I am doing further research, but I already have the fax number for the
Ministre de la Justice (minister of justice). Faxing Brussels is no big
deal, as I have faxed various offices in NATO HQ in the past. Also, I will
be sending this letter to my Senators, among other things. . .

The Belgium Government is allowing its courts to be abused by lunatic,
leftist fringes for political nonsense. This kind of use of courts for
political reasons is something out of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. . .

I'm also a big fan of Belgium culture and its football (soccer) team, the
"Red Devils."  I have considered burning my Red Devils' jerseys!

-----

I would like to agree that Belgium and its "war crimes law" has no respect
for national sovereignty, including the norms of international relations. I
would like to add that the national and local courts in Belgium has
absolutely no business getting involved in international affairs and has no
power to either issue or enforce international law. Hence, any indictments
are not legitimate and any attempts to "arrest" those who have been
"indicted" in the Belgium courts should be viewed as a sick joke.  It is
obvious that the Belgium courts are not only illegitimate and overstepping
their bounds, but are being used politically and are nothing more than a
three-ringed, political circus.

But there are other solutions to dealing with political courts in Belgium
other than threaten the NATO Alliance. First, Belgians need to realize that
in the worst case scenario of moving the NATO Headquarters will cost perhaps
thousands of jobs for Belgians. Second, meetings should still go ahead, and
if persons are "arrested" than the consideration to move the NATO
Headquarters could then take place and the effects on Belgium, politically,
will be quite damaging in and of themselves. Third, the meeting could take
place at the SHAPE in Mons, which would be under military guard. Fourth, go
ahead with meetings and those who are the target of "arrests" for these
politically motivated "indictments" should have armed escorts and the
warning should go out as to what will happen if an attempt is made to
"arrest" the target.

The question as to whether Belgium is a modern democracy needs to be raised.
Sure, the country has a parliamentary system that this Author highly admires
in its attempts to power share with the country's three ethnic/language
cleavages. However, we need to question a supposedly democratic country that
allows its courts to be used politically and that are under political
influences.  Such courts are found in non-democracies and they criminalize
and punish political actors for political motives. But in this case the
political court is not located in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union, but
THIS political court is in a country of a supposed modern democracy in which
the headquarters of an alliance of democratic countries is located!

Yes - there needs to be very serious consequences for a country that harbors
courts that are political in nature and under the influence of political
forces. The country of Belgium must be put on notice that it needs to either
keep its local courts in local jurisdictions - and out of both political and
international law - or suffer consequences that will be grave indeed!

ES LaPorte
"The NATO Citizen" www.pronato.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

----------------------------->Go get 'um!<--------------------

Fax number for Belgium Minister if Justice:

Marc Verwilghen
Téléphone :+32 (0)2-542.79.11
Fax :+32 (0)2-538.07.67
Boulevard de Waterloo 115
B-1000 Bruxelles

----

List of senators for the Belgium Senate:

<sbouarfa.depu...@parlbru.irisnet.be>; <mimount.bousa...@pandora.be>;
<buy...@senators.senate.be>; <cal...@senators.senate.be>;
<ce...@senators.senate.be>; <pierre.cheval...@compaqnet.be>;
<cor...@senators.senate.be>; <H...@Coveliers.be>;
<debeth...@senators.senate.be>; <presid...@senate.be>; <j...@jmdedecker.com>;
<detsercl...@senators.senate.be>; <v...@polgroups.senate.be>;
<cgee...@vub.ac.be>; <jean.francois.ista...@skynet.be>;
<la...@senators.senate.be>; <le...@senators.senate.be>;
<li...@senators.senate.be>; <courr...@philippe-mahoux.be>;
<nyss...@senators.senate.be>; <lucpa...@skynet.be>;
<pmoure...@molenbeek.irisnet.be>; <fatma.pehli...@pandora.be>;
<p...@senators.senate.be>; <didier.ramo...@vlaamsparlement.be>;
<roelantsduviv...@senators.senate.be>; <louis.siq...@swing.be>;
<th...@senaors.senate.be>; <hvandenber...@senaat.cdenv.be>;
<vandenbra...@senators.senate.be>; <vanhaut...@senators.senate.be>;
<jan.vandup...@vlaamsparlement.be>; <frank.vanhe...@pandora.be>;
<lionel.vandenber...@pandora.be>; <vankrunkels...@senators.senate.be>;
<vanlrber...@senators.senate.be>; <karim.vanoverme...@vlaamsparlement.be>;
<verreyc...@senators.senate.be>; <delv...@vld.polgroups.senate.be>;
<i...@just.fgov.be>; <michel.guilb...@ecolo.be>;
<happ...@senators.senate.be>

The US Senate is pondering recommendations to make to the NATO Alliance on
two key issues: scrapping the archaic consensus decision-making process and
how to give the boot to a NATO member. Both of these questions are not new.
The question of booting out a memberstate from the Alliance goes back to the
formulation of the North Atlantic Treaty itself, but a suitable text and
wording, including a suitable voting procedure, could not be found.

