![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - June 21 2002 : 10:02:03 AM
|
That's what I thought too, Scott, even though it is somewhat embarrassing 
|
report to moderator  |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 21 2002 : 4:33:46 PM
|
Wow, Ilse .... a bit stunning in its underhanded tactic. It would seem that some nations who most strongly advocate the ICC (& have sworn it presents no potential danger to nationals involved in various military/peacekeeping missions) do not actually trust its powers.
A tempest might be brewing ...
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 22 2002 : 5:22:43 PM
|
Actually no, now that I've looked a bit more into it. Here is the central point I overlooked in the Washington Post article at first:
"Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation."
US attempts at bilateral agreements with other nations aim for no possible extradition to the ICC at all. Therefore, it is not the same thing.
Moreover, reading up on other similar operations, whether from the UN or NATO, these agreements are very normal.
Once more, I want to stress the fact that the ICC is an add-on. The ICC is only qualified in the case the national governments fail to prosecute those suspected of serious war crimes.
In the Afghanistan agreement I see no evidence of trying to evade the ICC. In fact, nothing in it shows that an extra check by the ICC is not acceptable to the participants (only possible after July 1, of course, and for events happening after that date). I think this agreement is more based on the fact that there is at this time no court in Afghanistan that meets the barest of requirements, than on fear of the ICC.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 23 2002 : 11:44:00 AM
|
I read this differently, Ilse.
The ICC is being given the mandate to try cases where the country of origin is unable or unwilling to prosecute (and in fact may see nothing to prosecute).
The fact that these countries are seeking these agreements clearly indicates that they can foresee situations that where they would have no intention of prosecuting their own people, but they fear the ICC might go after them.
It implies a strong distrust of the institution they've been pushing for.
And for good reason.
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 25 2002 : 5:11:29 PM
|
I can see why you would read that into it, Scott, but I'm not willing to go that far.
quote:
It implies a strong distrust of the institution they've been pushing for.
The Netherlands are participating in ISAF and therefore part of this agreement. The Netherlands also volunteered to host the ICC in The Hague. Hosting and strongly distrusting? Not likely in my opinion.
On the side, but very related to the topic I watched an impressive interview tonight with Benjamin B. Ferencz, one of the prosecutors, if not the main one, of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. The Nuremberg trials were a starting point for the creation of the ICC. If you want to know more about this remarkable guy, check out his website:
http://www.benferencz.org/
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 25 2002 : 11:28:33 PM
|
It's not my impression that the Dutch are the driving force Ilse. The Netherlands are only one (is only one?) of the 19 countries on whose behalf the UK is negotiating--the others may not be so trusting.
I don't necessarily see hosting and deeply distrusting as being mutually exclusive. After all, we host the U.N.
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 26 2002 : 08:14:45 AM
|
quote:
I don't necessarily see hosting and deeply distrusting as being mutually exclusive. After all, we host the U.N.
Good point, Scott 
You've probably already found it, but here's a link to a page with the ISAF agreement, btw:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/fingal/
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 03 2003 : 09:24:01 AM
|
From the BBC, April 3O:
quote:
US war crimes case 'going ahead'
A Belgian lawyer is planning to press ahead with a war crimes lawsuit against US General Tommy Franks, despite American anger.
The suit, brought by 19 Iraqis, accuses General Franks of war crimes during the Iraq conflict.
Lawyer Jan Fermon, who is acting on behalf of the Iraqis, described the plaintiffs as victims of cluster bombs and of US attacks on ambulances and civilians.
"We have a very specific case, with specific evidence," Mr Fermon said. "I do not see how they can reject it."
The case would be presented in court on 13 May, he said, including evidence which had been gathered by Belgian doctors working in Baghdad.
Mr Fermon said there were 17 "specific incidents" in which US soldiers and commanders had violated the law.
Belgium's war crimes legislation, allowing suits involving cases which happened abroad, has proved highly contentious since its introduction in 1993.
It has recently been softened to make it harder for cases to proceed.
High-profile cases, some of them highly embarrassing to the Belgian Government, have been brought against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US President George Bush.
