You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Belgium to Change Its War Crimes Law
2003-06-23
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Facing a U.S. threat to force NATO's headquarters out of Brussels, the Belgian government agreed Sunday to change a war crimes law used to target President Bush and other prominent Americans. The amendments would reduce the law's global ambitions, limiting the reach of Belgian courts to cases with a direct link to the country, such as when victims or suspects are Belgian citizens or residents.
Worse than SARS, worse than HIV, worse than the common cold: common sense is breaking out in Belgium!
As it stands, the unique 1993 law allows charges to be brought regardless of where war crimes took place. First applied against Rwandans implicated in the 1994 genocide there, the law since has been used by human rights campaigners, political groups and disgruntled individuals to file complaints against a score of international figures.
disgrunted individuals? Has the common sense virus struck the editors of the Guardian as well?
Government officials said proposed changes would prevent more cases like those lodged recently against Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, or an earlier complaint against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that provoked outrage in Israel.

``It's not up to Belgium to decide if its justice is better than American justice, or Israeli justice or that of European countries,'' Foreign Minister Louis Michel said. ``We have fine-tuned the law to avoid abuses.''
Swoon! Fatima, my aspirins!
It was unclear whether the changes would placate Washington, which insists the law be dropped. Targeting of Americans intensified in recent weeks after the Iraq war, leading to lawsuits against Bush, Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials. Responding to an earlier complaint filed by a left-wing lawyer against U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld on June 12 froze funding for a $352 million new NATO headquarters in Brussels and warned that the United States could boycott alliance meetings at the current headquarters.
I think Rummy coughed in their faces. That's how they got the virus.
Even before Rumsfeld's threat, the Belgian government had introduced changes to the legislation to allow the authorities to block cases brought against citizens from countries judged to have fair legal systems. Using those changes, it quickly rejected the recent cases against U.S. officials. Washington, however, said more was needed to prevent the filing of complaints in the first place.

Belgian officials said the new changes should satisfy U.S. concerns by limiting complaints to cases involving Belgians and introducing further safeguards to ensure courts swiftly reject complaints filed against citizens from democratic countries. Michel said the changes would end ``rash and annoying complaints that wrongly target figures from partner countries.'' The foreign minister himself fell foul of the law Friday when an opposition group filed a complaint concerning arms sales to Nepal.
Nope, nope, he had no immunity from the virus either.
The new amendments likely will be approved by parliament, where the governing Liberal and Socialist parties have a majority and the main opposition party has proposed similar changes.

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt denied charges his government was folding in the face of U.S. pressure, insisting the changes were in response to the recent spate of politically motivated complaints. ``It's not American pressure. If anything, that would have the opposite effect,'' he said. ``We wanted to find a solution that allows us to keep the law.''
Well, okay, the virus is short acting.
He said past and present atrocities in Rwanda and Congo - both former Belgian colonies - showed the need for maintaining the law in its revised form.
Remind me how many Belgians were indicted for what they did in the Congo and Rwanda?
Human rights campaigners criticized the changes but were relieved the government had not decided to drop it completely. ``They've gone a little too far in reducing the scope ... of the law,'' said Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch in New York. ``It could have been worse.''
Yeah, they could have indicted you.
Posted by:Steve White

#7  

My neighbors to the North are at it again, eh? Two judges passing the hot potato back and forth, expressing regret that they may actually have to uphold the law...

These eedjuts are not in trouble because they held some signs or otherwise used freedom of speech, they are in trouble because they trespassed and endangered lives. Not as bad as the kooks who throw Molotov cocktails in the name of non-violence, no, so minor sentences are in order - but if they refuse to abide by the sentences they can try to get bail and appeal or just be put away for contempt of court until they do accept.

Posted by: John Anderson   6/24/03 4:48:29 AM  

#6  the law's limited to Belgians because that is what normal states do, Aris. Anything beyond that is hubris for a poodle-lackey state like belgium. If they chose to indict Tommy Franks, how are they going to secure his surrender to their little court? Threaten to invade?
Posted by: Frank G   6/23/03 10:04:04 AM  

#5  Ptah> And as I'm commented before, that's OBVIOUSLY why they are limiting the law to Belgians, because they want to avoid Belgians getting indicted.

No reason to intrude common sense in our anti-Belgian propaganda, is there now?

Now I'm betting that someone will claim that my above point is 'unclear', just you wait. ;-)
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   6/23/03 8:31:43 AM  

#4  That would be

ZERO

indicted for the Congo atrocities.

Just so we're clear, the number less than one.

ZERO
Posted by: Chuck of You Big Mouth   6/23/03 8:11:50 AM  

#3  This obviously is in response to the recent lawsuit filed against a Belgian government official. They've been dragging their feet amending the law, only to pick up their heels and hurry along the moment it suddenly got personal.

BTW, this has NOTHING TO DO with the ICC. The International Criminal Court is entirely separate from Belgium, with judges picked from among the signatories, including third and second world dictatorships who call all the shots and don't have, or don't respect, an independent Judiciary. The ICC is supposed to be a standing Nuremburg trials court, open all the time.

Belgium's law has more to do with the poodles having delusions of competence and ability to bring about justice in the world.

IMHO, Justice is the 13th person in a 12 man GI Army platoon...
Posted by: Ptah   6/23/03 8:10:01 AM  

#2  Oh wait. I just realized that the article mentions nothing about the ICC. Is this a separate issue, something specifically Belgian and not U.N. related?

Pardon my extreme idiocy above if I have conflated two separte issues although the theme seems to be the same - Europe's political malaise.
Posted by: Tokyo Taro   6/23/03 3:11:47 AM  

#1  I remember some articles from a few weeks ago that grudgingly acknowledged the fact that the current ICC laws were absurd untenable but tried to blame Rumsfled for speaking plainly being blunt and undiplomatic in his demands on Belgium. Some unnamed Eurofficials were saying that Rumsfeld had made it difficult for the Belgians to make changes without being seen as caving in to American demands - the ultimate taboo for a European politician.

Does this mean that they caved anyway then? Spineless 'twerps. How typical. Not that I'm unhappy that they're giving way on this crap fanatasy/delusion of an ICC. Many will doublessly see any humiliation as another example of American bullying and blame Rummy for not allowing for a more face-saving solution. But any humiliation for them is their own fault for creating this situation in the first place.
Posted by: Tokyo Taro   6/23/03 2:56:10 AM  

00:00