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?