According to Sir Henderson (1982) the Canadians wanted some method and means
to boot memberstates out of association with the North Atlantic Pact in the
event that memberstate sank into communism and/or adopted policies that are
contrary with the democratic principles of the Pact. The British wanted the
expulsion clause to contain was a prohibition against the Parties forming an
alliance or being part of an alliance directed against another Party. The
wording consistant with what the British had in mind was inserted into
Article 8, although this article is not concidered an expulsion article.

And Escott Reid (1977) reports that John Foster Dulles was concerned with
not just the prospect of a Pact member going communist, (a big concern for
that day), but that "one of the 'free peoples' would loose its freedom not
by becoming communist, but by the coming to power of some other variety of
dictatorship" (p. 211). It was clear that the Pact was to be an association
of free peoples and that "going communist" would mean automatic exclusion
from the North Atlantic Pact. But the Pact's creators were also concerned
with other forms of anti-democratic practice which would not fit the
principles of the North Atlantic Pact.

It is true that governments that could be described as having policies that
are contrary to the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty have been
associated with the Atlantic Alliance. The "undemocratic" nations in NATO
were Greece with its military junta and Portugal, which was a dictatorship
at the time it became an original memberstate of the North Atlantic Pact.
But during the Cold War strategic location often took priority over the
principles of the North Atlantic Treaty. Also, neither Portugal nor Greece
sought to undermine the NATO Alliance. The Cold War is over and new threats
from non-state actors (such as al-Quida) call for the preservation of our
"democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law" over the strategic
location considerations (which dose not matter with al-Quida) of the Cold
War (Henderson 1982). The governments of Portugal and Greece never sought to
damage or destroy the NATO Alliance and association with NATO may have
helped rehabiliate these countries toward democratic principles.
But in the future a NATO memberstate may either elect persons or acquire
voting populations that have agendas that seek to destroy Atlantic
principles and values, including religious tolerance and liberty.

Such NATO member country could become dominated by a religious and/or ethnic
group that feels, for example, that women and persons of other religious
faiths have no human rights or are 'less equal' than fellow citizens of
their religion and the religion of the leaders ruling a NATO member country?
How should the NATO Alliance deal with such a situation?! It is also
conceivable that such anti-democratic, religiously oriented, governmental
leaders would also conceder the Western/Atlantic democracy, principles of
the North Atlantic Treaty, and NATO itself, hostile to its rule.

*What if a European country should acquire a prime minister who, being
"deeply
religious," decides to appoint religious clerics and/or "like-minds" to
posts in the
government and attempt to shape government policies along religious lines?"*

NATO must deal with the prospect of one of its members not only "going
communist," but also "going radical or something else." In such a
situation - the preservation of the North Atlantic Alliance must be placed
over one, or two, or three, renegade memberstates. To "safeguard the
freedom, common hertiage and civilization of [our] peoples, founded on the
principles of democracy, indiviual liberty and the rule of law" must come
first! The NATO Alliance and our peoples must know what our common hertiage
and values are - and be prepared to defend them, even in NATO memberstates
and among "allies" that we think we have trusted. . .

So - an "Ally" can be kicked out of the NATO Alliance for two main reasons:
1. Turns communist or adopts a system of government that is undemocratic
and/or contary to the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty.
2. Enters into another alliance, undertakes military action, or makes
agreement against another NATO Ally, espically if that alliance or country
is undemocratic.

An Ally could get kicked out of the Alliance for forming a relationship and
gives aid and comfort with another country or alliance that are involved in
military action against one or more Allies. This, as well as "going
communist." We need to keep at least a suspended membership in mind the next
time an Ally wants to form an alliance with a enemy of our democracy (France
to Saddam Hussien's Iraq) and when that country allows a minority of its
citizens (radical Muslims in France) to upset Atlantic Alliance relations. .
.
We need to remind ourselves - and our leaders - the principles of our
Atlantic Community contained in the North Atlantic Treaty, which includes
tolerance, including religious tolerance and tolerance for women's rights.
Should, someday, a radical Islamic regime take over an NATO Ally country,
maybe France, we must be prepared to ACT in defense of our principles by
singling out such a radical leadership and kicking that country with radical
leadership out of the NATO Alliance, including "a close ally."

---

"George of the Jungle" <antis...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
news:3ed2e7a0$0$23660$4c41069e@reader1.ash.ops.us.uu.net...

"murders"? or did you mean "murderers"?
I was public educated and know how to spell.....
Talk to the French Karen, remember all those "murders" that
happened on June 6 '44 in Normandy?  Ya probably thought the
allies should have had a "spot" of tea with 'ol Adolph instead of
take back the countries that his nazis invaded and occupied.

What am I thinking?   You of course are more than likely a facist,
socialist, nazi yourself and are of course, a bit pissed off that
those political groups lost the war(s).

Mark
--
"America didn't start this war, but America will finish it."
- President Geaorge W. Bush,
State of the Union speech January 2003.

Once again, people respond to an obvious troll.

We all know what and who we are.  So why respond to someone that is
obviously trolling??

Sarge, when that Steve D troll starts posting again we should let his
ass have it big time, Then again, he liked it up the ass, He is not
even a regular poster but is merely a minor league  butt boy,

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:45:39 -0700, "©Old Sarge®2003?"