What Are Usa & Eu Views On Belgium

Just wondering what the views are,
Belgium got threatend by the US for having a law wich makes it possible to convict leaders of other countries (thus American leaders as well) for crimes against humanity.
and the same happend to the netherlands with it's UN international court.
US has agreements with 43 countries not to extredait americans to a UN court.
They even threatend to retrieve any americans by force if they are put on trial.

Does USA really think it's above the law when it comes to human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 0blivion@1 July 2003 - 07:15


Does USA really think it's above the law when it comes to human rights.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Does USA really think it's above the law when it comes to human rights.

---

Yes, but if you look at the past 30-40 years of US foreign policy it seems that most US administrations believe they are above the law when it comes to anything.

Chile's September the 11th is a good example.

the USA is the only nation actively trying to prevent the formation of a permanent international criminal court
:: wonder why :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+1 July 2003 - 23:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 July 2003 - 23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-0blivion@1 July 2003 - 07:15


Does USA really think it&#39;s above the law when it comes to human rights.

---

Yes. [/b][/quote]
i love your candid honesty sometimes clocker

Re the extradition thing. Just to clarify, the UK will not extradite someone for something which is not recognised as an offence in the UK. e.g. being a member of the Mafia is an offence in Italy. We will not extradite someone to stand trial for it, as it is not an offence here.

It is also extremely unlikely that we will extradite someone for fiscal crime (tho&#39; it is possible if the sums are high enough).

We will also not use investigatory powers in the UK, to assist another country, where the "offence" being committed is not an offence here.

Quote:

---

Re the extradition thing. Just to clarify, the UK will not extradite someone for something which is not recognised as an offence in the UK. e.g. being a member of the Mafia is an offence in Italy. We will not extradite someone to stand trial for it, as it is not an offence here.

It is also extremely unlikely that we will extradite someone for fiscal crime (tho&#39; it is possible if the sums are high enough).

We will also not use investigatory powers in the UK, to assist another country, where the "offence" being committed is not an offence here.

---

You truly are as wise as Columbo.



I like the USA, but find some of their policies a touch disturbing, and sometimes its blatantly obvious that the "good" they are doing elsewhere is lining the pockets of those in the position to exploit the situations that arise.

My old geography teacher once told me that even when the unthinkable happens, someone always going to make a lot of money somewhere because of it. It&#39;s pretty true, any kind of disaster (natural or otherwise) or war has an expensive clean-up operation, and someone is all the richer for it.

In response to JPAUL,
Crimes against humanity is a crime where ever you may be ,even in outer space(read: also UK).
We are not talking about petty crime, but about mass murder.
It is not about what happend in iraq or elsewhere, it&#39;s ABOUT the US undermining international law in it&#39;s own benefit for no apparent good reason.
What is it saying to the world of dictatorships out there, "it&#39;s ok to ignore international treaties because the US does so too" .
How much respect can the rest of the world bring up for an institusion wich is openly being fought by the americans.
And what is America afraid of anyway, that they are going to commit mass genocide in the near future??

No. Certain individuals in the USA are afraid of being tried before such a court. ;)

:ninja:

Isn&#39;t it a trifle odd the I.C.C., under NATO auspices, is attempting to bill the U.S. &#036;77.5 million dollars as it&#39;s share of the cost for a new &#036;352 million-dollar facility in which to try all the members of the U.S. government and it&#39;s military the I.C.C. has indicted for war-crimes?

Perhaps if we don&#39;t pay the bill, then....

If innocent ,why fear a trial?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 0blivion@1 July 2003 - 21:12
In response to JPAUL,
Crimes against humanity is a crime where ever you may be ,even in outer space(read: also UK).
We are not talking about petty crime, but about mass murder.
It is not about what happend in iraq or elsewhere, it&#39;s ABOUT the US undermining international law in it&#39;s own benefit for no apparent good reason.
What is it saying to the world of dictatorships out there, "it&#39;s ok to ignore international treaties because the US does so too" .
How much respect can the rest of the world bring up for an institusion wich is openly being fought by the americans.
And what is America afraid of anyway, that they are going to commit mass genocide in the near future??

---

My apologies if you picked me up wrong.

I was replying to a specific thing which had been posted and not the topic in general.