Washington has reacted angrily to the prospect of General Franks being the subject of legal action.
The US State Department has told Belgium not to allow its laws to be used for "political ends".
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Bush administration officials are making it plain they would regard a prosecution of General Franks as a major diplomatic incident - an example of political harassment.
A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium.
But Mr Fermon hit back at Washington.
"I think either the US State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry - and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate - or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," the lawyer said.
'Test case'
The lawsuit may end up being seen as a test case of what the altered war crimes law permits.
Under the changes, Belgium can pass some war crimes cases to the countries directly involved, and it has become harder for non-Belgian citizens to bring cases.
If the alleged victim or perpetrator is not Belgian, a prosecutor must now decide whether to ask an investigating magistrate to look at the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2987903.stm
|
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 13 2003 : 11:21:51 AM
|
Normally I do not frequent this end of the board, but this demands comment. Belgium!!?? Who the hell are they? Oh, now I remember, its that little piece of turf wedged between Germany and France. The same place several of my family members were wounded (Including my Grandfather, who managed to survive D-Day), and two captured, when we liberated them in World War 2.
Perhaps we should have left them under the administration of Nazi Germany, rather than have a bunch of Jingoistic, Warmongering Criminals like the United States and Unitied Kingdom invade their soverign country and occupy it with a bunch of nasty G.I.'s and Tommy's. How could such an attrocity go unpunished after more than half a century. Where is Kofi Annan!!! Quick call an assembly of the U.N.'s Human Right's Commision, you know the one who has Sudan as one of the chairs (Who better to judge human rights than a country that still has slavery and condones the tourture/rape/murder of those nasty Christians, right?) Oh my God!!! We better convene a special meeting of the Security Council too, we need to get those European "Superpowers" Germany and France on board with this. Hurry, Kangaroo Court is now in session!!!!
In closing, let me say that who cares what Belgium has to say. Its a country that wouldn't do the right thing, even if they could!
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 14 2003 : 04:19:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
From the BBC, April 3O:
quote:
US war crimes case 'going ahead'
A Belgian lawyer is planning to press ahead with a war crimes lawsuit against US General Tommy Franks, despite American anger.
The suit, brought by 19 Iraqis, accuses General Franks of war crimes during the Iraq conflict.
Lawyer Jan Fermon, who is acting on behalf of the Iraqis, described the plaintiffs as victims of cluster bombs and of US attacks on ambulances and civilians.
"We have a very specific case, with specific evidence," Mr Fermon said. "I do not see how they can reject it."
The case would be presented in court on 13 May, he said, including evidence which had been gathered by Belgian doctors working in Baghdad.
Mr Fermon said there were 17 "specific incidents" in which US soldiers and commanders had violated the law.
Belgium's war crimes legislation, allowing suits involving cases which happened abroad, has proved highly contentious since its introduction in 1993.
It has recently been softened to make it harder for cases to proceed.
High-profile cases, some of them highly embarrassing to the Belgian Government, have been brought against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US President George Bush.
Washington has reacted angrily to the prospect of General Franks being the subject of legal action.
The US State Department has told Belgium not to allow its laws to be used for "political ends".
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Bush administration officials are making it plain they would regard a prosecution of General Franks as a major diplomatic incident - an example of political harassment.
A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium.
But Mr Fermon hit back at Washington.
"I think either the US State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry - and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate - or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," the lawyer said.
'Test case'
The lawsuit may end up being seen as a test case of what the altered war crimes law permits.
Under the changes, Belgium can pass some war crimes cases to the countries directly involved, and it has become harder for non-Belgian citizens to bring cases.
If the alleged victim or perpetrator is not Belgian, a prosecutor must now decide whether to ask an investigating magistrate to look at the case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2987903.stm
I haven't found much information on what the alleged war crimes are. The details available are sketchy, to say the least...references to the bombing of a market, civilian bus, ambulances and inaction during the pillaging of a hospital. It would be interesting to find out exactly what occurred before making a judgement. History tells us that there has never been a war in which there were not what we would classify today as war crimes committed by both sides.
