Belgium being crazy and hypocritical or "Can't we war anymore?"

[Saint Marcus]

The main question I have is, "Why are they only going after the little fish?" Why have we seen no action against former President Bill Clinton, and every other European leader who took part in the flagrant violation of international law that was the Kosovo War?

1. Sharon is not a little fish, I reckon.
2. understand that the law doesn't exist for very long. It makes sense going after smaller fish first (like some ruandees nuns), before taking on the big guys.
3. gathering evidence takes a lot of time. the acts sharon will be tried for were commited by him when he was still minister of defence, quite some years ago. so be patient, in 10 years from now clinton and others might be facing trial as well.

[Saint Marcus]

Then the law in and of itself is truely meaningless and allows itself to be used as a game for political point scoring if only people with axes to grind have to ask the Belgian government to "put on trial" people who the government considers to have committed murder.

rephrase: "people who the law consideres to have commited genocide".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
1. Sharon is not a little fish, I reckon.

Peres, who this thread is about, is most likely a non-entity in Isreali politics due to his overly trusting nature and qualifies as a little fish right now.

2. understand that the law doesn't exist for very long. It makes sense going after smaller fish first (like some ruandees nuns), before taking on the big guys.

I think that it would make the most sense to go after the guys who would make the most impact, especially if you have political points to score as you told me the Belgians do.

3. gathering evidence takes a lot of time.

The intervention in Kosovo was against the dictates of international law on the face of it.

[Saint Marcus]

The intervention in Kosovo was against the dictates of international law on the face of it.

That isn't an offense according to this particular law. Only acts of genocide and crimes against humanity are.

On the other questions, I have no idea. I'm no belgian and I'm certainly not an insider into belgian politics and legal systems.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
rephrase: "people who the law consideres to have commited genocide".

Your absolutely right. BTW, under this law can anyone demand that someone be charged with genocide or is that privilege only given to Belgian citizens? For example, could one of the Isrealis here bring up charges against Arafat, the commander of Christian Phalanges, basically anyone in the Syrian government, Saddam, everyone involved in the NATO Kosovo interventions, etc. and have it go foward at the same speed as the case against Sharon has.

[Saint Marcus]

BTW, under this law can anyone demand that someone be charged with genocide or is that privilege only given to Belgian citizens?

anyone I believe. I think I read about international organisations who pressed charges against certain people in the paper.

the problem is that there are quite a few criteria that have to be met, so you can't go around accusing someone of genocide based on what you read in The Sun. I don't know what those exact criteria are, but I believe you have to have a certain amount of verifiable evidence before a case is even considered. As of yet, few people have managed this, and the only big name on the list currently is Sharon. No idea why Sadam or others haven't been accused yet, though I won't be surprised if that will happen in the comming years.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
As of yet, few people have managed this, and the only big name on the list currently is Sharon.

If you have enough evidence to try Sharon, you have way more than enough evidence to try the leader of the Christian Phalanges who was directly responsible for the crimes Sharon is currently being tried for? I also believe that this person is still in power in the Lebonese government as well.

[kolpo]

Your absolutely right. BTW, under this law can anyone demand that someone be charged with genocide or is that privilege only given to Belgian citizens? For example, could one of the Isrealis here bring up charges against Arafat, the commander of Christian Phalanges, basically anyone in the Syrian government, Saddam, everyone involved in the NATO Kosovo interventions, etc. and have it go foward at the same speed as the case against Sharon has.

Sadam could be certainly charged for his actions agianst some opposition groups from who some certainly could fall under either charges agianst humanity or even genocide.

Christian Phalanges: Quite likely that will happen: The advocates of Sharon can defent themself by proving that the Christian Phalanges accted on themself or someone else ordered them if that is proved will they most likely start a sue against them.

I think everyone can do that, if the Israelis have a well prepared charge against sadam can they start a court and will they most likely even win that court I think.

