Someone is thinking! In Belgium...
 

BRUSSELS, Belgium — A leading Belgian politician has proposed abolishing his country's war crimes law, which has soured relations with the United States after it was used to file charges against President Bush and other prominent Americans.



Former Belgian PM Urges Repeal of War Crimes Law

Former Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene made the proposal after repeated U.S. demands for the repeal of the 1993 law. The criticism has sparked a widening political debate in about the future of the legislation, which allows Belgian courts to prosecute war crimes regardless of where they occurred.

"I think our ambitions are higher than our possibilities and that can jeopardize the role we have to play as European capital," Dehaene told the Canvas television network late Friday.

"It's a bit crazy to think we could be the conscience of the world," he added.

The leading party in the center-left government on Saturday rejected calls drop the law but said it would have to be further amended. (More at link)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90084,00.html

I think this was pretty well summed up with "It's a bit crazy to think we could be the conscience of the world," ... .

US is now dictating how countries make internal laws?? why dont we just go in there and run their country?

You do realize the contradiction in this statement, right?

Yeah, war crime law is a terrible idea. Let's get all that unused gas warfare stuff off the shelves and out into the world.

Didn't the Germans march through Belgium at least twice?

We would never really ever know if we committed war crimes. Our media is too tightly controlled, and pro-republican. I'm not saying anyone is guilty of anything, but I am saying that no one could ever be sure (because we ALL know the US has NEVER been involved in media manipulation....:rolleyes: )

Just exactly which other media other than Fox even hints at being Republican - Are you looking at the same ultra liberal media the rest of us deal with? For every outlet that even leans toward being Republican there are dozens that are way over on the other side.

I think it probably breaks down fairly even, LD. For every "Mother Jones" there's a "The Economist," for every "New York Times" there's "Fox News."

It's not that simple, Dude. This law is *universal*, as in: some US bloke kills an Iraqi guy in Nepal, and he can be sued in Belgium. The consequences are rather silly. Sharon has been sued; Blair has been sued; Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Powell and General Franks have been sued...

The law is a nice idea, but fails to take into account that there are extremists abusing it. In the case of the current US leadership, for example: they were sued by extreme-left guys and Arabic nationalists. These are obviously political cases, not criminal ones.

The result is that the US has said (justifiably) that it would no longer send any NATO personal to the NATO HQ, because they might be arrested upon arrival. The same goes for other US officials. Imagine President Bush being arrested by Belgian police... How long would it take your army to invade?

OTOH, US law-makers seem to feel they do have the power to apply their laws universally. A Dutch DJ was extradited to the US for selling some/a lot of XTC pills to some US users/traders in Amsterdam...

it's the sovereign right of a nation to make laws to govern itself, however unfair it seems to other nations.

we cant tell other countries to repeal a law just cuz our leaders could be prosecuted under it!

if bush faces arrest in belgium, then dont go there.

Yeah. What's your point ?

Being Belgian, I think this law is a good idea in theory but just impractical. People should be able to file a genocide case with the U.N. or the war crimes tribunal in The Hague or something, not in one of the most inneffecient justice systems in the world. I do highly disprove of the neoconservatives' arrogance in trying to force this law out of existence. And the overall U.S. disregard for international law in general, of course.

You're kind of missing the point, Dude.

Let's say I own Cityville, Nebraska and you are in the process of building a house there. I pass a law which says that anyone who has posted on TFP can be arrested on sight, regardless of where they posted from. Now, how happy are you going to be about your new house which is still under construction, considering that you can't live in it without threat of arrest every time you enter the city?

linkylinky

well, what kinda property does bush have in beligium?? (i wouldnt be surprised if some of his cabinet has money in begium/switzerland, but that's beyond the point)

dipomatic immunity should protect bush from simple violations, but ask for immunity during the visit before he goes.


belgians shouldnt change their laws to suit a US president.

I think you need to change the font size in your browser. The NATO HQ is to be built in Belgium. The US is part of NATO. Are you so dead-set against Bush that you can't understand the connection here?

