Why is the USA so afraid of little Belgium ? - Page 2

Worthingtons · June 11, 2003, 15:25

Oh come on, you cant seriously consider the French an ally of the US?

Bereta_Eder · June 11, 2003, 15:27

La France iz en allie ov ze younaited steits oui. throuh nato' extc

Nubclear · June 11, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Worthingtons
Oh come on, you cant seriously consider the French an ally of the US?

Yeah. I mean, if it were up to, say, NORTH KOREA....Do you really think THEY would've resuced the Americans? And even if they did....They would probably hold them hostage.

If France is really an enemy, don't you think they wouldve done that?

But this is useless. Your probably part of the crowd saying the US can do no wrong and that the UK is still an empire

And that everyone who disagrees with the US is an enemy

Panag · June 11, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

Bingo. It's lose/lose for the US. I would add this: even if/when the US won, anything "questionable" that was raised at the trial would be harped on for a decade or three as well.

-Arrian

hi ,

how can the US loose , ..... ?

they would actually win

for starters they would no longer have to lend out for free them C-141's or any other long distance transport plane , .... they could cut off the fuel belgium gets for free , ......

and thats just for starters , .....

have a nice day

MichaeltheGreat · June 11, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Like I said, if they have nothing to hide, then they should face it like men, instead of running away. If they are shown to have NOT committed war crimes, think of the political capital gained!

How about if I charge you with vague and unspecified crimes in a Mexican court, and you come here at your own expense to prove your innocence?

Think of the boost in your reputation when you prove your innocence!

Oh, and why isn't this particular brilliant advocate of international law bringing charges against Kim Jong Il, the perpetrators of the Tiananmen square massacre, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hisbullah, Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family, and a slew of others?

Oh, he's only interested in posturing against US policy?

An excellent reason to submit to such nonsense.

Spiffor · June 11, 2003, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Worthingtons
Oh come on, you cant seriously consider the French an ally of the US?

Since we'd take your side without hesitation if you were attacked, yes.

Worthingtons · June 11, 2003, 15:37

Tass, I didnt say the French was an Enemy, simply that they can no longer be trusted as allies - you'll find that the War in Iraq overshadowed minor events which you speak of.

Spiffor · June 11, 2003, 15:39

I have a question to those interested in the case :

As you know it, the trial has been started by individual citizens using a Belgian extraterritorial law. The Belgian court isn't responsible for the cases brought before it.

Question is : did the Belgian court rule out the case for being irrelevant, did it accept the case, or did it say nothing at all for now ?

Defiant · June 11, 2003, 15:42

Excellent point Mtg, why is only the USA that everybody is looking at, look at the world full of really bad guys, warlords in Africa who kill millions, have they ever been brought to justice. See what I mean, the whole idea is a joke.

Spiffor · June 11, 2003, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Excellent point Mtg, why is only the USA that everybody is looking at, look at the world full of really bad guys, warlords in Africa who kill millions, have they ever been brought to justice. See what I mean, the whole idea is a joke.

How do you know no African dictator is being sued with this law ?
We have heard of this law because of Sharon and Franks, but it doesn't mean other cases don't exist. IIRC, there was something with Pinochet too (heard about it when Spain wanted to sue Pinochet), so I wouldn't be surprising if nearly every dissident group exiled in the EU started a case against their dictator.

Defiant · June 11, 2003, 15:49

First of all show me the link and secondly how do you collect, want to go get him???? And if you do, with who's army?

Proteus_MST · June 11, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question to those interested in the case :

As you know it, the trial has been started by individual citizens using a Belgian extraterritorial law. The Belgian court isn't responsible for the cases brought before it.

Question is : did the Belgian court rule out the case for being irrelevant, did it accept the case, or did it say nothing at all for now ?

Interesting Point.
Especially because AFAIK the belgian court can only pursue cases against people who aren´t citizens of a democracy, which is the same reason why Sharon can´t tried before the belgian court.

And the USA still is a democracy, isn´t it?

Oerdin · June 11, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Excellent point Mtg, why is only the USA that everybody is looking at, look at the world full of really bad guys, warlords in Africa who kill millions, have they ever been brought to justice. See what I mean, the whole idea is a joke.

Are you suggesting that the Belgians are being somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous?

Defiant · June 11, 2003, 15:52

No, I would never suggest that.