I personaly find that no so good idea of Belgium to do that alone something like that should be done by the E.U. or something not by a small powerless country like Belgium, because many victims see that as an attack by Belgium currently and not by those who started the trial so it's not good for Belgian foreignt policies.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


On what legal basis does Belgium have the authority to try people in a national court for crimes that were not committed within its sovereign territory nor against any of its citizens?

Universal jurisdiction is acknowledged (and even mandated) for a couple crimes, like genocide, airplane hijacking... the laundry list of that is in our penal code, and I assume you'll find similar provisions in "US" penal law.

The legality of NATO action in Kosovo is another issue and far from clear - and one wonders on what crimes. About the big fish, well, the thing is currently in a limbo. Groups seek to use this against anyone from Pinochet to Kissinger, and IIRC one group in France wanted Clinton arrested upon a visit of his there. Universal jurisdiction crimes should be handed to an international court to end the de facto jurisdiction anarchy.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Was it really Shimon Perez the one "indicted"?

When the news arrived here in Portugal, IIRC, the story was that it was Sharon the one Belgium governments claimed to have commited war crimes (much like the Palestinians, repeat on and off).

What were the charges against Perez? Can anyone prove them?

On what the rest is concerned, Isralelli Government wants war, not peace. There is nothing hypocritical in trying to force peace, unless you are waging war somewhere else. That is not the case of Belgium. Trully hypochritical is forcing a war while claiming to want Peace: such are the deeds of the current Israelli Goverment. And the faces of this hypocracy are the peacefull Perez, justifying the actions of warmonger Sharon. Two faces of the same hypocritical coin, IMHO.

"Can't we war anymore?"
- Well, you shouldn't. Especially when what is all about is a piece of land, that three religions call Holy, forgeting that all God's Creation is equally holy. When that land is blemished by the blood of brothers and sisters... i begin to wonder is it is still that special, in God's eyes.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you have enough evidence to try Sharon, you have way more than enough evidence to try the leader of the Christian Phalanges who was directly responsible for the crimes Sharon is currently being tried for? I also believe that this person is still in power in the Lebonese government as well.

Alas ... recently he was accidently killed by starting on his car ...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Universal jurisdiction is acknowledged (and even mandated) for a couple crimes, like genocide, airplane hijacking... the laundry list

Universal jurisdiction is less than useless in these cases without the enforcement capablities to back it up, Roland. I'm sure that you realize that. And until the Belgian government realizes that they are engaging in the collective equivillant of staring at thier navel. The law is also written in such away that allows itself to be used to score political points and could potentially damge Belgium's relationship with the ROW for the reason kolpo laid out in his post.

The legality of NATO action in Kosovo is another issue and far from clear

I argue that the NATO intervention itself was unjustified under the rules of international law. Any alleged war crimes arising from that illegal misadventure are an entirely seperate matter, IMO.

[Roland]

"Universal jurisdiction is less than useless in these cases without the enforcement capablities to back it up, Roland. I'm sure that you realize that."

Enforcement is territorial. Iow, when Sharon enters Belgium, he may/may not be arrested. What is quite useless is not universal jurisdiction, but starting all kinds of procedures before you have a suspect to put on trial. I assume what we have here is a sort of private prosecution case and it is about admissibility. And not dealing with this properly would be a denial of justice, regardless of the motives behind the legal action.

"The law is also written in such away that allows itself to be used to score political points and could potentially damge Belgium's relationship with the ROW"

Indeed, but that is not a matter for the judicial branch. Also, US tort law is used all the time to score political points, domestic and abroad. Would you advocate a state interest doctrine (not 100 % sure of the term) for belgian penal law ?

[Saint Marcus]

When the news arrived here in Portugal, IIRC, the story was that it was Sharon the one Belgium governments claimed to have commited war crimes (much like the Palestinians, repeat on and off).

The paper I read today contained an article about this as well, and it mentioned Sharon, not Peres. I'll look up a Belgian newspaper to verify this.

[Eli]

http://indictsharon.net/