As I understand this case, the reason it is Belgium lodging the actions is firstly that due to their laws they can, and secondly, it was a group of Belgian doctors who witnessed the events and want an international inquiry. Having said that..it's impossible to ignore the relevance of this case to this particular topic on the board |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 14 2003 : 05:54:57 AM
|
Back from self-exile, but I wanted to weigh in:
In a war where more care went into avoiding unnecessary casualties than ever before, the notion of trying General Franks for war crimes is, well, pardon the pun, foreign to me! If Tommy Franks is guilty of war crimes - ans surely they jest - then war is a crime, plain & simple. That's a whole 'nother discussion, but one can't hold Franks responsible for that.
Utterly ridiculous is my opinion. I have to wonder about the Belgians ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 14 2003 : 09:28:01 AM
|
quote:
Utterly ridiculous is my opinion. I have to wonder about the Belgians ...
The Belgians themselves have little to do with this charge. It's a group of lawyers and their Iraqi clients who make use of the Belgian anti-atrocity law a.k.a. war crimes law. Everybody can bring charges under this law:
quote:
[quote][What does the Belgian anti-atrocity law currently provide?
The 1993 law amended in 1999, gives Belgian courts the authority to prosecute persons
accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes regardless of where the
crimes took place or whether the suspect or the victims are Belgian.
What is the legal basis for this law?
The Belgian law puts into practice the international law principle of “universal
jurisdiction" which holds that every state has an interest in bringing to justice the
perpetrators of particular crimes of international concern, no matter where the crime was
committed, and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or their victims. A
principal reason why international law provides for universal jurisdiction is to ensure that
there is no "safe haven" for those responsible for the most serious crimes./quote]
I think recently some amendments were made to it to prevent abuse and those amendments would give the Belgian government the possibility to throw out cases, but I'm not entirely sure about that. If so, I suppose this is THE testcase.
More information on the law:
http://www.hrw.org/europe/belgium.php |
OH HAI!
Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 14 2003 : 10:16:38 AM
|
| I must agree with Ilse. Although one might not understand the point of the Belgian lawyers , one can hardly blame a whole country and make unnecessary unkind remarks about this country and its citizens. That's something that doesn't go over well with me.. |
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 14 2003 : 7:13:50 PM
|
Obviously, then, I don't have a clue about this ...
I find it rather odd that a country would have a law like this one on the books that allows for outsiders to utilize it. If that assumption is correct, then I would still have to fault the Belgians for allowing it to be part of their law. But, that's their prerogative.
In any event, trying Franks for war crimes is ridiculous, IMHO. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 15 2003 : 03:38:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
Obviously, then, I don't have a clue about this ...
I find it rather odd that a country would have a law like this one on the books that allows for outsiders to utilize it. If that assumption is correct, then I would still have to fault the Belgians for allowing it to be part of their law. But, that's their prerogative.
In any event, trying Franks for war crimes is ridiculous, IMHO.
Rich, is it the law that bothers you? Or the fact that it is an American facing a charge? I am not certain that the law itself is such a bad thing...in theory, it would enable a trial to take place in a 'neutral' country (if there is such a thing!). However, in practice, I am not sure how it would really work. I think the ICC, which would make this law redundant, would be a far better option.
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 15 2003 : 06:50:16 AM
|
Both, actually, Huggy ...
Obviously I think it wrong to "try" General Franks ... even in as absurd & meaningless, really, a tribunal as this.
I just don't understand the law or its intended purpose. Why would a sovereign nation allow its legal system to be manipulated by outside forces with special interests? Makes no sense to me.
I would think that most Americans are either outraged or view it as comic relief ... or both! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 15 2003 : 06:53:56 AM
|
Huggy, I think Rich was replying in part to what is implicit in Bea's post: The notion that the people of a free country are somehow not responsible for it's laws and their effects. They most certainly are, and if you don't fault the Belgians for it, who would you hold responsible?
I have to disagree with Rich's assertion that in the case of this law, it's their pregrogative. It is not. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 15 2003 : 08:03:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by richfedBoth, actually, Huggy ...
