Rafiq Hariri's Assassination Case

​

3 October 2020

 

Comfortably Numb: Rafiq Hariri’s Assassination Case at Lebanon’s International Tribunal

 

Introduction

On 14 February 2005 a huge explosion caused the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others, in Beirut, Lebanon. The killing occurred when the country was celebrating Valentine’s day.[1] Contrary to the Lebanese and international investigations, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Prosecutorial approach, two important pieces of information lead to the proposition that the United States’ government was responsible for carrying out this murder. The first are statements and behaviour by former CIA official Robert Baer; the second are the American President Donald Trump’s statements immediately after the recent explosion at Beirut’s port on 4 August 2020, and the subsequent tense dialogue with his security establishment regarding them.

 

This briefing reviews the United Nations response to the Hariri assassination, examines the Prosecution’s case and the Trial Chamber’s judgment, provides alternative theory for the perpetration of the Hariri assassination, and notes Israel’s possible involvement in political assassinations in Lebanon, a subject that will feature in our next report.    

 

The Hariri Assassination and the United Nations Response

United Nations Mission of Inquiry into the Circumstances, Causes, and Consequences of this bombing established pursuant to U.N. Security Council President’s statement of 15 February 2005 recommended on 24 March 2005 that an international commission of inquiry should be established to investigate this crime.[2] U.N. Security Council resolution 1595 of 7 April 2005 formed such a commission of inquiry with the approval of the Lebanese Government known as the International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) mandated to “aassist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects of this terrorist act, including to help identify its perpetrators, sponsors, organizers and accomplices.” This Commission produced eleven reports between the date of its formation and 10 December 2008.

 

U.N. Security Council resolution 1757 of 30 May 2007 adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter established a Special Tribunal for Lebanon based on agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Government.[3] The Objective of the Tribunal according to this agreement is to prosecute those responsible for the murder of Hariri, and other connected murders which took place between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, or any later date subject to the parties’ agreement.[4]  The Tribunal officially commenced operating in the Hague, the Netherlands on 1 March 2007. The Prosecution filed the first version of the indictment on 17 January 2011. The trial started on 16 January 2014 and conducted in absentia, that is without the accused being part of the proceedings. The Trial Chamber postponed delivering its judgment from 7 to 18 August 2020 given the explosion at Beirut’s port on 4 August 2020.

 

The initial United Nations mission that attempted to investigate this incident concluded that the crime scene was mismanaged shortly after the murder and that the Lebanese authorities were ill equipped to investigate a crime of such magnitude.[5] 

 

The first two UNIIIC reports produced accusations towards Lebanese and Syrian security officials for planning and executing the Hariri murder and recommended the arrest of four senior Lebanese security officials, including the head of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. They were placed in custody on 30 August 2005 based on the recommendation of the UNIIIC Commissioner.[6] The Tribunal’s Pre-Trial judge ordered their releases on 29 April 2009 based on the Prosecution’s request which lacked evidence to present a case against them.[7]

 

In 2006 the UNIIIC shifted its theory of responsibility for the Hariri murder basing it on phone communication analysis[8] which was generated by the Lebanese Internal Security Forces and became the one articulated in the indictment filed in 2011. Ashraf Rifi acknowledged responsibility for producing this evidence, which first surfaced at the time when French investigating Judge Jean-Louis Bruguier was enquiring in Lebanon as part of the UNIIIC:

We have followed the international investigation and we are proud of this fact. Yet, we are the ones who established this file originally, and the international investigation commission completed the job, and now we are before an international court which has commenced working.[9]

 

The Prosecution’s Case and the Trial Chamber’s Judgment

The main charge in the Prosecution’s indictment is a conspiracy to murder former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The international investigation, and subsequently the Prosecution, failed to identify the actual persons who committed the crime that was the reason for establishing the international Tribunal. Rather, the indictment is against five Lebanese individuals with alleged ties to the political and armed Lebanese group Hizbullah[10] who, together with unidentified assassination team, were part of the conspiracy to murder Hariri.

 

The accused were charged with coordinating the surveillance of Hariri towards the attack, purchasing the car that was used to murder Hariri, and organizing a false claim of responsibility immediately after the assassination.[11] The evidence underlying the Prosecution’s charges was cell phone communications originating from the Lebanese authorities who extracted volumes of call data records from two Lebanese phone companies, analysed them, and presented the raw material as well as the analysis to the Tribunal’s investigation and Prosecution teams.

 

The call data records are not the transcripts of phone conversations. They are technical information that may lead to the location of a cell phone user or to the conclusion that several cell phones operated as a ‘network’. According to the Prosecution’s indictment:

Call Data Records are digital records of phone activity. The records contain details of the originating (outgoing) number and recipient (incoming) numbers, call duration as well as the international mobile equipment identity, international mobile subscriber identity and Cell ID data for mobile phones. These records therefore contain information such as time, date and duration of each phone call and the cell mast activated by the call, which provides an indication of the mobile phone user's location.

…

Co-location analysis is used as a form of attribution evidence where multiple phones are attributed to a single user. It is an analytical technique designed to determine whether an identified person consistently uses two or more phones, at least one of which is a mobile phone.[12]

 

The Trial Chamber was aware of inaccurate nature that phone location analysis may raise, but nevertheless regarded this evidence appropriate for consideration as the sole incriminating element:

The Trial Chamber was satisfied that Mr. Philips’s cell site analysis was sufficiently reliable to use to assess the general locations and movements of these mobiles.

…

Unlike GPS, cell site analysis cannot pinpoint the location of a mobile, and by extension the mobile’s user, at the time of use. It can, however, indicate ‘the likely area’ of a mobile’s location at a particular time with ‘extremely high’ accuracy. Cell site analysis also shows the movement of a mobile progressively over time and over multiple calls. As a result, if two or more mobiles have similar movement patterns over a sustained period, a cell site analyst may find that these mobiles are ‘co-locating’ and hence have a single user.[13]

 

The Trial Chamber found four of the five accused not guilty of all charges. One accused was convicted of all charges.[14] The convicted accused was found guilty based on his alleged use of a mobile phone that belonged to a network of mobile phones and his possible participation in surveillance activity of Hariri from early February 2005, when the decision to assassinate the former Lebanese Prime Minister materialized, according to the Trial Chamber.[15] Again, the court’s findings are based on co-location analysis of alleged use of mobile phones, not the transcripts of the conversations’ content. The content of the conversations of the alleged mobile phones used and located in Hariri’s area have not been before any investigative or prosecutorial body, either Lebanese or international.