However I have to disagree with your overall point. Basically, who decides

a, what is a crime against humanity

b, how is it proven

c, what court has jurisdiction,

d, what judicial system should be used (e.g. inquisatorial or accusatorial)

If the USA does not feel that the way these matters are being dealt with internationally is correct then they have every right (indeed obligation) to protect their citizens from them.

I would certainly hope that my Government would not allow me to be extradited and tried in a country where the penalty, for theft, may be the amputation of my hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 0blivion@1 July 2003 - 23:50
If innocent ,why fear a trial?

---

Depends on the court

It&#39;s under UN rule, it doesn&#39;t even have the death penalty.
It has a group of judges who are randomly chosen from all UN countries (also america)whom are well respected for their knowlidge in international law.

You make it sound like someone might be led to the slaughter.

a) since the second world war agreements have been made on this matter.

B) by evidence and testamony

c) the United Nations (also considerd the institution that&#39;s keeping the world at peace and where the US has veto right) it&#39;s court abide by the agreements made between everyone that were agreed uppon.

d) î look at c î

The agreements have been there since the second world war

If what happend in yugoslavia happend in the us, the us would NOT extradite the head honcho&#33; why?
why do people find this normal?

Quote:

---

If the USA does not feel that the way these matters are being dealt with internationally is correct then they have every right (indeed obligation) to protect their citizens from them.

I would certainly hope that my Government would not allow me to be extradited and tried in a country where the penalty, for theft, may be the amputation of my hand.

---

I agree on all counts.

However, the USA is a founder member of the ICC, and is largely responsible for the rules of conduct it follows, so I cant see how they could now object to these rules of Justice.

The thing that happened is a change of administration.

This means the USA is a signatory of the ICC, however the US Government refuses to ratify the treaty it (under the previous administration) was in large part resonsible for writing.

Countries are expected to respect treaties signed under previous administrations....if this was not the usual practice, then there would be no point to having them in the 1st place, unless every country was ruled by Absolute Monarchy, a Tyrant etc etc...ie there were very few changes of administration.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2003 - 00:46
Isn&#39;t it a trifle odd the I.C.C., under NATO auspices, is attempting to bill the U.S. &#036;77.5 million dollars as it&#39;s share of the cost for a new &#036;352 million-dollar facility in which to try all the members of the U.S. government and it&#39;s military the I.C.C. has indicted for war-crimes?

Perhaps if we don&#39;t pay the bill, then....

---

did they ever pay then???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jetje+2 July 2003 - 13:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 2 July 2003 - 13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@2 July 2003 - 00:46
Isn&#39;t it a trifle odd the I.C.C., under NATO auspices, is attempting to bill the U.S. &#036;77.5 million dollars as it&#39;s share of the cost for a new &#036;352 million-dollar facility in which to try all the members of the U.S. government and it&#39;s military the I.C.C. has indicted for war-crimes?

Perhaps if we don&#39;t pay the bill, then....

---

did they ever pay then??? [/b][/quote]
I sure hope not.

Sorry to be so obstinate about this, but I think NATO is seriously passe and needs to be junked, whereas the U.N. is merely doomed to eternal fecklessness. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+2 July 2003 - 20:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 2 July 2003 - 20:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jetje@2 July 2003 - 13:16
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

---

Quote:

---

@2 July 2003 - 00:46
Isn&#39;t it a trifle odd the I.C.C., under NATO auspices, is attempting to bill the U.S. &#036;77.5 million dollars as it&#39;s share of the cost for a new &#036;352 million-dollar facility in which to try all the members of the U.S. government and it&#39;s military the I.C.C. has indicted for war-crimes?

Perhaps if we don&#39;t pay the bill, then....

---

did they ever pay then???

---

I sure hope not.

Sorry to be so obstinate about this, but I think NATO is seriously passe and needs to be junked, whereas the U.N. is merely doomed to eternal fecklessness. ;) [/b][/quote]
Well tell it to feck off then.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul+2 July 2003 - 16:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 2 July 2003 - 16:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 July 2003 - 20:46

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jetje@2 July 2003 - 13:16
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

@2 July 2003 - 00:46
Isn&#39;t it a trifle odd the I.C.C., under NATO auspices, is attempting to bill the U.S. &#036;77.5 million dollars as it&#39;s share of the cost for a new &#036;352 million-dollar facility in which to try all the members of the U.S. government and it&#39;s military the I.C.C. has indicted for war-crimes?

Perhaps if we don&#39;t pay the bill, then....

