Belgium has been presented with a choice

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89388,00.html ..full article

WASHINGTON — The United States has put the question squarely before Belgium: Which do you want more, NATO headquarters in your capital city or a law that sanctions war crimes charges against U.S. military commanders?

The Bush administration, backed by Congress, is threatening to shift NATO's headquarters from Brussels unless Belgium repeals a law that has now ensnared commanders involved in both U.S. conflicts with Iraq.



Good.

[aerocontrols]

How does the US move NATO's headquarters?

[Ed]

good. We just send our guys to meet in another city, bidda bang bidda boom, new HQ.

[Agammamon]

And if England, France, Germany, Greece, Turkey, et al. choose to continue to meet in Brussels?

[KelvinG]

Isn't somebody going to threaten to nuke Belgium?

Isn't that a popular tactic anymore?

[Jim Lennox]

But what if they have committed war crimes?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
But what if they have committed war crimes?
Then they will be court-martialled and imprisoned.

From the article:
"Some of the war crimes committed were very clearly the responsibility not of the men on the ground, but of the superior commander of the troops, for example, the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets," said Belgian lawyer Jan Fremont.
This is exactly why the US will not sign the ICC treaty. It would become a forum to prosecute every accidental civilian death as a war crime. This lawyer is certain that we used cluster bombs on civilian targets! How absurd. As if we even had "civilian targets".

[KelvinG]

The whole term "war crimes" is a really just a fancy way of saying that if you lose a war, you are guilty of war crimes. If you win a war, you get to prosecute war crimes.

[DanishDynamite]

I find the Belgian law presumptive. What right does a single country have to prosecute foreigners for alleged crimes committed by said foreigner while in a foreign country? Perhaps they were inspired by the US. (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N19/noriega.19w.html)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I find the Belgian law presumptive. What right does a single country have to prosecute foreigners for alleged crimes committed by said foreigner while in a foreign country? Perhaps they were inspired by the US. (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N19/noriega.19w.html)
from the article:
Convicted of allowing Colombia's Medellin drug cartel to ship tons of U.S.-bound cocaine through Panama in return for cash payoffs, Noriega could receive a maximum sentence of 120 years in prison and almost $1 million in fines.
He was abetting the smuggling of cocaine into the US, so the US was well within its' right to capture and prosecute him. But the war on drugs is a travesty, I don't think what Noriega did should be a crime but it is.

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:from the article:

He was abetting the smuggling of cocaine into the US, so the US was well within its' right to capture and prosecute him. But the war on drugs is a travesty, I don't think what Noriega did should be a crime but it is. You have got to be kidding. Whatever crimes Noriega committed, he did it as a foreigner on foreign soil. If the US was within it's rights to capture him (by invading a foreign country!!) and then prosecuting him according to their own domestic laws, what possible objection could you have to the Belgian law?

[Edited to add "domestic laws" detail]

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
WildCat:You have got to be kidding. Whatever crimes Noriega committed, he did it as a foreigner on foreign soil. If the US was within it's rights to capture him (by invading a foreign country!!) and then prosecuting him, what possible objection could you have to the Belgian law?
So if I head an organization smuggling contraband into Denmark the Danish gov't would be ok w/ it? They wouldn't extradite me to face trial, so long as I never actually set foot in Denmark?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
WildCat:You have got to be kidding. Whatever crimes Noriega committed, he did it as a foreigner on foreign soil. If the US was within it's rights to capture him (by invading a foreign country!!) and then prosecuting him according to their own domestic laws, what possible objection could you have to the Belgian law?

[Edited to add "domestic laws" detail]

Let's see Belgium invade the U.S. to capture a "war criminal."

[Earthborn]

This lawyer is certain that we used cluster bombs on civilian targets! How absurd. As if we even had "civilian targets".'You' may not have had civilian targets, but 'you' did use cluster bombs. The Pentagon admits it.HOW MANY CIVILIANS WERE KILLED BY CLUSTER BOMBS?
The Pentagon says 1: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press.htm) says at least 200.Choose for yourself who you want to believe.

Of course these accusations against Belgium are totally unfounded. In fact the US should be thankful for Belgium.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt about the lawsuit against the US:
(snip), Verhofstadt called the lawsuit an abuse of a controversial law that allows Belgian courts to try foreigners for war crimes and other human rights violations.

"The law leaves open the possibility of sending back the complaint to the United States and that is what I...aim to do," he said in an interview with local VTM television. "Next week, I will call for a cabinet meeting and...undo this abuse."From: Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2762474)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
'You' may not have had civilian targets, but 'you' did use cluster bombs. The Pentagon admits it.Choose for yourself who you want to believe.
I didn't claim the US didn't use cluster bombs, only that they weren't used intentionally on civilian targets.
The fact that there were civilian casualties is not in and of itself a war crime. Unfortunately, the Belgian lawyer I quoted from the article seems to think so.