 

Further, the relevant phone locating evidence that produced the guilt of the only convicted person was general in nature relating to his purported presence in a large area of Hariri’s location:

The Trial Chamber, however, did not attempt specific calculations—with the assistance of the electronic presentation of evidence—on the precise areas of these cell activations. This is primarily because the Prosecution did not allege that Mr Ayyash was at any precise location, and it was not necessary to determine that he was. In other words, where the Prosecutor alleges that Mr Oneissi and Mr Sabra were at the mosque or made telephone calls from payphone boxes, specificity in placing a mobile’s user at a location matters immensely. Where this is not the case, as for Mr Ayyash, it does not matter much that the mobile user’s location can only be approximated in relation to a larger area, and most particularly vis-à-vis Mr Hariri’s provable movements.[16]

 

The court also attempted to explain premising its conviction of one accused on evidence that failed to establish a guilty verdict for all other accused:

The Trial Chamber, as part of its obligation to provide a reasoned opinion, addresses what a casual reader could perhaps view as an inconsistency in reasoning, and hence the result of the case.

…

The Trial Chamber’s conclusion that Mr Ayyash bears individual criminal responsibility is not based on determining his or the other Red mobiles’ precise locations. Rather, it comes from the combination of the several strands of evidence. These include: the increased activity of Red mobile contact on the morning of 14 February 2005, the closed nature of the Red network, the involvement of the Red mobiles in the surveillance of Mr Hariri in the weeks before the attack, the calls right before the attack, their cell activations in the general area of the crime scene including of the portable relay cell PHENMB1 and their discarding of the network mobiles minutes before the attack.

 

In these circumstances, the Trial Chamber’s decision to acquit Mr Merhi, Mr Oneissi and Mr Sabra, but to convict Mr Ayyash using a similar type of evidence the telecommunications evidence—was consistent with the distinctions in pleading and context.”[17]

 

Hariri was assassinated by a Mitsubishi Canter light truck that carried 2,500 – 3,000 kilograms of TNT equivalent. The explosion took place approximately 50 to 80 centimetres above ground level.[18] It formed a crater of a cone shape with a diameter of around 11.4 metres and approximately 1.9 metres in depth.[19] Contrary to the Prosecution’s assertion, this car was not seen on CCTV cameras shortly before the explosion.[20] The specific type of high explosives used was RDX.[21]The Trial Chamber “received no evidence of how and where this RDX was obtained.”[22] Such explosives have been produced on an industrial level in the United States.[23] According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “RDX is a secondary explosive that is used extensively by the U.S. military in manufacturing explosives.”[24] 

 

Despite vague evidence the Trial Chamber conclusively determined, as the Prosecution had contended, that a suicide bomber detonated the explosion, and it was not activated by a remote control.[25]The Trial Chamber made a decision between two options, a suicide bomber and a detonation by remote control, based on awkward analysis of the evidence before it. According to the Trial Chamber:

This leaves only the possibilities of a remote-control device or a suicide bomber. As Dr Murray and the Spanish team explained, triggering the explosion remotely was difficult. There was only a limited amount of time available for the Canter driver to park the vehicle and get away quickly in another vehicle driven by someone else.[26]

 

The Dutch, Spanish, and Swiss expert teams as well as an individual expert (Dr Murray) considered that detonating the explosion that killed Hariri by a remote control was a reasonable possibility.[27]

 

Without any evidence, the Trial Chamber presumed that a detonation by remote control can only mean that the driver of the car necessarily was the person who activated the explosion after having parked the car and left it. Since this was a difficult task, the Trial Chamber disqualified this possibility.[28] It also noted that jamming devices in Hariri’s convoy would have disrupt any detonation activated by a remote control:

Having one person drive the vehicle and another trigger the explosion remotely was possible. However, the jamming devices used by Mr Hariri’s convoy would hinder the use of a remote-control device. The jammers were switched on and working when the explosion took place. So they would have disrupted the transmission of any signals within the jammer system’s frequency range from a remote control to a wireless explosive device that was close to the convoy.[29] 

 

The Trial Chamber also relied on the claim of responsibility shortly after the Hariri murder which noted perpetration by a suicide bomber as evidence that the crime was executed as such, although it was a fact agreed by all parties (Prosecution, Defence, and the Trial Chamber) that the claim of responsibility was false.[30] The three accused who were charged of organizing the ‘false claim of responsibility’ were acquitted of all counts levelled against them.[31] 

 

The Prosecution alleged, and the Trial Chamber determined, that the explosion was detonated by a suicide bomber. The Prosecution presented its case on the presumption that the identity of the alleged suicide bomber was unknown. The Lebanese and international forensic examinations could not determine the identity of this person. They researched a tooth gathered from the crime scene which had been gravely mismanaged immediately after the assassination and other body remains. The proximity of the body remains to the explosion was the reason for the frail conclusion that an unidentified person was the ‘suicide bomber’. Given the anonymity of the purported physical perpetrator of the crime, no evidence was introduced regarding his motivation to commit the political assassination and his possible ties to the accused.[32]

 

The Prosecution’s pleaded conspiracy to assassinate Hariri could not determine when it materialized and the dates of each of the accused joined the criminal plot:

The Prosecution has consistently alleged that the conspiracy came into existence over a particular time period, but has never specified a precise date when it crystallised. Nor does it specify an exact date when each Accused joined the conspiracy. Indeed, in its pre-trial brief, the Prosecution stated that it cannot do so.[33] 

 

The Trial Chamber applied an irrelevant law to the question of pleading a conspiracy to commit a criminal act justifying the nature of the Prosecution’s allegations. The Court applied the standards of prosecutorial pleading relevant to grave and continuous international and civil wars crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to the case of a murder of an individual.[34]

 

The Court’s inconceivable approach becomes more unreasonable given its acknowledgment that also under this law there is jurisprudence which states that “Prosecution’s obligation to provide particulars in the indictment is at its highest when it seeks to prove that the accused killed or harmed a specific individual.”[35] In the same manner, the Trial Chamber justified the Prosecution’s failure to identify the ‘assassination team’ that carried out the actual murder of Hariri and their topographical as well as temporal locations in the conspiracy.[36]

 

