The case of Charles Taylor - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 05-16-2011, 10:42 AM

I think I should preface this by saying I think this guy is certainly a crook, and although I havent seen all the evidence, I think very likely DOES have blood on his hands.

But I wondered what people's thoughts were about the impact on the decision to pursue Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity on the recent chaos and violence in the middle east?

There has always been an understanding in mosts coup's and revolts that the leader and his family can be allowed to slip away to a friendly country to allow power to transfer cleanly.

As an example, look at Idi Amin. No one would deny he was a butcher who's crimes and abuses far outreached anything Taylor or the likes of Gadhaffi could be accused of... allowed to live to old age in The Kingdom, with a harem of "wives" and eating nothing but oranges in the belief it increased his sexual stamina into his old age. This mad man who had 100,000s of deaths on his conscience, was allowed to live out an adolescent fantasy in his old age while the West stood by and did NOTHING.

Why? Because it prevents civil war and however offensive we might find it that someone like Idi Amin does not face any kind of justice, its a price that we decided was worth paying to prevent further violence and death and instability.

_

We do not need to consider the hypocrisy element (ie Pinnochet is a "strong man", Gadhaffi is a butcher, Mugabe is just "anti-colonialist", etc...) but to me its the practical element also.

_

With Charles Taylor dragged out of exile to face the consequences of his actions, does this not put every leader who could be judged in breach of international law (and lets be honest, this half of the world leaders out there) in a position where they will fight tooth and nail to hold on power because they know this is the only protection for themselves and family personally?

dlish · 05-16-2011, 09:35 PM

after the ICC named ghadhafi and his son in their arrett warrent, the question has been raised. is the ICC a court for african leaders only? idare say there are western leaders that have caused as much death and destruction with a direct chain of command, but none seem interested in pursuing this avenue.

Quote:

ICC - Situations and cases

Situations and cases

Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organisations (“communications”).

To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic – have referred situations occurring on their territories to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party. After a thorough analysis of available information, the Prosecutor has opened and is conducting investigations in all of the above-mentioned situations.

On 31 March 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecution authorisation to open an investigation proprio motu in the situation of Kenya.

In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen is currently being heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issued against [the] five top members of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA).

Following the confirmation of the death of Mr Lukwiya, the proceedings against him have been terminated. The four remaining suspects are still at large.

In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, four cases are being heard before the relevant Chambers: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo; The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda; The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana.

Two cases are at the pre-trial stage. The proceedings against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo as well as Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui are at the trial stage.

The accused Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, and Callixte Mbarushimana are currently in the custody of the ICC. The suspect Bosco Ntaganda remains at large.

In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, four cases are being heard before Pre-Trial Chamber I: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir; The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda and The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus

The suspect Bahr Idriss Abu Garda appeared voluntarily for the first time before Pre-Trial Chamber I on 18 May 2009. He is not in custody. The three other suspects remain at large.

In the situation in the Central African Republic, the case The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo is at the trial stage.

On 6 November, 2009, the Presidency of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision assigning the situation in the Republic of Kenya to Pre-Trial Chamber II. Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the Prosecutor, on 31 March 2010, authorisation to open an investigation in the situation of Kenya.

On 8 March 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber II, by Majority, issued its decisions on the applications submitted by the Prosecutor to summon William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey, Joshua Arap Sang , as well as Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali to appear before the Court on 7 April 2011.

On 26 February, the United Nations Security Council decided unanimously to refer the situation in Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the ICC Prosecutor. On 3 March 2011 the ICC Prosecutor announced his decision to the open an investigation in the situation in Libya, which is assigned by the Presidency to Pre-Trial Chamber I

Strange Famous · 05-17-2011, 10:28 AM

I agree with that in principle... if you look at the worlds superpowes...

The US, Russia, and China have all been responsible for breaches of international law in regards to human rights. No one from one of these states will be up in front of the ICC.

I do not deny that - as an example - Charles Taylor is a crook, and probably has blood on his hands. But violence is in fact practised internally and externally by almost every state to some degree or another.

Does anyone think Putin is going to have to answer to anyone for Russia's actions in Georgia? Bush or Obama for the abuse of human rights in that internment camp in Cuba or for civilian casualties in Iraq? Will King Abdullah have to answer for civil righst abuses and state sponsored violence in Saudi? Will Netanyahu have to answer for attacks on Gaza?

We can answer clearly: no, no, no, no.

Given that we now can suspect there were plans to try Charles Taylor in the US if the ICC didnt find him guilty... how seriously can we take it, other than as a Western tool to force compliance to Western ideals/trade from poorer countries?

_

But despite all of that... Taylor is a bad guy. No one could doubt that.

