Belgium declares itself ruler of the world [Archive]

ZeeGerman

28th April 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Why is any of this Belgium's business?

Secondly, the Belgians have a nerve, considering the Dutroux paedophile scandal.

It is because 10 Iraqis filed a complaint. And they can do so because:

"Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world."

What exactly is the problem here? Don't you have an independent jursidiction in your country?

And what exactly has all this to do with the Dutroux scandal?

Zee

Shane Costello

28th April 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman:
What exactly is the problem here? Don't you have an independent jursidiction in your country?

My problem is I don't see how the Belgians feel they have the right to assume such powers.

And what exactly has all this to do with the Dutroux scandal?

I'd say the fact Belgium has an awful system of justice is very relevant.

Supercharts

28th April 2003, 04:53 AM

Unlike the French the Belgians will fight. Gen. Franks should take this seriously.:(

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:02 AM

"Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world."

The belgiuns are obviously over stepping their bounds with this law. What gives them the authority to judge war crimes commited anywhere in the world?

LuxFerum

28th April 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Tony

The belgiuns are obviously over stepping their bounds with this law. What gives them the authority to judge war crimes commited anywhere in the world?

What gives the US the authority to judge war crimes commited anywhere in the world?

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum

What gives the US the authority to judge war crimes commited anywhere in the world?

The strongest military in the world. :)

But seriously, the US doesn’t judge war crimes committed anywhere in the world. When has a foreign official come before a US court in a war-crime trial?

armageddonman

28th April 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Tony
The belgiuns are obviously over stepping their bounds with this law. What gives them the authority to judge war crimes commited anywhere in the world?

What gives the US the authority to set up and get rid off dictators at will?

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by armageddonman

What gives the US the authority to set up and get rid off dictators at will?

1.The strongest military in the world.

2.The will to use that power for good (ie getting rid of dictators)

Now that I have answered your question, will you answer mine?

LuxFerum

28th April 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Tony

The strongest military in the world. :)

But seriously, the US doesn’t judge war crimes committed anywhere in the world. When has a foreign official come before a US court in a war-crime trial?

Authority by force. what is the name for that?:rolleyes:

since the US do not agree on an international court, who should do something about wars crimes? someone has to do.

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Authority by force. what is the name for that?:rolleyes:

Reality

since the US do not agree on an international court, who should do something about wars crimes?

Why does the US have to agree to the ICC to make it workable?

LuxFerum

28th April 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Reality

Why does the US have to agree to the ICC to make it workable?

otherwise, people like you will question his Authority,
like you are doing right now with the Belgium.

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum

otherwise, people like you will question his Authority,
like you are doing right now with the Belgium.

Can you elaborate on this, it doesnt make sense to me. I dont see how it relates to my question.

LuxFerum

28th April 2003, 06:00 AM

who do you think that have a world jurisdiction to solve proplems like this. And you should realise that it doesnt work if there is a country that is a safe place for the infractors. (that is wy US invade Afghanistan)

Tony

28th April 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
who do you think that have a world jurisdiction to solve proplems like this. And you should realise that it doesnt work if there is a country that is a safe place for the infractors. (that is wy US invade Afghanistan)

And why would you think the US would give safe haven to dictators and war criminals?

The reason I am against the ICC and the Belgian court is that these courts could be used to persecute US officials for political reasons. Like the situation described in this article.

LuxFerum

28th April 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Tony

And why would you think the US would give safe haven to dictators and war criminals?

The reason I am against the ICC and the Belgian court is that these courts could be used to persecute US officials for political reasons. Like the situation described in this article.

Its a court, not a tv show, This case, in Belgian is going nowhere without proof. Why do you think that a international court will fall in these whoo-whoo stuff.

Diezel

28th April 2003, 07:04 AM

Tony:

Your post is in violation of the forum rules, specifically the rules against copyright infringment. You have quoted a large chunk of a copyrighted article. You may post select quotes, but not large chunks of an original (or the entire original.)

Please edit your post to comply with the rules within 15 minutes. If you do not edit your post within 15 minutes, I will edit it for you. I will PM this message to you.

