Gen Franks and others accused of war crimes and genocide

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-28 06:29pm

Iraqis target Gen. Franks for war crimes trial

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials of war crimes in Iraq, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad, the shooting of an ambulance, and failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals, said Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based lawyer. He is representing about 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to atrocities committed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Fermon said the complaint will ask an investigative magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen. Franks. If an indictment is filed against the general and other U.S. officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court.

"Belgium could issue international arrest warrants, but I don't think we will get to that point," Mr. Fermon said.

If arrest warrants were issued, U.S. officials could be arrested on entering Belgium.

The Bush administration has reacted angrily to the complaint. A senior administration official warned that "there will be diplomatic consequences for Belgium" if the complaint is taken up by a court there and Belgian authorities issue indictments against Gen. Franks and other U.S. officials.

"The complaint will be filed stating that unknown American personnel are directly responsible for committing war crimes in Iraq," Mr. Fermon said.

"On some of these questions there is an issue of command responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, and that responsibility ends with Gen. Franks and those who are under him in the U.S. military line of command," he said.

The administration official said the complaint highlights U.S. concerns that laws regarding war crimes and institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be used to initiate politically motivated prosecutions against American officials.

"This is obviously not a political case with the ICC, but it's typical of what we can expect in the future," the official said on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Fermon said that because under international law President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cannot be prosecuted for war crimes while they are in office, the complaint will target Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

"U.S. military officials had the authority but did nothing to stop these war crimes from occurring," Mr. Fermon said. "A military commander is responsible for war crimes even if he did not commit or order them, but also if he fails to take all the necessary steps to prevent the atrocities from happening."

Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.

He said Belgium's law of "universal jurisdiction" recently allowed indictments to be issued against Rwandan officials for war crimes. He said a similar process is expected to take place against Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

"The most realistic scenario for us is that a serious, independent inquiry is made, and then those U.S. officials with serious responsibilities for the atrocities that were committed in Iraq are subpoenaed to appear in court," he said. "If they do not show up in court, then a court case can proceed with them being absent. If the court finds them guilty, they will be convicted and sentenced."

The filing of the complaint threatens to heighten tensions between Brussels and Washington, which have been strained since Belgium joined France and Germany to lead European opposition to the war in Iraq.

Earlier this month, Mr. Powell said Belgium's law threatened to hamper travel by U.S. officials to Brussels, where NATO headquarters are located.

"It affects the ability of people to travel in Belgium without being subject to this kind of threat. For a place that is an international center, they should be a little bit concerned about this," Mr. Powell said, according to the Associated Press.

Washington's concerns recently prompted Belgian lawmakers to approve amendments to the law, making it harder for cases to be filed against leaders of democratic nations.

Complaints that have been filed against high-ranking leaders such as former President George Bush and Mr. Powell over the 1991 Persian Gulf war are to be sent back to Washington.

Under the amendments, the 10-year-old law only applies to war crimes committed in countries that lack democratic credentials and are unable to provide a fair trial.

But international-law observers say the amendments still leave it up to the Belgian government to decide whether complaints can go forward against U.S. officials.

"These amendments are a positive first step because they help to restore some control over the complaint process by giving the Belgian government the power to shape these kinds of proceedings against the United States, but they are not a panacea," said David Rivkin, a Washington-based lawyer and former official in the Reagan administration and first Bush administration. "They would not shield all possible defendants from these kind of complaints because it is not clear that the Belgian government can always be trusted to do the right thing."

He also said because the amendments have not been tested, it is not clear whether U.S. military officials who are not political leaders, such as Gen. Franks, can be shielded from prosecution.

The senior administration official said the complaint against Gen. Franks was deeply flawed. "There are serious problems with the principle of command responsibility being used in international law as the basis for indictments," the official said. "It goes well beyond what we could reasonably call criminal behavior."

But Mr. Fermon said that the principle of "command responsibility" has been established in international law by the war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia at The Hague.

Mr. Fermon said the principle has been used especially effectively in indictments against generals in the former Yugoslavia, who have been charged not "for crimes that were committed or ordered, but for command responsibility."

The most notable case has been that of Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina, whose indictment on charges of command responsibility over a 1995 military operation has been criticized by many Hague tribunal observers. Gen. Gotovina has refused to hand himself over to the tribunal.

Although the administration official declined to discuss the specifics of the Gotovina case, he said, "But I do think that the indictments issued by the Hague tribunal based on the theory of command responsibility risks establishing the principle in international law," which could be used against U.S. officials.

Mr. Fermon said four Belgian doctors who were working in Iraq during the war came into contact with Iraqi civilians who said they were victims of war crimes by coalition forces. The doctors, who were part of an association called Medicine for the Third World, then told the Iraqis to submit their complaints to a court in Belgium.

Mr. Fermon said that the plaintiffs number about 10 Iraqi civilians, all of whom say they were victims in the war or family members of victims.

"We don't yet know the precise number of plaintiffs because complaints are still coming in," he said.

But the complaint, which Mr. Fermon said will be officially filed in about two weeks, will accuse coalition forces of numerous atrocities in Iraq. Among them:

[*]The failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

[*]Eyewitness testimony of U.S. troops firing upon an ambulance.

[*]The indiscriminate shooting and wounding its driver by U.S. armored vehicles of civilians in Baghdad.

[*]The bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad that killed scores of civilians.

