U.S. CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES

Court case against General Franks in Brussels

WARNING:

The video and pictures in this report depict the reality and horror of the U.S.- UK invasion of Iraq

THE EVIDENCE FILE:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3450.htm

Lol... Last year Congress passed a bill authorizing the President to use force if American citizens are kidnapped by the Belgian government.

What good is that tribunal if they can't enforce it? Smart as granite, them Belgians.

Anyways, please forgive us Americans. We can't live up to your standards as the Palestinians with their suicide bombings do.

Sadly, the belgian court is trying to get the case transferred to a US court. The lawyer for the iraqis is fighting the move, but...

And Jerrek, the result would be that Franks wouldn't be able to go to a NATO meeting in belgium. Their response is that they'll just move NATO out of belgium (and the other members of NATO will be assumed to understand that they're to shut up).

What I want to know, is if Franks is innocent, why aren't the US seizing this opportunity to show that they stand for the rule of law, and defend him in open court? Or are they instead convinced that they acted illegally?

So, if someone in some_unknown_country_4264 decides YOU are guilty of some_unknown_crime_9935, would YOU go there to defend yourself?
That's not what happened, though, is it?
Franks led an invasion of Iraq. Iraqi civilians are now charging him with violating the Geneva Convention during the conduct of that campaign. Lets's get this real clear now - he's not being charged with invading Iraq, since he did not make the decision to do so - he is being charged with violating the Geneva convention due to the manner in which he fulfilled his orders - which is his responsibility.
Now if he did nothing wrong, I don't see why the US cannot at least argue the case, even if they don't give Franks up to the jurisdiction of the Belgian court. I mean, if they win, it's a PR coup that would give Bush a second term almost on it's own!

I couldn't care what they want.
Well, that's all very well and good for you, since you're as far from an example of US society as I am, but for Franks, supposedly a senior figure in the US armed forces, saying "fcuk you" is not a viable option. After all Jerrek, he's a grown-up and we don't talk like that to judicial figures...

I'm not responsible to them and they don't have any authority over me.
Nope, you're not responsible to them, but Franks is sworn to uphold the Geneva convention, it's part of the uniform code of military justice. And Belgium doesn't have any authority over him, but as I said, there are two options here:
1) He's innocent and arguing the case and winning gives Bush a massive PR boost.
2) He's guilty and the US will kick, scream and gouge to stay out of court.
Hmmm.

I'm sorry, but the Constitution guarantees a trial by jury among your peers
Yes, for US civilians. Not for US military personnell who break the uniform code while on duty.

That Belgium thing makes no such claim.
That belgian court gives the same guarantee.

The judges will all probably be immigrants from Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and Belgium. That is impartiality for you.
The judge has to be Belgian. That's the thing you see - it's a Belgian court. It's just that for crimes against humanity (which is what a violation of the Geneva Convention is), it doesn't recognise that nationality is a legitimate defence (ie. We're american so we're allowed break the Convention at will with impunity).

IF the Belgians try to kidnap Franks if he visits NATO
It's not called kidnapping, it's called arresting.

I am quite sure the U.S. military will be able to hunt those kidnappers down and rescue Franks.
I'm not. This isn't Iraq you know. For a start, Franks wouldn't be arrested with force, he'd be requested to show up. If it actually came to an arrest, I doubt seriously that the US is going to keep enough troops handy to prevent it - and if they were to attack Belgian police or troops, that's casus belli.
In other words, it would be a mess, and the US would not have sufficent troops to extract Franks if the Belgians were serious about it, not without having an aircraft carrier or two stationed off Belgium for the duration.

Oh and moving NATO from Belgium is gonna be really sweet for the Belgium economy.
The point of NATO is that it's an alliance - not an army. So if the US says jump, the other members of NATO will not ask how hight they should aim for...

since you're as far from an example of US society as I am, (sparks)

his kind can be found in idaho and montana. in farms. with weapons. waiting. and waiting some more.

