The Syrian arrest warrants are Judicial, but PM Saad Hariri’s visit to Syria is political. The warrants will not affect the visit, but without doubt affect the warmness of the visit. Syrian officials are aware of this, and Lebanese figures as well but perhaps Syrian officials intended this.

Of course FPM leader Michel Aoun’s visit to Damascus was cheerful and warm, and most probably that the Syrian officials do not want a similar warm visit.

Premier Saad Hariri showed strict positions regarding the Lebanese-Syrian relations. These relations should be normal and distinguished, because he is Prime Minister and Prime Ministers represent their country.

Regarding arrest warrants, the plaintiff is not an ordinary person, he is one of the prominent security officials in Lebanon in the period that witnessed martyr President Rafic Hariri’s assassination. He was a prominent security figure and we couldn’t demand him to bear the moral responsibility, because we would’ve been imitating well-established democratic systems, while our system was not similar or close to such examples.

They say that Jamil Sayyed never violated the law, but no doubt that he severely fought all those who object his policy and great ambition. He did not violate the law but employed it for his personal interests.

Of course, a normal person cannot stop someone at the airport and interrogate him, then release him claiming that what happened is the result of similarity in names. Certainly, an ordinary man cannot confiscate someone’s passport on suspicion that he had obtained it illegally. This falls within the law, just as the lawsuit filed at the Syrian courts. Through law, much can be done.

The summoned suffered, and some were targets of murder and treason, but they preferred to resort to judiciary, and were threatened for years by death while the killer was a ghost. They decided since the first moment that they have no secrets or information of the intelligence system, and resorted to judiciary.

There decision was not wrong, and they did not make mistakes when they decided to accuse a certain side. There is a vast distance between prosecution and conviction where law plays the role of separation. They resorted to judiciary, and decided that there is no reason to suspect its integrity, even when some of their political opponents ran the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice.

This must be taken into consideration, since Jamil Sayyed filed his lawsuit suspecting the judiciary, opposing and accusing it. Then he came announcing that he found a legal loophole through which he could penetrate to achieve his revenge. He knows his opponents and accuses them in advance of masterminding the plot. Jamil Sayyed has many secrets, unlike the summons, since they were acting as citizens by referring to courts to attain their rights and protect themselves from assassination, exile and smear campaigns.

Truth be told, during the few last years, several Lebanese figures had the right to resort to the Syrian judiciary on charges of offense, libel and slander, as well as incitement of killing. They know the perpetrator and instigator and mastermind, but still resorted to Lebanese judiciary, and filed lawsuits against an unknown.

Only Jamil Sayyed knows his opponents and can press charges against them, perhaps because they did not prepare secret plots and machinations, and have nothing to hide, but as victims of plots.

Jamil’s opponents are victims of an anonymous killer, a notorious instigator who is ashamed of showing his real identity.

Bilal Khobeiz