No more (universal) justice

April 5, 2003 7:50 PM

Belgium guts 'genocide law' to end war crimes cases against Sharon, Bush Sr., othersAbout time this absurd law got taken off the books. Good to see the transnationalist Europeans live by their words and stick to truly international bodies instead of this farce.
posted by billsaysthis (8 comments total)

Last month, a group of Iraqis used the law to file a complaint against Bush and Powell stemming from the 1991 bombing of a Baghdad shelter that killed 403 people.

And this was bad because......?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:57 PM on April 5, 2003

"Using the law to target democratic countries was not the intent..."
Hmmm. As if democratic countries can't try to exterminate minorities at home, or groups abroad?

But to answer your question, XQUZYPHYR, this is bad because the law is intended to protect ethnic groups from ethnically-based persecution. The U.S., in this case, didn't intend to exterminate an ethnic group. The '91 war, like the present one, involves politicide, not genocide. And it's impossible to get agreement on a law against politicide, because killing is (too) often found to be useful.
posted by stonerose at 8:32 PM on April 5, 2003

Well, as anti-war as I am, I still believe in the dictionary. Genocide is the systematic destruction of a racial, religious, ethic or political group. The US has tried quite hard to avoid killing Iraqi citizens other than legitimate military target. So the US isn't guilty of the first three actions. The fourth they probably will be guilty of, at least in Iraq, but most wars are about the systematic destruction of a political group.
posted by substrate at 8:36 PM on April 5, 2003

XQU, I think the law is bad because it allows a small, elite group of people to try and impose their version of law on anyone, anywhere. If they can do it, how about if, say, Myanmar passes a similar law except adhering to the ruling military junta's POV and adds a proviso allowing their police/military to kidnap plaintiffs to ensure they show up for trial?
posted by billsaysthis at 8:50 PM on April 5, 2003

XQU, I think the law is bad because it allows a small, elite group of people to try and impose their version of law on anyone, anywhere.

And this differs from Pax Americana how?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:06 PM on April 5, 2003

And this differs from Pax Americana how?

No one said Pax Americana wasn't bad. They just said that this law was.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:21 PM on April 5, 2003

Armitage, what Lord Chancellor said. Don't connect dots that aren't stated or implied except, m'kay?
posted by billsaysthis at 11:52 AM on April 6, 2003

I thought the innocent had nothing to fear from the law.
posted by son_of_minya at 2:14 AM on April 8, 2003