genocide law

I live in Belgium.
Belgium is the only country in the world that has a genocide law.
This means that if anyone makes a violation to human rights in any way they can be prosecuted from the moment they take one step in Belgium. People like Arafat and others (sout-americ) could be prosecuted when they put foot on Belgium territory.
So basically with this law immunity is gone , wich isnt bad if you dont do anything wrong.
Now the US wants to make sure that no representatives of the US can be prosecuted in Belgium (no matter what they did).

I just want a opinion from all of you because this hasnt only to do with the US, belgium or any other country. It actually involves almost every country (in a way).
So what do you think of this "elimination" of that law.

P.S: I dont want a US bashing thread, if so ill try to pm a mod saying they can close it.

If Belgium was to try and execute a high-profile American, it would create TONS of international tension and outrage in the US. A lot of people here would call for US action against Belgium. Belgium is a little country, and the US is a big country with big bombs that it seems that we like to drop... that wouldn't be entirely unlikely.

You mean a bit like diplomatic immunity?

Visitors in UK flaunt these rules frequently.....albeit not for crimes such as murder etc.

Put it one way-if a (insert country here) diplomat smashed a car up ........ed out of his/her head, they would escape the law. I believe occurences are more infrequent than they used to be now, but it still happens.

Quote:

---

If Belgium was to try and execute a high-profile American

---

In Belgium we dont execute people no matter what they did.
You can kill 10.000 people by dropping a bomb somewhere but you certainly wont be executed. Execution is against the law here.
So you would only get a maximum penalty.

For exemple: Two weeks ago some guy (age 40) shot this woman in cold blood on the street (she was living nextdoor).
Anyway hes being trialed now but he will probably get a sentence of about 21 years for that . After being 14 years in jail hes released. That is because our jails are crowded and theres just no more place to put em, thats why in lots of cases you original sentence is reduced to 2/3 of it.
A lil something to know bout this guy, it was his second killing. 10 years before he killed his neighbour (2 weeks ago) he had already stabbed his mother to death while she was asleep.

This is one of the many cases but to execute someone , no way (says the government, regardless what the ppl think-> kind of logic a trial doesnt need to be something public like during the Romans in the arenas).

So the only thing someone can get around here is a jail sentence.

::edit::

Quote:

---

Put it one way-if a (insert country here) diplomat smashed a car up ........ed out of his/her head, they would escape the law. I believe occurences are more infrequent than they used to be now, but it still happens

---

Im talking about mass murdering like the things done in Congo, super-dooper vialotion of human rights ( treat humans like animals etc.. )

If I am correct, then Belgium, like many other European countries, does not execute people. I agree with the genocide law. People who will be prosecuted are those who did some really bad things. It would be a bad thing just to let them run free in this world, whatever nationality those people have. We shouldn't make differences between nationalities, country size, bomb size or whatever. The human rights apply to all of us.

Governments need to get sterner on punishment for big things, and weaker for small things. Especially the US. We have a law about just about everything, even the smallest things, but for big stuff we have little wimpy punishments. People $$$$$ if they have to take responsiblity for their actions. That's why crap is so messed up over here. Sentences like Marijuana Possesion should be eliminated. Our jails are way overcrowded, and if you look at it, about 40% or more of the people in there are in there for drugs. So they let people who commit rape go free, because some dude smoked a joint. Rapists, sex abusers, murderers, assaulters, etc. need to be punished hard enough to where they are WAY too scared to do it. We need to quit being wussies with a capital P, and give these people what they deserve. Goddamn political bastards! Too many damn conservatives that are too scared to take any action against anything. And I'm sick of leaders that descriminate against people who aren't Christian and rich.

For major obvious offenses, it makes sense. However, what if someone considered the US war against Iraq unjust. Does that mean that a US soldier who was following orders and fighting in Iraq could be sentenced? If so, that's ridiculous. For absolutely obvious obliterations of human rights, it seems logical. But, if it is used for anything else, it could be a dangerous thing.

Quote:

---

Does that mean that a US soldier who was following orders and fighting in Iraq could be sentenced? If so, that's ridiculous. For absolutely obvious obliterations of human rights, it seems logical.

---

I think that if you follow orders it isnt you who has to be sentenced. But the man who gave the orders.
Beause if a soldier doesnt follows orders then i think he can be sentenced by a military court isnt it ?

I heard on the news some weeks ago about some High ranked guy in the military who might (notice the might, i only heard the Belgium media version of it)gave terrible orders (it involved something with killing lots of civilians), Belgium then stated that he could be busted when he came on Belgium ground. Thats the main cause (according to me) of yet another problem between the US and Belgium.

>> A lil something to know bout this guy, it was his second killing.

That's what happens when you let the bastards out of jail.

True blackrat... and frenchfry also has a point (although we dont actually have a problem with drug users in jail- because you may use soft-drugs like cannabis when used in a privatie place, without children).