Dude... let's put this in perspective, shall we? Belgium, one of the smallest of European countries, militarily, politically and economically insignificant compared to the USA, has a law that allows anyone to sue anyone else for crimes committed anywhere in the world. Now, there's a bunch of leftist would-be politicians who decide to sue the US president using that law... Can you see the difference in scale there? It'd be like seretogis said: some town decides to create a law making it illegal to post on the TFP, and anyone in the world doing it can be prosecuted and imprisoned... and you happen to go to work there, or have a summer house there, or whatever.

It's not so much the threat of arrest and punishment that matters, it's the media attention and loss of face. I can guarantee that everyone in the Muslim world has heard about the case, and I can guarantee that a lot of them *know* Bush is guilty, no matter what Belgium does (just like a lot of anti-US/anti-war guys *know* he's guilty). If Belgium decides to dismiss the case (they did), anti-Bush people *know* it's because of political pressure from the US, so Bush is still guilty. That is why I said that these cases are political, not criminal. A bunch of angry people decide to sue US officials, and thereby hijack the Belgian legal and political system for their ends. FYI, Saddam Hussain was also sued under this law, as was Fidel Castro. Both cases were dismissed. Given that knowledge, anyone trying to sue the US president must have known they didn't stand a chance of actually ending up in court.

Anyway, the law is going to be changed soon: only crimes committed by or against Belgian nationals will be covered by the law. This is comparable to most of other similar laws around the world.

"It's a bit crazy to think we could be the conscience of the world," - sounds like a country we know, initials are u,s, and a.

too bad someone didnt say it earlier

yes, NATO is there. but get immunity in advance before you go there and prez wont be arrested. i'm sure belgians would be happy to do that.

look, just cuz somebody starts a suit doesnt mean that the defendant is automatically pronounced guilty.
they actually have a trial.

even if pronunced guilty after a trial, belgian court has no jursidiction in the US. so, who cares what a court says.

isnt the US prosecuting foreign nationals for war crimes committed?? it's just a matter of whose eyes you are looking through.

one more point.

if i remember right, i remember hearing about a US women filing a civil suit against osama bin laden or the head of taliban.

if a US citizen can file suite against a foreign national not in the country, why cant belgians?

It's just fun to reference Nazis in any Bush adminstration/global policy situation, that's all.

Dude - they sued in a civil suit - for monetary damages. Anyone can sue anyone in a civil suit - makes no difference how ludicrous the charge - you can still waste time and money filing a nuisance lawsuit - do you want that type of thing happening on an international level?

No one died and named Belgium God. They have no more authority to levy charges like this than does the Dude - If you see where we're going with this that that is enough on the matter.

That is the point the US is making. Does the UN, which some of you that are in "the somewhere out there" seem to champion have a world court? If there is any organization in the world with even the hint of having authority to do something along these lines it would be the UN - Does this mean that even Belgium has more balls than your UN?

well, maybe if the most powerful nation in the world acknowledged the existence of a "world court", then maybe other nations would follow suit?

Yes we can. As you said, we won't go there with all of the money that comes with us. They'll change, they'll have to.

That's just it Dude! The bullshit in Belgium is just that - Bullshit! The fact that you: the Dude : A Texan by way of India, can accuse anyone of anything your heart desires and go to the courthouse in Nowhere, TX, or where ever in the hell you live (and all of SE Texas is part of Hell - been there - done that!) and file charges is bullshit - That's what this law in Belgium is - TOTAL BULLSHIT! It will change or Belgium will lose the NATO Headquarters - I will bet you any amount you want on that. If there were ever a time to strong arm someone ( and that is the last thing I would ever suggest this nation do - unless you want to bring up Cuba! )for this type of crap it is now. Legitimate charges are one thing - these are just total bullshit. Anytime charges can be filed - without evidence - against anyone in the world - simply on the say so of any individual, no one is ever going to take a court seriously. These people are making their own country and legal system into a joke by this law.

If it isn't a joke - let them try and enforce it!

And as a sovereign nation, it is the US's right to not like the law and ask the Belgians to change it or face the consequences (DO NOT READ MILITARY ACTION. It is not the consequence being discussed). No nation has the right to enforce their laws on the citizens of another nation, unless that citizen committed a crime within it's borders. An International court has no validity without the possibility of ENFORCEMENT. It also becomes chaotic without overwhelming International support. Law without Government is vigilante justice. Law without strength is unenforcable.

i agree w/ geep here.

yes, US has a right to to not like the law and ask belgians to change it.

but asking them to change it and demand change is different.


and filing a suit and getting a guilty verdict is 2 different things.

