So, Americans dispute what degree of invasiveness they will permit the government to carry out in the name of national security.
In the Middle East, according to CBC News, The National's reporter, Neil Macdonald, the blood of the assassination of former the Lebanese president seems to be at least pointing to, if not actually coming to rest on, the hands of Hezbollah, and any attempt to prosecute those who carried out the dastardly murder could lead to another civil war in that country. The single investigator who conducted much of the relevant and cogent research into the cell phone networks behind the assassination has been murdered, after only two meetings with U.N investigators into the death, although the U.N. commission had his report for over a year, but had apparently "lost it" and had failed to take it seriously enough to meet with him earlier.
While there are still many details of this event and its investigation still to emerge, with the jxtaposition of these two stories, the American flap over invasive screenings as compared to the potential impotence of the U.N Commission to "indict" those respsonsible for the Hariri murder, and the likelihood of their extended immunity from prosecution, one has to ask, "Are the terrorists really winning this long-term, many-stage and multiple-theatre entanglement(s) with the rest of the world?"
- If the U.N. officials are intimidated by the threats of Hezbollah should they prosecute, and
- if those who would be responsible to enforce the potential court judgement are impotent to carry out such a judgement, and
- if it is true that both Syria and Iran secretly supported Hezbollah in this act as in many other destabilizing, under-cover operations,
And, is the Chief of Security, under President Hariri, and a public "friend of the now deceased leader, the source of the many leaks from the U.N. Commission to Hezbollah itself?