See that good looking dude on the left? He's got FAR BETTER THINGS to do than conduct Freepathons! Come on, let's get this thing over with.
Posted on 07/12/2003 8:32:32 PM PDT by Pikamax
Belgium Scraps War Crimes Law Which Angered U.S. Sat Jul 12, 5:06 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Patrick Lannin
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush (news - web sites) and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites).
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States.
He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites).
"I think we have definitely solved this question," Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.
The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed.
In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said.
The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium's agreements with NATO (news - web sites) allies and other European Union (news - web sites) members.
The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Washington would be reluctant to send U.S. officials to Brussels for meetings at NATO headquarters and that it was opposed to any further spending on a new alliance headquarters.
Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who angered Washington with his staunch opposition to the war in Iraq (news - web sites), was also caught by the law as he was accused by an opposition party of illegally authorizing arms shipments to strife-torn Nepal.
Michel, who has stayed in the new government, denied that it was U.S. pressure which had provoked the government's move.
"This was abused by some people who wanted to damage other people, leaders and partners. Those who forced us to change the law are those who abused the law," he told VRT television.
Belgium had already taken steps to soften the law, such as allowing cases be forwarded to a defendant's country if the country was democratic and could handle the suit properly.
Such was the fate of the cases launched against Bush and Blair over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had said it was better if such suits never came up in the first place.
The case against Sharon, filed by survivors of a 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Lebanese Christian militias, was suspended as the court decided he had immunity as a leader who was still in office.
Verhofstadt's move is aimed at definitively narrowing the scope for war crimes cases with its strict rules on the need for a Belgian or someone resident in the country to file a case.
He mentioned three suits that would proceed, all involving Belgians. These were in Guatemala, Chad and Rwanda.
It was Belgium's prosecution of two Rwandan nuns on genocide charges in 2001 as the first application of the law which prompted a flood of other suits
See that good looking dude on the left? He's got FAR BETTER THINGS to do than conduct Freepathons! Come on, let's get this thing over with.
and
Belgium Scraps War Crimes Law...
Why did the writer of this article pretend that there was no connection between these events?
Not only accused, but tried, and convicted, in what could be best described as a Stalinesque show trial. It was these convictions, under circumstances which were dubious at best, which prompted the ludicrous suits which followed...
Now the law has been scrapped, but the damage has been done, and two Rwandan nuns, whose only crime was their Christianity, will spend the rest of their lives in a Belgian prison...
the infowarrior
Why should America and Israel feel happy with a Maneken (spelling?) Piss making laugh of their sovereignty?
Their "only crime?" Well, I don't know whether they actually DID what they were accused of:
American Society of International Law
Factual Basis of the Charges
Both nuns are accused of forcing Tutsis to leave the Sovu convent compound when they
knew that armed Hutu militia were gathered outside; thousands of those who had
sought sanctuary were allegedly driven out and killed. Sister Gertrude, Mother
Superior of the convent, is also accused of contacting officials days later to ask them to
remove the last remaining 30 Tutsi. Sister Maria is accused of supplying petrol to the
militia to burn the Tutsis who refused to leave the building in which they had sought
shelter. At trial, the nuns denied any collaboration, claiming that they were terrified
bystanders with no control over the situation. The Prosecutor stated that he finds it
hard to believe that the nuns were not collaborators "given that none were killed and
the convent was never damaged."2 According to African Rights, a nongovernmental
organization, the leader of the local militia has admitted his part in the genocide and
stated that the nuns provided vehicles, information and support in killing the Tutsis. He
states that "[t]hose two nuns collaborated with us in everything we did. They shared
our hatred for the Tutsis. I did not do anything without first discussing it with Kisito
and Gertrude. They handed over innocent people, without being threatened in any
way, and without us having to use force."3
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh72.htm
but IF they did these things, then at the very least they are guilty of multiple murder, if not genocide.
