The HOBEIKA and Hariri assassinations were definitely terrorism....Made in USA/Israel and the Syrian mafiosi Asef Shawkat....through the Infamous White House Murder INC,....
It is an impossibility that the IJT could come-up with an internationally acceptable definition of "terrorism," to be used in the Hariri case, when the tribunal in that case was set in motion as a ploy to convert a false flag attack into an indictment of American and Israeli adversaries, Hezbollah and Iran. If there is any question which definition of the term "terrorism" to pursue, the Lebanese crafted definition or the most acceptable international legal interpretation, then the jurists themselves are set on a "terroristic" path, of sorts, which has used an implied threat of international force against the Lebanon Resistance, and Iran , as a means to force political submission. The American instigated STL in Lebanon appears to work backward from the assumption of Hezbollah guilt, looking for evidence to support that assertion--none of this "innocent until proven guilty crap." The HOBEIKA and Hariri assassinations were definitely terrorism, since all political assassinations are clearly acts of terrorism-- violence or murder of high profile individuals to intimidate political underlings, "making an example" of an enemy... in the great scheme of things of the most Infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant, since January 24th 2002. All Mafia hits would fit the definition of "terrorism," by their nature, intended to intimidate and force submission from adversaries....
http://newhk.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-perpetuates-utter-lies-between.html
http://newhk.blogspot.com/2011/01/components-of-white-house-murder-incs.html
Lenin had a better definition than the Lebanese Criminal Code--"The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize."
There is no need to define specific acts of terror, other than simply "violence on individuals to force compliance or submission from others." "Violence" need not be fatal or even bloody to fit the known acts of terror we have seen--poisoning, kidnapping, any suppression of individual rights against the person's will is violence, violating the person. "Terrorism" is using such violence to overwhelm inalienable human rights.
The prosecution has proposed its own politically expedient definition that is total bullshit:
As an act by which “a substantial section of the public reasonably and significantly fears more than momentarily from the present onward, indiscriminate personal harm”. This definition says nothing about the terrorists' extortion of political goals. The total silence about the state-sponsorship angle of all large acts of terrorism is deafening. The goal of the prosecutors is not to produce a solid definition, but a "working tool" for future trials. Experts contend that fixing a definition would enable the prosecution to link terrorist crimes to leaders--exactly what the Imperial side doesn't want.
Until states are willing to define the crime of terrorism clearly and concisely, eliminating all wiggle room for the Imperial wigglers, state terrorism will continue masquerading as an international war of self-defense, while eliminating groups and individuals who actually are trying to defend themselves from the scourge of humanity--State-Sponsored Terrorism....
http://www.rnw.nl/international-justice/article/wanted-a-definition-terrorism
For decades, international lawyers have wrangled over the question – What is terrorism? Is it an act designed to spread terror? Does it have a political motive? Does it involve an attack on a few people or a lot of people? Since 1914, philosophers have pondered whether the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Sarajevo can be classified as an ‘act of terror’. More recently, the September 11 attacks in the US, have brought the issue of international terrorism to the forefront of debate, and with it the question of its very definition...
By Geraldine Coughlan, Leidschendam
Today, while there are a variety of definitions of terrorism in a dozen international conventions, the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon near The Hague, has taken the first step towards arriving at a single definition of the crime of terrorism.
The Court is due to rule on 16th February, on which definitions of terrorism and other crimes that it will apply. It is expected that this ruling will set a precedent for other international courts, which also want to see a universal definition of terrorism as much as they want to see their prime terrorist suspects, in the dock.
The Lebanon tribunal is the first international court with jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism, but it is grappling with how to apply Lebanese and international law, before including a terrorism charge in potential arrest warrants. As the tribunal applies Lebanese law, but has an international character, the question is – should a definition of terrorism be based on Lebanese law or international law?
In its first hearing on 7th February, the court’s lawyers and judges began thrashing out the question of what constitutes an act of terrorism and other crimes such as conspiracy and homicide, as they prepare to prosecute suspects for the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.
As the tribunal is based on the Lebanese Criminal Code,
which already has a definition of the crime of terrorism, the prosecution and defense have now agreed on applying that definition, which is that ‘acts of terrorism’ are acts which are intended to cause a state of alarm and are committed by means such as explosive devices, liable to pose a public threat.
The prosecution has even proposed its own definition,
as an act by which “a substantial section of the public reasonably and significantly fears more than momentarily from the present onward, indiscriminate personal harm”.
The prosecution claims there’s no need to prove political intent as a motive for a terrorist act and argues that its own definition will act as a ‘working tool’ for use in future trials.
Most legal experts agree that it is important to define terrorism and other notions such as conspiracy and joint criminal enterprise, to make it easier to link crimes to leaders. This is one of the difficulties in cases before the ICTY and suspects could expect tougher sentences, if the definitions of these crimes were more clear and concise.
The defense, though, is against agreeing on firm definitions, claiming this would prematurely impose them on trial judges, limiting the rights of the accused.
Meantime, there is still no consensus on how the world community regards the crime of terrorism and its place in domestic and international law. The crux of the matter lies in the difference between Articles 2 and 3 of the Tribunal’s statute. Article 2 refers solely to Lebanese law, while Article 3 relies directly on international law, and so reflects the international character of the Tribunal. Does this mean there is a conflict between the definition of terrorism in the Lebanese Criminal Code and the notion of terrorism as reflected in international law? The judges are adamant that international law is relevant in determining the notion of terrorism and as Lebanon has ratified the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the judges believe the Lebanese definition of terrorism should be based on the norms of international law.
As the tribunal is moving into “uncharted territory in international law”, the judges are concerned about whether the public will easily be able to understand the complex legal issues involved in defining terrorism.
The presiding judge Antonio CIA Cassese, warned that Lebanon, as a founding member of the UN, is now set on a “course of judicial accountability” in aiming to establish a common definition of terrorism, which is a common threat to us all. However, until states can agree on a single definition – it will be argued that the notion of terrorism does not actually exist....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18
....
(e)SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
