Charles Taylor did not provide support to Sierra Leonean rebel forces in their attack on the West African country’s capital Freetown in 1999, said the former president’s first defense witness who concluded his testimony this week. Prosecutors, on the other hand, accused the witness of giving testimony which was inconsistent with his own written statement and with Mr. Taylor’s evidence as well.
Mr. Yanks Smythe, a Gambian national who was a member of Mr. Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group and who, upon attaining Liberian citizenship was appointed by Mr. Taylor as Liberia’s top diplomat to Libya and Tunisia, told the court that neither Mr. Taylor nor his security forces supported or participated in the Sierra Leonean rebel attack on the country’s capital Freetown in 1999.
Mr. Yanks’ testimony – consistent on this point with Mr. Taylor’s own testimony — stands in contrast to that of several prosecution witnesses, who had testified that the former Liberian president provided the support needed for the rebels to attack Freetown. Prosecution witnesses had also testified that both Mr. Taylor and his Special Security Services (SSS) director, Benjamin Yeaten, were in radio contact with one of the top Sierra Leonean rebels, Sam Bockarie, during the attack. In his re-examination on Wednesday, Mr. Smythe dismissed the allegations as lies, adding that no member of Mr. Taylor’s security apparatus travelled to Sierra Leone for the operation.
“To your knowledge, were any employees or members of the SSS during that period of time engaged in any fighting in Sierra Leone?” Mr. Taylor’s defense counsel, Mr. Morris Anyah, asked the witness in re-examination, as he sought to clarify allegations that Mr. Taylor sent fighters to help the rebel forces in the 1999 invasion of Freetown.
“No, to my knowledge, none of the SSS were involved in any fighting in Sierra Leone,” the witness responded.
Seeking to clarify the issues further, Mr. Anyah asked the witness whether “to your knowledge, were any members of the SSS, in particular Benjamin Yeaten, engaged in any radio communications with persons in Sierra Leone during that period of time?”
Again, Mr. Smythe responded that “to my knowledge, no.”
Earlier on Monday, the witness dismissed prosecution assertions that his testimony is contradicting that of the former Liberian president, telling the court that neither he, nor Mr. Taylor, is lying to the judges.
During Monday’s cross-examination, prosecution counsel Nicholas Koumjian, questioned the witness about Mr. Taylor’s presence in the former NPFL headquarter town of Gbarnga. According to Mr. Koumjian, the witness seemed to be contradicting what the former president said in his own testimony. Mr. Koumjian suggested to the witness that in October 1996, Mr. Taylor moved to Gbarnga and instructed Revolutionary United Front (RUF) leader Foday Sankoh via a radio message to go and acquire arms for the RUF. After agreeing with Mr. Koumjian that Mr. Taylor did indeed go to Gbarnga in October 1996, the prosecutor read a portion of Mr. Taylor’s previous testimony in which the former president had denied ever going to Gbanga during that period. Upon hearing what Mr. Taylor said about the same incident in his testimony, Mr. Smythe sought to clarify his response, saying that he was in agreement with Mr. Taylor’s account.
“You just told us Charles Taylor moved to Gbarnga after the 31st of October 1996, was that correct?” Mr. Koumjian asked the witness.
The witness responded that “when there was an attack on his life, he left Monrovia during that period and he went to Gbarnga but he never stayed there, he came back to Monrovia, this is what I am saying.”
“Sir, who is lying when we talk about Charles Taylor being in Gbarnga in 1996, you or Charles Taylor,” Mr. Koumjian again asked the witness.
“Nobody is lying here,” the witness responded.
Also in his cross-examination on Monday, Mr. Koumjian attempted to point out that Mr. Smythe’s evidence about Mr. Taylor’s personal security personnel having heavy weapons also contradicted that of the former president’s. prosecutors reminded the court that on September 30, 2009, Mr. Taylor said that he did not even have arms and ammunition to give his personal security personnel and so could not have had same to supply RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor had testified that the United Nations took away all his arms and ammunition during the disarmament process in Liberia. Mr. Koumjian on Monday asked the witness to describe the kinds of weapons that Mr. Taylor’s personal security carried.
“That weapon is ah, I think its GMG,” the witness said, adding that GMG means “General Machine Gun.”
Asked whether it was an “anti-aircraft type of weapon,” the witness responded that “I don’t know what you are talking about, I know it’s GMG , General Machine Gun.”
“And it was actually somehow fixed to the back of like a Pick Up truck, correct?” Mr. Koumjian enquired further.
“It’s in a Pick Up truck,” the witness responded.
Mr. Taylor during his testimony told the court that he never had an anti-aircraft weapon during the entire period of the Liberian conflict.
On Tuesday, as prosecutors pointed out inconsistencies in his written statement to defense lawyers and his oral testimony in court, Mr. Smythe said that certain aspects of his written statement were misrepresented.
During Tuesday’s cross-examination, Mr. Koumjian tried to point to Mr. Smythe that certain things about which he has testified in court differ from what he had said to Mr. Taylor’s defense lawyers when they obtained a statement from him in June 2009. For example, Mr. Koumjian pointed out that the witness has testified in court that Mr. Taylor’s NPFL rebel group did not use child soldiers. However, his written statement made to defense lawyers in 2009 differed. In his response, Mr. Smythe said that such inconsistencies were as a result of misrepresentations made of what he had said in his written statement. The witness in his testimony had said that contrary to what prosecution witnesses said in court, there was no group for child soldiers called Small Boys Unit (SBU). He said that the term SBU was created by NPFL commanders who had rescued and were taking care of children abandoned in the frontlines. Mr. Koumjian pointed out that the witness’s written statement revealed a different story.
