FitzGerald Report

I don't know if the Peter FitzGerald's report on the Hariri assassination is available anywhere else online, but if you feel like reading something completely mind-boggling and infuriating, here's a pdf, courtesy of Reason. Our own Michael Young will be commenting on this new development on Monday.

Comments

[SR]

So according to Fitzgerald’s logic, the United States government was to blame for the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, and was a contributor to the Oklahoma City bombing….

[Abdo]

Mmm… It is quite clear that the security forces completely sabotaged the inquiry. In fact that was pretty clear since the discovery of the bodies of Abourjeily and Ghalayini. (For the uninformed, Abourjeily was wounded in his *office* by the explosion and left to bleed to death for 12 hours, while Ghalayini was found 17 days after the blast ,and it had taken a few minutes for his family to find his body , while the authorities had failed to find the body 1n 17 days.)
But an important element in the report, and one about which the government is happy, is the affirmation that the explosion was detonated above the ground. I really find that surprising… What was it? a suicide attack with the white van? I think the US must have satellite pictures of the area, if not during the blast, just before or just after,in both cases that must be enough to know whether the white van was involved in the blast. I don’t know why no one is saying anything about it…
And what precise information the attackers had!
Hariri had taken this road only 6 times in 3 months! and it was communicated to the lead car only just before leaving.
Each time I think of it , I cannot but think how many ways there was for this attack to fail, and yet it succeeded. What if the convoy had taken another route? What if the white pick up had been stuck in a traffic jam?
I also wonder why Fitzgerald didn’t state his evidence concerning the tampering with the crater by throwing car parts. They just say they’re sure the authorities did that but they didn’t say why they’re sure.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear now, that after all the tampering, and with the most likely hypothesis being that the explosion took place above the ground, it is going to be impossible to
get quick and convincing results from any investigation.

[a]

Abdo:
“the affirmation that the explosion was detonated above the ground.”

But the all-knowing Michael Young assured us that the bomb was hidden in a tunnel under the road, what’s up with that?

[Abdo]

“But the all-knowing Michael Young assured us that the bomb was hidden in a tunnel under the road, what’s up with that?”

It happened with that that either he or FitzGerald must be wrong.

Before the report, my opinion was the same as Michael’s. But now, of course …

Still, there are surprising things. Why weren’t the testimonies of the surviving bodyguards included in the report? Were they all hurt so badly that they didn’t remember anything ?

[R C Dean]

I still don’t understand why the suicide car bomber hypothesis somehow rules out Syrian involvement.

[joe]

…following up RC Dean’s point, I still don’t understand why a buried bomb would have ruled out Hizbollah or Al Qaeda.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

It wouldn’t have ruled them out, but it would have been highly unlikely. The road is a major thoroughfare, heavy with tourist and regular city traffic; any underground digging would have been noticed, and the people doing it would have needed to look like they were doing some officially approved roadwork. An underground bomb would have suggested official involvement much more strongly than an above-ground bomb indicates otherwise.

I heartily suggest everybody read the full report.

[Justin Raimondo]

Tim, I’ve been looking all over the internet for this. Where did you get it?

[Tim Cavanaugh]

I think this is the only version online. The Daily Star ran it in its print version, but not online. Michael Young forwarded me the MS Word file, and I made it into a pdf. Spread it around.