Obviously I think it wrong to "try" General Franks ... even in as absurd & meaningless, really, a tribunal as this.
I just don't understand the law or its intended purpose. Why would a sovereign nation allow its legal system to be manipulated by outside forces with special interests? Makes no sense to me.
I would think that most Americans are either outraged or view it as comic relief ... or both!
Ok..I am assuming that first of all a case has to have some degree of merit to it before it would reach the court. Secondly, I am sure the intentions of the Belgians was not to allow its legal system to be manipulated, but to ensure that justice was served. Maybe this is gross over-simplification, but why is it ok for the US and allies to determine Saddamn Hussein's guilt outside of a court and subsequently invade his country, and not ok for another country to bring to trial a third party accused of war crime?
One other thing, what if the US was guilty of war crimes, who would determine that and how?
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
Huggy, I think Rich was replying in part to what is implicit in Bea's post: The notion that the people of a free country are somehow not responsible for it's laws and their effects. They most certainly are, and if you don't fault the Belgians for it, who would you hold responsible?
I have to disagree with Rich's assertion that in the case of this law, it's their pregrogative. It is not.
Can you elaborate on the last comment a bit?
HM
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 15 2003 : 09:46:40 AM
|
quote:
USA v. Pohl et. al - The Indictment
I. Indictment
The United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent said Government in the prosecution of war criminals, charges that the defendants herein participated in a common design or conspiracy to commit and did commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, duly enacted by the Allied Control Council on 20 December 1945. These crimes included murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, deportations, enslavement, forced labor, plunder of property, and other inhumane and unlawful acts, as set forth in counts one, two, and three of this indictment. All but one of the defendants herein are further charged with membership in a criminal organization; as set forth in count four of this indictment.
The persons accused as guilty of these crimes and accordingly named as defendants in this case are
OSWALD POHL- Obergruppenfuehrer in the Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the "SS") and General of the Waffen SS (Lieutenant General); Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Department [Office] (SS Wirtschaftsund Verwaltungshauptamt, commonly known as "WVHA") and chief of Division W of the WVHA.
AUGUST FRANK - Obergruppenfuehrer in the SS and General of the Waffen SS (Lieutenant General); Deputy Chief of the WVHA and chief of Division A of the WVHA.
GEORG LOERNER - Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant of the Waffen SS (Major General); Deputy Chief of the WVHA, chief of Division B of the WVHA, and deputy chief of Division W of the WVHA.
HEINZ KARL FANSLAU - Brigadefuehrer in the SS and Generalmajor of the Waffen SS (Brigadier General); chief of Division A of the WVHA.
HANS LOERNER - SS Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) and chief of Office I of Division A of the WVHA.
JOSEF VOGT - SS Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) and chief of Office IV of Division A of the WVHA.
ERWIN TSCHENTSCHER - SS Standartenfuehrer (Colonel); deputy chief of Division B and chief of Office I of Division B of the WVHA.
RUDOLF SCHEIDE - SS Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) and chief of office V of Division B of the WVHA.
MAX KIEFER - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) and chief of Office II of Division C of the WVHA.
FRANZ EIRENSCHMALZ - SS Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) and chief of Office VI of Division C of the WVHA.
KARL SOMMER - SS Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) and deputy chief of Office II of Division D of the WVHA.
HERMANN POOK - Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) of the Waffen SS and chief dentist of the WVHA, of Office III, Division D.
HANS HEINRICH BAIERSS - Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) and Amtschef Stab (executive officer) of Division W of the WVHA.
HANS HOHBERG - Amtschef Stab (executive officer) of Division W of the WVHA.
LEO VOLKSS - Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain), personal adviser (Persoenlicher Referent) on Pohl's staff, and head of legal section (Leiter der Rechtsabteilung) in the executive office of Division W of the WVHA.
KARL MUMMENTHEY - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) and chief of Office I of Division W of the WVHA.
HANS BOBERMIN - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) and chief of Office II of Division W of the WVHA.
HORST KLEIN - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lieutenant Colonel) and chief of Office VIII of Division W of the WVHA.