The Prosecution included general statements in its Final Trial Brief connecting the accused to the Lebanese political and armed group Hizbollah as an attempt to provide a general context for the alleged claim in the indictment that they were supporters of this group.[37] The Trial Chamber ruled that this was permissible without demanding from the Prosecution to prove the alleged facts beyond reasonable doubt as they are not underlying “any of the elements of any of the offences charged”.[38]

 

CIA’s Robert Baer and the Hariri Assassination

Robert Baer is a former CIA operative who worked in the Middle East for many years, particularly in 1980s Lebanon. He also worked as a consultant for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon between 2011/2012 – 2013/2014. In 2014 he published a book titled The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins in which he wrote:

It was two years ago when The Hague called me out of the blue to pick my brain on Hariri’s assassins. Finding I had a couple of ideas, they hired me as a consultant. They didn’t seem to mind I was an ex-CIA operative with a murky past.”[39] 

 

Baer was interviewed about his book at the Jewish Community Center on 10 November 2014. The explanation on C-Span’s broadcast regarding this interview states:

Robert Baer talked about his book, The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins, about the history of political assassinations and his own connection to them. He also talked about what goes into achieving the perfect kill.[40] 

 

Baer was the subject of the December 2005 Hollywood film titled Syriana. Director and screenwriter of this film Stephen Gaghan worked with Baer towards its production. During his interview with Charlie Rose about this film, Gaghan said that Baer had mentioned to him the Hariri assassination implying American responsibility.[41]

 

While being interviewed at the Jewish Community Center in San Francisco about his book on assassinations, Baer was asked twice whether the conclusions of the American Congressional Church Committee in 1975 which researched CIA’s alleged assassinations and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders have restricted or impacted his or the CIA’s work. The Committee’s conclusions acknowledged the revelations in the report and the need to ban American political assassination abroad by a federal law:

The Committee's long investigation of assassination has brought a number of important issues into sharp focus. Above all stands the question of whether assassination is an acceptable tool of American foreign policy…the Committee needs no more information to be convinced that a flat ban against assassination should be written into law. We condemn assassination and reject it as an instrument of American policy. Surprisingly, however, there is presently no statute making it a crime to assassinate a foreign official outside the United States. Hence, for the reasons set forth below, the Committee recommends the prompt enactment of a statute making it a Federal crime to commit or attempt an assassination, or to conspire to do so.[42]      

 

The questions were asked in a span of 30 minutes difference. Baer avoided answering the question the first time, and confirmed that the American government lost the lessons of the Church Committee when answering a similar question 30 minutes later.[43] 

 

There is also clear evidence that the CIA has carried out illegal assassination relating to Lebanon, including in collaboration with the Israeli government’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (“Mossad”). One such joint venture was the murder of Hizbollah’s leading figure Imad Mughniye who was killed by a car bomb in the Syrian capital Damascus. The Washington Post reported on this killing quoting Baer who noted his and the CIA’s assassination skills. The Israeli government refused to comment:

In a new book, “The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins,” former CIA officer Robert B. Baer writes how he had considered assassinating Mughniyah but apparently never got the opportunity. He notes, however, that CIA “censors” — the agency’s Publications Review Board — screened his book and ‘I’ve unfortunately been unable to write about the true set-piece plot against’ Mughniyah.

 

The CIA declined to comment.

 

‘We have nothing to add at this time,’ said Mark Regev, chief spokesman for the prime minister of Israel. [44]

 

The American government, particularly through the CIA and the military, has had a profound destabilizing role on a global scale. This type of performance in foreign affairs is not new. Probably the best authority to acknowledge this fact is former head of the British Intelligence Service MI6 John Scarlett who led this organization from 2004 to 2009 and was a member of it since 1970. In 2018 he said consentingly:

Everybody’s interests in one way or another are affected by policies and decisions in the United States. That’s often not realized but it’s true...the world has always been unstable.[45]

 

The current CIA Director Gina Haspel, who managed a secret CIA prison in Thailand and destroyed evidence about torture that took place there,[46] stated her organization’s global and murky role in a presentation at Auburn university on 19 April 2019:

CIA is stronger than I’ve ever seen it, and I wish I could say more about what our officers do worldwide, day in and day out, on behalf of all Americans. But for their protection, and frankly for yours, I won’t.[47]  

 

In their important study on regulating American covert action, Michael Reisman and James Baker concluded the obvious regarding American covert operations the objective of which is to commit assassinations “In our view, assassination should be viewed as an unlawful covert action and should not be given any colour of law.”[48] Richard Falk chronicled many of CIA’s illegalities and affirmed that “it should be recognized that many of CIA’s covert activities consistently and flagrantly violated international law”.[49] A study on the CIA’s function provided valuable information on the organization’s chaotic and corrupting nature:

Webster has observed that, during his time as DCI, ‘covert action represented about 5 percent of our resource expenditures and about 95 percent of our problems.’ Even as the capacity and appetite for covert and clandestine activity has ebbed and flowed across the history of US intelligence, its potential to create ‘problems’ has remained, and covert activities have played a major role in motivating intelligence reform efforts. Some of the most significant investigations of the IC – including the Church and Pike Committees in the 1970s and the Tower Commission investigation of Iran / Contras a decade later – were driven by the discovery of illegal covert activities undertaken by US intelligence agencies.[50]

 

Trump, his Security Officials and the 4 August 2020 Explosion at Beirut’s Port

Donald Trump’s statements immediately after the 4 August 2020 explosion at Beirut’s port and the American security establishment’s failed attempts to contradict them provide genuine reason to believe that the American government was responsible for this devastating incident. Together with Robert Baer’s statements and performance, Trump’s words also reinforce the presumption that the United States should be perceived as the primary suspect for the Hariri assassination.  The affirming – denying dialogue between Trump and senior American security officials renders the denial not credible. On the contrary, it is a testament of America’s will and capacity to cause devastation in Lebanon as well as its attempt to avoid accountability. The Beirut port explosion killed at least 200 people and injured many more. 

 

During his first public comment on the explosion on 4 August 2020, the American President Donald Trump said that “it looks like a terrible attack”. A journalist asked him whether he was confident the explosion was an attack, and not a mere, incident, Trump answered that it was an attack:

Well, it would seem like it based on the explosion. I met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was. This was not a kind of manufacturing explosion type of event. This seems to be according to them, they would know better than I would, but they seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind. Yes.[51]

 

Shortly thereafter, American security officials from the Department of Defence expeditiously and anonymously denied Trump’s assertion that the explosion was an attack:

Three US Defense Department officials told CNN that as of Tuesday night there was no indication that the massive explosion that rocked Beirut on Tuesday were an "attack," contradicting an earlier claim from President Donald Trump.