Baker

28th April 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Diezel
Tony:

Your post is in violation of the forum rules, specifically the rules against copyright infringment. You have quoted a large chunk of a copyrighted article. You may post select quotes, but not large chunks of an original (or the entire original.)

Please edit your post to comply with the rules within 15 minutes. If you do not edit your post within 15 minutes, I will edit it for you. I will PM this message to you.

If you can only post select quotes, but not large chunks of an original then you need to have a look at Wasim posts in these forums.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18362
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...?threadid=17711
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...p?threadid=6087

Diezel

28th April 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Baker

If you can only post select quotes, but not large chunks of an original then you need to have a look at Wasim posts in these forums.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18362
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...?threadid=17711
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...p?threadid=6087

Thank you, I will look into those. If you see violations such as these, please PM a moderator and bring it to their attention, or report the post. We can't be everywhere at once. :)

Ladewig

28th April 2003, 07:41 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZeeGerman-
And what exactly has all this to do with the Dutroux scandal?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Costello-
I'd say the fact Belgium has an awful system of justice is very relevant.

One can point to a flawed criminal case in almost every country. Falsely convicted men being released from death row in Illinois for instance. A single example is not enough to label the entire system awful.

Ladewig

28th April 2003, 07:51 AM

Tony-
I guess Belgium wants to start a war.

Did Chile want to start a war when they wanted Henry Kissinger to come down for questioning as a witness in the investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the socialist president, Salvador Allende, by General Augusto Pinochet? There was speculation that when Kissinger would arrive for questioning, charges would be brought against him for his participation in the related murders.

Shane Costello

28th April 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig:

One can point to a flawed criminal case in almost every country. Falsely convicted men being released from death row in Illinois for instance. A single example is not enough to label the entire system awful.

The Dutroux case (www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4343061,00.html) is especially awful, both in terms of the crimes he commited and the incompetence of the Belgian justice system at all levels.

"He stands accused of committing the vilest of crimes - of raping, torturing and murdering young girls as young as eight for his own sexual gratification. And yet Marc Dutroux, already a convicted paedophile, has still not been brought to justice.

"When he was set free he was given a GBP 1,400 a month invalid's pension. Unbelievably, police also searched his house when Julie and Melissa were cowering in cages in his basement but failed to find them. They heard screaming but chose to believe Dutroux, who told them it must have been children playing outside."

"The victims' parents think they have an answer - a cover-up and many Belgians agree with them. Dutroux was not acting alone, they say, but was part of a wider paedophile ring which included policemen and senior members of the establishment. Why else would there be such a delay in going to trial?"

The original investigating magistrate was dismissed after sharing a meal with one of the victim's families and several prosecutors, policemen and crucial witness have committed suicide. Important evidence has also disappeared.

I think the Belgians have enough to do without prosecuting "terrorists" that have commited no "crimes" against Belgian citizens.

voidx

28th April 2003, 09:12 AM

I'm all for keeping people accountable, military personnel included, for their actions. But this seems opportunistic to me. It concerns me when one country can simply declare themselves with the ability to try any non-citizen in the world with war crimes. The article expressed a frustration with trying to go to the ICC but that the US did not ratify itself as part of that agreement so they went to Belgium. Well who ratified the Belgian court to oversee the worlds War Crime trials? And who overlooks them? An international commitee of some sort, or just the Belgians? Now some of you have tossed back a text book, "well what gives the US the right?" Which doesn't do anything to answer the question, and also, because I'm admitting to not really having any idea, is there any example of the US actually doing so? And could I be provided a link showing this?

Also it looks as though they are flat out assuming these war crimes are proven as they state them, and that the US knew about them, or did them intentionally and didn't stop them. We've all heard cases of Iraqi citizens in fear trying to run through US checkpoints, and getting shot, there was one case in particular. But this was at a time when US forces were being car-bombed, and tricked into letting their guard down by Iraqi's forces pretending to surrender, and then opening fire. Should their be repercussions for the death of Iraqi civilians, depending on circumstances certainly. Should their be a difference between accidental death, and intentional murder as far as labelling a war crime, I certainly think so. It wouldn't be hard to find 10 people, in a country the size of Iraq who would be willing to come out and try to claim war crimes against the US. It's not surprising, obviously not every Iraqi is probably thrilled to have the US in their country.

