STL's 2nd Day of Testimonies Focus on Truck Seen in CCTV Footage near Hariri Blast Site

Any other justice u propose? What would hv been the alternative?...
Roar it is nice to see what better could hv been done, but compare to what was proposed this zionist/takfiri/imperialist/ksa tribunal put under charter 7 of the UN suits me fine..
But again if u had any better suggestion please do share it with us...
Really no Chupachups roar?..

Wait!! wait!! wait!! Dont act like an impatient teenager hoping to lose his virginity! Patience and you will see what they have my friend. This is merely scratching the surface, I'll bet anything they have undisputable facts.

No roar, i have my own opinion (still syrian regime has given the orders for me ) but waitting for the trial results...
Does it answer ur question roar?..

Well u were contesting the work of this tribunal, i also wish ot was perfect, i also wish for a world with no tribunals where anyone lives with no problems no killings no rape no injustice.. But to get back to reallity this is the best tool available compares to the one i hv sited (which are seen by patriotic hezbos are good instances....)
Thanks again for ur post, plus one for u (again..)
No chupachups?

dont even bother roar, they have no proof and no case, but the outsome has been determined years ago.

by ignoring leads that weren't "convenient", by using telecom data which has been under full control of israel through their agents, by being unable to say who bought the phones (in tripoli) and who bought the truck (also in tripoli), and by not even being able to identify the suicide bomber (also from tripoli?) they have no credibility.

That's the best response you can come up with? show me one country where a defendant can put a prosecutor in jail? do you even understand the concept or law and order? epic fail!
you can't stop the inevitable. The world are going to see your hizb for the terrorists and murderers they truly are.

nobody:
rule 145 of the RPE of the STL is about questioning the witnesses. A and B say there is a right to cross examination, but article C says:

"The Trial Chamber may decide to depart from the modes of proceeding provided for in paragraphs (A) and (B) wherever it considers that this is required by the interests of justice"

that is totally arbitrary.

more, anonymous witnesses:
Where
, at any stage of the proceedings,
there is:
(i)
a serious risk that a witness or a person close to the witness would lose his life or suffer grave physical or mental harm as a result of his identity being revealed, and measures for the protection of witnesses as provided for in Rule 133
would be insufficient to prevent such danger; or
(ii)
a serious risk that imperative national security interests might be jeopardised should the witness’s identity or affiliation be revealed

At the request of the Prosecutor, the Defence, or a legal representative of a victim participating in proceedings, the Pre-Trial Judge shall question the witness in the absence of the Parties

meaning, they call anonymously take the testimony of a mossad agent, and not even give a chance to the defense to cross-examine him.

they *can* anonymously take the testimony of a mossad agent, and not even give a chance to the defense to cross-examine him. (claiming that his affiliation -mossad- could jeopardize "national security interests")

Rule 117
Se
curity Interests of States and O
ther
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 dis
closure 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 counterbal
ancing
measures provided for in Rule 116(A)

call that justice? ROFL. at least in third-world countries they dont put on all that show when they make political trials.

the copy paste is acting weird, but that last rule says that the prosecutor can abstain from showing evidence if the "interests of a state" are at stake.
he can just show them privately to the judges ONLY

the defendants and their lawyers dont even get to see the evidence, yet they can be convicted based on it.

momo- that rule was put in place to protect witnesses from being knocked off by your employers. They have yet to use it. what in the world would a mossad agent be doing testifying? good God man! is there anything that you can't try and tie to Israel as a cover for your boss's crimes? does Israel control the world for the sole purpose of discrediting the mighty HA because they can't defeat them in a war (divine victory might i add). Have you ever heard of a whistle blower? not a single person has decided to blow the whistle on this conspiracy theory that you so adamantly claim it to be? not even anonymously? BTW- those rules apply to the prosecution as well. they are afforded the same privileges as long as they make their case. It is called justice! something that is foreign to your employers.

*same rules afforded to the prosecution and defense.

nope mish-mash, the defendants can't put the prosecutor in jail without showing him any evidence. the reverse is possible.

hat's the best response you can come up with? show me one country where a defendant can put a prosecutor in jail? do you even understand the concept or law and order? epic fail!
you can't stop the inevitable. The world are going to see your hizb for the terrorists and murderers they truly are.

you're so retarded i feel sad for you.
(no offense intended to mentally challenged people)

Same apply to me.. Please naharnet we are preaching democracy, so even if we donnot agree we must at least be able to share our ideas... (Given it is no insults and such...)

or maybe u're paid to do it...

the_roar: please read this

20 minutes ago A member of the Defense, representing Badreddine, took his turn to cross-examine the witness.

yea popeye, nobody said they can cross-examine NO WITNESSES. they can cross examine a few, but they can be denied that right selectively.

hahahahaha!!!! I wonder what the_roar is thinking now:)))

So they donnot show takfiri/cia/zionist/ksa blowing hariri?..
Just a guess, what did u had in mind?

Here is your complete quote, let other readers be the judge of who is misquoted:

"i'm willing to say that hezbollah killed hariri. how will the lebanese deal with it? the same way they dealt with geagea killing rashid karami or the frangieh church massacre. they will come to the point where they need to understand that the page must be turned and that there is no way to govern in any cabinet or any parliament without hezbollah by your side. only when hezb itself decides its resistance and military are no longer needed, will it disband by its own accord and without anyone forcing it."

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/114521-stl-defense-emerges-confused-and-divided-from-first-two-days-of-trial

Please allow me to summarize your comments:

1. Yes, Hezbollah killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri
2. Let's just pretend it didn't happen
3. Let's also pretend that Hezbollah didn't kill Gemayel, Tueni, Kassir, Hawi, Eid, Ghanem, Eido, al Hassan, and Chatah
4. Let's pretend some more that they didn't try to kill Murr, Hamadeh, Chidiac, Shehadeh, and Harb
5. After all this pretending, let's allow the killers to be part of the cabinet with the people they tried to kill
6. Let's allow Hezbollah to decide if and when they want to stop killing their political opponents
7. Let's allow Hezbollah to decide if and when they want to disarm

For more gems from Fit-Thrower, he says that the killing of Hariri by Hezbollah is, and I quote:

"an assumption I am willing to take"

See the quote in the comments section of this article:

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/115135-one-soldier-killed-8-wounded-in-ongoing-tripoli-clashes