…

But the defense officials, who declined to be identified so they could speak freely, said they didn't know what the President was talking about.

…

A Pentagon spokesperson said the Department of Defense was referring requests for comments to the White House.[52]

 

U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper also denied that the explosion in Lebanon was an attack claiming that it was only an accident.[53]However, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows defended Trump’s affirmation that the explosion was an attack:

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows defended President Donald Trump's description of a deadly explosion in Beirut as an "attack," dismissing Defence Secretary Mark Esper's earlier comments that most officials believe the incident was ‘an accident.’

 

‘I can tell you from Secretary Esper's standpoint, he doesn't know. I had a meeting with him earlier today,’ Meadows said Wednesday. ‘I can tell you the initial reports was exactly what the president shared with all of you.’[54]

 

All organs of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon are authorised and required to initiate the necessary procedures the purpose of which to investigate American responsibility for the explosion which took place on 4 August 2020 at Beirut port and the Hariri assassination: Prosecution, Defence, Chambers, Victims Participation, and, in particular, the Registrar.   

 

Israel and Political Assassinations in Lebanon

Strong signs and indicators suggest that Israel has been involved in political assassinations in Lebanon as well. This activity will be explored in depth in our next report which will analyse the illegal Anglo – American invasion of Iraq and its consequences,[55] CIA’s lawlessness,[56] and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s potential other assassination cases.[57] For the purposes of this briefing, suffice to say that Israel has had a long history of destabilisation in Lebanon.[58]

 

Many political assassinations have taken place in Lebanon before and after the murder of Hariri. The killings included political activists, journalists, and politicians from varying political affiliations. Some were more politically hostile than others to Israel. The main instrument of assassination has been the car bomb explosion, most probably through criminal elements formed during Israel’s long and deep infiltration of Lebanon.  The apparent desired objective of these crimes has been to stir chaos and instigate civil war.

 

As the Washington Post article referenced above demonstrates, at least in one Lebanese related assassination Israel has collaborated with United States agencies to perpetrate the murder. Journalist Gideon Levy noted in 2008 Israel’s utilisation of car bombs in Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s:       

Indeed, our man of the year is a declared killer. Whether by box-cutter or car bomb, his craft is killing.

…

Only in Israel are Dagan's past activities still censored. He is responsible for much of the blood that was shed in Gaza in the 1970s and Lebanon in the '80s. A shocking expose prepared by two reputable journalists a few years ago about his doings in Lebanon was never published. That report would have only made the Channel 2 dream team panel worship Dagan even more, and supported his image as a killer with a knife in his teeth.[59]

 

Thomas Friedman’s geopolitical analysis on Israel’s northern border could provide an important direction for a genuine investigation and prosecution at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.[60]

 

Conclusion

The investigation and prosecution of the Hariri assassination case failed to identify the actual individuals who committed this heinous crime. Despite the complexity justification for international investigation and legal intervention, the prosecuted case before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was based on evidence gathered by the Lebanese authorities.

 

The five accused were charged with incidental features of the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Hariri: purchasing the car, monitoring the victim, and organizing the false claim of responsibility. The Prosecution could not present any evidence regarding any of the accused (and, naturally, the unidentified assassination team) as to the time, location, and reason for joining the plan or conspiracy to assassinate Hariri. The Prosecution did not advance a coherent and authoritative theory for the reason to assassinate Hariri, which is the main rational for establishing the International Tribunal.    

 

Four of the five accused were acquitted. The convicted accused was found guilty because he allegedly participated in monitoring Hariri in the period before the assassination.

 

From the outset, the Prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial and one dimensional. Relying on the analysis of volumes of call data records from two phone companies, the aim has been to identify who used which cell phone, where, and when. No transcripts of any phone conversations have been presented to any investigative body, national or international. The Trial Chamber acknowledged the problematic nature of this methodology generally, a difficulty exasperated in such a politically charged case.

 

The Tribunal’s failure to investigate the origins of the explosives that killed Hariri is unexplained in the Trial Judgment. The Court’s decisive finding that the explosion was perpetrated by a suicide bomber, unidentified by all investigations, rather via a remote control lacks solid foundations.

 

There is clear information and evidence that points in the direction of other perpetrators for this crime. Some of this data has been outlined in this briefing. Given the nature of the possible alternative executioners, a serious question arises as to the will of the current leading personalities at the Tribunal to pursue a different path of investigation and prosecution.     

   

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

 

[1] All local and international investigations have failed to consider the relevance of the date of the crime to possible perpetrators, although the consensus among investigators, legal practitioners, and political observers has been that the Hariri assassination was a result of a conspiracy.

[2] Letter dated 24 March 2005 from U.N. Secretary General to the President of the Security Council (S/2005/203).

[3] Although the Tribunal includes three Lebanese Judges, funded also by the Lebanese government (49%), and has cooperated with the Lebanese investigation authorities, it is an international organization, not one with merely international character, as the Tribunal emphasizes. Its establishment by the U.N. Security Council and under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter solidifies the presumption that an international event had taken place which had threatened the peace, breached it, or constituted an act of aggression.    

[4] This U.N. Security Council resolution noted Lebanese Prime Minister letter of 13 December 2005 requesting the establishment of such a Tribunal. The letter came in the aftermath of another political assassination in Lebanon, that of prominent journalist Gibran Tueni. The assassination occurred on the eve of publishing the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission’s second report. Political assassinations have taken place in Lebanon before and after Hariri’s murder, encompassing various political loyalties and including a clear regional as well as international dimensions. 

