Fragments 2

1. As part of the great efforts spent by the American administration to prevent any foreign interference in Lebanese affairs and especially the forthcoming presidential elections, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Lebanese government about giving any concessions to the opposition. Of course the warning came along with a description of what the future president must and must not do, and the acceptable program he/she can be allowed to pursue. One might think that these flagrant statements of a foreign Secretary of State are blatant interferences in the affairs of Lebanon and more specifically in the presidential elections. However, the American interference is aimed at countering any other interference; therefore it is not interference but a gesture of good will, not to mention that we Lebanese people boast about our cosmopolitan attributes, so no one is foreign anyway. Moreover everyone should know that it was us who asked the American administration to interfere as we had asked the Syrians to interfere before that, and the French before both. This, after all, is crucial to the protection of the Cedar Revolution and its “Freedom, Sovereignty, Independence” slogan.

2. Beirut MP Ammar Houri is the first disciple of Mufti al-Jozo. In a compelling work of argumentation he proposed a new vision of justice and philosophy of law. In a very telling statement Houri inverted the principles of justice while simultaneously shattering the principle of separation of powers. The Beirut MP who lacks any political experience, not to mention any juridical or political knowledge, was shocked by Nasrallah’s “insistence to consider the accused innocent until proven guilty by the court”. Of course Mr. Houri is apparently too busy to watch American movies on television, where he can learn that this is exactly the principle of justice, namely that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The good aspect of this ignorance is that it means the MP is too busy to watch TV, hopefully devoting his precious time to the service of the people. Furthermore the MP added that “considering the accused innocent implies that Israel is the only accused party.” Of course this reflects the Bush-like view of the world as a dichotomy of good and evil, where there is always only two choices, the third choice is inconceivable; the frame of reference of the new MP does not include the notion of third choice. However, the great addition to the philosophy of law that al-Jozo’s disciple was kind enough to make in public is his insistence that a judge cannot rule the accused innocent even though there is no physical proof since there is a clear political conviction that they are guilty. In other words what the MP who apparently lacks the minimum knowledge about the structure of political power and the basic principle of separation of powers (which a 15 year old kid should know about if he/she attends school and pays attention to the teacher) is suggesting is simple: the judicial power is subjected to the beliefs of the political power, be it legislative or executive. What he is suggesting is that people as ignorant as him should have the power to exercise justice; if this happens it would give a new meaning to the expression “justice is blind”.