COUNT ONE - THE COMMON DESIGN OR CONSPIRACY
1. Between January 1933 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein, acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did conspire and agree together and with each other and with divers other persons, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II.
2. Throughout the period cove |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 15 2003 : 1:56:01 PM
|
1- In a free country, if you vote, I believe that you are responsible, maybe even if you don't.
2 - "Crimes against humanity" & Tommy Franks do not belong in the same thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Huggy Merchant
Maybe this is gross over-simplification, but why is it ok for the US and allies to determine Saddamn Hussein's guilt outside of a court and subsequently invade his country, and not ok for another country to bring to trial a third party accused of war crime?
3 - For me to personally & adequately address this question, I'd have to get into why it is I feel we were fighting that war. If I do that, I'll be back to the tension I was feeling from the other threads ... please don't make me do that!!!!  Let time be the judge. But, part of the reason would be #2 above. How's that?!?
PS to Scott: I was just allowing them [the Belgians] the benefit of the doubt! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bea
Keeper of the Western Door
Canada
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 15 2003 : 3:08:08 PM
|
Scott, my reply wasn't referring so much to Rich's post but to the previous poster. As I pointed out I can understand people being disappointed about a nation/nations but don't you think that there should be a limit? The limit being not to make insulting remarks about 'that little turf of land' etc. Imagine, a Belgian stumbling upon this board and reading remarks like that..Sorry, but I will always feel this way.. I will NEVER insult a whole nation for the things a few people are doing. But, that's me. I really wouldn't like to see threads like "let's ban Belgian chocolates etc"..
And, Lainey, as usual, an excellent post..I could say much more about a country and its laws and the so-called input I have as a Canadian citizen, but I gotta make lunch for the kiddies..
|
Carpe Diem |
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 15 2003 : 10:19:06 PM
|
Welcome back, Lainey.
Well, if I'd only opened this thread a few moments later, I'd have seen Rich's post and would have felt no need to reply. But as fate would have it, he and I were writing at the same time, and now I seem to have a whole bunch of writing ahead of me.
Inshallah
I will try to respond to the wealth of questions, comments and diversions in a halfway organized and logical manner.
Huggy, I don't believe it is the prerogative of any country to set itself up arbitrarily as arbiter of events that are simply none of its business. I'm not nearly so complacent about Belgian motives here; it strikes me as legal entrepreneurship on a national basis, and the worst kind of ambulance-chasing. Several other countries have already laid the legislative basis for getting a piece of the action. Think about it. Would you want Uruguay setting up shop to judge cases in northern Ireland? (No offense to Uruguay!) "Discount atrocity convictions guaranteed, or you pay nothing." Please. I hope I won't be accused of bashing Belgians here, but I do have to point out that they in fact do have some experience in this area. The whole concept of "atrocities" got much of it's original impetus from the unbelievable extent of atrocities committed by Leopold's forces back in the early years of the last century. The world was shocked at a time when it didn't shock nearly so easily as it does now. So perhaps a bit of conversion reaction is driving this?
Part of why they've been able to get away with it so far is that they haven't yet irritated anyone big enough to put them in their place. Until now.
Now with regard to the German war crimes trials, it may be hard to recall today, but there was considerable consternation about them for years as they opened a pandora's box with tremendous potential for abuse. Not to mention the fact that the law was being applied retroactively. Having said that, let's take a look at the text above. The Allied Control Council was in fact the acting government of Germany at the time. Therefore what you have is a trial of German citizens authorized by the government of Germany. This bears no relation to either the case in question here or the Belgian law.
The thefts at the Baghdad Museum seem to me a diversion in this context, Lainey, but I can't resist responding. There is simply no way a case of war crimes can be made unless one can make a case that American military forces committed or actively conspired in the thefts (you seem to be hinting at this). The Geneva conventions enjoin against gratuitous pillaging on the part of military forces, and there is a general, but not specific, admonition to maintain order in an occupied territory. However, we were not in possession of Baghdad at the time by any means--the battle was still being fought. The official position of the Iraqi government was that we were nowhere near the area but were elsewhere getting our butts kicked, and we have it on tape!