---

did they ever pay then???

---

I sure hope not.

Sorry to be so obstinate about this, but I think NATO is seriously passe and needs to be junked, whereas the U.N. is merely doomed to eternal fecklessness. ;)

---

Well tell it to feck off then. [/b][/quote]
Done.

Thank you, JPaul. ;)

the belgium law is no more ...
they fear the USA will bring NATO&#39;s location in Brussels somewhere else.

money talks :ph34r:

but the law was unimportant as it was never going to be used in a serious manner against the another developed country like America or Britain, it was just being abused by people to make a political statement. And because it was causing a public relations fiasco between belgium and America it was scrapped, thats all there is to it. The blockign of the ICC on hte other hand is a matter of importance.

Well, living in Belgium, I was strongely opposed to that law. (which was written in the early &#39;90ies btw. It jut got rewritten this year)
What in hells name does a tiny country like Belgium think they can do against a giant like the USA?
We&#39;re in recession here, and an embargo from the US is not really what we need.
Besides, the law was written in such a manner that any psycho out there could have filed a complaint to any other living being on earth.
EVERY nations leader can be accused of actively/passively being part of genocide somewhere on the planet. So every leader had to be afraid to come to Belgium and get arrested?
It was a dumb law, and I&#39;m glad it was corrected.
Besides, what about the War Tribunal at The Hague? Did we really need a second one in Brussels too?

Ron.
The Hague is good enough for me and it is internationally supported.
I couldn&#39;t say the same for Belgium if they arrested Bush.
I&#39;d think it hillarious but I wouldn&#39;t fancy your chances.

Oblivion,
As for your question I say yes they do think the term "Human Rights" applies to someone else.

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron@21 July 2003 - 15:24
Well, living in Belgium, I was strongely opposed to that law. (which was written in the early &#39;90ies btw. It jut got rewritten this year)
What in hells name does a tiny country like Belgium think they can do against a giant like the USA?
We&#39;re in recession here, and an embargo from the US is not really what we need.
Besides, the law was written in such a manner that any psycho out there could have filed a complaint to any other living being on earth.
EVERY nations leader can be accused of actively/passively being part of genocide somewhere on the planet. So every leader had to be afraid to come to Belgium and get arrested?
It was a dumb law, and I&#39;m glad it was corrected.
Besides, what about the War Tribunal at The Hague? Did we really need a second one in Brussels too?

---

Well the USA did threaten that they would invade the Netherlands if any USA citizens were to be imprisoned here. Perhaps we could use Belgium as a holding camp for USA citizens accused of crimes against humanity while awaiting trial.

Nigel.

Is Belgium the Cuba of Europe then? :D

at least they&#39;ll get a fairer trial in Europe.

Neil

Quote:

---

I couldn&#39;t say the same for Belgium if they arrested Bush.

---

Oh, I dont know.....

:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@24 July 2003 - 16:40

Quote:

---

I couldn&#39;t say the same for Belgium if they arrested Bush.

---

Oh, I dont know.....

:lol: :lol:

---

You might have an unpresidented rush to join up.
the support could be overwhelming.

The help is on it&#39;s way.

:D :lol:

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nigel123@24 July 2003 - 16:01
Perhaps we could use Belgium as a holding camp for USA citizens accused of crimes against humanity while awaiting trial.

---

Belgium must be bigger that I thought.

I&#39;m from the USA and the only thing I know about Belgium is waffles.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@26 July 2003 - 07:29
I&#39;m from the USA and the only thing I know about Belgium is waffles.

---

...and skweeky, and Ron. :D

But you never heard about "Manneke Pis"?
Belgian chocolats?
Chicory?
Jacques Brel?
Stella Artois?
Hoegaerden?
Jean Claude Van Damme?
P.P. Rubens?
Belgian Bolognese?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@26 July 2003 - 06:29
I&#39;m from the USA

---

Did you miss that bit, Ron?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron@26 July 2003 - 09:24
]
...and skweeky, and Ron.&nbsp; :D

But you never heard about "Manneke Pis"?
?
Belgian Bolognese?

---

Some one told me that Manneke pis, was a Dutchman, holding a Belgium man, in his hand.

Quote:

---

Belgian Bolognese?

---

i don&#39;t know that either...
does this mean i&#39;m not a real Belgian?

All I know is I miss J2 and his wisdom in these threads. :(