Well whadyaknow, Hizbullah WAS framed

[Watser?]

The indictment of four men linked to Hezbollah in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri made public by the Special Tribunal on Lebanon Aug. 17 is questionable not because it is based on "circumstantial evidence", but because that evidence is based on a flawed premise.

The evidence depends on a convoluted theory involving what the indictment calls "co-location" of personal mobile phones associated with five distinct networks said to be somehow connected with the plot to murder Hariri.

...

But the idea that "co-location" of phones is evidence of a single owner is a logical fallacy. It ignores the statistical reality that a multitude of mobile phones would have been frequently co-located with any given phone carrying out surveillance on Hariri in Beirut over an hour or more on the same day during the weeks before the assassination.

Hariri Bombing Indictment Based on Flawed Premise - IPS ipsnews.net

Better read the whole thing, it's pretty complicated, but it is worse than circumstantial evidence: it's circumstantial evidence based on a far-fetched theory.

Here's Al Jazeera's take:

But there isn't a literate soul in Lebanon who does not know that the country's telecommunications networks are highly infiltrated - whether by competing domestic political operatives or by foreign entities. For its part, the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah - with which the indictees are allegedly affiliated - has spent much of the past year explaining in painstaking detail the hazards of relying on telecom data that is readily penetrable by the state's enemies.

This narrative has been backed by Lebanese officials, convicted "spies" and outed employees of telecom companies.

But how does this impact the STL's meticulous circumstantial case?

On the one hand, Hezbollah supporters may very well have assassinated Rafiq Hariri - whether through direct orders from the resistance group's leadership or in conjunction with other individuals or governments.

On the other hand, the telecommunication analysis provided by the Tribunal could instead represent an intricately planned and executed effort to frame Hezbollah.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...220385353.html

This of course comes on top of the concerns that a lot of political pressure is being applied to convict 'the right' suspects, that is: there are obviously political reasons why Hizbullah is the ideal candidate to take the fall for this for many powerful people inside and outside of Lebanon.

[California Tanker]

I note that Al Jazeera is not stating that Hezbullah was framed, just that the case is not as watertight as some would like.

The original article is not without logic flaw either:

But according to that information, during the final nine days on which the red network was active in surveillance of Hariri, including the day of the bombing itself, Ayyash was in phone contact with the red and blue networks on only three days – a pattern that appears inconsistent with the role of coordinating the entire plot attributed to him.

This would be pretty standard, if for no reason other than to reduce SIGINT possibilities in the run-up to an operation as the information becomes more refined and specific.

NTM

[Watser?]

The case is about as watertight as a sieve, in fact I wouldn't even call it a case. Whether it is a frame-up or a misguided attempt of trying to find out who did it, is another matter.