Should the US military be held accountable for any legitimate war crimes if they can be proven, certainly. Is Belgium the arena for these trials to take place, in my opinion no, as their is no International body overlooking the Belgian court system in regards to War Crimes(that I know of). Does this whole thing seem kind of opportunistic and political, very much so.

Oh and I'm not from Texas, so maybe that makes my view more valid :rolleyes:

Sundog

28th April 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Now I see, you are from texas.

I'll echo: So? So am I. :mad:

DrChinese

28th April 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum

Now I see, you are from texas.

I am too.

In Texas, we don't like our criminals to be rare. We prefer them well done. And possession is 9 tenths of the law. If you shoot an intruder in your home, make sure you kill him.

In Texas, we apply the law when and where it suits us. That's why Cowboy George is so popular around here. Hope this helps remove any confusion.

Nitpick

28th April 2003, 11:19 AM

They did amend that law (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archiv e\200304\FOR20030407d.html) . But what exactly does it say now?

--------------------

Originally posted by Tony

The strongest military in the world. :)

Originally posted by Tony

1.The strongest military in the world.
...

Quod licet Jovis..., isn't it?

Why do great power and wisdom always seem to exclude one another? (Just my impression... )
They'd make such a great pair...

Diezel

28th April 2003, 11:22 AM

Shane Costello:

Your post is in violation of the forum rules, specifically the rules against copyright infringment. You have quoted a large chunk of a copyrighted article. You may post select quotes, but not large chunks of an original (or the entire original.)

Please edit your post to comply with the rules within 15 minutes. If you do not edit your post within 15 minutes, I will edit it for you. I will PM this message to you.

ZeeGerman

28th April 2003, 12:28 PM

Hmm,

look here (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/11/world-court.htm) and
here (http://www.diplomatie.be/en/press/homedetails.asp?TEXTID=5943). Then tell me what the fuss is all about in this thread. So far I can't see anything wrong with Belgium's laws or actions (The Iraqis are still just planning to file a complaint). My guess: It won't even make it to court.

Zee

voidx

28th April 2003, 01:07 PM

That clarifies things some, thanks Zee. However, it does not put me at ease.

Most of the examples given that the Belgian govn't has taken action on this legislation have been cases of genocide and rape based upon for example the Rwandan situation which was political in nature, and there was clear INTENT to knowingly murder, rape and massacre. Also this occured in a single country over politics and during an election in which part of the country was seeking Democracy. In this sense the Belgian laws seem to apply. They don't seem to apply so readily to a occupying military force, in a military zone, with setup checkpoints and security protocols. I'm not saying its any more right, but its definatly not the same scenario. A group of soldiers opening fire on a bus that appears to be running through a checkpoint without stopping ,even when given warning shots, leaving the soldiers in question of their own safety, has to be judged differently in my opinion, than a group going around indiscriminately killing and raping people that differ with them politcially. And the bombing of the market which is most likely a case of, whether you like the concept or not, collateral damage, is also quite different.

I think your correct in stating that it will go nowhere, I don't see how they could ever prove that those soldiers, and that market bombing happened with the soldiers knowing full well and with intent that they were firing on unarmed civilians, and that's the difference.

The article on the Belgium site describing the law includes this statement:

The essential aim was to avoid a deluge of cases arising out of purely political motives and, in many cases, the frenzied hype generated by the press.

I just wonder if these charges by the Iraqi's do not potentially fall under this category. The scary part for me is not that they might actually get away with charging the General with War Crimes, as that would seem unlikely, but the very fact that they can go around laying War Crimes charges is scary to me. I realize from reading your links that there is no world wide concerted organiztion for charging War Crimes, and I agree that something needs to fill this void. But this example, at least to me, doesn't seem very justified and so I still feel uneasy about it.

voidx

28th April 2003, 01:10 PM

Just clicked on the last part of your post there too Zee. I agree that the filing of a complaint is fine, there really should be an outlet for this. But if this case makes it to court, and assuming that there is no proof supporting the claims (as I can't know for certain what happened, I only know what I read) I'd be very concerned.