I think the genocide law is good, I don't see anything wrong with it.

My only problem with the genocide law is that it goes against the idea of immunity. What if a general in Iraq killed thousands under orders from Saddam Hussein? For information proved valuable (like location of Hussein, etc.), he gets diplomatic immunity. Except in Belgium.

What I mean is that a genocide law which transcends diplomatic immunity undermines diplomatic immunity.

But I'm certainly not going to riot in the streets about this. IMHO, if anyone committed genocide, they would be prosecuted, regardless of a genocide law.

The U.S. is trying to get some NATO headquarters moved out
of Belgium because there has been talk abour arresting Tommy
Franks and other U.S. military brass for alleged war crimes committed by U.S. personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. It looks
to be a very serious situation.

>>> if you follow orders it isnt you who has to be sentenced

I'm afraid "I was only following orders" is probably the commonest thing you will hear whenever "war crimes" and "attrocities" are being discussed.

Soldiers follow orders from their superiors, their superiors receive their orders from higher superiors, ultimately from the civlian government who told the military to act and thence to the population at large as the civilian government is the elected representative of the people. It is a very fuzzy area.

The US's stance whereby you cannot prosecute Americans is, of course, offensive.

Quote:

---

The U.S. is trying to get some NATO headquarters moved out
of Belgium because there has been talk abour arresting Tommy
Franks and other U.S. military brass for alleged war crimes committed by U.S. personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. It looks
to be a very serious situation.

---

The only reason why its a serious sitation is because money is involved.
Each year Belgium receives lots of money from all NATO-countries (headquarters of the NATO are in Belgium). Not all the money is spend on NATO things=> Belgium has money left wich they can use for the economy etc...
Also there are alot of ppl employed in NATO services in Belgium...so with the removal of the NATO headquarters Belgium would lose the funding and lots of jobs would disappear.
Its only a matter of money and thats why Belgium is giving into the demands of the US.
A Belgium politician said that they are willing to drop the genocide law if it concerns US representatives.

Question is what does this politician understand under US representatives.

There's far, far more than money involved in this. You're talking
about arresting a United States Army four star general. Under this war crimes legislation, charges already have been filed against Ariel Sharon, Franks, and Sec. of State Colin Powell.
It seems to me that if the Belgic government ever went so far
as to arrest one of our highest ranking diplomats or the
commander-if-chief of the U. S. Armed Forces Central Command,
those acts might just be considered as acts of war against the
United States. The fact that the U.S. is threatening to withold
its share of funding for the new NATO headquarters in Belgium unless the war crimes law is repealed is simply Washington's
way of asking politely, "Please don't do this." From what I understand about all this, Belgium has given some assurance that if anyone is indicted, then the country in which that person resides will be so informed of the indictment well before anyone has a chance to be arrested. Needless to say, Rumsfeld was not
swayed by these assurances. Small wonder.

Quote:

---

From what I understand about all this, Belgium has given some assurance that if anyone is indicted, then the country in which that person resides will be so informed of the indictment well before anyone has a chance to be arrested. Needless to say, Rumsfeld was not
swayed by these assurances. Small wonder.

---

True therefor you dont see this law in action... maybe sometimes. But who is going to be so stupid to visit a country where he'll be arrested as soon as he enters the country.

It's a genocide law, not a war crimes law. Nobody in the United States has committed genocide, at least not in this century. Why should we be concerned about this law? Anyone who wanted to prosecute Tommy Franks would have to provide evidence of genocide, which doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Anyone who wanted to prosecute Tommy Franks would have to provide evidence of genocide, which doesn't exist.

---

What a coincidence, i just listened to the radio and i heard the news. It appaers Belgium already has some lawsuits running against highly ranked politicians of the US.

Really? How nice. But it doesn't mean they're guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GanglyLamb
True therefor you dont see this law in action... maybe sometimes. But who is going to be so stupid to visit a country where he'll be arrested as soon as he enters the country.

---

Right! So if NATO HQ's is in Belgium, just what are alll those
American brass hats who're under indictment for genocide supposed to do when it's time to go to the meeting?

ygfperson, you are absolutely, without a doubt, the last person on earth I would ever consider employing as my lawyer.

If they're under indictment for genocide, we've got to extridite them, anyway. What difference does it make where it takes place?

And a law in Belgium which can convict American generals is on shaky legal ground. That's why we do international war crimes trials.

Quote:

---

Right! So if NATO HQ's is in Belgium, just what are alll those
American brass hats who're under indictment for genocide supposed to do when it's time to go to the meeting?

---

Righto, but as i said before some Belgian politician said that we will make sure that American representatives cant be prosecuted.
/*But what does he ,*/ #define American_representative /* as ?*/

I think that if you commit genocide then you should be trialed in some way, even if you were the president of the who knows what or king from whatever country, and that it does not matter then anylonger wether you are black,white or who-knows-what-color.

