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]

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.

 

[WildCat]

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.

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]

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]

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 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

 

[WildCat]

'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]

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:

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:

...
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]

...
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.