Belgian lawyer Jan Fermon has filed a complaint against Tommy Franks on behalf of a group of 19 Iraqi citizens and demanded an investigation of possible war crimes. The complaint names Franks and Lt Col B P McCoy, commander of the 3rd Battalion US Marines and is invoking the 1993 laws that authorized Belgian courts to try genocide and related war crimes regardless of where these crimes took place. The Belgian laws were first invoked in 1994 against the perpetrators of bloody atrocities in Rwanda. It has also been invoked against Fidel Castro, Ariel Sharon, and Yasser Arafat. However, Belgium seems to have a much louder bark than bite: its courts have yielded to pressure and backed off in every case - except in the Rwanda case, where indictments and convictions were achieved. To me, this smacks very much of racism: Go after the Africans - but leave the white war lords alone. It certainly seems that no effort has been spared to protect their sorry white butts. For example, just before Fermon filed his case, the Belgian government, under constant pressure from US bullying, hastily rammed through revisions to the law, which state that defendants from Democratic nations may be exempt because they have access to "fair trials." Quite an assumption to make - but then, I guess the Belgian judiciary has never visited Texas.

Back in 2002, Ariel Sharon skated out of being held accountable for his war crimes when it was ruled that he could not be tried until he finished out his term of office. Sharon (Bush's soul brother), ranted and raved about how the Belgian courts were all packed with a bunch of anti-Semites. The Sharon media propaganda machine (quite similar to the Bush media propaganda machine) immediately began to try to whip up anti-Belgian fervor accusing Belgium of being populated by a bunch of Neo-Nazis. (aha! So this is where Bush - who never had an original idea in his entire life - got the idea for bashing the French!), Rightwing Israeli officials self-righteously urged people not to buy Belgium chocolate. (for an excellent story on the Sharon case, see www.counterpunch.org/avnery02222003.html) Funny, I don't remember the Rwandan criminals pleading "racism," and they had more concrete evidence! (afterall, only black men have so far been actually tried).

Thanks to the law that protected Sharon, neither Bush nor Colin Powell nor, apparently Rumsfeld can be indicted for their crimes until after they leave office. But lower-ranking entities in the Bush cabal can be, hence Franks' is being named. But Bush is making it plain he and his storm troopers don't plan to be held accountable for ANYTHING. Back in 2002, Bush refused to accept the International Criminal Court plan - guess he knew he'd soon be racking up due cause for indictments!

Fermon's case accuses Franks of bombing of civilian areas, indiscriminate shooting by US troops in Baghdad and the failure of US troops to stop the looting. McCoy has been charged with ordering his troops to fire on ambulances. The substance of the case is based on testimony from Iraqis who either were eyewitnesses to the case or victims.

As soon as Fermon made his intention known, back at the start of May, a top American official who insisted on remaining anonymous (byut whose initials were reportedly D.o.n.a.l.d. R.u.m.s.f.e.l.d.) threatened the Belgium government with "diplomatic consequences." Then, soon after, Richard Boucher started making threats against the Belgian government, repeating three times in the same press statements, that, in essence, Begium had better watch its step. About the same time, someone in the White House apparently made a not-so-anonymous phone call to the rightwing rag and Bush mouthpiece "The Washington Times." Editor Tony Blakely - an old pal of con artist/charitable fraud king/master liar Newt Gingrich got the propaganda ball rolling. The Times whined in an editorial that Franks is a victim of a "lynching party" by those mean, ungrateful Iraqis - they just hate us, you know. Can't imagine why.

However, the US threats and posturing failed to prevent Fermon from filing his suit. Now, outraged that he can't make the rules up as he goes along in Europe the way he does back home in Bushville, Gen. Richard Myers is threatening to pack up all his marbles and go home. Trouble is, he wants to pack up everyone else's marbles too, and is demanding that NATO move its headquarters out of Belgium. He is trying to make his call to move out of the current HQ in Brussels look like an act of defiance, but the truth is, Fermon has a helluva a good case against Franks and McCoy. and Myers, Bush, and the rest of the practicing war criminals all know it. There is actually a risk that those charged with the crimes could be arrested.

A NATO official was skeptical that the threatened move would ever take place, dismissing the idea as "not very realistic," especially as NATO has contractual obligations to fulfill. And, even if Bush and Co. are not in the habit of honoring THEIR obligations, other folks are.

