U.S. warns NATO over war crime law

[Mr. Mopery]

Originally posted by Attalus: ROFL! I doubt that you could call Jonah ill-informed. Informed drivel, perhaps. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Don't know a lot about the guy, but as his wife writes John Ashcroft's speeches (and advises him), I'd be inclined to agree with Djinn Raffo. There's a guy who seems determined to turn the U.S. into a police state.

But to return to topic, I suppose I can understand the U.S.'s concerns that other countries would challenge the legitimacy of it's actions on humanitarian grounds. It's a big target and has to protect it's interests...especially when the it might be held accountable for "War Crimes" if the right files were opened and a standard previously used in other cases were applied to it.

Haven't made up my own mind on the world court issue but if the cases are referred to the country's home country anyway, I don't see why it's being shunned outright. At least bargain over it. Maybe the military is worried that it's soldiers might actually have to be responsible for their actions (ie. the two boys in Korea running over those little girls?).

Of course, though, Rumsfeld would say something like: "We will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Belgium until we know for certain that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place for NATO to conduct its business..." His standard diplomacy--lash out, remind whoever that they need American money and, if that doesn't do it, add them to some new axis.

I can see it now. "Today American Secretary of Defense labled Belgium, France and Switzerland as the Axis of Cheese-eating Surrender Monkeys. No immediate comment was available from the members of this rather pungent, lice-infested axis."

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Attalus: ROFL! I doubt that you could call Jonah ill-informed. Informed drivel, perhaps. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Attalus, I don't know this Jonah guy, but simply based on that bit you posted, he seems to merely scream a lot about things so drastically simplified and with a blatant disregard for the actual facts, that he deserves the "ill-informed drivel" brandmarking cum laude.
And for the record: Belgium isn't trying to detain, abduct or arrest any American officials - they refer any complaints and lawsuits filed to the US under the recently revised Genocide Act (which was revised because of the public outcry when the lawsuit against Franks was filed), just like the case against General Franks had been referred to the US about a month ago already, so the US themselves could sort out what to do with those complaints. But something like that probably won't sell enough newspapers or satisfy Jonah's readers. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Simply based on the bit you posted, I can only agree with Djinn that the guy is an idiot. And I certainly hope for you that his "regular" articles actually contain some factual information, for a change.

And to be fair, I suppose instead of posting the CNN-article, I should have posted an article which *doesn't* ignore the other side of the matter. My bad.

US attacks Belgium war crimes law

The United States has renewed controversy within Nato over Belgian legislation which makes foreigners vulnerable to prosecution for alleged war crimes.
American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that Washington would block further funding for Nato's new headquarters in Belgium until the legal threat was withdrawn.
US authorities have been outraged by complaints brought against General Tommy Franks - who commanded US forces in the Iraq war - and other officials under laws that allow Belgian courts to try war crimes wherever they are committed around the world.
In another development on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council granted US peacekeepers another year of immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) by 12 votes to none.
Speaking after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Mr Rumsfeld said it did not "make much sense to make a new headquarters if you can't come here for meetings".
According to the BBC's Jonathan Marcus in Brussels, it was an unusual and blistering attack upon one of America's Nato allies - a sign that there are still some serious tensions that from time to time break through to the surface.

Belgian 'surprise'
The case against General Franks was filed by a left-wing lawyer on behalf of a group of Iraqis injured or bereaved in the war.
It followed similar complaints brought against former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell for their role in the first Gulf War.
Reacting to the US outcry, the Belgian Government rushed changes to the laws through parliament which mean any such complaints can be transferred to the country of the accused if that nation has a fair and democratic legal system.
Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt referred the General Franks case back to the US last month, although the attorney Jan Fermon is appealing on behalf of the 19 Iraqis bringing the case.
Belgian Defence Minister Andre Flahaut said he was surprised by Mr Rumsfeld's warning, insisting the General Franks case had been rejected by his country.
Mr Rumsfeld has said American military and civilian officials need assurances they could come to Brussels without facing "harassment" from the Belgian courts.

UN endorsement
The US itself put forward the UN Security Council resolution which extends the immunity of states which have not ratified the ICC's founding statute from its jurisdiction for a second year from 1 July.
The extension was approved grudgingly as almost every speaker in the debate highlighted the unlikelihood of US peacekeepers ever being in a position where they were prosecuted by the court.
Three of the 15 Security Council members - France, Germany and Syria - demonstrated their disapproval by abstaining.
Earlier, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the legitimacy of peacekeepers would be undermined by recurrent extensions to their immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC - the world's first war crimes court.
America is also currently drawing up agreements with individual governments which bar them from surrendering US nationals to the court and has signed nearly 40 such agreements to date.

'Principle'
The deputy US Ambassador to the UN, James Cunningham, welcomed the approval of his resolution but added that, "like any compromise, [it] does not address all our concerns".
Germany, a principal proponent of the court, said its abstention was "a matter of principle".
Even the UK indicated it had differences with one of its closest allies over the issue.
"Whilst we understand US concerns about the International Criminal Court, we do not share them," said its Ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

Source: BBC

[ 06-14-2003, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Attalus: As an American, I must say: I read him every day.

If Jonah Goldberg is so well informed, he should know that it's "Belgians" and not "Belgies". And i'm sorry, but this guy shouldn't even be allowed to speak, he sounds like a complete idiot from what i just read.

[Attalus]

Johnny, I suspect he is saying "Belgies" as a disrespectul derivative.