Comments on: Naomi Campbell and the Special Court for Sierra Leone

By: ALAN

ALAN — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:25:52 +0000

CheapTabletsOnline.com. Canadian Health&Care.No prescription online pharmacy.Best quality drugs.Special Internet Prices. Online Pharmacy. Order pills online…

Buy:Human Growth Hormone.Accutane.Prednisolone.Retin-A.Zovirax.Valtrex.Prevacid.Arimidex.Zyban.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Nexium.Lumigan.Synthroid.Actos.Mega Hoodia….

By: Aki

Aki — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:05:24 +0000

The timber industry did not fuel any conflicts this is a falacy. Remember the biggest timber merchant of them all Gus Kouwenhoven who worked for Oriental Timber was found not guilty by a Dutch court of the charges of war crimes. What we need is accountabilty which the present government has tried to put in place. Unfortunately as can be seen by the latest resignation of AB Johnson the Internal Affairs Minister, Dr. Bropleh and several other ministers corruption has reared it’s ugly head in Ellen’s government . Although there is no excuse for stealing it is more surprising that her officials are being corrupt given the fact that unlike previous administrations these people are paid salaries comparable to what they were making working in the States. I hope she can over come these problems because just like Charle Taylor was the right person for the times in 1997 when he was elected. I believe she is the right person to be leading Liberia at this present time.

By: law

law — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:35:50 +0000

The timber industry is no more important than any of the other industries — and there are plenty of others, like Pat Robertson & gold mining. I bring up the timber because Mr Taylor admitted all the elements of pillage of timber in his testimony & the TRC reported the results of the timber concession review (which seem to be more comprehensive than reviews in any other industries). It would be interesting to see the results of a similar review of the mining industry, for example.

And I agree that the current logging concessions must to repeat the mistakes of the past. But I haven’t heard accusations that the current industry is fueling conflict nor enriching government elites the way it did during the Taylor and Doe periods. So I think it is a fundamentally different issue (ie, it isn’t just about reforestation, for example).

By: Aki

Aki — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:53:54 +0000

Law,
I agree with you on the last point. The success of the Special Court should not depend on the number of convictions it gets. I do think that those most responsible for the crimes in Sierra Leone have already been rightfully found guilty the RUF, AFRC and Kamajor leaders. It’s amazing that most Sierra leoneans including the Sierra leone judge felt that because the CDF or Kamajors fought to protect Freetown and other parts they somehow were not as guilty or shoudn’t have been prosecuted. In the case of Charles Taylor there just is not enough evidence. You place alot of emphasis on the timber industry in Liberia. I myself am against the uncontrolled logging which has gone on in Liberia since the 1980’s. However one must remember this is needed revenue which even the present government is anxious to get at. So far I have not heard any real efforts at reforestation with regards to the concessions the Ellen Sirleaf government has handed out.

By: law

law — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:30:17 +0000

Aki, thanks for your explanation, but I don’t think “the big man” refers to being inarticulate.

I think it refers to sentiments such as these:
“Africa has been failed by ruthless eccentric leaders with insatiable passion for self-gratification and with an orgy of self-enrichment.”

(http://wardheernews.com/Articles_09/May/Abdi_Gouled/24_Policy_challenges_for_Obama_in_Africa.html)

Which is why things like Taylor having a personal bank account in which timber payments were made in exchange for tax credit for the companies is so condemning of his rule.

But I do agree, that in the end, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that Taylor stole from mama Liberia, it has to prove his role in the RUF — but they also don’t have to gain convictions for every one of the indictments… so it will be interesting to see how many they can prove to the judges satisfaction.

By: Aki

Aki — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:09:41 +0000

Law,
They thought he was an inarticulate thug because that is how the West wanted him portrayed. Remember Time magazine had him captioned ” The big man in Africa” reminding us of the days of Idi Amin and Mobutu of Zaire. Then the following week they portrayed Liberian soccer star George Weah. ” The good man in Africa” prompting this middle school drop out to feel he could run to be president of Liberia. I agree Charles Taylor is an enigma wrapped up in a riddle. However before you send someone to jail for the rest of their lives accusations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Given this high threshold do not be surprised if the Judges acquit. Not speaking about you but I think already the anti Charles Taylor people out there are already looking to blame the judges for the prosecution not having enough facts. It kind of reminds me of the O.J. Simpson murder trial where the public blamed the jurors for the poor performance of the prosecution.

By: law

law — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:17:08 +0000

” The prosecution thought that he was an African thug who would not be able to articulate his thoughts and they were wrong. ”

I am interested to know why you think this.

If that’s the case, then the prosecution doesn’t know Mr Taylor. He’s always been a charismatic fast-talker — which is why I think he insisted on taking the stand: he probably thought he could talk his way out — after all, he always has before.

But I think in the confines of the court room it isn’t so simple — the prosecution was successful in repeatedly demonstrating that Mr Taylor plays fast and loose with the truth — in the case of what he calls ‘diplomacy’. It is clear that Mr Taylor doesn’t believe in either the rule of law or in being an honest broker in negotiations. He repeatedly said that in diplomacy you must lie. He failed to understand the difference when ‘recognizing the NPRAG’ between recognizing existence versus recognizing legitimacy.

I confess I haven’t followed the trial on anything like a daily basis, but I would really like to know why you think that the prosecution considered Taylor to be an inarticulate thug.

By: Aki

Aki — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:35:41 +0000

Law,
Your points are very clear there was no direct evidence so the only thing left was for the prosecution to try and discredit him. The only problem they have not done so in my opinion. Remember unlike the prosecution he has shown more documentary evidence to support his case such as him being appointed to the Committee of Five on Sierra Leone which role was to bring peace. As you know the prosecution can not call a witness to testify against himself so your argument of them calling him is moot. There is no question in most objective people’s mind that Taylor was a powerful witness. The prosecution thought that he was an African thug who would not be able to articulate his thoughts and they were wrong. Quite frankly if the prosecution could do it all over again they probably should have used Nick Koumijan as the lead prosecutor. He at times did score a few points but Ms. Hollis was a total bust.

By: law

law — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:02:55 +0000

Aki, i think you misunderstand my two major points here:

my assertion is that the prosecution doesn’t need evidence from Charles Taylor himself to make their case — if they did, they would have called him as a witness.

My second point: their aim in the cross-examination was only to discredit him (impeach his testimony). And I believe that despite the judges’ rather bizarre rulings (bizarre in that they fly against normal court procedures — even the procedures of the Special Court itself) that seriously undermined the prosecutions ability to conduct their case; despite this, the prosecution achieved their goal: the demonstrated that Mr Taylor is a war criminal — by his own admission — and this will be what the prosecution can exploit in their summation at the end of the trial.

i hope my point is more clear now.

By: Aki

Aki — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:59:01 +0000

Law,
The bottom line is there is no smoking gun to convict. After the prosectution had spent tens of millions of dollars to build a case on what he did in Sierra Leone 90% of their evidence was on activites in Liberia. This is a big gamble on the prosectution’s part and based on recent rulings by the judges it is a gamble which may not pay off.