So now, the propaganda machine has been mobilized full force. All the American media are cranking out the "truth according to Myers and Co.": that the lawsuit is just a lynching party led by a half-rabid "left-wing lawyer." Fermon is neither impressed nor surprised. Why push on? "We think at the present time, US courts, if the case was taken to them, do not offer guarantee of fair trial,"

Why does the White House want to minimize Fermon? Because Fermon is a heavy hitter known to follow through - he has been called a "bulldog," in fact. In 2001, Fermon was one of three European lawyers who filed an appeal to the European Union Commission against a binding Framework Decision that would "officially" define "terrorism" in a way that Fermon et al believed would jeopardize the democratic rights of citizens. The definitions of terrorism that Bush and Ashcroft are hoping to put in place are frighteningly similar. here is an excerpt from the appeal:

"The new legislation proposed by the Commission's framework decision adds nothing to the legal armoury which is already in place to combat activity of this nature. Further the definition proposed is so wide that it permits the criminalising of all forms of social struggle which can now be defined as terrorism. "The unauthorised capture of infrastructure with a view to seriously attacking social or economic structures". The scope of this definition would enable any occupation of a public place or any factory to qualify as a terrorist act. "Disruption of supplies of water, electricity, air or any essential natural resource" would render any protest by the employees of such facilities an act of terrorism. Further the incitement to commit this type of offence by any organisation would result in that organisation being defined as a terrorist organisation. Freedom of association, the right to strike and freedom of expression are all seriously threatened by this framework decision. It is couched in the language of "war against terrorism". " For a copy of the full text of this appeal, see below:

In the late 1990s, Fermon defended Prof. Jose Maria Sison, a peace activist and people's movement leader in the Philippines who, thanks to post-9/11 "terrorism fever" , was placed on the EU's list of "terrorists"!! That would be like placing Martin Luther King on the U.S. "terrorist" list. Of course, King WAS on the J. Edgar Hoover hit list back in a time that is seeming more and more similar to the present. For more on the Sison case, see www.philippinerevolution.org/def_jms/030205.nbe.shtml

And, guess who represented the victims in the successful Rwandan case? You guessed it! The tireless Jan Fermon. If I were Tommy Franks (or Bush, for that matter), I'd be damned worried, too!

Fermon is also adamantly against the death penalty and has spoken out in human rights cases in Turkey, Cuba, and elsewhere. In short, he is a man who believes in putting his energies in the same direction as his words. In keeping with his commitment to activism and public service, he is now running for office in the Belgian Parliament.


Case against Franks

www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0428-06.htm

Case against Ariel Sharon

www.counterpunch.org/avnery02222003.html

Jan Fermon defends Philippino people's movement activist from "terrorist" charge

www.philippinerevolution.org/def_jms/030205.nbe.shtml

Jan Fermon Wins conviction in case against Rwandan war criminals

original page: www.ptb.be/international/article.phtml

Translated page: translate.google.com/translate

For a list of human rights organizations with info on Iraq:

www.indict.org.uk/further.php

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MUST NOT BECOME THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

The European Commission had prepared a framework decision concerning the struggle against terrorism the aim of which is to streamline legislation of the member states regarding not just sanctions imposed but equally concerning the very definition of terrorism. The project is presented as a reaction on the attacks on New York and Washington. However the perpetrators of such acts would not go unpunished in any European country given the current legislative provisions of those countries. In fact the legislative provisions of the States of the European Union provide the most severe sanctions for those who participate in whatever way in such acts of terrorism. That is equally true in those member states who have provides for specific antiterrorist legal measures in the past and for those who have no such specific legislation.

The new legislation proposed by the Commission's framework decision adds nothing to the legal armoury which is already in place to combat activity of this nature. Further the definition proposed is so wide that it permits the criminalising of all forms of social struggle which can now be defined as terrorism. "The unauthorised capture of infrastructure with a view to seriously attacking social or economic structures". The scope of this definition would enable any occupation of a public place or any factory to qualify as a terrorist act. "Disruption of supplies of water, electricity, air or any essential natural resource" would render any protest by the employees of such facilities an act of terrorism. Further the incitement to commit this type of offence by any organisation would result in that organisation being defined as a terrorist organisation. Freedom of association, the right to strike and freedom of expression are all seriously threatened by this framework decision. It is couched in the language of "war against terrorism". In reality this antiterrorist legislation once imposed will become a real war machine against fundamental democratic rights and against those who come up against a political and social system with its basis in economics, a system increasingly global and unjust. We the undersigned call on those guardians of democratic rights to oppose this framework decision of the Commission, a decision which is binding on member states. We demand that those in authority in Europe and their representatives in the European parliament prevent the coming into force of this project which will see the demise of liberty.

Antoine Comte, Lawyer in Paris

Ties Prakken, Lawyer in Amsterdam

Jan Fermon, Lawyer in Brussels