[*]The attack on a civilian bus with an "energy weapon" in the town of al-Hillah, killing at least 10 passengers.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-28 06:42pm

Saddam butchers civilians en masse, the U.S. kills small amounts of civilians by accident, while acting with due care. Nice to see this guy has his priorities straight.

That's two pieces of shit so far today out of Belgium (see the protestors thread for the other one).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-28 08:00pm

Oh No! The Belgiums are after us, whatever should we do?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-04-28 08:05pm

The way the Middle East treats the US, it is amazing that we haven't juts nutron bombed the whole damn thing and then stolen all olf the oil.

Temper, Temper...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-28 08:06pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Oh No! The Belgiums are after us, whatever should we do?

Freedom Waffles?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-28 08:08pm

Does anyone else find this friggen hilarious? You know no one will ever take this seriously.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-04-28 08:47pm

All the direct killings were accidents, and what the hell could troops have done to protect the hospitals? They were probably incredibly busy with just protecting THEMSELVES at the time.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-04-28 08:53pm

And check the bit about "energy weapons"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-28 08:56pm

Shinova wrote:And check the bit about "energy weapons"

I almost shit my pants when I read that one.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-28 10:10pm

Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.

He said Belgium's law of "universal jurisdiction" recently allowed indictments to be issued against Rwandan officials for war crimes. He said a similar process is expected to take place against Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.

Isn't that law just a little, I don't know, nuts? I mean the very idea flies in the face of international soviergenty. I mean this is the Beligan courts not even an international body. And not to mention absolutely unenforcable.

This is just retarded. Those were accidents, not deliberate policy. And given what could have happened and indeed would happen had it been anyone but the US and Britian, I think it's ridiculous to even compare them to real war crimes.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-28 10:14pm

In other news today, Belgium was convicted of being full of fucking idiots.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-04-28 10:25pm

Anybody up for a jailbreak involving an army division and a carrier battlegroup?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-28 10:53pm

why would we bother with war crimes? we were too busy winning.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-28 11:13pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Anybody up for a jailbreak involving an army division and a carrier battlegroup?

Its Belgium, one ARG could do it.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-04-29 02:03am

Do we have a better source on this one?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-29 02:09am

Stormbringer wrote:Isn't that law just a little, I don't know, nuts? I mean the very idea flies in the face of international soviergenty. I mean this is the Beligan courts not even an international body. And not to mention absolutely unenforcable.

IIRC, it was originally created in order to allow war-crimes trials in absentia of former Nazis. Has anyone looked into this?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-29 02:15am

You wouldn't suggest that Belgium would act unilaterly, would you?

Tommy Franks has atleast twelve years, as I reckon it, for the UN to get on board and pass approprate resolutions to enforce the Belgium courts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-29 02:17am

Knife wrote:You wouldn't suggest that Belgium would act unilaterly, would you? Tommy Franks has atleast twelve years, as I reckon it, for the UN to get on board and pass approprate resolutions to enforce the Belgium courts.

Ha! You won't be laughing when the Belgian army comes storming into New York ...

OK, maybe you'll be laughing

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-29 02:24am

Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:You wouldn't suggest that Belgium would act unilaterly, would you? Tommy Franks has atleast twelve years, as I reckon it, for the UN to get on board and pass approprate resolutions to enforce the Belgium courts.
Ha! You won't be laughing when the Belgian army comes storming into New York ...

OK, maybe you'll be laughing

Is it considered laughing if you are doing it so hard you are not making any noise except perhaps a deep breath every once in a while?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-29 03:37am

Knife wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Knife wrote:You wouldn't suggest that Belgium would act unilaterly, would you? Tommy Franks has atleast twelve years, as I reckon it, for the UN to get on board and pass approprate resolutions to enforce the Belgium courts.
Ha! You won't be laughing when the Belgian army comes storming into New York ...

OK, maybe you'll be laughing
Is it considered laughing if you are doing it so hard you are not making any noise except perhaps a deep breath every once in a while?

I would call an ambulance at that point...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-29 03:39am

I would want to see the evidence of these warcrimes befor I had an opinion one way or another.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-29 04:32am

Darth Wong wrote: Ha! You won't be laughing when the Belgian army comes storming into New York ...

OK, maybe you'll be laughing

I'd want to know where they got the money to rent a ship

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-29 04:46am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Ha! You won't be laughing when the Belgian army comes storming into New York ...

OK, maybe you'll be laughing
I'd want to know where they got the money to rent a ship

I am sure they could afford to rent a ship, the question is if anyone would alow them to rent it, given their nefarious aim.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-04-29 05:30am

Oh Im sure France would give them a good deal for some old barge, Charles DeGaulle perhaps.

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 2003-04-29 06:06am

Darth Wong wrote:IIRC, it was originally created in order to allow war-crimes trials in absentia of former Nazis. Has anyone looked into this?

I believe it was created in 1993 some time after the bloody genocide in rwanda. About a dozen Belgian Paratroopers who were there on a UN peacekeeping mission were killed.

The genocide law was created to investigate crimes like these, unfortunatly it wasn't defined very well and recently the most rediculous complaints against everyone and their cats have been placed there.

AFAIK it has already been altered in suck a way that it can now only be used when there are Belgians involved.

It shouldn't be possible anymore to use this law for the things mentioned in the original article. Unless those Belgian doctors (members of the local communist party) somehow press charges stating that they were victims, or something like that.

I'm not an expert on exacly what is still possible, but ever since someone pressed charges against the prime minister of Israel the genocide law has been drastically changed.