[Earthborn]

Unfortunately, the Belgian lawyer I quoted from the article seems to think so.Of course a lawyer presents his clients case as crass as possible. That's his job.The fact that there were civilian casualties is not in and of itself a war crime.Exactly. Which is why the Belgian prime minister said the issue should be handled by the US itself if it wants... almost a month ago!

Did the US send a big thank-you note to Belgium? Something like: "Well, that's mightely reasonable of you. We always knew you weren't really anti-american, even though you didn't support our little war."

No, they didn't. They continue to send threats to Belgium, lying to the public that american soldiers are still risking a Belgian lawsuit. They're not. It's that simple.

We can only guess why the US administration does it. One possibility of course is that Bush doesn't want his buddy Sharon tried for his actions in Sabra and Shatila. As far as I know, that't the only case that is taken in serious consideration.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course a lawyer presents his clients case as crass as possible. That's his job.Exactly. Which is why the Belgian prime minister said the issue should be handled by the US itself if it wants... almost a month ago!
True, but this is not an iron-clad guarantee. From here: (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/14/MN275582.DTL)
The law, which allows anyone to bring war crimes charges in Belgian courts, regardless of where the alleged crimes took place, was recently amended to allow the government to dismiss politically motivated cases by allowing the government to refer complaints against citizens of democratic nations with functioning legal systems back to their homelands.
Allows, but does not require, the case to be referred. Still requires the alleged war criminal to have to defend him/herself from the charges, no matter how spurious, whether the venue is Belgium or the US.
This is a bad law.

[Ion]

This issue was also brought up in the newspaper today:
Originally posted by Earthborn

...
No, they didn't. They continue to send threats to Belgium, lying to the public that american soldiers are still risking a Belgian lawsuit. They're not. It's that simple.
...

Bush and his administration appear to me as being clowns, on this issue also.

I would like to think of a big issue since the year 2000, where Bush wasn't a clown.

[Ion]

Originally posted by WildCat

...
Allows, but does not require, the case to be referred.
...

Sounds good.

[Earthborn]

True, but this is not an iron-clad guarantee.No it isn't. But it also isn't a reason to start making threats, however small.Many Belgian officials said Rumsfeld's remarks would only complicate efforts to fix what they agree is an ill-conceived law.Typical Bushian diplomacy.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Typical Bushian diplomacy.

"Bushian diplomacy" sounds like an oxymoron to me :D

Zee

[bjornart]

Ah, yes. A small European country makes a law allowing the courts to try foreigners for crimes against humanity. A token effort against the sad state of the world, since the dictators and heads of state most likely to be tried will never be within reach of Belgian police forces.
And who protests? The biggest military power in the world. The one that reserves the right to invade other countries on truly ****** evidence of a 'threat to humanity'.

If you don't stop whining both about others interfering with your 'internal' matters, _and_ about others interfering with your interfering with the internal matters of others, you'll just have to cope with the ridicule.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

Then they will be court-martialled and imprisoned.

From the article:

This is exactly why the US will not sign the ICC treaty. It would become a forum to prosecute every accidental civilian death as a war crime. This lawyer is certain that we used cluster bombs on civilian targets! How absurd. As if we even had "civilian targets".

Yep, Calley got prosecuted pretty hard, not.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

I didn't claim the US didn't use cluster bombs, only that they weren't used intentionally on civilian targets.
The fact that there were civilian casualties is not in and of itself a war crime. Unfortunately, the Belgian lawyer I quoted from the article seems to think so.

Australia and GB fought alongside the US in that war, and both of them used rules of engagement that preculded the use of cluster bombs or mines.

The US had a massive victory over the Iraqis, why on earth did they need to even use cluster bombs. And the death toll for cluster bombs won't be known for many years to come. People are still dying in Vietnam from unexploded bombs.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman:
"Bushian diplomacy" sounds like an oxymoron to me :D

As does Belgian justice. (www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980302/europe.the_trials_of_a_n7.html) ;)

Originally posted by bjornart:
Ah, yes. A small European country makes a law allowing the courts to try foreigners for crimes against humanity. A token effort against the sad state of the world, since the dictators and heads of state most likely to be tried will never be within reach of Belgian police forces.
And who protests? The biggest military power in the world. The one that reserves the right to invade other countries on truly ****** evidence of a 'threat to humanity'.

If you don't stop whining both about others interfering with your 'internal' matters, _and_ about others interfering with your interfering with the internal matters of others, you'll just have to cope with the ridicule.

