Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial

[Sultan Bhargash]

We had a thread on this moments ago, it was deleted because the creator wanted it deleted and unlike myself, that thread creator gets what he wants.

Here is your link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2066808.stm

Here is the story:

Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
Sabra massacre memorial service in Beirut, 1982
Hundreds died in the Sabra and Shatila massacres
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon cannot be tried for alleged war crimes in Belgium, an appeals court has ruled.

The case had been brought by survivors of the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon.


If a person is not found on the territory, we find it inadmissible

Court ruling
They claimed that Mr Sharon, in his then role as Israeli Defence Minister, was responsible for the massacre in the two refugee camps.

Lawyers for the 23 survivors had said they were optimistic Mr Sharon could be tried under a Belgian law that lets anyone file charges for war crimes anywhere in the world.

But the court ruled that the trial was "inadmissible" under Belgian law.

The three judges said that a case could not proceed against a person who was not in Belgium.


One nation cannot judge another nation

Shimon Peres
Israeli Foreign Minister
"If a person is not found on the territory, we find it inadmissible," the court said in its 22-page ruling.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed the decision.

"I think they shouldn't even have tried to (bring the case to court)," Mr Peres told reporters.

"One nation cannot judge another nation. A nation that doesn't, fortunately, have to fight terror and war will hardly understand a nation that has to do it."

Ariel Sharon
Mr Sharon was defence minister at the time of the massacres
The original Belgian inquiry was suspended in September after the Mr Sharon's lawyers won an injunction to review the legality of the case.

Besides Mr Sharon, the Palestinians' case also named Israeli Defence Ministry director Amos Yaron, who in 1982 was a brigadier general in the Israel army.

Prosecutor Pierre Morlet had said last month that the Belgian Justice Ministry believed a continuation of the case against Mr Sharon was impossible after the International Court of Justice upheld the diplomatic immunity of former Congolese Foreign Minister, Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi.

Abdoulaye Yerodia, a former foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Abdoulaye Yerodia could not be tried under the Belgian law
The ruling meant Belgium could not try Mr Yerodia for allegedly inciting the killing of hundreds of members of his country's Tutsi minority in 1998, and the case was subsequently dropped.

Besides Mr Sharon, war crimes proceedings have been brought in Belgium against several other world figures including Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo.

Government embarrassment

The cases have been an embarrassment for the Belgian Government, which has promised to make it harder for international claims to be launched in Belgian courts.

So far, the only people tried under Belgium's controversial war crimes law are four Rwandans sentenced last year for their role in the 1994 genocide of the country's Tutsi ethnic minority.

But victims' families have rallied behind the law, lobbying for other countries to adopt similar legislation.

"If we hold onto a law that is proven to be effective then perhaps it will spur on other countries," said Martine Beckers, a Belgian who has used the law in a bid to bring her relatives' killers to justice.


***

Let me know if you think Belgium is that off base or reasonable.

 

[IceBlaZe]

They are pretty off base. But so's the Israeli comments.
Basically it is driven by hatred of Israel, purely.
While the case of Israelis against Arafat in belgium is simply procedural yet stuck, the Belgium Minister of Justice intervenes each time to promote the trial against Sharon just more.
Look how far and how focused in Belgium the case against Sharon is, while a mountain of evidence against Arafat helps none and the case against him receives little or no focus.
Shame.

(I know this since my brother learns this in International Law).

 

[MCdread]

Hmm... I think they are doing everything they can to enter in the Axis of Evil.

From a humanistic point of view it would be justified if they trialed him, and I'm not trying to say anything about Sharon in this sentence. Crimes against humanity must have a priority above all those little discussions about territoriality.

Edit: changed my sentence a little bit to match with question in the way it was put.

 

[IceBlaZe]

BTW I would be glad if Sharon was trialed in Israel...
But it is, in no way, under Belgian ANY KIND OF Jurisdiction.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Appreciate your always reasonable sentiments Iceblaze, but the question is resolved now: Belgium will not try Sharon. OR I guess Arafat or Saddam, since they are not "in Belgium". Sharon has already been tried in Isreal, I have had it explained me in the now gone thread that he was told he couldn't hold a specific post again, but that didn't stop him from assuming supreme leadership.

