A full explanation of the motion available here.

The UN Panel of Experts Report available here.

Johnny Dwyer on the Boston Globe retraction of the Taylor-CIA story:

Taylor’s relationship with U.S. officials was long and complex, but was he a spy?

In the thousands of pages of documents I’ve reviewed, hundreds of hours of interviews I’ve conducted in the U.S. and Liberia, nothing I’ve seen or heard suggests that.

Was he a “source”? Well, what does that mean?

Lost in this is the political geography of Monrovia. There are two centers of political power there: the Executive Mansion and the U.S. Embassy. They’re about a five minute drive from one another. The Defense Attache at the Embassy is an employee of DIA–the attache and their underlings are responsible for being connected and fluent with those in power in the country they’re posted to. In Taylor’s Liberia–which I’ll date to 1992, even though he was elected in 1997–the core political players were limited to a few dozen people, stretched out over a city considerably smaller than Brooklyn, who generally ate at that the same restaurants, frequented the same nightclubs and took their meetings at the same hotels. So did Charles Taylor, in the course of his 14-year political career, discuss information with the Defense Attache or another DIA employee that warranted inclusion in a cable? I know he did. Does that make him a source? Yes, I guess so. Does that mean he “worked” for the United States? Not in my book.

The Pentagon’s response to the Globe states that the details of Taylor’s role on behalf of the spy agencies are contained in dozens of secret reports – at least 48 separate documents – covering several decades. However, the exact duration and scope of the relationship remains hidden. The Defense Intelligence Agency said the details are exempt from public disclosure because of the need to protect “sources and methods,’’ safeguard the inner workings of American spycraft, and shield the identities of government personnel.

Bender cites anonymous security experts who think it was likely Taylor was most useful for information he was providing about Ghadaffi.

A small thing: The article says Taylor’s lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, did not return calls to comment.  This is shocking.  I suspect they did not contact the right people, or perhaps Griffiths is ill.  I imagine he would be eager to respond to this particular issue, and he is not one to resist an interview.

The Cross River State Governor's guest house, where Charles Taylor stayed in Nigeria.

My friend Graeme Blair and I recently visited Calabar, a beautiful city in southeastern Nigeria where Charles Taylor lived in exile from 2003 until his 2006 arrest.  One morning we set out to find where Taylor stayed.  It took many inquiries, but we were finally directed to the Cross River State Governor’s guest house, where the security guard confirmed we had found the right place.  A lot of begging and smiling did not gain us entrance to the house, but we were allowed to walk through the neighboring apartment complex where some of his wives and children stayed.  The house and complex are in the plushest section of Calabar, with manicured lawns and colorful birds and a view over the river.  I doubt there is a nicer place to live in exile.

People were extremely suspicious of us.  A guard at the Governor’s House told us he knew nothing about Taylor being in Calabar, and quickly escorted us out.  When a man outside offered to take us to the place where Taylor stayed the guard tried to stop him from talking.   Many people asked questions like: “Why is it important to you?”  The we’re-just-curious-tourists line satisfied no one.  One guard, perhaps nervous, told us repeatedly how nice Taylor was to him.

We also visited a delicious Lebanese restaurant that Taylor frequented.  His men would sweep the restaurant in the afternoon, and he dined later, ordering steak or prawns.

The slightly less glamarous neighboring compound where some of Taylor's wives and children stayed.

The Liberia section of peacebuildingData.org has information on knowledge of the Charles Taylor trial.  Generally the southeastern counties have the least knowledge of the trial.  Other highlights:

• 92% of Liberians have heard of the trial.  This is interesting, because only 72% of Liberians had heard of the TRC.  I’ve been under the impression that there has been far more awareness of TRC activities than Special Court for Sierra Leone activities.  (For those of you interested in the TRC, the site has tons of data on perceptions of it.)
• More than 75% of Liberians know the trial is in The Hague.
• More than half of Liberians know Taylor is on trial for crimes committed in Sierra Leone.  A little less than 25% of Liberians (inaccurately) think Taylor is on trial for crimes committed in Liberia.
• None of Liberians surveyed think Taylor is on trial for escaping prison in the US.

Ratko Mladic looks set to politicize his trial, much in the way Charles Taylor and the Civil Defence Forces defendants did.  From the NYT:

At one point in the hearing, Mr. Mladic straightened himself and told the court, “I am here defending my country and my people, not Ratko Mladic.” That drew a quick response from Judge Orie: “I would like to remind you that you are charged as an individual.”

This trial has nothing to do with personality.  We are unconcerned whether the court approves of Charles Taylor as an individual.  What concerns us is the need to address the evidence coldly and clinically, devoid of emotion, for emotion is no useful guide to a fact-finder in his or her task.  We submit that such an objective, independent, impartial approach to the evidence will lead to but one conclusion: verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

That’s the last paragraph of the defense final brief for the Charles Taylor trial.  It is now online, in its entirety.  (572 pages.) 

Anyone know if the prosecution final brief is online?  Also, does anyone know when the verdict is expected?

The prosecution had filed a motion claiming that several AFRC convicts incarcerated in Rwanda attempted to bribe and intimidate prosecution witnesses to recant their testimony and lie in a way that might lead to the release of the AFRC convicts.

The defense said the motion should be dismissed on a number of grounds.  I’ll highlight three of their arguments.  First, my favorite: They claim the annex of the prosecution’s motion exceeded the page limit for annexes.  (The judges noted that if the annex was put into the body of the motion, the motion would not exceed the page limit, so they can consider it.)

Second, defense argued that this Trial Chamber lacks jurisdiction over this issue.  The judges disagreed.  Being the only remaining Special Court Trial Chamber, if they don’t have jurisdiction, no one does.  (I wonder who will adjudicate these residual issues once this Trial Chamber concludes their work.)

Third, defense argued that there is no proof that the alleged intimidation worked.  One witness refused to recant his testimony.  The judges cited rulings from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to determine that an attempt to intimidate is sufficient grounds for contempt of court.  The intimidation need not be successful.

In their ruling the judges determined there is no reason to assume Taylor’s defense played any role in pressuring prosecution witnesses.  So they only accepted the prosecution’s motion in part: They appointed an independent counsel to investigate witness interference allegations and report back as to whether there are grounds to start contempt proceedings.

• Defense had argued that Taylor’s prosecution was political, citing as evidence the fact that Taylor’s sealed indictment was shown to US government officials before it became public.  Prosecution contends this is normal in international criminal tribunals.  These tribunals lack a police force and need government assistance to arrest suspects.  Defense also questioned why Campaore and Gadhafi were not prosecuted, and Taylor was.  Prosecution argued that the possible assistance these two provided to the RUF does not rival the scale of Taylor’s support.
• Defense argued Taylor was a peacemaker, and this is why he sometimes met with the RUF.  Prosecution responded that there are no pictures of or documents related to many of these meetings, while there is for other meetings.  This implies, they argue, that the meetings were covert and pertained to weapons.