The question does remain I think, is it right to let bad guys slink off into the night to live in exile to prevent civil unrest?

chinese crested · 06-05-2011, 11:23 AM

Bush and Blair took us into an illegal war and are responsible for so many deaths - for oil. Purely greed. Oil companies got rich, and a lot of youngsters got a six foot plot - which their families have to pay for. If we were going anywhere, it should have been to get Mugabe. I felt we had more of a duty to those people whos lives were taken or destroyed.
Funny isnt it, our politicians got him in, same as Idi Amin - once again we abandoned people.
Saddam - wasnt he an american project in his youth?
It seems to suit politicians to put these buggers in power.
If we are making an example of cleaning house, we should use our own as a model. Bush and Blair - lying, greedy warmongers. Start with them and spread outward.

Walt · 06-11-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Given that we now can suspect there were plans to try Charles Taylor in the US if the ICC didnt find him guilty... how seriously can we take it, other than as a Western tool to force compliance to Western ideals/trade from poorer countries?

What do you mean by "Western ideals"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinese crested

Bush and Blair took us into an illegal war and are responsible for so many deaths - for oil. Purely greed. Oil companies got rich, and a lot of youngsters got a six foot plot - which their families have to pay for.

I am completely ignorant as to international corporate interest in Iraq and so am unaware of any oil companies profiting from the war in Iraq, though I am familiar with the "blood for oil" rhetoric. Who has profited, and in what way? Also, who are these "youngsters" that you are referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinese crested

If we were going anywhere, it should have been to get Mugabe. I felt we had more of a duty to those people whos lives were taken or destroyed.

Given all of the atrocities committed by local governments in former British protectorates/mandates/colonies in the MENA/SSA, why specifically Mugabe/Zimbabwe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinese crested

Saddam - wasnt he an american project in his youth? It seems to suit politicians to put these buggers in power.

Saddam put himself in power. While the US indirectly provided him with weapons in response to the '79 Iranian revolution, it was because he was considered the lesser of two evils - never a friend. I don't know what you mean by "project".

05-16-2011, 10:42 AM	#1 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The case of Charles Taylor I think I should preface this by saying I think this guy is certainly a crook, and although I havent seen all the evidence, I think very likely DOES have blood on his hands. But I wondered what people's thoughts were about the impact on the decision to pursue Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity on the recent chaos and violence in the middle east? There has always been an understanding in mosts coup's and revolts that the leader and his family can be allowed to slip away to a friendly country to allow power to transfer cleanly. As an example, look at Idi Amin. No one would deny he was a butcher who's crimes and abuses far outreached anything Taylor or the likes of Gadhaffi could be accused of... allowed to live to old age in The Kingdom, with a harem of "wives" and eating nothing but oranges in the belief it increased his sexual stamina into his old age. This mad man who had 100,000s of deaths on his conscience, was allowed to live out an adolescent fantasy in his old age while the West stood by and did NOTHING. Why? Because it prevents civil war and however offensive we might find it that someone like Idi Amin does not face any kind of justice, its a price that we decided was worth paying to prevent further violence and death and instability. _ We do not need to consider the hypocrisy element (ie Pinnochet is a "strong man", Gadhaffi is a butcher, Mugabe is just "anti-colonialist", etc...) but to me its the practical element also. _ With Charles Taylor dragged out of exile to face the consequences of his actions, does this not put every leader who could be judged in breach of international law (and lets be honest, this half of the world leaders out there) in a position where they will fight tooth and nail to hold on power because they know this is the only protection for themselves and family personally?

05-17-2011, 10:28 AM	#3 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I agree with that in principle... if you look at the worlds superpowes... The US, Russia, and China have all been responsible for breaches of international law in regards to human rights. No one from one of these states will be up in front of the ICC. I do not deny that - as an example - Charles Taylor is a crook, and probably has blood on his hands. But violence is in fact practised internally and externally by almost every state to some degree or another. Does anyone think Putin is going to have to answer to anyone for Russia's actions in Georgia? Bush or Obama for the abuse of human rights in that internment camp in Cuba or for civilian casualties in Iraq? Will King Abdullah have to answer for civil righst abuses and state sponsored violence in Saudi? Will Netanyahu have to answer for attacks on Gaza? We can answer clearly: no, no, no, no. Given that we now can suspect there were plans to try Charles Taylor in the US if the ICC didnt find him guilty... how seriously can we take it, other than as a Western tool to force compliance to Western ideals/trade from poorer countries? _ But despite all of that... Taylor is a bad guy. No one could doubt that. The question does remain I think, is it right to let bad guys slink off into the night to live in exile to prevent civil unrest?

06-05-2011, 11:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
chinese crested Insane Location: hampshire	Bush and Blair took us into an illegal war and are responsible for so many deaths - for oil. Purely greed. Oil companies got rich, and a lot of youngsters got a six foot plot - which their families have to pay for. If we were going anywhere, it should have been to get Mugabe. I felt we had more of a duty to those people whos lives were taken or destroyed. Funny isnt it, our politicians got him in, same as Idi Amin - once again we abandoned people. Saddam - wasnt he an american project in his youth? It seems to suit politicians to put these buggers in power. If we are making an example of cleaning house, we should use our own as a model. Bush and Blair - lying, greedy warmongers. Start with them and spread outward.