I guess the Belgian war crimes court, like the UN and NATO, is just another joke to be laughed at by those who know what "justice" is all about...

 

[Dralix]

Personally, I have to agree with Peres' statement "one nation cannot judge another nation." Or I should say, I agree with it in this context. I do not think it is appropriate for a third party country to bring charges against someone for crimes not committed in that country. In other words, Belgium should not be able to try someone for crimes not committed in Belgium.

If such a thing is allowed, what next? Next, the US charges Saddam Hussein with war crimes committed in Iraq. Then North Korea charges George W. Bush with war crimes committed in Afghanistan. What is the point of either trial? Neither one will recognize that the other has any jurisdiction over them, and rightly so.

That is why we have an International Court of Justice, isn't it?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Sharon has already been tried in Isreal

No.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Yes, he was tried and found guilty of "not doing anything to stop" the massacre, according to Sh3kel (and the original site).

 

[IceBlaZe]

It wasn't a trial, it was an ad hoc comittee set up to examine the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

The results of it are nothing like those from a court, and are only "recommendations".

As you see, while the recommendation to remove him from his position as the Security minister was implemented, it did not stop him from entering the government back and even being elected as a PM!
You call that trialed?

 

[CurtSibling]

This kind of thing will not further any peace in the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

Better to assure peace (will we ever?) first,
then we can level blame and incriminations...methinks.

 

[philippe]

Hmmm....
Those evil Belgians!
Hmm wait....white.....red-yelllow-black flag....Beer...cigs....
I AM BELGIAN!!!!!
Hmm......If Sharon ever gets in Belgium he will be put under arrest IF he is not prime minister anymore....
It is a crazy law but out of humanarian point he should be convicted...after all most nazi generals knew about the holocaust and not tried to stop them and eventually got hanged.....
But this whole matter is crazy....

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

As you see, while the recommendation to remove him from his position as the Security minister was implemented, it did not stop him from entering the government back and even being elected as a PM!
You call that trialed?

A mitzvah on you Iceblaze for having the courage to criticize your government- Israeli's like you are the reason I support Israel over the PLO- I don't see enough Palestinians complaining about Arafat (except to complain that he isn't terroristic enough).

But, I do call that trialed, just as Clinton was trialed and acquitted and Bush Jr. was trialed and "released but not exonerated". The law is a funny thing.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by philippe
If Sharon ever gets in Belgium he will be put under arrest IF he is not prime minister anymore....

If Sharon never gets in Belgium he will not be missing much more than a few Bosch originals and Mannekin Pis!!!!

 

[Sh3kel]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
It wasn't a trial, it was an ad hoc comittee set up to examine the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

The results of it are nothing like those from a court, and are only "recommendations".

As you see, while the recommendation to remove him from his position as the Security minister was implemented, it did not stop him from entering the government back and even being elected as a PM!
You call that trialed?

The comittee disqualified him from serving as minister of defense but did not find any evidence that ties him to criminal action. Yes, HE WAS trialled and the recomendation stands, he CANNOT by law hold the position of minister of defense, but there is no law in Israel that prevents criminals from running for office or from a person disqualified from one ministry from becoming prime minister.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Sultan, you can not call that trialed, since it was not under the authority and jurisdiction of the Israeli court.

Basic Israeli citizenship: 3 Authorities, the performing authority (Government, Police, Army), the Legislating authority (Knesset [Parliament], the Judging authority (Court).

Ad hoc comitees are under the jurisdiction of the Legislating authority I believe, and not the judging authority.

It was not in a court, it is not a court's call, it is NOT a trial.

 

[philippe]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash


If Sharon never gets in Belgium he will not be missing much more than a few Bosch originals and Mannekin Pis!!!!