Tony

28th April 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig

Did Chile want to start a war when they wanted Henry Kissinger to come down for questioning as a witness in the investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the socialist president, Salvador Allende, by General Augusto Pinochet? There was speculation that when Kissinger would arrive for questioning, charges would be brought against him for his participation in the related murders.

Different situation. Kissinger's "crime" was committed in Chile, against Chileans.

AP's sock puppet

28th April 2003, 03:39 PM

Well they do have the best chocolate.

DrBenway

28th April 2003, 04:14 PM

from http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030428-12027619.htm

• The attack on a civilian bus with an "energy weapon" in the town of al-Hillah, killing at least 10 passengers.

Anyone know what the "energy weapon" might be?

a_unique_person

28th April 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030428-12027619.htm

[Edited due to violation of forum rules regarding copyright violation; a large chunk of original material was posted - Diezel]

I guess Belgium wants to start a war.

I fail to see the problem, Belgium is a Democracy.

Tony

28th April 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I fail to see the problem, Belgium is a Democracy.

How is that relevant?

a_unique_person

28th April 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Tony

How is that relevant?

That seems to be the justification for the USA doing whatever it wants to in the world. And, unlike the Belgium, the US can do so. In terms of the world ranking of military power, there is the USA and then daylight.

Tony

28th April 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That seems to be the justification for the USA doing whatever it wants to in the world.

According to who?

In terms of the world ranking of military power, there is the USA and then daylight.

What does this mean?

voidx

29th April 2003, 07:47 AM

That seems to be the justification for the USA doing whatever it wants to in the world.

Them being a democracy that is. This is your actual counter arguement? Because the Americans do something that you think was not justified, and their a democracy, it automatically becomes ok for any other nation to do something others deem unjustified simply because, "Well the Americans are doing it, and THEIR a democracy.". Either come up with a valid counter arguement, or say nothing. I wish people would quit tossing these ridiculous one-liners around. One nation doing something you disagree with, does not give a nation you happen to agree with on a point license to go and do something others deem unjustified under the horribly general pretense of, "Well their a democracy too.". Honestly :rolleyes: .

Tony

29th April 2003, 11:57 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85484,00.html

NEW YORK — The International Criminal Court (search) in The Hague, Netherlands, is supposed to bring justice for the victims of war crimes, genocide and other evils.

But a court case in Belgium offers a strange preview of what could be coming in the world of international jurisprudence.

It centers on U.S. war chief Gen. Tommy Franks (search), the architect of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In America, many people consider Franks a hero. But in Europe, there are some who are branding him a war criminal.

Belgian human rights lawyer Jan Fermon represents Iraqis who claim to be victims of the war effort, and he wants Franks and other U.S. officials indicted for war crimes.

Congress also has adopted legislation empowering the president to use "all means necessary" to free Americans taken into the court's custody — jokingly called the "Invasion of The Hague Act," reported The Associated Press.

One American official told United Press International the court would fail to bring war criminals to justice because it "undermines the U.N. Security Council's role in keeping peace and security, creates a prosecutorial system with unchecked powers, is vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutors and asserts jurisdiction over citizens and states that have not ratified the treaty."

Ill say it again, I guess belgium wants to start a war.

daenku32

29th April 2003, 12:11 PM

So might makes right and therefore our government can do whatever it wants in the world. No holds barred.

Fabulous. Now make me the leader. I got some ideas too.:D

Tony

29th April 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by daenku32
So might makes right

Yes, it does.

and therefore our government can do whatever it wants in the world. No holds barred.

When did I say that? Our government should be accountable to us, the people of the USA. NOT a foriegn or international court.