TWO Rwandan nuns were jailed yesterday in a landmark Belgian trial for war crimes during the1994 genocide in their central African nation.Sister Gertrude was jailed for 15 years and Sister Maria Kisito for 12 years having been convicted by the jury of most of the counts of murder against them.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2001/06/09/story5219.asp
These are pretty light sentences, IF they actually DID the crimes. If they DID NOT do the crimes, then any sentence is horrible.
DG
Even sicker than the fact that nuns have been accused of genocide is the fact that they're actually GUILTY.
Prosecutors statements that defendants must be guilty because they weren't themselves killed is just grandstanding, in any legal sense (even I know this, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV). By the article you yourself cite, I stand by my assessment that this was a politically motivated show trial, nothing more...
the infowarrior
Prosecutors statements that defendants must be guilty because they weren't themselves killed is just grandstanding, in any legal sense (even I know this, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV). By the article you yourself cite, I stand by my assessment that this was a politically motivated show trial, nothing more...
the infowarrior
Yeah, right. And the Iranians released our hostages on January 20,1981, not because of any pressure from the incoming President, but because they just felt like it.
Jury trials under Napoleonic Code are so rare as to be almost unheard of, with the verdicts normally being decided by a panel of "jurists" (read professional, politically appointed judges). Secondly, the burden is on the ACCUSED to prove their innocence, often as was in this case, while being incarcerated awaiting trial.
Now, since the government of Belgium had a vested interest in conviction, after kidnapping these two nuns, and jailing them thousands of miles away from anyone who knew them personally, then forcing them to "prove" their innocence, do you really intend to tell me they got anything at all resembling a fair trial?
the infowarrior
Actually, I neither had, nor expressed, such an assumption.
You no doubt are under the impression that one, these nuns were tried by a "jury of their peers",
As to "peers," I don't know. However, consider these, from the same article:
This is the first time a jury of citizens will be asked to determine culpability for alleged violations of international humanitarian law in another state.
The landmark trial lasted almost 8 weeks. According to news reports, the jury of twelve deliberated eleven hours prior to finding the defendants guilty on most of the fifty-five counts against them.
[Relative to "peers," if they had been tried in Rwanda (which, I believe also has the Napoleonic Code) would a "jury of their peers" have been composed of 1, other nuns; 2, others of THEIR tribe; or 3, others of the OPPOSING tribe?]
and two, that the "burden of proof" was on the accuser, as is established under English Common Law.
You are correct, there. I do carry that preconception, at least for American courts. I am aware that other jurisdictions often are different.
But, I did not assume that they actually are guilty. On the other hand, you seemed to have presumed their innocence, even to not noticing that they had attorneys, witnesses, a jury, etc. Whether the Belgian law is legitimate, is another story.
DG
You yourself said that if they were indeed guilty of the crimes they were convicted of, the sentences were disproportionally light... Read between the lines....
the infowarrior
They were as follows...
Belgium would only assume jurisdiction if
A. The legal system in the country in question was in some manner unacceptable to Belgium...
Since Rwanda is a former Belgian colony, it's legal system mirrors Belgium's own. Now tell me that Belgium has a problem with Rwandan jurisprudence...
B. The country in question was either unable, or unwilling to bring the perpetrators to trial...
In the aftermath of the Rwandan massacres, the Rwandan government, once it had regained control, conducted investigations, and trials of those involved in the genocide. Several thousand were tried, in Rwanda, and convicted, with sentences ranging from 25 years, to death. At least one hunderd were executed for the crimes they committed in the course of the massacres. Obviously, Rwanda was neither "unable", nor "unwilling" to address the matter...
So, it appears, that the government of Belgium violated two key provisions of the very law they were attempting to validate, in order to achieve their all-important goal of an arrest, trial, and conviction, to demonstrate to the world that their new "busybody" law was a law with teeth.
Now, after having achieved their goal, no matter how illegally, can anyone tell me how many other Rwandan "genocide perpetrators" were subsequently hauled off to Brussels for similar treatment? The correct answer, is sadly, none...
This should demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the whole affair was a sham, with a predetermined outcome from the start, not in any way, shape, or form a criminal trial at all. With this in mind, I feel absolutely no shame in ignoring the "fruit of the poisonous tree"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.