Why you
Bring arafat and sharon here and they can do a gay-marriage and on the wedding night smoke some pot and then thrown into jail

 

[Sh3kel]

Yes, it IS!
The Acting branch of Government (the memshala) can assume the role of a court in order to judge its own members in cases EXACTLY such as Sharon's case in Sabra and Shatila or Yitzhak Rabin's case with the offshore account of his wife. It's one of the basic lessons of civism, any and all of the 3 branches can assume the role of the other two in order to ensure there is a system of balances and checks.

Sharon has been trialled and removed from his position but there was no criminal elemnt in his actions. While he is morally reprehensible, the Israeli court has found NO REASON to trial him for criminal charges immediately after the massacre, so there most certainly is not a justification 20 years after!

 

[IceBlaZe]

The comittee disqualified him from serving as minister of defense but did not find any evidence that ties him to criminal action. Yes, HE WAS trialled and the recomendation stands

Can't you see the absurdity in your sentence?
A court's decision is final unless arbitrated to a higher court.
The recommendation, while having great power, is still a recommendation.
He was not trialed.

, he CANNOT by law hold the position of minister of defense,

As a matter of fact he can. Last year he even considered to take that position away from Ben Eliezer to himself. Eventually he was satisfied with being PM and head of Broadcasting authority.

but there is no law in Israel that prevents criminals from running for office or from a person disqualified from one ministry from becoming prime minister.

Yes, there is, that's the case Bagaz disqualified that anti-Oslo likudnik from running to the Knesset.

 

[Sh3kel]

As a matter of fact he can. Last year he even considered to take that position away from Ben Eliezer to himself. Eventually he was satisfied with being PM and head of Broadcasting authority.

He'll be dragged to jail screaming the day he takes that position. Even when Ben Elizer quit he was not Minister of Defense, but "memala makom" or acting minister of defense, a technical loophole which prevented him from going to prison.

Yes, there is, that's the case Bagaz disqualified that anti-Oslo likudnik from running to the Knesset.

That man was disqualified on the charges of wild incitement, yet Baruj Marzel was not disqualified and he was jailed for terrorism in the past. Luckily he didn't get in, but he certainly could have.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Yes, it IS!
The Acting branch of Government (the memshala) can assume the role of a court in order to judge its own members in cases EXACTLY such as Sharon's case in Sabra and Shatila or Yitzhak Rabin's case with the offshore account of his wife.

It still does not make it a TRIAL.
Did he have a lawyer? Were there two sides, prosecutor and defendant? No.

It's one of the basic lessons of civism, any and all of the 3 branches can assume the role of the other two in order to ensure there is a system of balances and checks.

Argh. It was not a trial, and nothing the comittee said is law.

Sharon has been trialled and removed from his position but there was no criminal elemnt in his actions. While he is morally reprehensible, the Israeli court has found NO REASON to trial him for criminal charges immediately after the massacre, so there most certainly is not a justification 20 years after!

The Kahan's committee conclusions can ONLY be represented in court, in a REAL trial, as a professional opinion.
NOTHING more, NOTHING less. Geez, you are arguing with me when near me sits a student for law in the hebrew university of jerusalem

He'll be dragged to jail screaming the day he takes that position. Even when Ben Elizer quit he was not Minister of Defense, but "memala makom" or acting minister of defense, a technical loophole which prevented him from going to prison.

Incorrect. The Kahan's comitee recommendations are not a legal case, and he cannot be jailed for breaking them, especially not 20 years after it happened.
Too bad we are having this argument though, in any corrected state Sharon would be long gone (from the Knesset).

That man was disqualified on the charges of wild incitement, yet Baruj Marzel was not disqualified and he was jailed for terrorism in the past. Luckily he didn't get in, but he certainly could have.

He was disqualified since Bagaz decided not enough time passed since he broke the law by inciting and disturbing road movement, etc.

Baruch Marzel was not disqualified since he was:
a) Jailed enough time ago, I believe
b) Trialed for a completely different case. (Racism)