Pure farce.

spookz,his kind can be found in idaho and montana. in farms. with weapons. waiting. and waiting some more.And probably playing banjos to pass the time too. :rolleyes:

Jerrek,Sure it is. Some insignificant country is claiming they can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign national, over a crime supposedly committed in a foreign country.For a start, if Belgium is insignificant, why is the US so worked up over this? Second, they're not exercising jurisdiction over Franks, they're saying that if he comes to Belgium that he can be charged according to the case being presented. Which is perfectly legal. In fact the one and only difference here is that the crime was committed outside Belgium - and since the US has allowed something similar for decades, I don't see the problem.
(I'm referring to the fact that if a US company breaks the law in a foreign country that those affected can bring suit successfully in the US. Yes, it's not identical, but it's damn similar.)

I'll make you a deal.No, you won't. Firstly, you have no authority to sign the US up to any deal, secondly I don't have the authority to sign any deal, thirdly, the US has proven that it's signature on a treaty is barely worth the paper it's written on, and fourthly, this case is going ahead and that's that.

The day you put Saddam Hussein (for use of chemical weapons on civilians)
Can I charge Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. for funding the purchase of said weapons as accessories after the fact and co-conspirators, since they funded him after halajba but before he gassed other kurds?
the leader of North Korea, Idi Amin (murdered thousands of people, now living in Saudi Arabia in luxury), the Japanese Prime Minister (Jap war veteran, responsible for murdering 10,000+ people on an island when he heard McAuthor is coming),
He personally murdered 10,000 people? Energetic guy. How about you give a reference that isn't on an anti-japanese site?
a Japanese Member of Parliament (forgot his name, also a war veteran, he tortured his prisoners of war by cutting them open, grabbing their liver, pullig it out, and eating it in front of them all while they were alive, kicking and screaming [source: The Biography Channel])This is the same source that has been decried as horribly inaccurate with reference to the attack on the USS Lincoln by Israel only yesterday on this forum...
, and the other monsters of our time in front of a judge in Belgium.
You know, authority issues aside, I'd sign that deal in a heartbeat if instead of belgium, you made it the International Criminal Court, which was created to fill this need - and which the US has repeatedly sought to undermine.
Only after it has been proven that the court has some credibility can we talk again. That's the Belgian supreme court you're besmirching there Jerrek. While your court has shown its prejudice, please don't assume other countries are embracing fascism...
He is already winning. I really see no point in even handing over Franks. You don't extradite your own, innocent citizens. That borders treason. No, since the state cannot be convicted of treason. But you omitting the obvious point that the case can be argued with Franks abroad. Send a lawyer to argue for him, use video links if you want to question him or other US personnel, but this is a serious opportunity for an innocent man...
Somehow the name Tim Collins comes to mind....
That is unfortunate. I would love to see him tell Belgium to go screw a lemon.
As I said, grown-ups don't talk like that to judicial figures. Especially when they're on the same side.
Of course, no where did the U.S. sign any agreement that Belgians are now the whitest angels of them all to be able to sit in judgment over the rest of the world. The Geneva Convention does not state that Belgium is the country that will decide the cases.
Actually, the convention makes no reference whatsoever to who can judge cases - it just says an independent tribunal. That's all. So there's no reason why any country other than those involved in the dispute can't do this. Belgium just happens to have the concept of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity - and as I understand it, that's something to do with NATO and the EU being sited in Belgium.
You are so damn narrow minded.
Wow. I just got called narrow-minded by the biggest pro-US anti-rest-of-the-world bigot I know of... outside the US administration that is...
:rolleyes:
You forgot the other two possibilities:
What, I forgot? You mean I didn't deliberately leave them out? But, but, but... that's the action of an open-minded person! *shock*

3) He is innocent and he and the U.S. have no wish to please the Belgians.

It's not a wish to please the Belgians, you'd need to have a wish to deliberately snub them.
4) He is guilty and the U.S. will hand him over.
That's not really a viable possibility though.

