Who exactly made Belgium the judge of all the earth?

[Lincoln]

BRUSSELS, April 29 (Reuters) - A Belgian lawyer said on Tuesday he would file a lawsuit against General Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, despite a warning from Washington against politically-motivated legal cases.

Lawyer Jan Fermon told Reuters he would file the lawsuit in a Brussels court next month on behalf of 19 Iraqis whom he described as victims of U.S. cluster bombs and alleged U.S. attacks on ambulances and civilians.

The case is based on evidence, including videotaped testimony, gathered by a group of Belgian doctors working in Baghdad, Fermon said.

The U.S. State Department on Monday urged Belgium to be diligent in preventing the abuse for "political ends" of a Belgian law giving the country's courts power to try foreigners for serious human rights crimes. Spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington believed lawyers were planning to file a suit against Franks.

"I think either the U.S. State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry -- and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate -- or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," Fermon said.

He added that Franks, as commander of the U.S.-led war that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, bore responsibility for the actions of his troops.

"If the Belgian law allowed me to also point out people who are politically responsible, I'd do it, but of course I can't because they are protected by (diplomatic) immunity," Fermon said. He did not give any names.

An official working for the legal department of the Belgian Foreign Ministry said it was too early to comment on the action.

TEST CASE

The lawsuit will be a test case for Belgium's universal jurisdiction law which was recently revamped in a bid to stem a flood of cases deemed politically and diplomatically sensitive.

Legal moves against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former U.S. President George Bush prompted criticism from Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who said it was not up to Belgium to judge them.

The reformed law allows Belgium to pass certain war crimes cases to other countries -- raising the possibility it will eventually rid itself of a file against Sharon over the 1982 massacre of Palestinians at refugee camps in Beirut by Israeli-backed Lebanese militiamen. Sharon was defence minister at the time.

The changes to the law also allow the judiciary to reject complaints filed by plaintiffs who are not Belgian citizens or who have lived in Belgium for less than three years.

Where the victim or alleged perpetrator is not Belgian and the alleged crime was not committed in Belgium, a federal prosecutor would be able to decide whether to hand over a case to an investigating magistrate.

"Indeed it will be a test case. It will show whether the Belgian federal prosecutor will admit an independent inquiry without any political considerations," said Fermon.

============================

Yea right. Tommy Franks is going to go to Brussels to beg for mercy from the eminent court of supreme justice.

[Lincoln]

Oops. I just noticed that they were discussing this on DinoDoc's thread. You all can ignore this one...

[Drake Tungsten]

DinoDoc doesn't want us discussing this in his thread. Might as well move the discussion over here.

[Oerdin]

Idiot law suits like this one are a text book example of why the U.S. should stone wall the EU's attempt to create a world court. If given any power it will degenerate into a politically motivated circus.

[Lincoln]

Good deal. This is NOT a picture of Tommy Franks:

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Idiot law suits like this one are a text book example of why the U.S. should stone wall the EU's attempt to create a world court. If given any power it will degenerate into a politically motivated circus.

Exactly. They are making the case for us. I think they have overplayed their hand on this one.

[Drake Tungsten]

As I said in the other thread, are people really surprised that the US doesn't want to join the ICC when people in the rest of the world treat war crimes as a vehicle to score political points with?

[Oerdin]

Most Americans have a great deal of confidience that their court system will toss out the B.S. law suits and will make all of its decisions based up on the law instead of on a proticular judges bais or political beliefs. We do not have any close to a similar amount of confidience in the courts of nearly all of the world's countries much less a nebulous "World Court".

[monkspider]

Why should the US be immune to war crimes laws while expecting the rest of the world to abide by them. Franks is a war criminal who has waged an aggressive war. People were hanged at Nuremburg for much less.

[Spiffor]

Sorry to interrupt the self-righteous anti-ICC fest, but...

This Belgian law allows Belgian citizens to file a case. Belgium being not a totalitarian country, the State is not responsible for the behaviour of individual citizens or groups.
In the Article, Belgian Foreign Minister criticizes the abuses that have been done on this law, and the parliament has attempted to limit its range to prevent abuses.

I'm not very fond of the self-righteousness of this Belgian "universal" law, because I don't think it is up to an individual country to judge war crimes or crimes against humanity, but please notice this initiative does not come from the Belgian government. It is an abuse made by citizens.

Had the US a law that allowed citizens to sue generals for war crimes, you can be sure some leftist organization would have sued Franks, Bush, Rummie, and I don't-know-who already. Because they try to score political points this way too.

Except if Belgium suddenly has an interest in alienating the US definitely, the case has no chance to pass. Especially since an arrest request issued by Belgium would force other EU countries to arrest Franks if he goes on their territory (I think)

[Drake Tungsten]

Had the US a law that allowed citizens to sue generals for war crimes, you can be sure some leftist organization would have sued Franks, Bush, Rummie, and I don't-know-who already. Because they try to score political points this way too.

Very true. The difference is that moronic leftist views, while present in America, aren't nearly as mainstream as they are in Europe and other places. America doesn't trust that the international community (and by extension the ICC) will be politically neutral in war crimes cases and incidents like this one just reinforce those fears.

It's too bad, really. The ICC could be a great thing if it would concentrate on the real war criminals in the world. Maybe it can prove itself in the future and have the US get on-board at a later date.

