(Note: Nasser Qandil, second from right, is not detained)
Monday, March 17, 2008
US Dept. of State: ".. Mirza informed UN's Brammertz that "local political considerations" are cause for their continued detention without charges.."
STATE's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2007'), here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Actually, and this is not the first time you do this type of cheap trick, this is not what the DoS report says. What is says is the following, quoting none other than your boss:
>>According to an August 28 Daily Star report, one of the detainees, General Security Major General Sayyed, reported that State Prosecutor Said Mirza informed UN Chief Investigator Brammertz that "local political considerations" were the cause for their continued detention without charges.<<
Not quite the same, is it?
I am delighted that you are THE dissector of my cheap tricks.
If you ask me: EXACTLY the same! Just by putting this the DoS's report!
You haven't lived long in DC have you?
No actually I'm not asking you. I'm telling you, it's not the same thing. Whatever your murder suspect boss says he thinks the judge told the investigator means squat. Or for that matter what you, Akram Azouri and the entire team at al-Akhbar and Le Monde Diplomatique say. But I digress.
Anon,
Does "In November a working group of the UN Commission for Human Rights cited the case as an example of arbitrary detention" do anything for you?
Contrary to the myths propagated by the likes of the author of this blog and other Jamil Sayyed and Michel Samaha operatives, that "working group" is completely irrelevant, and we know precisely what the story behind that "report" (and the role of the Iranians therein) was. So please, play that record to someone who's stupid enough to be impressed.
As for your boss, gpc, the only place he'll oversee is his cell in the Hague as he awaits the verdict for his role in the murder of Hariri, Fuleihan and some 20 other people on February 14, 2005.
Anon? you're still here? Nice to have you such an avid reader of this "irrelevant blog" ... thanks for the hits!
One thing: how is it that Assayed is my boss?
and ... oh .. you forgot SY HERSH!
Cipriani Raghida?
Anon,
Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that the US state dept. is now pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian? Its their site and their report after all.
No mo I'm suggesting that the author of this blog intentionally misquoted what the report said. The report quoted a piece in the Daily Star which quoted Jamil Sayyed. It wasn't the Dos making that statement.
As for the Iranian issue, it's related to this bogus, completely unofficial "working group" that issued that report, and the Iranians (and Sayyed's posse) were directly behind that. I'm sure gpc can tell you more about that.
Anon, I take your point on both issues and you may have a point on both issues.
However, gpc quoted a US State dept. report and I still do not understand why the US State department would give either report any credence if it believed they were as bogus as you are suggesting.
Surely, considering the US position on this, any chance of dismissing such reports would be taken, no?
Actually, anonymous, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions is not some silly outfit but part of the UN Commission on Human Rights, and they did quite a bit of research with the help of Lebanese HR outfits that concern themselves with ALL arbitrary detentions and disappearances, including those Lebanese perishing in Syrian jails (for so many years with YOUR bosses' complicity, may he rest in peace. All 220 dead pounds of him.)
Nobody, not even our favorite puppet Snora, flat out denies what Mirza said. They simply throw the ball in one of two courts: 1) that the arrests and detentions were made upon Mehlis' orders/ recommendations. or 2) that decisions made my the chief magistrate are not subject to review, constitutionally.
Not only has a politically inexpedient decision to arrest, detain and not charge the suspects been reported as such by the UN and picked up by the State Department, but there's also no evidence or reason (despite your feelings about any of the Generals' conduct) to dismiss what is well-known and furthermore, painfully obvious, given Brammertz's statement that the commission had finished questioning the Generals and his reports which show without a doubt that he distanced himself from his predecessor's actions, preferring to focus on the nitty-gritty and unspectacular details of collecting evidence that will hold up in a court of law.
Unless you are privy to information that neither the generals' counsels , the media and these various Human Rights outfits are unaware of, I don't see what your objection is.
Perhaps you are of the school of thought that human rights is some lily-livered third-world-radical leftist unpatriotic sport.
It is not surprising that a functioning arm of the State Department would print opinions that reveal the hypocrisy of US policies in the region, because those hypocrisies simply abound and cannot be worked around all the time.
Probably closer to 300+ pounds, if you ask me. But well said, nonetheless.
ghassan,
when they are trying to protect the worlds most profitable feudal system, human rights are just one of those things that get in the way.
They didn't seem to care about the Lebanese in Syrian prisons when they were slicing up the $41 billion of debt theyu were lumbering us with between them and Kenaan or when they were forcibly dispossesing the owners of the buidings in downtown Beirut.
Why would they start now?
Annonymous T
I am intregued by your passionate comments on general El Sayed
were you a victim of his?if yes please tell me how.I am interrested to know the secret of your drive
Post a Comment