Frankly, Lainey, I find the idea that the Iraqi people did everything they could to prevent this tragedy to be extremely questionable. It is the duty of the management and staff of a museum to protect the collection. Virtually all museums, even little rinky-dink ones, have contingency plans to safeguard their possessions on 24-hour notice. The Kuwaitis had no problem accomplishing this when Saddam came to call. They didn't even have to relocate the collection. They simply built a false wall and moved the collection behind it. They then laid out a sumptuous feast of pretty reproduction's for Iraq's best to feed on.
The staff of the Baghdad Museum appears to have done at best, nothing. In spite of having plenty of advance notice. I think there are pretty good indications that they conspired in, if not planned the thefts. Time will tell.
As for the extent of culpablity of a given individual in the laws and actions of their nation, answering that could keep th |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 16 2003 : 03:48:30 AM
|
Thank you, Scott. And a "rrrrroaring" opposition to tackle ...
quote:
I hope I won't be accused of bashing Belgians here, but I do have to point out that they in fact do have some experience in this area. The whole concept of "atrocities" got much of it's original impetus from the unbelievable extent of atrocities committed by Leopold's forces back in the early years of the last century. The world was shocked at a time when it didn't shock nearly so easily as it does now. So perhaps a bit of conversion reaction is driving this?
Part of why they've been able to get away with it so far is that they haven't yet irritated anyone big enough to put them in their place. Until now.
Yes, King Leopold II was the impetus for early recognition of atrocities &, due to the exposure of Leopold's murderous 'employment habits' in his rubber producing ventures which depopulated the Congo with shocking brutality & rapidity, was also the impetus for the first human rights organizations - in Belgium. I went looking for these two letters (1906/1907) which I had come across previously as I thought you'd find them interesting.
(The Belgium Intl Court has already indicted a lot of weighty individuals, including George Bush Sr & Ariel Sharon, & has convicted four Rwandans. Trouble with the court is its frequent shifting - a classic 'Belgian Compromise.' The Senate rules particular standards of indictment are not valid, then a court reinstates those standards, then it gets overhauled yet again to reflect the language & standards of the ICC in Rome.)
quote:
The Congo News Letter
(Boston: Congo Reform Association, April 1907).
King Leopold's Trick
Concessions May Prevent Belgium from Annexing the Congo State
London, Nov. 23. -- A special correspondent of The Times, telegraphing from Brussels, speaks of the recent grants by the Congo Independent State to various concessionaires. He says that the decrees creating vested interests equivalent to a heavy mortgage on Belgium's inheritance have considerably embarrassed those favoring the annexation of the Congo State. Annexation would involve Belgium in responsibilities which, with the new concessions, are calculated by competent authorities to amount to fully £20,000,000.
The correspondent says that, in addition to the difficulties which King Leopold has put in the way of the Chamber by this manoeuvre, it is probable that he hopes by it to obtain the support of certain parties in countries whose citizens are interested in the concessions. This is especially the case in regard to America, whose sympathies the King is particularly anxious to obtain. -- New York Times, Nov. 24, 1906.
New York, Dec. 13. -- For nearly two years Leopold II, King of the Belgians, maintained an expensive corps of lobbyists and opinion moulders in Washington.
But King Leopold had a far better plan for keeping the American Congress inactive than had ever suggested itself to the fertile imagination of the self-centered Kowalsky. This wonderful plan certainly was an inspiration of genius. It did not occur to the king, it was suggested to him; and the man who claims the credit of the idea is Henry Wellington Wack, the publicity agent of the king's lobby, whose ability Kowalsky decried and whose lack of initiative in the King's interest he deplored. The plan was first unfolded to King Leopold in a communication which Wack wrote him, and which ran about as follows:
"Open up a strip of territory clear across the Congo State from east to west for the benefit of American capital. Take the present concessionaries by the throat, if necessary, and compel them to share their privileges with the Americans. In this |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.52 seconds |
 |
|
Operation Low Lands?