[5] Report of the fact-finding Mission to Lebanon inquiring into the causes, circumstances and consequences of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, 25 February 2005 – 24 March 2005 (S/2005/203). The report indicated the contesting political views in Lebanon regarding the performance of the Lebanese – Syrian security alliance in Lebanon without making any findings regarding the murder investigated. U.N. Security Council resolution 1559 of 2 September 2004 reaffirmed its respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, called upon remaining forces to withdraw from the country, and to disband all Lebanese and non – Lebanese armed militias. It is understood that this resolution targeted mainly Syrian security presence in Lebanon and its Iran backed ally Hizballah, a political and armed Lebanese group. Syria had maintained security presence in Lebanon since the mid – 1970s in the waked of the civil war in the country which lasted until 1990 withdrawing in April 2005. The Syrian security presence in Lebanon had been regulated by the 1989 Tai’f agreement which helped end the Lebanese civil war.  Hizbollah’s main rival had been Israel which occupied South Lebanon directly and through a proxy local army (the South Lebanon Army – SLA) from the mid-1980s until 2000. The SLA had broken away from the Lebanese army in 1976 and joined forces with Israel in 1979. Israel maintained its control over a large strip in South Lebanon through the SLA, an Israeli trained and funded army. In their memories George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice, who led an illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, blamed the Syrian government for this assassination. A similar explosion that killed top United Nations envoy to Iraq shortly after the U.S. led invasion failed to receive the attention and international investigations granted to Hariri’s murder. The Economist wrote on 16 February 2005, two days after the Hariri assassination, that this crime “brought back horrific memories of the civil war – and fears of foreign military intervention that could make Lebanon a battleground once more.” If, theoretically at this stage of the briefing, American forces had planned and executed the Hariri murder, then their direct accomplice can be no one other than the British military, particularly their base in Cyprus. See George Bush, Decision Points, (Crown, 2010), p.411; Dick Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoire, (Threshold, 2011), p.480; Donald Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown: A Memoire (Sentinel, 2011), p.640; Condoleezza Rice, No Higher Honour: A Memoire of My Years in Washington (Crown, 2011), p.338; “Top U.N. envoy killed in Baghdad”, BBC, 19 August 2003; “Hariri’s killing shatters Lebanon’s calm”, The Economist, 16 February 2005. The British Foreign Secretary at the time Jack Straw did not make a personal judgement about the Hariri assassination in his memoire, but recalled Tony Blair’s approach during the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in July – August 2006 “Like the majority of the PLP, as well as most Liberal Democrats, and many Tories, I was appalled that, more than he’d ever done before, Tony was acting as a back marker for the Israelis.” Jack Straw, Last Man Standing: Memoires of a Political Survivor (Macmillan, 2012), pp.484, 486. The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair directly implied that Syria may had been involved in the assassination of Hariri: Tony Blair, A Journey, (Arrow Books, 2010), p.595.      

[6] UNIIIC Report, 19 October 2005, paras.174, 216, 223 (S/2005/662); UNIIIC Report, 12 December 2005, para.88 (S/2005/775).

[7] The Prosecution failed to investigate false evidence that led to almost four years of unjustified detention of the Lebanese security officials. Similarly, the Prosecution ignored the requirement to thoroughly investigate whether the scene of the crime was maliciously mismanaged shortly after the Hariri assassination, and whether any behind the scenes activities in the Lebanese capital (foreign or domestic) led to this mismanagement.  

[8] UNIIIC Report, 25 September 2006, paras.40, 63-64, 84 (S/2006/760); UNIIIC Report, 12 December 2006, paras.43-45 (S/2006/962).

[9] Youssef Diab, “Rifi to Al-Mustaqbal: the sovereign security has been undermined by the assassination of Wissam Al-Hassan”, Al-Mustaqbal, Oct. 20, 2013 (Arabic), http://www.almustaqbal.com/v4/Article.aspx?Type=np&Articleid=591614 Rifi was deputy head of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces when his superior was arrested for possible involvement in the murder of Hariri. He rose to the position of Minister of Justice in the country. He is considered a blatant sectarian Sunni politician with declared animosity towards Hizbollah as a political group. Like many humans, he possessed an ambitious political agenda. The Lebanese political structure nurtures these tendencies because it is premised on sectarian constitutional power sharing and parliamentary seats. Demographic sectarianism reflects significant aspects of the country’s politics. On the other hand, the Lebanese capital Beirut has been considered a cultural canter in the Arab world together with the Egyptian capital Cairo. For a disconnected analysis of the Tribunal’s work prepared before the Hariri trial began and does not properly cover the process of investigation see Amal Alamuddin et al eds., The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014). I should note that Alamuddin, now Clooney, is a notable international law practitioner that received ASIL’s recognition as a champion of the International Rule of Law in October 2019. Despite this ‘status’, I tend to disagree with most of her analysis and conclusions.      

[10] The Prosecution did not include any details in the indictment or introduce credible evidence about the background of these individuals, and their alleged ties to Hizbollah. The Prosecution generally stated that the accused are supporters of the Lebanese group. Indictment, 12 July 2016, para.49.

[11] Indictment, 12 July 2016, paras.1, 3-51. One of the accused died in May 2016. This version of the indictment is the most recent applicable one.

[12] Indictment, 12 July 2016, paras.14(a), (c). In addition to the Lebanese authorities and the UNIIIC, two British individuals provided expert opinions on this type of evidence. Their experience included analysis of phone location in the context of criminal activity in Britain. They possessed no other experience or knowledge regarding this case, which differs from ordinary criminal cases. See Hariri Trial Judgement, 18 August 2020, pp.512-796. The two British individuals are privy, however, to their country’s popular and high cultures that are military centred and constantly converse with the United States’. See, for example, the British short film Connection, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87B1tz3KdOg; David Attenborough, Interview with the Economist, 16 September 2020 (a month after the 4 August 2020 explosion in Lebanon. Legitimacy to man made international crimes, including the 1986 explosion in Chernobyl, the former Soviet Union), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NVV7E2hd6c; Chernobyl, HBO, 2019. The 2003 Anglo – American invasion of Iraq was another example of the two countries’ persistent international illegality: Chris Ames et al, “Alistair Campbell had Iraq dossier changed to fit US claims”, The Guardian, 10 January 2010; Nicholas Watt, “Rupert Murdoch pressured Tony Blair over Iraq, says Alistair Campbell”, The Guardian, 15 June 2012.   

[13] Hariri Trial Judgement, 18 August 2020, paras.1563, 1571.

[14] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.6904. This accused is being considered as a suspect in another case advanced by the Prosecution, the attempted murder of journalist and politician Marwan Hamadeh. The first impression is that an unstable person has been engaging with destructive activities in Lebanon that included political assassinations. The Tribunal’s approach, presumptions, and performance are totally unreasonable. 

[15] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.6714-6722. The stated paradigmatic analysis in these paragraphs regarding the guilt of the only accused who was convicted differ substantially from the Trial Chamber’s rationalisation of this guilt in its concluding remarks at para.6902.

[16] Hariri Trial Chamber, 18 August 2020, para.6901.

