Belgium has been presented with a choice

[ZeeGerman]

Typical Bushian diplomacy.

"Bushian diplomacy" sounds like an oxymoron to me

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]

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]

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

As does Belgian justice.

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. 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]

As does Belgian justice.



Ridicule? The Belgians are incapable of prosecuting horrific crimes commited by and against their own citizens. 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]

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.

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

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]

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?

 

[Ion]

...
"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 prosecuted

Since 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!

 

[Baker]

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



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?

 

[a_unique_person]

What?

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]

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?

 

[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?