The military has its OWN regulations. We don't need Belgium to dictate it to us.
Belgium is NOT dictating it to you, YOU are, since YOU signed the Geneva Convention and included it in the Uniform Code.
Oh that is like asking Syria to judge us.
No, it's not. Go on, prove how that's a valid comparison! Or have you threatened to invade Belgium and take over their oil recently?
I can tell you now they will find him guilty regardless of what evidence is presented. You sure can tell me, in fact you just did. It's still an untrue statement though. And a libel against the Belgium court.

Belgium has such a dislike for the U.S. at this point they would be as impartial as Syria.
Incorrect. Prove otherwise if you can.

No it is kidnapping. When you take someone against his/her will it is called kidnapping unless that person is in a legal, authoritative position over you with the power to arrest. Belgium judges do not have legal, authoritative position over an American citizen. So, it is called kidnapping.
Incorrect. A foreign national may be arrested for breaking the law of the country he's in. That applies to every country on the planet, including the US. So it's an arrest.

And in fact, the US has a record of abducting foreign nationals, bringing them to the US and arresting them there. Granted, not very nice people, but the fact remains that they have done so, without a legal right to do so. That is kidnapping.
Of course. First, Belgium and the E.U. has an army similar to that of Tonga, which is a tape recording shouting "We surrender" in 38 different languages.
Really? How authoritive.
Fact is, the EU armed forces (which are the armed forces of the constituent EU members) are more professionally trained than US forces, and the invasion of Iraq has demonstrated this. And they have sufficent materiel and personnel to merrily play havoc with any serious US invasion.
And we are now seriously into a "my dad can beat up your dad" area.

I think you are underestimating one of those little thingies... Do NOT FUCK WITH THE United States.
Nice to see your true colours Jerrek.

So why exactly is Belgium so incredibly alarmed over this?Who said they were?

No, you won't. Firstly, you have no authority to sign the US up to any deal, secondly I don't have the authority to sign any deal, thirdly, the US has proven that it's signature on a treaty is barely worth the paper it's written on, and fourthly, this case is going ahead and that's that. Figure of speech buckwheat.

Can I charge Rumsfeld and Bush Sr. for funding the purchase of said weapons as accessories after the fact and co-conspirators, since they funded him after halajba but before he gassed other kurds? If you want. Just bring ample proof please. For proof of Saddam, we only have to look at the Kurds and Shiites.

He personally murdered 10,000 people? Energetic guy. How about you give a reference that isn't on an anti-japanese site? He and his men. And yes, he joined in. And it was from the Biography channel, not an anti-Japanese website. Are you defending his right to murder 10,000 people? Or are you now denying that fact because you personally have never heard about it?

This is the same source that has been decried as horribly inaccurate with reference to the attack on the USS Lincoln by Israel only yesterday on this forum... What?

You know, authority issues aside, I'd sign that deal in a heartbeat if instead of belgium, you made it the International Criminal Court, which was created to fill this need - and which the US has repeatedly sought to undermine. Now why in the world would we want to join the ICC? Prove that it works first.

Belgium is NOT dictating it to you, YOU are, since YOU signed the Geneva Convention and included it in the Uniform Code But the Convention did not say you have to extradite your citizens to foreign countries so that foreign people can judge over them over "crimes" that happend in foreign countries.

No, it's not So you're saying that anti-Americanism runs low in Belgium?

Fact is, the EU armed forces (which are the armed forces of the constituent EU members) are more professionally trained than US forces Yeah, all 3 of them. So tell me, if the E.U. has this brilliant and stunning army, why do they need the U.S. to keep peace within their own borders?

Who said they were? The Belgium foreign minister.




We all know the value of democracy right? So if the majority of the American people feel we do not wish to join the I.C.C. or extradite Franks then that is the course of action to take, right?

Sure it is. Some insignificant country is claiming they can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign national, over a crime supposedly committed in a foreign country.

You seem to have forgotten that pretty much all war tribunals (including the nuremberg trials) fit your simplistic definition of what is currently happening.