I guess its like in Animal Farm from Orwell.
::quote::
All animals are equal to each other.
( later in the story they change this to )
All animals are equal to each other, but some are more equal then others.
::::::::::
Even Orwell already knew that and he lived in ...., when ?!?.

As the US has arrested a russian hacker upon entering the US for cracking when it wasn't even illegal in the country he did it in, the US has the least right to demand immunity. Belgium is doing the same thing the US did years ago. And the US is putting in their full weight to ensure that Americans do not get charged. Just Americans, mind you. They are not saying it's unjust for all. It's just not acceptable for Americans.
After all, protecting their own is a very natural behaviour, but the US manages to do this in a way that looks very unfavourable and pretty egoistic. I agree that the US has to protect it's own citizens first and foremost. To any government, the own citizens should be a top priority, any other things should come second. However, the US constantly manage to show this egoistic behaviour in such a way that you cannot find it not offensive. Treading a bit more slowly and more quiet would probably lead to the same results with less ruffled feathers.

You're mixing apples with oranges, nvoight. Specifically, you're
combining politico-military matters with civilian doings in the
case of that Russian . civillian hacker.


And GL, you're telling me, an American four-star general, that I
have nothing to fear because your Belgium politician SAID
he's going to make it so I can't be prosecuted for alleged
genocide!!?? That's so very reassussing...

















NOT!

Quote:

---

Righto, but as i said before some Belgian politician said that we will make sure that American representatives cant be prosecuted.

---

That's a bit strange. Why should American representatives not be prosecuted?

Quote:

---

I think that if you commit genocide then you should be trialed in some way, even if you were the president of the who knows what or king from whatever country, and that it does not matter then anylonger wether you are black,white or who-knows-what-color.

---

And that's how it should be.

From what ive heard about lots of you is that if you do anything wrong you should be trialed, but then theres the army.
I was only following orders from ...who and "who" was following orders from.... who and so on.

@rick_barclay:
I would react the same way you are if i were you.
Indeed he SAID it, that doesnt mean that it isnt going to be written down somewhere.
I think that Belgium and the US will come to some kind of human agreement. I cant imagine that a US citizen doesnt want to have someone prosecuted when they commited genocide.
We are all human beings so i would be stunned when i saw that in the agreement between the US and Belgium there would be something like a full protection for US representatives no matter what they did.


In the end im lucky im not a politician so i musnt worry about these things, but im worried as a civialian of the world.
Where's justice if we can prosecute one and not the other for doing the same crime.

Anyway this genocide law is getting lots of support, it would be pittyfull to see it weakened or something because some people feel this law as a tread ( even before they actually commited some crime, or that the crime has been proved ).

Quote:

---

Specifically, you're combining politico-military matters with civilian doings in the case of that Russian

---

I don't think that matters. There is a law in the country A that allows prosecution of a crime that is not prosecuted in country B. Citizens of B are arrested upon entering A and prosecuted for something that might not even be a crime at the location they commited it.

Set A = Belgium, B = USA: Unfair (according to the US)
Set A = US, B = Russia: Not unfair (according to the US)

I don't mind America protecting it's citizens. I just think they are lacking diplomacy, because the way they do it looks ridiculous and egoistic at best.

On the subject of soldiers obeying orders, what about all the Taliban soldiers being held in Guantanamo Bay, denied any human rights at all? They were just soldiers. Taliban soldiers are not Al-Qaeda operatives, spies or agents or whatever. I'm am especially annoyed about the David Hicks issue. For those of you who don't know, David Hicks is a young Australian (which I am also) who became a moslem and went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Now America accuses him of being a terrorist for Al-Qaeda and may even execute him, to set an example to others around the world.

This is a disguisting state of affairs. I seem to remember something about a Geneva convention, about, what was it, prisoners of war? Of course, George Bush conveniently forgets those important rules that manage to incorporate human rights into a wartime situation, when it's not American soldiers who are involved.

The US gets around the Geneva Convention by calling the prisoners "Illegal Combatants" rather than soldiers and hence prisoners of war. By changing the name, they believe they do not need to consider the treaty.

Of course this is bogus.

I think the term is "Civilian Combatant", but anyways, yes... it is an excuse to deny them the basic rights that they are afforded under the Geneva convention. The US can get away with this because the Taliban was not widely recognized (and certainly not by the US) as a government.

I just noticed this thread but the genocide law has changed. Now there has to be a connection with Belgium. Either the victim or the person who commits genocide has to be Belgian. Personaly I think this is the way to go. I'm not saying that people should go unpunished, but it should be on a more global scale. Like the International war court in Den Haag. But from what I've heard, the US don't want to be part of that either, and that is wrong I think. I can imagine that they don't want to be prosecuted in a country that has nothing to do with the purpetrator or victim. But they should obey an international court (like Den Haag)
Why are they so scared of it?


If a person kills thousands of people, he shouldn't be prosecuted in Belgium, but he should apear in front of an international court.