[Space05us]

Lawyer Jan Fermon told Reuters he would file the lawsuit in a Brussels court next month on behalf of 19 Iraqis whom he described as victims of U.S. cluster bombs and alleged U.S. attacks on ambulances and civilians.

OH MY GOD!!! You mean to tell me that innocent people were killed during a WAR??? Thats never happened before, this Tommy Franks is obviously a monster!!!

get real

[monolith94]

"People were hanged at Nuremburg for much less."
Actually, you're wrong.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Exactly. They are making the case for us. I think they have overplayed their hand on this one.

I remember people like Rah, who were favorably disposed to the ICC and then turned against it when hearing all the little Polyteenies who wanted to try Kissinger and such. This kind of thing just shows clearly what a joke the ICC would be.

[Bereta_Eder]

Belgium is the heart of Europe

[Bereta_Eder]

Kissinger is to be tried, ten times more then for example Milosevic, the only thing stopping that is the powergame. Thus no justice (=no peace)

[lightblue]

paiktis you should know by now that the winners write history, and as such decide who to indite and who is a hero for the same actions.

I am in favour of a nuetral world court, but not the Belgian "let's allow all these people to sue whoever they want all over the world, for crimes that weren't committed on belgium territory or against belgian citizens" method of justice.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lightblue
paiktis you should know by now that the winners write history, and as such decide who to indite and who is a hero for the same actions.

Where did I say that I don't know this?



Of course this means war!!!

[Urban Ranger]

I am not sure whether the conservatives circle-jerking so apparent in this thread is sad or amusing.

[oedo]

Originally posted by monkspider
Why should the US be immune to war crimes laws while expecting the rest of the world to abide by them. Franks is a war criminal who has waged an aggressive war. People were hanged at Nuremburg for much less.

although I mainly agree in the point that the war on Iraq was (is) illegal, the Nürnberg-trial was a totally different issue. the people you´re talking about were sentenced for crimes which were far more evil than anything US officials of the current administration or the pentagon ever did.
this is simply not comparable.

however, since the overwhelming majority in world considers the Iraq war as an unjustified crime, an independent trial seems to be more than useful. the US shouldn´t just dodge it. their credibility has been damaged more than enough lately.

[Maniac]

Who exactly made Belgium the judge of all the earth?

Who made the USA the judge of the world?

[Dauphin]

I don't think the US has anything to fear in terms of show trials or circuses if it ever did sign up to the ICC. Any crank politically motivated suits would never get to trial if for no other reason than the US not giving up the individual in question if they thought the trial unjust. That said I see no reason for the US to sign up to the court. There is no reason for it to open its military personnel up to politically motivated claims.


I'm not in the least bothered by the US not signing up. If US military personnel ever did commit war crimes I would hope internal review and court martial would be enough to correct the problem - if not, and the US military has an institutionalised belief that war crimes or genocide are acceptable, then there are more things for us to worry about than taking them to court in the Hague.

[Kropotkin]

Ad definition of when a court is out to score political points: When a possible conviction doesn't suite your own desires.

Look, it's quite easy to understand. Any attempt to bring anyone to a court for war crimes is bound to be political. That doesn't mean before hand that the court will make a political decision.

As for the Belgian courts, Spiffor has already explained the difference between this and ICC.

Some of you people are so far up the ass of your own political agenda that you don't have any perspectives whatsoever.

[rah]

Originally posted by GP
I remember people like Rah, who were favorably disposed to the ICC and then turned against it when hearing all the little Polyteenies who wanted to try Kissinger and such. This kind of thing just shows clearly what a joke the ICC would be.

So true. Originally I did think the ICC was a good Idea.
But when a lot of posters I have some respect for, that I believed are smarter than the average person started spouting off, it chilled me considerably. If knowledgable people are willing to make it a political circus, the masses could only make it even worse.

[Traianvs]

As always :

"I think either the U.S. State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry -- and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate -- or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," Fermon said.

all you people who think internal courts will deal with war criminals, think again, people won't condemn their own generals.. especially if they have just won a war..
Belgium is neutral

and to all you people who wonder why Belgium should be the judge of earth, well who made the USA judge of the world, simply invading countries because it suits them...

[Dauphin]

The ICC can't try cases when the alleged offence occured before its inception. So Kissinger, at least, is safe.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The ICC can't try cases when the alleged offence occured before its inception. So Kissinger, at least, is safe.

Good. But it shows the potential for political gamesmanship. I agreed with your earlier post where you said that the US doesn't choose to expose itself to this liability. Maybe if the thing runs for a while and distinguishes itself (and doesn't end up looking like the UN commision on Human Rights) than we will join in later.

[rah]

Agreed. A little history to see how it goes could make a lot of people like myself rethink our newly found objection to it.

[Spiffor]

Does anybody know who can push a case on the ICC ? Can any individual/irganization sue with the ICC, or only national judiciaries/few elected NGOs/etc ?

[VetLegion]

Good. But it shows the potential for political gamesmanship.

Yeah and what does this mean? Judges in Hague and (to be) ICC are supposedly famous profesionals. They would not accept charges if they are not legaly valid.

And any charge whatsoever about gen. Franks is valid. There were crimes that happened under his command and only court can clear it wheather he commanded them, persecuted them or did he do anything at all.