Charges against Tommy Franks in Belgian Supreme Court
I report this neutrally (for the moment), but mister Tommy Franks, militaristically challenged might want to call him general, has had charges pressed against him today in Belgium, on the basis of our ever popular anti-genocide law. We'll see how it goes. Belgium (in the middle of national elections, I HAVE TO - we have voting DUTY - go cast my vote on sunday) has made itself very popular again. 
[I'm wondering if I got the vocabulary right: charges pressed meaning someone formally laid down a complaint against the man in our courts.]
[I'm wondering if I got the vocabulary right: charges pressed meaning someone formally laid down a complaint against the man in our courts.]
Comments
By the way, you might wish to add to your summation of the facts that the lawyer who has brought this case also happens to be running in some of those very same upcoming elections which you mentioned.
What an odd coincidence.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
By the way, you might wish to add to your summation of the facts that the lawyer who has brought this case also happens to be running in some of those very same upcoming elections which you mentioned.
You'll have to enlighten me as to what connection there is between the elections and mister Jan Fermon, the lawyer. I have no knowledge of him running in any election, and I do think that I would know, as he IS somewhat of a high-profile lawyer, and the elections are even more highly-profile these days.
Moreover, this Fermon fella hasn't brought up the case, some supposed Iraqi victims have, he is merely acting on their behalf. It might be hard to understand for US citizens that there are in fact countries where lawyers do not actively scout people they can turn into victims and then defend somewhere.
I have looked at the BBC and cannot find one single quote by mister Michel. Having followed the news in my own country, I'm not even sure if mister Michel has even issued a statement on the the matter.
To answer groverat's question: not exactly genocide, but rather war crimes is what the guy has been accused of. These Iraqis are claiming that they (or their relatives, not sure which) were victims of violence directed expressly at them AS CIVILIANS (meaning: not falling under the 'collateral damage' header).
Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that a Belgian politician would act in an intellectually dishonest or incongruous manner to gain votes, would you!?
Never would happen, of course, have you forgotten so quickly that European motives are pure and forthright?
To answer groverat's question: not exactly genocide, but rather war crimes is what the guy has been accused of.
Tell me, head, why use the word "genocide" if it's not genocide?
I wouldn't go so far as to say this is merely Belgium trying to magnify its place in the world with political hay-making... wait, yes I would.
If we're talking about war crimes, do you think your nation bears any responsibility for the horrible murders and slaughter going on in Congo? Or do they not get Belgian love because you can't find an anti-US slant out of that?
What a joke.
You'll have to enlighten me as to what connection there is between the elections and mister Jan Fermon, the lawyer. I have no knowledge of him running in any election, and I do think that I would know, as he IS somewhat of a high-profile lawyer, and the elections are even more highly-profile these days.
The BBC described him as running for a "small Maoist party". However the original article has been replaced with an updated version which deletes that reference and now includes a quote from Richard Myers which was not there before either. The present version can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3026371.stm
The AP story at present still describes him as "running in Sunday's elections for the small far-left Resist group.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rimes_franks_7
Maybe the BBC had it wrong before which is why it is gone but I assure you it was in an earlier version of the article. And perhaps the AP is wrong as well. I don't know, I'm sure you know better than I as you say.
Moreover, this Fermon fella hasn't brought up the case, some supposed Iraqi victims have, he is merely acting on their behalf. It might be hard to understand for US citizens that there are in fact countries where lawyers do not actively scout people they can turn into victims and then defend somewhere.
Surely Belgians are not so naive as to pretend that all prominent figures or attorneys, public or private as the case may be, would be above political and media grandstanding right?
I have looked at the BBC and cannot find one single quote by mister Michel. Having followed the news in my own country, I'm not even sure if mister Michel has even issued a statement on the the matter.
He describes it as an "an abuse of the law" in the BBC article linked above and the AP article as well. There was a further quote in the original article which again has been deleted. Perhaps the BBC has hired that guy from the NYT as they seem to be deleting things left and right from their stories.