Ridicule? The Belgians are incapable of prosecuting horrific crimes commited by and against their own citizens. (www.crimelibrary.com/serial3/marcdutroux/) The Belgians should take care of affairs in their own juristiction before engaging in ridiculuous flights of fancy on the world stage.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


As does Belgian justice. (www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980302/europe.the_trials_of_a_n7.html) ;)



Ridicule? The Belgians are incapable of prosecuting horrific crimes commited by and against their own citizens. (www.crimelibrary.com/serial3/marcdutroux/) The Belgians should take care of affairs in their own juristiction before engaging in ridiculuous flights of fancy on the world stage.

After stuffing up, they caught him and are taking very careful steps to make sure he is convicted.

If you look around, there are plenty of other police stuff ups around the world.

[Skeptic]

Ah, yes. A small European country makes a law allowing the courts to try foreigners for crimes against humanity. A token effort against the sad state of the world,

Not true: those prosecuted by the Belgian court includes, so far, Americans and israelis, but--needless to say--no Arab or African dictator. In fact, it's usually the Arab dictators or their cronies who are the plaintiffs in these trials: the Syrians and Iraqis shedding crocodile tears over the "awful human right abuse" by the western democracies.

If the point of the law was REALLY concern about human rights, wouldn't the Belgian courts be prosecuting, say, Quaddaffi or Castro instead of Bush and Sharon?

Just to examples of how hypocritical the Belgians are:

1). The same Belgian courts that recently rules that Sharon could be prosecuted for alleged war crimes no matter how long ago they happened, all in the name of "justice", recently ruled that a well-known nazi war criminal still living in Belgium cannot be prosecuted, since a long time passed from the commission of the crimes. The parallel is quite clear: if you are a jew, no crime or alleged crime you commit is ever forgiven; but if you merely butcher a few thousand jews, wait a while and it's going to be "old news".

2). The same Belgian courts that ruled that Belgium could prosecute Bush and Sharon for alleged war crimes, for some reason failed to prosecute their own citizens for very real crimes they committed during the colonial rule of the Congo. It was the blood-curdling crimes of the Belgians which made Joseph Conrad write his famous novel "Heart of Darkness". Mr. Kurtz (in the novel) is fictional, but based on actual people met by Conrad in his fourmonth tour of the Congo. But THAT is not important. The Belgians need to prosecute the jews and their snotty American supporters first...

It isn't a "effort against the sad state of the world". It's just another attempt by murderous dictatorships to embarras democracies by blaming them of war crimes--with the hope that in the ensuing bruhahah, the dictatorships' own crimes would be forgotten.

But what can you expect from a world where Sudan, Libya, and Syria are on the UN's "human rights commission", or where the UN's "anti-racism" conference in Durban became the largest antisemitic extraveganza since the Nuremberg rallies of the 1930s.

Nowadays, when some organization is said to be a "protector of human rights" or a "fighter against racism", 99% of the time it really means the organization is full of rabidly antisemitic and anti-USA hypocrites.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Not true: those prosecuted by the Belgian court includes, so far, Americans and israelis, but--needless to say--no Arab or African dictator. In fact, it's usually the Arab dictators or their cronies who are the plaintiffs in these trials: the Syrians and Iraqis shedding crocodile tears over the "awful human right abuse" by the western democracies.

If the point of the law was REALLY concern about human rights, wouldn't the Belgian courts be prosecuting, say, Quaddaffi or Castro instead of Bush and Sharon?

I'd gloat. But that would only boomerang back at me the next time I make an obvious mistake. :D


Cases have been filed in Belgium against Mauritanian President Maaouyaould Sid'Ahmed Taya, then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Central African Republic President Ange-Felix Patassé, Republic of Congo President Denis Sassou Nguesso, Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat, former Chadian President Hissène Habré, former Chilean President Gen. Augusto Pinochet, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani former Moroccan interior minister Driss Basri, former Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others. Many of these cases have not been actively pursued, however, and a recent rulings on state immunity bar states from prosecuting certain sitting foreign officials. The cases against Gbagbo, Yerodia Ndombasi and Sharon have been dismissed.
HRW Q&A on Belgian 'Anti-Atrocity' law (http://staging.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/belgium-qna.pdf)

Say that again about only Israelis and Americans and no Arabs or Africans?

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol at Belgium and their stupid law. Let me translate Rumsfeld so the Europeans can understand him clearly: "Belgium, you can take your ill-conceived law and shove it straight up your ass."

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Australia and GB fought alongside the US in that war, and both of them used rules of engagement that preculded the use of cluster bombs or mines.

What? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,966716,00.html)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

...
"Belgium, you can take your ill-conceived law and shove it straight up your ass."
Have you tried this?

Does it work for you?

[Earthborn]

recently ruled that a well-known nazi war criminal still living in Belgium cannot be prosecutedSince the Nazi war criminal is well known according to you, I'm sure you could give us his name.It was the blood-curdling crimes of the Belgians which made Joseph Conrad write his famous novel "Heart of Darkness".First complaining that 'if you are a jew, no crime or alleged crime you commit is ever forgiven' and then suddenly, out of the blue, accusing the same people of hypocrisy because they don't prosecute the people described in a book first published in ... wait for it... 1901 (http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/heart.html)! :D

[Baker]

Originally posted by bjornart


I'd gloat. But that would only boomerang back at me the next time I make an obvious mistake. :D



Say that again about only Israelis and Americans and no Arabs or Africans?

I didn’t see Sudan mentioned any on the report all of those countries listed and all you hear about or Israel and the US.

[Mike B.]

Would this court aggressively go after the third world?

I mean for instance the African Civil Wars in which limbs of children are being chopped off, etc.

My guess is no...

It would be called, "neo-colonialism" and would be immediatly ended.

BTW,
Skeptic you forgot my personal favorite, Idi Amin making speeches decrying the human rights abuses of Israel and the West to standing ovations in the General Assembly of the UN. The same Idi Amin responsible for at least 300,000 deaths in Uganda and personally EATING some of his subjects.

[Earthborn]

Let me translate Rumsfeld so the Europeans can understand him clearly: "Belgium, you can take your ill-conceived law and shove it straight up your ass."I think the Europeans are able to understand his message exactly that way. What Rumsfeld should have said was: "Belgium, thank you for not using your ill-conceived law against us."I didn’t see Sudan mentioned any on the report all of those countries listed and all you hear about or Israel and the US.I didn't see the US mentioned either. And Israel isn't mentioned for anything they do right now, but for an incident many years ago whereby thousands of civilians died.It would be called, "neo-colonialism" and would be immediatly ended.Why would the people who extradite someone they accuse of crimes against humanity, accuse Belgium of neo-colonialism for taking the case? :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


What? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,966716,00.html)

Make that Australia then. Either way, there was no call for their use in a war that was a slam dunk from the start.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I didn’t see Sudan mentioned any on the report all of those countries listed and all you hear about or Israel and the US.

Nitpicker of the year award?

Maybe the fact that all you hear about is Israel of the US is because the press you are relying on is not doing their job.

[BobK]

Why would Belgium feel any pressure to change this law?

Do they think the passage of this law might have financial consequences?

If they really think they're right, they should stick to their principles.

Do they normally sell their principles for economic benefit?

I'm sure France, Germany and the rest of NATO will gladly pick up the 25% of NATO costs paid by the USA. Dont you? :rolleyes:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
After stuffing up, they caught him and are taking very careful steps to make sure he is convicted.

If you look around, there are plenty of other police stuff ups around the world.

Bwhahahah! Time methinks to quote form the links, lest certain posters from a different part of the solar system missed something.

"The whole system is sick," said Marc Verwilghen, the Member of Parliament who chaired the investigation. "It is a typically Belgian cancer." The report left ordinary Belgians disgusted with the abysmal quality of law enforcement.

In many cases, there is widespread public suspicion that the police and government were at best inept in solving the crimes and at worst complicit in their perpetration and concealment.

In November 1995, 4 1/2 months after the disappearance of Julie and her best friend eight-year-old Melissa, and at least three months before their deaths, police liberated three young kidnap victims from a property inhabited by Bernard Weinstein, an accomplice whom Dutroux has since admitted murdering. Five weeks later, police heard children's voices in Dutroux's home while they were questioning him about car thefts. But despite Dutroux's conviction on child rape charges in 1989--he was released after three years in prison--they left after a cursory search that failed to uncover the concealed dungeon where the girls were held and later starved to death.

In November 1995, 4 1/2 months after the disappearance of Julie and her best friend eight-year-old Melissa, and at least three months before their deaths, police liberated three young kidnap victims from a property inhabited by Bernard Weinstein, an accomplice whom Dutroux has since admitted murdering. Five weeks later, police heard children's voices in Dutroux's home while they were questioning him about car thefts. But despite Dutroux's conviction on child rape charges in 1989--he was released after three years in prison--they left after a cursory search that failed to uncover the concealed dungeon where the girls were held and later starved to death.

Yup, the Belgians have such a great justice system that anyone who questions the assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction is clearly mad. I mean, what country could have reservations about handing it's citizens over to the Belgian authorities?