Dude, as I already said: it doesn't matter if there's supposed to be a trial. The very fact that the leader of an allied nation is sued for something is enough to sour the atmosphere. It is the propaganda value that matters. If a simple lawsuit can be important enough to anger the US (and Israel, and a lot of other countries), the people who file the suit are in fact controlling/hijacking Belgian's foreign policies. They are abusing the law for their own causes.

FYI: a political opponent of the current foreign minister (who incidentally was one of the instigators of the law) filed suit against that minister under this law. He claims that the minister is (partly) responsible for Nepalese war crimes, because he okayed a shipment of machine guns to the Nepalese army, which has a rather dubious track record... With this simple act, the guy has shown how the law can be abused by anyone.

For the love of God, or Allah, whoever is holding the reins now. It boils down to this: Dispense entirely with what the Oval office has said of the rationale for the war in Iraq. What of it has even the shade of truth to it? WMD? Rumsfield sez: They got rid of them before the War. Nevermind that Colin Powell catalogued the cannisters, amounts of sarin, empty warheads before the U.N.
Now George Bush throws this in: They took them with them when they retreated. What the fuck? Obviously they are lying entirely. So, the invasion was made for another reason. To free the Iraqi people of a violent dictator? Right. Nevermind the dozen or so worse regimes that we have put in place, during the 80's in Central America, Iran, and even Saddam Hussein himself.

The Belgians(sic) are saying that thousands of civilians were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq for what possible gain? They are calling Bush and Blair to account for their actions. It can't possibly come to fruition, he who has the gold makes the rules, and USA has all the cards. I applaud Belgium's collective balls, it takes alot to challenge THE power on the planet, when the underdog has little to gain.

i just dont see how having a court case filed against somebody is something "enough to sour the atmosphere".

Nowlookit: "The Belgians" aren't saying anything. Some extreme-leftist groups are saying things, and the rest of Belgium is dragged along in the process. Most Belgians disagree with these lawsuits, as do most media sources there. As a side-note: if there's any country that shouldn't be the world's judge, it's Belgium - their justice system is notoriously slow and unreliable. As an example: seven years ago, a child molester and killer (Marc Dutroux) was arrested; he'll be in court *next year*... And you seem to know Bush is guilty, so you might be one of those people this lawsuit is aimed at: no matter what the results, you'll *know* you're right.

And Dude: A Belgian court investigating Sharon's involvement in war crimes in Lebanon is not going to be appreciated by the Israeli government, nor it's people. The same court investigating President Bush and his team for war crimes in Iraq will get many angry reactions from the US. This has been seen in the past few months; this backs up my statement that the court cases have soured the atmosphere. Or would you suggest that the US threatening to move the NATO HQ is just a friendly gesture??? Of course lawsuits against political leaders (not just "somebody", you know!) will strain relationships between countries - to me that is obvious. If the lawsuits are unwarrented, the reaction may be unnecessary, but it'll still be there, because of national pride.

you want this law repealed cuz it pisses of isreal and US ?

if it strains the relationships, then be it.

i just dont think FILING a suit offends anyone, but a guilty verdict might

Dragonlich- Granted, this (aborted) action will sour the atmosphere. Misplaced national pride will of course be wounded, and visceral reactions will result. I can't understand how anyone, regardless of the lovely labels everyone is so cheerfully tossing about, left-wing, right-wing, wings clipped, whatever. What is the foundation of this war? The rationale put out by the whitehouse flimsy at best, and full of contradictions.

As far as Sovereign nations not condemning legally the acts of other Sovereign nations' leaders, that precedent was set when Blair arrested Pinochet when he arrived in London for medical treatment.

The Belgian legal system notwithstanding, I enjoy the efforts put forth by those admitted idealists who wanted to call attention to this unjust act.

You know, I'm pretty sure Iraq/Saddam/Etc was guilty without trial.

We still went to war.