Yet, I'll have to grant you the fact that he's running. Mind you, there are not too many votes to be gathered by him. His party, at last elections, racked in about 0.2 % of the general vote (and, again, 7 million people out of total population of 10 million have to vote in this country). RESIST is, admittedly, a communist party despised by myself and many others.
Tell me, head, why use the word "genocide" if it's not genocide?
a) My handle is der Kopf.
b) He was charged for what is written in the 'ANTI-GENOCIDE' law. What he supposedly committed are WAR CRIMES, which are described as violations in parts of the ANTI-GENOCIDE law. How hard is that to understand?
I wouldn't go so far as to say this is merely Belgium trying to magnify its place in the world with political hay-making... wait, yes I would.
The complaint was made by IRAQIS, not Belgians.
In Belgium, the JUDICIARY and POLITICAL systems are relatively independent, as they are expected to be in any democracy. I think you severely underestimate the embarrassment, yes, EMBARRASSMENT, this is causing in the political world. Yet, the judiciary realm will have its say on the matter. I don't really see how this could be interpreted as anyone trying to magnify its place in the world.
If we're talking about war crimes, do you think your nation bears any responsibility for the horrible murders and slaughter going on in Congo? Or do they not get Belgian love because you can't find an anti-US slant out of that?
Congo is not the issue here, and I do not really see its relevance either. I have not heard of any Belgian men killing anybody there lately. Also, if you do wish to discuss Congo, please create a new thread to do so, and please INFORM yourself on the matter before making these posts that are both blatantly ridiculous, as never bearing enough substance to be dealt with either way (meaning verified or retorted).
Originally posted by der Kopf
Moreover, this Fermon fella hasn't brought up the case, some supposed Iraqi victims have, he is merely acting on their behalf. It might be hard to understand for US citizens that there are in fact countries where lawyers do not actively scout people they can turn into victims and then defend somewhere.
Ugh
I'll have to remind myself that I wished to report this without an opinion when I first posted this. You two people have, well, only groverat actually, seems ColanderOfDeath had some valid points which I'm pleased to grant him, pushed me into defending again. Maybe you could refrain from posting stupidities for a while, dear groverat?
Originally posted by groverat
Tell me, head, why use the word "genocide" if it's not genocide?
Ooh ooh, I know, I know! To blow it out of proportion, Mr. Rat!
You two people have, however, pushed me into defending again. Maybe you could refrain from posting stupidities for a while?
Well that's not very nice. Which of my comments did you find to be stupidity? I don't believe that I have insulted you at all or said anything about you. At worst I gave a little mocking of Mr. Fermom based on the political timing, about which it seems I may have been right.
Starts looking as though they actually WERE scouted in Baghdad, by some of Fermon's fellow Commies, to come and enjoy Belgium's beautiful anti-genocide law.
Yeah that couldn't possibly be the case. After all, if I were an Iraqi the thing that I would be most concerned about at this moment was that my victim status needed to be addressed with postehaste in Belgium. I would immediately call, oh wait, the lawbreakers took out my phone, but if they hadn't I would have immediately called a reluctant Belgium attorney and told him that I didn't give a damn about securing my property, or getting food or water or electricity or anything else. THe important thing was getting my case heard in Belgium right now so that it could proceed to the obvious dead end it is heading for (can we agree to that much?) as soon as possible.
I'll have to remind myself that I wished to report this without an opinion when I first posted this.
PErhaps you were hoping for a long discussion in which we all posted merely facts so that no one would have to deviate from neutrality. The whole thread could have been gigantic series of QUOTEBLOCKS from newspapers with not a single opinion added! Would have been a great thread. ****ing brilliant.
See, that was easy. Next time if you are gonna get all flustered over nothing I've said I'll just insult you from the start so you can at least be justified. Anyway, let's not haggle, there are more important things to do. After all, shouldn't you be working on plans for Euroforce with your compatriots in the Luxembourg military?