Advocate

29th April 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Tony
[BIll say it again, I guess belgium wants to start a war. [/B]

I have been thinking for a while that we may be looking at the beginning of another Cold War, this time between the US and Europe (France/Germany/Belgium). This recent turn of events makes me think that is even more likely now. I see America and Europe moving apart very quickly. Depending on the result of this action in Belgium, the rift may soon be irreversible. However, I don't see an actual war with Belgium happening anytime soon unless they actually attempt to apprehend US citizens and I doubt they would do that unless those citizens go to Europe.

ZeeGerman

29th April 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85484,00.html

Ill say it again, I guess belgium wants to start a war.

Tony, you are an idiot, if you'l excuse my french. What's really the point you are trying to make?

10 guys from Iraq take advantage of a 1993 Belgian law that was definitely NOT targeted against the US. They PLAN to file a complaint, NOTHING has happened yet except the media frenzy.

So what's your obsession with war? You still play with your toy soldiers or what. How old are you anyway? :rolleyes:

Zee

no one in particular

29th April 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by DrBenway
Anyone know what the "energy weapon" might be? When I first read the term “energy weapon” I thought they were referring to the old idea of gravity bombs. Back when the US was planning on using the Blackbird against the Russians there was an idea to drop a massive weigh from a plane that was hauling arse. The effect would be similar to a meteorite hit. This concept has seemingly evolved into the 500-2000 lb laser guided concrete/non explosive bombs for use in populated areas. That was what I thought anyway. I was wrong. This (!) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/pentagon010301.html) is an energy weapon.It uses a narrow beam of energy that heats up the skin of a target, causing pain one might experience when touching a light bulb that has been left on for awhile. The Pentagon said the technology has no harmful effects, because low-energy levels are used, and the rays only penetrate less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin. wtf!

voidx

29th April 2003, 01:23 PM

*sigh*...so we go from "Well Belgiums a democracy, and the US is using that as their excuse to do anything they want", to "Does Might make Right?". I for one am getting tired of nice blanket statements that ignore what someone is trying to point out, by quotes or stated opinion our articles, and in themselves usually mean nothing, they sound like something you'd see on a protest sign. No one, the article included, is saying the US has authority to run around doing whatever they want unchecked. Now yes the article is US centric, so take that with a grain of salt if you want, but acknowledge what their concerns are. They figure this is more a process for the UN, rather than something that:

is vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutors and asserts jurisdiction over citizens and states that have not ratified the treaty."

That's the over-riding issue I think. Yes, make an international court for people to bring these complaints to, as these Iraqi's are trying to do in Belgium. But make it something that all nations have agreed on and ratified. Now I acknowledge the problem, what if a country simply refuses to ratify it, then what happens? And I'm not certain what to do there, but a definition of War Crimes certainly needs to be established and standardized in all of these potential International courts. Some have used examples such as the Croatian general that was charged for War Crimes. I don't know the specifics of that case, but most of the examples used involve soldiers or military forces committing ethnic or politically motivated murder, rape or massacre. I think you're going to have an impossible time proving that is the case in these charges against the US and General Franks.

voidx

29th April 2003, 01:29 PM

Oops, got ahead of myself again :D. Yes no charges have actually been issued have they. But I do feel the Iraqi's are taking advantage, from what I've read I don't think the cases amount to War Crime material, although they certainly need to be looked into and clarified.

I'll admit part of this is perhaps the US's shooting themselves in the foot by not ratifying the ICC which would have then become the venue for issuing these types of complaints. Anyone have any idea why the US is against ratifying the ICC?

ZeeGerman

30th April 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by voidx
Oops, got ahead of myself again :D. Yes no charges have actually been issued have they. But I do feel the Iraqi's are taking advantage, from what I've read I don't think the cases amount to War Crime material, although they certainly need to be looked into and clarified.

I'll admit part of this is perhaps the US's shooting themselves in the foot by not ratifying the ICC which would have then become the venue for issuing these types of complaints. Anyone have any idea why the US is against ratifying the ICC?

What I heard, it's because the US don't want to see any US citizens facing trial there. Which would then be theoretically possible.

It certainly is an abandonment of sovereignty although a small one and I guess the US have a problem with that.

Zee