Zeid Hamdan Update

I was wrong. The guards didn't tell Zeid Hamdan to "go home". The judge did! Also, according to the article, there is an explanation for the 'tweet from jail' question:

As he was put into handcuffs, Hamdan managed to pass his mobile phone to his lawyer."I gave him my Facebook code and asked him to do an announcement to my Facebook profile, which he did."

I was wrong again. It was Facebook, not Twitter. What I find confusing is how a person can pass a mobile phone to someone else while being put in handcuffs without being noticed. And why did the lawyer need Zeid's phone to post on Facebook? Everybody knows that you can access Facebook from any payphone or telex office.

In an interview with NOWLebanon blogger Angie Nassar, Zeid had the following to say:

I have a feeling that all this is just a mistake. Someone wanting to do good with the president but not being clever or someone wanting to harm the president and give him a bad image. I don’t know, it’s so stupid, you know.

'Stupid' doesn't even begin to describe it.

Zeid Hamdan - Go home!

That's reportedly what the guards told Zeid when they released him last night.

I saw this video last year and promptly forgot about it, until I heard that Zeid Hamdan got arrested yesterday. First, here's the story as I understand it:

Zeid Hamdan made the music video over a year ago. In the past few days/weeks, he was taken in for interrogation three times for the 'crime' of 'slandering' President (General) Suleiman in his music video. At the end of the third session (yesterday) he was arrested, only to be released a few hours later. During his incarceration, he managed to tweet that he was in jail, and asked all of his friends to mobilize. And mobilize they did!

The (now) infamous video

The story seems pretty straightforward. But I have a few questions, and searching online, I can't find any more details that might help me answer those questions. Before I get into it though, let it be known that I FULLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY support freedom of speech in all forms, and condemn any government or entity that tries to curtail this freedom.

That being said, here are the points I would like to raise:

1) How was he able to send that tweet from a holding cell? Did his guards forget to take his cellphone? Or does he have a twitter implant?

2) Within a few hours of his tweet, facebook and twitter were being flooded by demands for his release. A protest was planned. People were rightfully enraged by the news. This might lead one to speculate that the government, seeing what a small protest over a polarizing issue has led to in other countries, decided to nip this problem in the bud and release him. While this may be the most obvious reason for the briefness of his stay in the can, is it the real reason? The Lebanese government we all know and love is a slow, sticky, lumbering and often smelly beast. While not outside the realm of possible actions our great bureaucracy can take, it is nevertheless extremely uncharacteristic.

3) Who is(are) the moron(s) who decided to arrest Zeid Hamdan in the first place? The video is on youtube and has been disseminated to many, many other websites. Zeid Hamdan has no control over it. They can't force him to 'take it down'. So this(these) complete buffoon(s) in the security apparatus, in the better interest of our president's good name, decided to arrest the guy who made the video, bringing the video front and center on every Lebanese computer screen. They unwittingly made the video (and its creator (and its 'slanderous' message)) famous!

What am I implying? You figure it out, nerds.

Blue line blues

The clash between the Lebanese army and the IDF yesterday sparked a flurry of commentary and accusations about which side was at fault.

UNIFIL soldier impotently waving a UN flag

Some claimed that Israel was responsible because they crossed the security fence to cut down the tree, an act constituting a violation of UN resolution 1701. It was therefore within the rights of the Lebanese army to fire at the Israelis. Others claimed that the tree was in Israeli territory and therefore there was no violation of resolution 1701 by Israel.

This brings up a few questions:

1) What is the relationship between the blue line and the security fence? Is the security fence located along the exact same path of the blue line?
2) If the two diverge, is the entirety of the security fence within Israeli territory? Are some parts of it in Lebanese territory?
3) Who built the security fence and when did they build it?
4) Again, if the two are not perfectly aligned, are there markings (posts, flags, etc.) to indicate where the blue line runs? If not, then how is the Lebanese army/IDF/UNIFIL able to tell with certainty if a given tree is one one side or the other of the blue line at a glance without using sophisticated technology?
5) Is the space between the fence and the blue line (assuming there is such a space) some sort of demilitarized zone? If so, what are the rules governing the rights of either party if the opposing party enters this zone?

All reports I've seen on this incident have been very vague on the issue of the blue line/security fence. Those blaming Israel seem to be claiming that the fence IS the blue line, and the those defending Israel seem to be claiming that the blue line (at least in the area of the fighting yesterday) is farther north of the fence.

Unless the questions above are addressed, and unless there is a consensus on the answers, the accusations will continue to fly with none bearing any weight.

The series of events that lead to the fighting are, for the most part, not in dispute. So what remains is for the UN to declare that the IDF either crossed into Lebanese territory or it didn't (or, in the case of the demilitarized zone theory, was it within Israel's rights to cross into the zone), which would decide the whole thing.

Tribunal tribulations

How can the LF leader make these statements and sound in any way credible? At the risk of stating the obvious, consider the following scenario:


- Mr. A is found dead. Three witnesses come forward, all stating that Mr. B did it.

- Mr. B gets arrested and waits in jail for the investigation to continue.

- Later, Mr. B is released with no charge, completely innocent.

Shouldn't it follow that the witnesses who came forward to accuse Mr. B, at the very least, be interrogated? Why did they all tell the same (false) story? Who was behind it? Could the witnesses possibly provide clues as to who the real culprit was, or at least lead investigators in the right direction?

Now back to the situation at hand. My point here is not to defend the four security chiefs or Syria. The security chiefs who were arrested are no angels. There is no shortage of accusations that they are corrupt individuals who helped Syria strangle the country during the occupation. Ideally, they should be investigated for those crimes, as should every official in Lebanon who is suspected of corruption.

Since the security chiefs were arrested on the testimony of multiple witnesses and later released, then the witnesses' testimonies were false, in which case those witnesses merit investigation. This is not rocket science.

So how can anyone then imply that there are no false witnesses?

If the tribunal is not investigating the witnesses (and to all appearances it is not), how can Rafik Hariri's son, Saad, or we, the Lebanese, or the UN view it as a credible body that is performing its duties with due diligence?

Again, everything I've said here is obvious, but it seems that many people either refuse to see it, or in the case of certain politicians, actively deny it.

Am I way off here? Is there something I'm missing?

The gods must be financially inept

Somewhat related to a previous post, I found this today. It seems that our fellow Asians over in India are taking religion to the next level:

AN Indian court has ruled that Hindu gods cannot deal in stocks and shares, after an application for trading accounts to be set up in their names.
Two judges at the Bombay High Court yesterday rejected a petition from a private religious trust to open accounts in the names of five deities, including the revered elephant-headed god, Ganesha.
"Trading in shares on the stock market requires certain skills and expertise and to expect this from deities would not be proper," judges P.B. Majumdar and Rajendra Sawant said, according to Indian newspapers.

Apparently, the judges don't think Ganesha can handle the stresses of the stock market. Who can, right?

Ganesa or Ganesh, also known as Ganapati,
Vinayaka, and Pillaiyar

If it was up to me, they should open up a brokerage firm, or a fund management company in Ganesha's name. Who better to manage your assets than the 'remover of obstacles' who also happens to be immortal?