Originally posted by Outsider
Ooh ooh, I know, I know! To blow it out of proportion, Mr. Rat!
A:
a) My handle is der Kopf.
b) He was charged for what is written in the 'ANTI-GENOCIDE' law. What he supposedly committed are WAR CRIMES, which are described as violations in parts of the ANTI-GENOCIDE law. How hard is that to understand?
Whatever did I do to piss YOU off, Outsider? You might have known nobody'd take kindly to being called a rat without having asked for it, and I'm not that different from the general public in that respect. So?
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Well that's not very nice. Which of my comments did you find to be stupidity? I don't believe that I have insulted you at all or said anything about you. At worst I gave a little mocking of Mr. Fermom based on the political timing, about which it seems I may have been right.
You're right on that one, that's why I edited it out while you were posting this, apparently.
PErhaps you were hoping for a long discussion in which we all posted merely facts so that no one would have to deviate from neutrality. The whole thread could have been gigantic series of QUOTEBLOCKS from newspapers with not a single opinion added! Would have been a great thread. ****ing brilliant.
Maybe I shouldn't have posted this, I'll admit that. This thread looks like a worst case 'Don't shoot the pianist' scenario. I'd thought I'd drop this topic and see what the well-read people here have to say. Some of the remarks here, however, immediately forced ME into the position of defender of this stuff, whereas, you'll have to admit, I have never uttered anything of that sort. I can understand that this, as it concerns Belgium and as I am Belgian, you would naturally consider me a defender of everything happening here.
See, that was easy. Next time if you are gonna get all flustered over nothing I've said I'll just insult you from the start so you can at least be justified. Anyway, let's not haggle, there are more important things to do. After all, shouldn't you be working on plans for Euroforce with your compatriots in the Luxembourg military?
No. I hate the army, armies in general. Moreover, Luxembourg people are not compatriots of mine, they are merely people of a neighbouring countrilette.
It's OK. Even if no one else loves you Belgian man, I will always love you now and forever. Unless of course you leave me for Hassan. Again.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Whatever did I do to piss YOU off, Outsider? You might have known nobody'd take kindly to being called a rat without having asked for it, and I'm not that different from the general public in that respect. So?
You didn't piss me off but using the word genocide is an incorrect usage (and I did read your explanation for it) and is sort of a trigger word. Plus we have no links to check out the actual charges and have to take you word an interpretation of the charges. Genocide is very different than this: These Iraqis are claiming that they (or their relatives, not sure which) were victims of violence directed expressly at them AS CIVILIANS (meaning: not falling under the 'collateral damage' header).
Sorry if it was offensive in any way.
Originally posted by Towel
Gen. Franks earned the title "General", and should at least be given the dignity of its use.
You are welcome to believe this.
That aside, what exactly makes a Belgian court think it has any jurisdiction over a "crime" allegedly commited by an American, with his office in Qatar, against Iraqis? US DA's don't waste their time indicting Belgians for...erm, whatever it is Belgians do. We certainly wouldn't indict in a US court, for example, a Russian general for allegations of wrongdoing in Chechnya. Does this lawyer think Belgium secretly rules the world?
This is one of the questions I was trying to bring up by starting this thread. Do we have the jurisdiction? But on a larger scale (and looking past this embarrassing case for a minute), shouldn't ALL injustices in the world be judged upon by some kind of court that at least can decide on abuses of human rights. Mind you, I don't think this is the duty of Belgium. An international attempt at creating this, however, HAS been boycotted by the US, and in a rather harsh way too (I'm referring to The Hague here).
Originally posted by der Kopf
... An international attempt at creating this, however, HAS been boycotted by the US, and in a rather harsh way too (I'm referring to The Hague here).
With this case isn't it obvious now why we've refused to be part of the ICC?
They can charge Franks so long as they also charge Hussein too.
You know, it's amazing that someone might think you were putting forth an opinion on the matter.