[17] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, pp.2225-6. The Tribunal’s attempt to rationalise its seemingly conflicting analysis is not convincing given the interconnectedness of the charges and the application of the same parameters to all accused. In addition, the Tribunal’s reasoning should have led it to an opposite conclusion regarding the convicted accused given the general nature of the co-locating evidence underlying the Prosecution’s case against him. For a disconnected analysis of the Tribunal’s work prepared before the Hariri trial began and does not properly cover the process of investigation see Amal Alamuddin et al eds., The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Law and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014). I should note that Alamuddin, now Clooney, is a notable international law practitioner that received ASIL’s recognition as a champion of the International Rule of Law in October 2019. Despite this ‘status’, I tend to disagree with most of her analysis and conclusions. 

[18] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1250.

[19] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1252.

[20] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1295. The Trial Chamber accepted forensic evidence regarding parts of a car collected from the scene of the crime as emanating from a Mitsubishi Canter: paras.1308-1316.

[21] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.1165-66.

[22] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1166.

[23] See Abraham Lustgarten, “The Bomb That Went Off Twice”, ProPublica, 18 December 2017.

[24] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Technical Fact Sheet – RDX, January 2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminant_rdx_january2014_final.pdf

[25] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.1361, 1375.

[26] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1371.

[27] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.1363, 1364, 1366, 1365.

[28] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1371.

[29] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.1372. The Trial Chamber seems to attribute to the Lebanese authorities’ significant technological capacities. The rational for establishing the Tribunal was the need to assist these authorities investigate the assassination of Lebanon’s former Prime Minister. There has been only one added value for the international investigation before and throughout the Tribunal’s proceedings: the collection of particles from and near the scene of the crime. The identification of these particles was marginal to the prosecuted case before the Tribunal.

[30] Hariri Trial Judgement, 18 August 2020, para.1374.

[31] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.5773, 5862. This error could have been a result of lack of coordination between the drafters of the Judgement.

[32] Hariri Trial Judgement, 18 August 2020, paras.1420-1448.

[33] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.87.

[34] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, paras.91-96. The Trial Chamber applied jurisprudence from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The main inspiration for this approach could be the Trial Chamber’s Presiding Judge David Re who worked as a Trial Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prior to joining the Lebanon Tribunal. I had a troubling experience as an Appeals Prosecutor at the ICTY (2007 – 2010) working with him and his wife who was my colleague and superior at the appeals section, given their ‘generous’ understanding as well as interpretation of prosecutorial evidence. This notion could be attributed to much of the group from the Anglo – American legal tradition that I encountered at the Prosecution’s office in the Hague, the Netherlands. Some of them are now colleagues working in the Lebanon Tribunal’s crucial organs: Norman Farrell (Canadian) the Prosecutor, Thomas Hannis (American) who leads the defence of the only convicted accused, Daryl Mundis (American) the Registrar, and of course David Re (Australian) the presiding Trial Judge. Put diplomatically, they all have a vested interest in the continuation of the Tribunal’s work. The two persons who actually led the Prosecution in court are British with a criminal law background and no familiarity or experience with Lebanon and political assassinations. They are Alexander Milne and Nigel Povoas.   

[35] Hariri Trial Judgement, 18 August 2020, para.90. It should be noted that the accused were charged primarily pursuant to the Lebanese Penal Code.

[36] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.100.

[37] Hariri Trial, Prosecution Final Trial Brief, 7 August 2018, pp.6-7, 90-98.

[38] Hariri Trial Judgment, 18 August 2020, para.122.

[39] Robert Baer, The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins (Plume, 2014), p.x.

[40] Robert Baer Interview at the Jewish Community Center in San Francisco, C-Span, 10 November 2014, https://www.c-span.org/video/?322743-1/the-perfect-kill. For a celebratory review of the book see Michael Burleigh, “The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins by Robert Baer”, The Times, 1 November 2014 (“Second only to Homeland’s basketcase Carrie Mathison, as played by Claire Danes, the real former agent Robert “Bob” Baer is the public face of the CIA, CNN’s answer to the BBC’s excellent security correspondent Frank Gardner.”).

[41] Stephen Gaghan, Interview with Charlie Rose, 9 December 2005, https://charlierose.com/videos/17604; Syriana’s trailer:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTa2PTcycyI The film chronicles America’s global corrupting and destabilizing activities perpetrated by the CIA and the U.S. military as applied in the Middle East. CIA Director during the Hariri assassination Porter Goss said two days after the Hariri murder that “Hizballah's main focus remains Israel”, not mentioning a possible complicity in Hariri’s murder. See his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 16 February 2005.

[42] U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, Interim Report – Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, 20 November 1975, p.281, https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94465.pdf

[43] Robert Baer Interview at the Jewish Community Center in San Francisco, C-Span, 10 November 2014, Minutes 06:12, 37:44, https://www.c-span.org/video/?322743-1/the-perfect-kill. Baer also acknowledged CIA’s global corrupting role in a 2009 interview when describing the organization’s activity in American diplomatic missions worldwide “Here, take the money and betray your cause”. See Robert Baer, Interview with Harry Kreisler – Conversations with History, 28 July 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paS1-ee-5cU. David Petraeus, a former senior military commander and head of the CIA (2011 – 2012) provided the same acknowledgment about America’s global corrupting activities in foreign affairs the purpose of which is destabilization saying in one interview about operations in Iraq “stations” (meaning CIA stations) and in another simply saying “corrupting”. See  David Petraeus, Operations in Iraq, C-Span, 26 April 2007, https://www.c-span.org/video/?197818-1/operations-iraq; David Petraueus, Conversation with Bill Kristol, 14 February 2016, https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/video/david-petraeus/

[44] See Adam Goldman & Ellen Nakashima, “CIA and Mossad killed senior Hezbollah Figure in car bombing”, Washington Post, 30 January 2015. See also Hadas Gold, “What the CIA didn’t want Americans to know”, Politico, 6 February 2015. For similar illegal CIA activities see Thomas Maier, “Ïnside the CIA’s Plot to Kill Fidel Castro – With Mafia Help”, Politico, 24 February 2018; CIA’s “Family Jewels” Documents, 16 May 1973, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001451843.pdf; Simon Tisdal, “CIA conspired with Mafia to kill Castro”, The Guardian, 27 June 2007. The American government had designated financial resources and military operation to destabilize Iran inspired by Vice President Dick Cheney aggressive and illegal policies: Seymour Hersh, “Preparing the Battlefield”, New Yorker, 29 June 2008. Hersh also accused the American government of conducting assassinations in various countries: Democracy Now, “Seymour Hersh: Secret US Forces Carried Out Assassinations in Dozens Countries, Including in Latin America”, 31 March 2009,  https://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/31/seymour_hersh_secret_us_forces_carried  