Significant or not, if a modern government has the guts to call an investigation concerning the actions of another country -superpower or not- they are entitled to it by international agreement.
We all know Jerrek that you have this perverted dream that the UN would somehow dissovle and that the U.S. would finally emerge as the dictator of the world (such as being able to demand things from other countries that would not have to be recipocrated)
ex: owning WMD's and submitting onself to war crimes investigations.

But being in a more civilized world that you seem to care for, most countries adhere to a community of interests that seek the respect of universal laws that have been accepted by these same countries (including your own).

So unless you have a valid reason why the U.S. should be allowed to do as it pleases, and that without restrictions, please talk to us about these reasons instead of dumbing the conversation down to calling foreign countries "idiots" and "unsignificant" which are only reflective of your subjective judgment values which are of little importance to all of us.

Prisme

P.S.

We all know the value of democracy right? So if the majority of the American people feel we do not wish to join the I.C.C. or extradite Franks then that is the course of action to take, right?

Again we see the limitations of your thought pattern:
-Instead of seeing democracy and justice for the world, you only see it as relevant to the standards of the united states. -the mark of a true conservative.

If you want. Just bring ample proof please. For proof of Saddam, we only have to look at the Kurds and Shiites.
Oddly enough, that's all you'd have to look at for Bush and Rumsfeld as well.
He and his men. And yes, he joined in. And it was from the Biography channel, not an anti-Japanese website. Are you defending his right to murder 10,000 people? Or are you now denying that fact because you personally have never heard about it?
No, I'm pointing out that you cannot decry the History Channel as a source of information one day and then use it's sister channel as an unimpeachable source of information the next.

Now why in the world would we want to join the ICC? Prove that it works first.

Now there's the catch-22 scenario for you. The ICC had magnificent potential (and still does) and the US cut it's legs out from under it. Now, ignore all the problems you have with the UN Jerrek, and explain to me what the problem is with the concept of an international court for those that violate international law?
But the Convention did not say you have to extradite your citizens to foreign countries so that foreign people can judge over them over "crimes" that happend in foreign countries.
Correct. And the Belgian court isn't asking for an extradition either. And never has in the past. But those convicted would be arrested should they enter Belgium. Which is perfectly legal and above board.
So you're saying that anti-Americanism runs low in Belgium?
Prove that it doesn't! For a start, you're saying that the belgian court is biased, which is a libellous thing to say, and then you're not backing it up with any proof whatsoever!
So tell me, if the E.U. has this brilliant and stunning army, why do they need the U.S. to keep peace within their own borders?
Firstly, there is no EU army. Secondly, the member states don't and never have before.
The Belgium foreign minister.
Who said (if I recall correctly from the Washington post) that the case "can be considered as a test case [for the new law], so we are very curious to see what will happen." Doesn't sound terribly anti-american or emotional to me. And as to the belgians being anti-american, you may be interested to note that the belgian government is opposed to the case and is trying to block it. The belgian PM has called it an abuse of the law. So frankly, I think the support is for the US in this case.

So given all of this, why doesn't the US want to embrace the chance to vindicate their actions in Iraq?

We all know the value of democracy right? So if the majority of the American people feel we do not wish to join the I.C.C. or extradite Franks then that is the course of action to take, right?
If the majority of americans want to stay out of the ICC, then yes, that's their right.
As to whether they have the right to undermine it at every turn - that's a definite no. Don't want to be subject to it? Okay, don't sign, and don't break the Geneva Convention. Why bother to actively undermine the ICC's authority though? Unless, of course, you want to break international law...

And even if 100% of americans vote to not extradite someone, it's irrelavent - extradition is a legal procedure that popularity does not affect. You can't have it both ways - you can't say that the popular vote doesn't count when electing Bush and say it does to prevent an extradition.
Good thing Franks isn't being extradited really.

:D Nice Bush analogy.

As we have learned with the concealed unemployment ratio's, Bin laden and the such, we will never find WMD's and the last thing the U.S. wants to admit is that they led an unjust war after lying to us concerning its reasons.