the accusation is based. BUT let's have a look at the beginning: "Subject to the provisions of Rules 115, 116, 117 and 118"

Rule 115
Protection of Victims and Witnesses
(A) In exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor may apply to the Pre-Trial Judge or Trial Chamber to order interim non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such a person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal.

First irregularity, this rule allows to have anonymous witnesses. This is something you will find in no court in the world, except the STL. The lame excuse invoked (their protection) is not receivable anywhere else and that is why there are witness protection programs, where they are given new identities and a fresh start life somewhere else to protect them.

Rule 116
Application and Grounds for Non-Disclosure
(A) Where information in the possession of the Prosecutor is not obtained under or otherwise subject to Rule 118, and its disclosure would ordinarily be required under Rule 110 or 113, but such disclosure (i) may prejudice ongoing or future investigations, (ii) may cause grave risk to the
security of a witness or his family, or (iii) for any other reasons may be contrary to the public interest, the Prosecutor may apply ex parte to the Trial Chamber sitting in camera to be relieved in whole or in part of an obligation under the Rules to disclose that material. When making such
application the Prosecutor shall provide the Trial Chamber with the information that is sought to be kept confidential, together with a statement relating to the proposed counterbalancing measures including, inter alia: identification of new, similar information; provision of the
information in summarised or redacted form; or stipulation of the relevant facts.

this one here is just hilarious, in case presenting the evidence in contrary to "general interest" (ROFL) they just hide it, "present it to the judges" and give you a "summarized report" or just state "the relevant facts"
in brief this means i can convict and condemn you based on proof you will not see, all i need to do is tell you the relevant fact, such as "this invisible proof said you're guilty, what do you answer to that for your defense?"

Rule 117
Security Interests of States and Other International Entities
(A) Where information in the possession of the Prosecutor is not obtained under or otherwise subject to Rule 118, and its disclosure would ordinarily be required under Rule 110 or 113, but such disclosure may affect the security interests of a State or international entity, the Prosecutor may apply ex parte to the Pre-Trial Judge sitting in camera for an order to be relieved of his obligation to disclose in whole or in part, or subject to counterbalancing measures provided for in Rule 116(A). (amended 5 June 2009)

Here they simply tell you that is would be legal to not disclose proof if that proof may affect the security of a state (say for instance that state is israel, and the proof shows that they have something to do with it, then the LEGALLY can not show that proof)
the counterbalancing measure are the same as above, like stating facts, but with no way for the defense to verify or contradict

and a bonus one :
Rule 113
Disclosure of Exculpatory Material
Subject to the provisions of Rules 116, 117 and 118, the Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable,
disclose to the Defence any information in his possession or actual knowledge, which may reasonably
suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or affect the credibility of the Prosecutor’s
evidence.

sound logical? yes indeed. BUT it is immediately overrun by this:

Rule 116
Application and Grounds for Non-Disclosure (as seen above)
Rule 117
Security Interests of States and Other International Entities (as seen above)
Rule 118
Information never Subject to Disclosure without Consent of Provider (you may go to the link and read it yourself

those three exceptions, which are quite vague and allow for a LOT of leeway, just make it legal that the prosecution withhold any proof of the innocence of the accused, or anything affecting the credibility of the accusation, simply if it affects "general interest" (may I ask of whom??) and the security of a friend state (may i again ask of whom???)
now guys if you want to stand such a trial, go ahead, be my guests, but for observators with half a brain, from the entire world, this is merely a joke

now give me thumbs down instead of debating the core issue, just to show how smart and rational you guys are, or send "profile" to copy paste his usual junk, just to confirm you have nothing to answer on the core. :)

@mowaten
Art115 You forgot to metion the following:
"2.In the determination of interim non-disclosure of the identity, the Pre-Trial Judge or Trial Chamber may consult the Victims and Witnesses Unit. (amended 30 October 2009)
3.Subject to Rule 133, the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed in sufficient time prior to the trial to allow adequate time for preparation of the defence."

So... if you intend people to read your analysis at least try to be analytical, not biased.

PS: I know that you're no spelling bee freak...but anyway:
It's not "Defence", it's Defense!
It's not "summarised" but summarized!
It's not "observators" (my personal favorite) but Observers!

So, before you try and correct my spelling (which was right btw), focus on yours wiseguy!

An arrogant blogger whose belief is "the more I post, the more credible I am".

LOL.... poor mowaten lost it.....!

of course i did not quote the entire RPE document, nor the entire text of every rule, or else my post would have been twice as long as it already is.
but still willing to understand from you how these two articles change anything?
first article says they may chose to not disclose under "certain" circumstances
article 2 says the judges may consult the victims and witnesses. note: judges, not defense attorney!
article 3 says they will reveal in sufficient time prior. ... but subject to rule 133 which allows, among others, use of pseudonyms, non-disclosure of names, giving testimony through closed circuit television or shielding the accused from the direct view of the witness.

still doesn't contradict any of the above.

you had my apologies here www.naharnet.com/stories/en/26279-french-journalist-among-7-dead-as-rocket-hits-reporters-in-homs

and here it's your turn to waste my time with wrong corrections ;)
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/OBSERVATOR

"First irregularity, this rule allows to have anonymous witnesses."
Not anonymous at all ya mowaten. They are allowed some protective measures under "exceptional circumstances". This is quite common in tribunals all over the world.

i think profile should add to your "repertoire", a criminal defense attorney:) you are pathetic and beyond arrogant......!!!! go commit suicide and save the planet, loser.

would i have a cookie or reply to this article?...crunchcrunch...miam

Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it...... in this case very much!!!!

hahahaha...ok my bad!

1 wrong correction...the 2 others are valid my dear...that leaves us with:
Mowaten: 1
thepatriot:3
;)

cookie... eat properly,... and silently please. We are not in Dahie!

shallowness at its best. done wasting my time. you guys can't be reasoned with, and anyway you don't matter in any way. you are merely followers with no weight whatsoever. keep dreaming.

So, how can you tell if a person is, or is being an idiot? Whenever you see someone have one or more of the following characteristics during an argument or debate:
▪ Acts like he knows what he’s talking about, but really has no idea.
▪ Doesn’t have the intelligence to be able to make sound conclusions based off of logic and reasoning.
▪ Only acknowledges facts that support his or her claims and ignores the facts that contradict it.
▪ Lets his or her personal bias blind him or her from reality.
▪ Changes what he is arguing about when proven wrong.

and finally, does not exit gracefully....!

lol profile i thought you were on thepatriot's side, why do you call him an idiot?

.......and finally, does not exit gracefully....!

patriot you have sthg against eating in dahie? not very open minded from you..

Cookie_Monster: indeed, what a disgraceful comment!

@profile
respect dude....! great, he is unbearable and overbearing......

▪ Changes what he is arguing about when proven wrong.

roflmaooooo @ profile......hehehehe..... you are giving this thug nightmares:)

Miqati to Nasrallah: Looks like I got you by the short and curlies.
Nasrallah to Miqati: I know, nice necktie is it Zionist, American or Western?