[45] John Scarlett, Global Trends, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsksrI8sA1k&feature=youtu.be, https://www.leadingauthorities.com/uk/speakers/video/john-scarlett-global-trends See also Robert Gates’s interview with Charlie Rose about global instability (Gates “doesn’t know”), 29 March 1993; and Charles Moore’s interview at the Hoover Institute, August 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGGc5a7LVPE. Both interviews demonstrate the Anglo-American establishments’ awareness of their destructive role in international affairs. There is little evidence indicating that the Anglo – American foreign policy has changed over the decades. See, for example, Nick Hopkins, “What you really need to join MI6: emotional intelligence and a high IQ”, The Guardian, 2 March 2017: a politically centrist article in British parameters but sincere nevertheless: Russia and terrorism as catalysts for foreign affairs work, regardless of its nature, actuality, and legality.  Sting’s 1985 Russians captures this mindset. The American government’s obsession with achieving imagined moral superiority against its rivals led it to organize corrupted defections from its enemies to obtain praise for the American way of life. See Anna Kisselgoff, “From Russia with Impact on West’s Ballet”, New York Times, 12 August 1975.  

[46] See Adam Goldman, “Gina Haspel, Trump’s Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program”, New York Times, 13 March 2018.

[47] CIA Director Gina Haspel, Presentation at Auburn University, 19 April 2019,  https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2019-speeches-testimony/dcia-haspel-auburn-university-speech.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg_xgwGwuaM&feature=youtu.be. In the American political, academic, and artistic cultures the chaotic and subversive nature of the country’s foreign policy is a given. The purpose of which is to attach blame to rivals, instigate chaos, and tame crowds as well as progressive politics at home. The terms ‘hell’ and ‘problem’ denote the character of America’s foreign affairs and decorate the titles of books authored by foreign policy participants such as Madeleine Albright and Samantha Power, although they do not claim responsibility for the events they narrate. The word ‘silence’ in the same culture refers to the desired scrutiny that should be granted to the abhorrent foreign policy. There is an American code that is effective in Britain as well which requires avoiding questioning the legal behaviour of the security establishments in both countries. The military and its security agencies should be ‘avoided’. Human Rights Watch’s Ken Roth is also aware of his country’s destructive performance in the world, but does not speak about it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKlLbxh5YVI. If Roth is unwilling or unable to address America’s devastating policies, he should adhere to his country’s superior norm in this regard an remain silent on global affairs. In plain English, Roth should shut the fuck up. The same applies to the “horror backing” Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times and likeminded reporters as well as (New York) subscribers of the newspaper. Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, should have spared the reader of his geopolitical analysis that relies on words ending with the letters U and S. Chomsky’s debate with what is framed in the United States as ‘liberals’ centres on searching for unattractive regimes allies of the United States, while he knows that his country deceptively stands behind them as well. Chomsky ought to have referred his reader to American popular culture which perfectly captures the government’s illegal performance internationally. Probably the most glaring depiction of the United States wicked international relations is the TV and film series Mission Impossible, a parody of the CIA’s actions globally forming almost a universal meta – system. In 2015 the film’s title Rouge Nation accurately pronounced the country’s intent and conduct. See also the veteran actors of this series talk about the United States role in the world (2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iemY7zkbuo4. Saturday Night Live on the CIA (2013): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4aeibd1Rrc. It is fair to say that the dominant political, academic, and cultural character in the United States suffers from a chronic schizophrenic psychopathy that was performed by Anthony Hopkins in the film Silence of the Lambs. Playing the unstable Hnnibal Lecter, Hopkins was predominantly situated at the center of the screen throughout the film. Hopkins’ Welsh origin similarly encapsulates Britain’s character. Contrary to their public international pronouncements, both Britain and the United States are regimes governed by their militaries at home and inflict monumental damage to civilians abroad. See also Oliver Boyd – Barret et al, Hollywood and the CIA: Cinema, Defense, and Subversion (Routledge, 2011); Tricia Jenkins, The CIA in Hollywood: How The Agency Shapes Film and Television (University of Texas Press, 2013). If the Anglo – American film industry cynically but pointedly portray the devastating role of the two countries in the world, the journalists – authors Jonathan Freedland and David Ignatius engage in sheer Anglo – American propaganda. For a critique of American political and economic guiding principles, see Interview with Ralph Nader, The Today Show - NBC, 30 August 1982.      

[48] Michael Reisman & James Baker, Regulating Covert Action: Practices and Policies of Covert Coercion Abroad in International and American Law (Yale University Press, 1992).

[49] Richard Falk, “CIA Covert Operations and International Law”,

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88-01315R000200030001-2.pdf . Falk had sharply criticized exposed American efforts to destabilize foreign countries including Chile, an expressed doubts at the country’s denial of illegally engaging in others such as Portugal: “President Gerlad Ford, CIA Covert Operations, and the Status of International Law”, 69 American Journal of Int’l Law, 354 – 358 (1975).

[50] Brunt Durbin, The CIA and the Politics of US Intelligence Reform (Cambridge University Press, 2017), p.10. Falk had sharply criticized exposed American efforts to destabilize foreign countries including Chile, an expressed doubts at the country’s denial of illegally engaging in others such as Portugal: “President Gerlad Ford, CIA Covert Operations, and the Status of International Law”, 69 American Journal of Int’l Law, 354 – 358 (1975).

[51] See “Donald Trump claims Lebanon explosion ‘looks like a terrible attack’”, The Guardian, 5 August 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFKxlZq-mAQ. See also, Kathryn Watson, “Trump describes Lebanon explosions as ‘attack’, though cause is not known yet”, CBS, 4 August 2020; Alex Woodward, “’Wildly irresponsible’: Former Trump aide slams president for ‘spitballing’ on cause of Beirut blasts”, The Independent, 5 August 2020.

[52] Barbara Starr et al, “”US defence officials contradict Trump: No indication yet of an attack in Beirut”, CNN, 5 August 2020.