People... these lawsuits weren't about the legality of attacking Iraq in the first place. They were about WAR CRIMES committed in Iraq, and the GENOCIDE of the Iraqi people by the US. You know, the massacres committed by US troops, ordered by the US president. Every bomb that went astray was actually ordered to do so, and was obviously on purpose. Duh! All those tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, oh wait, thousands of dead and wounded, were actually not collateral damage at all! They were part of the genocide of the Iraqi people, which is still to come, apparently.

*That* is what these suits are about. And that is why they are being thrown out, and why the law has been changed.


(Note: no, I disagree with the suits, and do not think there were any war crimes committed at all. If a few soldiers acted too violently, they will be punished by the proper authorities.)

People visiting NATO headquarters are given diplomatic immunity when they visit the country where it's originated, if their visit is NATO related. So general Franks needn't worry.

It's a personal concern to me that so little effort in put into getting an international law together. Bush can go to war, unpunished, for whatever whimsical reasons he has. There is nothing that can be done. If there were an universal system of law, wars could be made obsolete in the future. And it's my belief that now is the time to act, even if only one country at a time.

The USA could be a big influence on making a international law. Unfortunately, I don't see any willingness from it's part. The Bush junta, for example, has given me the impression that they *like* war, not for the results, but for the spoils of it.

Personally, I prefer small, roaring mice over huge, sneaky rats. Then again, I'm biased.

This is how I see things. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me, rather than fight what I wrote. I'm interested in finding out the truth, together with you guys, not in starting a pro-contra argument.

The genocide law, as it is called over here, was never made so everybody would be able to file lawsuits against big countries. Sure - the option is there. What kind of law would it be if it made exceptions for certain countries?

The law was created because Belgium wanted to have a weapon in it's legal system, so as to make sure the mistakes our country has made in the past could not be repeated unpunished. If you're interested in finding out more about this, read up on Congo and Lumumba.

Actually, I heard that the universal thing was added to the law to make sure that people who lived in countries with bad governments/legal systems would still have a way to get justice. That was the goal. In reality, some people were sued that were meant to be sued (the African nuns, for example), but most lawsuits were aimed at countries with a perfectly normal legal system, that are fully capable of solving their own problems.

*IF* the Bush administration ordered war crimes to be committed in Iraq, they will eventually be brought to justice in the USA, just like every other criminal. They don't need some small European country to tell them what to do. In fact, if I were an Iraqi subject to US war crimes, I'd file suit in either Iraq (unlikely to help), or the USA. If the evidence is compelling enough, people *will* get convicted. As it stands, launching a lawsuit in Belgium doesn't get you one bit of justice: even if anyone is convicted, they will never be extradited to receive their punishment.

True. The system was never meanth to be used like this. If anything, it's a credit to this law that it is possible to file a lawsuit against Bush. The people who file such a useless claim are to blame, and should be held individually responsable, rather than the Belgium government.

I've read in the newspaper over here that the direct cause for this law to be written were the belgian crimes commited in Congo, and the need to right the wrongs we've caused there. Belgium has officially apologised to Congo a few years ago, and this was probably the next step the government took in righting the wrongs of our past.

titsmurf, the problem is that it is the Belgian government that is responsible for the law. It is also the Belgian legal system that has to investigate the claims, search for evidence, and perhaps arrest suspects. In other words: even though the individuals are to blame, but Belgium as a whole has to deal with the consequences...

FYI: if the UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague holds a US national for trial, the US president is allowed by congress to invade the Netherlands to free that person... It's called the "the hague invasion act". You can be happy they haven't created such a law for Belgium yet, although I'm convinced they would have had you not changed the law...

They're threatening to move the NATO headquarters. Not because it poses a treath (NATO officials travelling to Belgium have immunity when they come here for NATO business. That's in the treaty), but because they want to put pressure on Belgium to lose the law.

And sure, we are responsable for the law. But the way I see it, there's no harm being done in filing these complaints. They will never go to trial - the system has a filter for bogus claims like these. These cases should ideally never even be in the media. I realise that's not realisic, though.

The real issue here is that the USA doesn't allow any kind of institution that can hold them accountable, should they commit a crime, to exist. Which leads me to believe they have butter on their heads. It also makes me sad that they can abuse their economic power to do this.

bah, so bush cant be arrested unless he goes and wanders in belgium for private business.

he's giving immunity for nato business, so they pretty much have no enforcement.