Colon™ · June 11, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Can you name a single person tried by a military tribunal in the US since the Nazi sabatuers in 1944? I didn't think so especially since one hasn't occured. All Bush has done is point out that under the Geneva & Hague conventions Tribunals are expressly permited.

So Franks won't be convicted, which exactly was the point of sending the trial to an US military tribunal. What are you still *****ing about?

Colon™ · June 11, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question to those interested in the case :

As you know it, the trial has been started by individual citizens using a Belgian extraterritorial law. The Belgian court isn't responsible for the cases brought before it.

Question is : did the Belgian court rule out the case for being irrelevant, did it accept the case, or did it say nothing at all for now ?

The Federal prosecutor recommended the federal govt to send it to the US, which it duly did. What the whining is about is beyond me.

DinoDoc · June 11, 2003, 16:47

It's just the shear oddness of the law that amuses me.

Bereta_Eder · June 11, 2003, 16:50

dont get too amused moneypenney

Shi Huangdi · June 11, 2003, 17:09

France was rescuing civilians, that's hardly an obligation of allies. France would have done the same for say, Swiss citizens I am sure.

As for France is our ally or not- it depend. If the French government continue's Chirac's policies of trying to undermine US power in the effort to set up a "multipolar" world, well in a legal sense they'd still be our ally, but in a real sense they would hardly be our friends and instead would be opening the door for a hostile relationship.

The Vagabond · June 11, 2003, 17:22

NATO HQ? Relocate it to Warsaw. One can't possibly think of a better place.

D' Artagnan · June 11, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
France was rescuing civilians, that's hardly an obligation of allies. France would have done the same for say, Swiss citizens I am sure.

It doesn't mean u don't have to thank them for that

Bereta_Eder · June 11, 2003, 17:32

But would the US do it for France! Aha that's the question!

HershOstropoler · June 11, 2003, 17:35

Everyone with an agenda has used that belgian law to push political cases, from the anti-Sharon to the anti-castro crowd. It hasn't come to much but preliminary proceedings, or has it?

As for Iraq, this may be different. Under the standard established at Nuremberg and Tokyo, Bush, Blair and their key underlings would hang. Well maybe that standard wasn't too brilliant...

HershOstropoler · June 11, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Also, the US would hire its best and brightest to win, so it wont be a fair trial, but in the other direction. Besides, theyre creating more suspicion by staying away.

Lawyers?

Ouch, that one hurt...

Oerdin · June 11, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
But would the US do it for France! Aha that's the question!

Of course they would. Your acting like this isn't routine during crisis situations. Every time there is a war or natural disaster the country with the closest military force gets tasked to assist foreign civilians. It's a good policy.

The Templar · June 11, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's just the shear oddness of the law that amuses me.

The law is not that odd.

Our anti-terrorism laws permit prosecutions in the US for acts of terrorism committed in another jurisdiction.

The Alien Tort Claims Act allows non-citizens to sue non-citizens for acts that occur outside the US in a US court.

So what you're saying is that the US gets to claim jurisdiction over the world, but nobody else does?

I would also point out that Franks would likely be responsible under a respondeat superior theory (within certain bounds) for any atrocity committed by a US troop. So the troops gunning down protestors after being allegedly shot at? Given that people in their homes beyond the protest were injured by US bullets - yes, a war crime was committed during the occupation. If Franks failed to issue regs prohibiting that sort of behavior and failed to take substantial steps to insure compliance then under a US-style system, Franks would be a war criminal. (Belgium is not a common law nation to my knowledge, so I don't know if the above prosecutorial theory would work there).

Cyclotron · June 11, 2003, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
As for Iraq, this may be different. Under the standard established at Nuremberg and Tokyo, Bush, Blair and their key underlings would hang.

For what? Is war a war crime now, or are you just not telling us something?

DinoDoc · June 11, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
Our anti-terrorism laws permit prosecutions in the US for acts of terrorism committed in another jurisdiction.

I don't know enough about the specifics of this law to comment on it.

Quote:

The Alien Tort Claims Act allows non-citizens to sue non-citizens for acts that occur outside the US in a US court.

Yes, that's another stupid law in the exact same vein as Belgium's.

GePap · June 11, 2003, 22:05

If moving the headquarters out of belgium is like any other NATO act, it won;t hapen unless bagium accepts it.

Boris Godunov · June 11, 2003, 22:06

HA! We aren't afraid of any countries we can't locate on a map!

That pretty much excludes everyone.

Including ourselves.