[53] Decoding American political and security vocabulary leads to the revelation that the term ‘accident’, as ‘hell’ and ‘problem’, means American sabotage activity on foreign soil. There is also a film titled Accidents Happen (2009). The military / CIA units that execute these activities are a central feature of American films and drama. See the drama series The Brave, NBC, 2017 and the film Special Forces, 2011. Peculiar explosions similar to the one carried out in Lebanon in August 2020 and other damaging activities have taken place in other countries. See, for example, Hyung-Jin Kim et al, Video suggests explosions in North Korea city near China”, AP, 5 August 2020; Farnaz Fassihi, “Huge Explosion Near Iran’s Chief Military Base Shakes Residents”, New York Times, 25 June 2020; Paul Mozur, “Tanker Truck Blast on China Highway Kills 19”, New York Times, 13 June 2020; Hannah Ellis-Peterson, “Hundreds exposed to gas after deadly leak an Indian chemical factory”, The Guardian, 7 May 2020; Austin Ramzy et al, “Explosion at China Chemical Plant Kills 64; Employees Detained”, New York Times, 22 March 2019; Neil MacFarquhar, “7 Dead and Dozens Missing in Russia Building Explosion”, New York Times, 31 August 2018; Javier Hernandez, “Tianjin Explosions Were Result of Mismanagement, China Finds”, New York Times, 5 February 2016; Andrew Jacobs et al, “Behind Deadly Tianjin Blas, Shortcuts and Lax Rules”, New York Times, 30 August 2015; “Maps, Videos, and Photos of the Explosions in China”, New York Times, 13 August 2015; Todd Brenson, “Fire Kills 283 at Supermarket in Paraguay”, New York Times, 2 August 2004; “Gas Explosion Kills at Least 90 in South Korea”, AP, 28 April 1995; Sanjoy Hazarika, “200 Killed as Bombings Sweep Bombay”, New York Times, 13 March 1993.

[54] Lara Seligman, “White House chief of staff defends Trump’s description of Beirut ‘attack’”, Politico, 5 August 2020. See also Lolita Baldor et al, “Trump again says Lebanon blast might have been attack”, Associated Press. 6 August 2020. Given strong indications about American involvement in the 4 August 2020 explosion at Beirut’s port, the necessary question is where did American forces emerge from to committee a criminal explosion? The vast majority of the world’s press reported about the deadly explosion in shocking grief. The overwhelming British press, however, expressed a different and awkward emotions amounting to raising cheers. As if hurt national pride has been restored to its pre – insulted form. The emphasis of this press on the scope of the explosion’s auditory perception which reached Cypress, was not only exceptional but also inculpatory. In Cyprus there is a British military base, the closest ally of the American army in the region and globally. Such facilitation of an intended mass murder in Beirut is at least aiding and abetting the crime. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s organs are authorized and required to investigate the British authorities’ complicity in carrying out this explosion, primarily the senior political (Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Secretary of Defence Ben Wallace, and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab) and military leadership. For examples of the British media’s Cypress centred coverage of the Beirut explosion see: “A big blast should lead to big change in Lebanon”, The Economist, 6 August 2020 (“So powerful was the explosion that rocked Beirut on August 4th that people in Cyprus, 240km (150 miles) away, thought they had suffered and earthquake”.) Cypress / earthquake connection and analogy appeared also in the coverage by Sky News, typically a voice for the British military: “Explained: What happened in deadly Beirut explosion”, Sky News, 6 August 2020 (“The blast struck with a force of 3.5 magnitude earthquake…it was even heard and felt as far away as Cyprus, more than 125 miles across Mediterranean.”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSr820S2Mk. The BBC’s defence correspondent Paul Wood wrote in the Spectator “So this was a huge explosion, two separate blasts, in fact, the larger one apparently heard as far away as Cyprus.”. See Paul Wood, “How much worse can things get for Lebanon?”, The Spectator, 5 August 2020. Culturally, I should reference Ellie Goulding’s songs Army (2015) and Explosions (2013).        

[55] Stephen Moss, “Iraq war was illegal, says former lord chief justice”, The Guardian, 8 February 2010.

[56] In addition to materials in other parts of this briefing, and as preliminary observations, see Terry Gross, “The CIA’s Secret Quest for Mind Control: Torture, LSD, and A ‘Prisoner in Chief’”, NPR, 9 September 2019; Jack Anderson, “CIA Conspired to Save a Terrorist”, Washington Post, 23 September 1980; Mark Mazzetti et al, “Senate Panel Faces New Obstacle to Release of Torture Report”, New York Times, 5 December 2014; Benjamin Tromly, Cold War Exiles and the CIA: Plotting to Free Russia (Oxford University Press, 2019); Joseph Persico, “Spy Versus Spy”, New York Times, 28 September 1997; “Russian ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov shot dead in Ankara”, BBC, 20 December 2016 (it is not clear in this report whether the shadows of the U.S. mission in Turkey have played  evident or vague problematic role in this murder); Edward Herman & Frank Brodhead, The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection ( Sheridan Square, 1986); Jeffrey St. Clair et al, Whiteout – The CIA, Drugs, and the Press (Verso, 1998).

[57] See Kenneth Pollack, “Learning from Israel’s Political Assassination Program”, New York Times, 7 March 2018.

[58] See, for example, Yair Ravid, Window to the Back Yard: The History of Israel – Lebanon Relations – Facts and Illusions (Kindle, 2016). Ravid is a former senior Israeli intelligence officer, who was a key figure in forming ties inside Lebanon. In his book he candidly reveals the indispensability of resorting to criminal activity in Lebanon as part of achieving Israel’s interests (pp.206-215, of the Hebrew version).  

[59] Gideon Levy, “Killer of the Year”, Haaretz, 2 October 2008.

[60] Friedman’s psychoanalysis, and his well-known positions about Israel and the region, could bolster the proposition that Israel has been engaged in illegal activities in Lebanon: “Can Crazy Still Keep the Peace Between Israel and Iran?”, New York Times, 30 January 2018 (“I’m traveling along the Israeli border road at the intersection of Lebanon, Syria and Israel, and off in the distance there’s a freshly snow-capped Mount Hermon, begging for skiers. It’s framed by Lebanese and Syrian villages nestled into terraced hillsides, crowned by minarets and crosses. The only sound you hear is the occasional rifle burst from Lebanese hunters... Because hidden in these villages, hillsides and pine forests you can find a state — Israel —  ...  I came to this crowded intersection because it could blow up at any moment.”). See also Nael Bascomb, “Spies of No Country”, New York Times, 22 March 2019. Add Ronen Bergman to Thomas and Matti, and the New York Times should be officially declared as a hub for Israel’s foreign policy and propaganda.