Belgium debates revised war-crimes law - to shield Sharon, Bush, Blair

[dArKeR]

Belgian lawmakers Thursday debated a more limited law for prosecuting war crimes to replace legislation that had become a political liability because of cases filed against several other world leaders.

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's government introduced the bill after the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush threatened to pull NATO headquarters out of Belgium unless the 1993 law were scrapped. That threat was made after charges were filed against U.S. and British officials relating to the Iraq war.

The justice committee of Belgium's House of Representatives began considering the bill Thursday, and parliament is expected to pass it by Aug. 1.

The 1993 law gave Belgian courts powers to hear war-crimes complaints regardless of where the events occurred or of the nationality of those involved.

But the government was embarrassed when charges were filed against international officials, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. General Tommy Franks, who commanded the recent war in Iraq.

http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030724.wbelg0724/BNStory/International/

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

[JackSwift]

1. Well Dems should pull it out of Belguim

anyway for them being such spineless chickens.

[iverglas]

2. a better solution?

The Globe article says:

Belgium's centre-left government, which has a majority in Parliament, agreed to replace the law with one limiting cases to those involving Belgian citizens or residents as victims or suspects.

Belgium is, of course, not the only country to include provisions in its law for prosecuting non-residents and non-citizens for war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide committed outside its borders.

Canada has such provisions in our Criminal Code (an indictable offence is equivalent to a felony):

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-45.9/whole.html

OFFENCES OUTSIDE CANADA

Genocide, etc., committed outside Canada
6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada

(a) genocide,

(b) a crime against humanity, or

(c) a war crime,

is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.

However, it also provides:

Jurisdiction
8. A person who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 6 or 7 may be prosecuted for that offence if

(a) at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed,

(i) the person was a Canadian citizen or was employed by Canada in a civilian or military capacity,

(ii) the person was a citizen of a state that was engaged in an armed conflict against Canada, or was employed in a civilian or military capacity by such a state,

(iii) the victim of the alleged offence was a Canadian citizen, or

(iv) the victim of the alleged offence was a citizen of a state that was allied with Canada in an armed conflict; or

(b) after the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, the person is present in Canada.

That is, charges may be laid against someone who allegedly committed one of these crimes outside Canada, against someone who was not a Canadian citizen etc., who is present in Canada. That would include any US citizen alleged to have committed one of these crimes who subsequently entered Canada.

However, again, it further provides:

PROCEDURE AND DEFENCES

9. ...

Consent of Attorney General

(3) No proceedings for an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of this Act, or under section 354 or subsection 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code in relation to property or proceeds obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offence under this Act, may be commenced without the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of Canada, and those proceedings may be conducted only by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on their behalf.

Normally, the Attorney General of a province could decide to prosecute, and could intervene to halt a private prosecution; in this case, the federal Attorney General has the only authority to initiate a prosecution.

Both of these provisions provide the kind of safeguards the US is perhaps legitimately entitled to seek:

- no jurisdiction over foreign nationals whose offence was against nationals of a third country unless the alleged offender is present in the country where the prosecution was initiated;

- no prosecution without the consent of the most senior legal official in the country.

Obviously not satisfactory to anyone who prefers that such decisions not be made out of political expediency and suspects that his/her govt. might do just that, but not so narrow as the US is demanding. A compromise in everyone's interests.

The extreme intrusion into Belgian sovereignty that the US is attempting to engage in has to do with the presence of NATO in Belgium, of course, and the fact that US military authorities will obviously be present in Belgium rather frequently. Until we have a world capital not subject to any one country's jurisdiction, them's the breaks.

Representatives of other countries present in NYC at the UN, for example, might have the same concerns. The US itself takes jurisdiction over non-nationals of the US who are accused of committing war crimes against nationals of the US, outside the US.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html

Sec. 2441. - War crimes

(a) Offense. -

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances. -

The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

Belgium or someone else might want to object to that.

.

(edit -- I cut & pasted the wrong section re: Attorney General's consent)

[IndianaGreen]

3. Meanwhile, the Fascist Silvo Berlusconi is doing the same in Italy

Not only has his ruling party passed a law immunizing him from being prosecuted for corruption and bribery, but in a story published this morning in The Guardian (the website appears down tonight), a judge has stopped an enterprising prosecutor from even investigating Berlusconi for other criminal activities.

We are reliving the 1930s, and global Fascism is on the march. America is the new Germany, and Italy has a man as corrupt and evil as a Mafia don.

Here is a related story. I will post The Guardian story as soon as the site comes back up:

Media bill may boost Berlusconi empire
By Peter Popham in Rome
24 July 2003

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, is in a more powerful position than ever after parliament approved a media reform bill that leaves his huge empire intact and raises the possibility of it expanding even further.

A conflict of interest bill, which allows the billionaire politician to retain ownership of all his assets, is also close to winning final approval.

Mr Berlusconi's House of Liberties centre-right coalition government enjoys a comfortable majority in both houses of parliament.

And in a separate development, the two public prosecutors who launched cases against Mr Berlusconi and his close aide, Cesare Previti, are being investigated on suspicion of abuse of office. The cases against the Prime Minister alleged that he and others bribed judges to induce them to approve corporate takeovers.

That investigation was suspended last month after his government rushed through a bill giving immunity from prosecution to parliament's top office holders.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=427040