“Mr. Witness, you told the defense last year, didn’t you, that there was an SBU unit, that these were under-aged, and they were part of the NPFL,” Mr. Koumjian put to the witness.
“This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said, I never said that. This was not what I said,” the witness responded.
“The defense invented this, is that what you are saying?” Mr. Koumjian again put to the witness.
“I don’t know what you mean by they invented but this is not what I said. I said SBU as I stated in my testimony here, yes, this is what I know about SBU,” the witness again responded.
As Mr. Koumjian pressed further on what the words “SBUs were under-aged” meant in his written statement, the witness responded that “I’m saying this is a complete misrepresentation of what I said in my statement. This is not what I said.”
Mr. Koumjian also pointed out that while the witness’ courtroom testimony said that he never fought on the frontlines for the NPFL, his written statement revealed a different story. In the witness’s statement, he was quoted as having taken part in an attack during “Operation Octopus,” a 1992 attack on Monrovia by NPFL rebels. The witness insisted that he had again been misrepresented by those who obtained his statement.
The witness also in his testimony in court had said that the first time he met Mr. Taylor was in 1987 at the Mataba guesthouse in Libya where Mr. Taylor reportedly lived alongside dissident leaders from Gambia and Sierra Leone. Mr. Koumjian pointed out that the witness’s written statement revealed that he had met Mr. Taylor at the Libyan revolutionary training camp Tajura, not Mataba.
Reading from the witness’s written statement, Mr. Koumjian quoted that “the first time witness met CT [Charles Taylor] was in 1987 in Tajura, not at Mataba meetings.”
Mr. Smythe insisted that that was a complete misrepresentation of what he said. “I never saw Mr. Taylor in Tajura,” he said.
While Mr. Smythe in his testimony tried to rebut prosecution evidence against Mr. Taylor, prosecutors during cross-examination also tried to discredit the witness’s testimony. Like defense lawyers did with prosecution witnesses under cross-examination, prosecutors also tried to highlight inconsistencies in Mr. Smythe’s oral testimony in court and his written statement made to defense lawyers. It will be left with the judges to determine the credibility of the witness and whether his testimony can be relied upon.
As Mr. Smythe ended his testimony on Wednesday, Mr. Taylor’s next defense witness took the stand. The witness, DCT 125, is testifying as a protected witness because, like some prosecution witnesses, security reasons demand that his identity not be revealed to the public. Aspects of DCT 125’s testimony are heard in private/closed session to the exclusion of the general public. For those parts of his testimony which are heard in open session, the witness is testifying using voice and facial distortion, meaning that members of the public cannot identify his voice and face.
On Thursday, the witness told the court that Mr. Taylor only wanted power to empower the Liberian people to develop their country.
“Charles Taylor wanted power, control his people and to empower them with the authority to develop their country in Liberia,” the witness said today as he testified about the former president’s motivation to wage a rebel war in the West African country of Liberia.
The witness described himself as a founding member of the Mataba: that is, the “Libyan Bureau” which provided military and ideological training for revolutionaries from different parts of the world. Testifying about the character of Mr. Taylor, the witness described the former Liberian president as a very secretive person and an “intellectual bourgeois capitalist” — a description which drew a smile from the very attentive Mr. Taylor.
Reading from the Mataba manifesto, the witness told the court that the document called on all revolutionaries around the world to come together and fight against “state sponsored terrorism.”
Mr. Taylor is accused of providing support to the RUF, a Sierra Leonean rebel group which prosecutors say committed heinous crimes in Sierra Leone such as rape, murder and “terrorizing the civilian population.” Some prosecution witnesses also testified before Special Court for Sierra Leone judges that with Mr. Taylor’s involvement, terrorist operatives from the fundamentalist group Al Qaeda visited Liberia and RUF controlled territories in Sierra Leone. Defense counsel for Mr. Taylor, Courtenay Griffiths, today asked the witness the Mataba’s position on terrorism.
“The Mataba, according to our aim and objectives, is not a terrorist organization. The Mataba is a combination of all revolutionary forces to device strategies to face imperialism and its allies wherever they are,” the witness said.
DCT 125’s testimony continues on Tuesday.
Hello Tracey,
I would like to enquire from this summary if Alpha is indeed saying that the GMG is an anti-aircraft weapon or if this was what evidence given in court. If not, then why is his summary linking pick-up mounted weapons with anti-aircraft weapons. Also, what aircraft are the NPFL supposed to be firing at after ECOMOG’s planes had stopped bombing raids in Liberia.
Thanks.
Hi RGK007 — I understand this was the evidence given in court, but let me double check with the transcript and Alpha and revert.
Best,
Tracey
Tracey,
I think this question should be directed at the prosecution lawyer, not Alpha. The prosecution asked the witness if GMG is an antiaircraft gun. The witness answer was that he does not know what the prosecution was talking about, However, what he(witness) do know is that GMG weapons were mounted in pick up truck used by Mr. Taylor security forces. I think the confusion is that the prosecution is considering every weapon mounted on pick up trucks as an antiaircraft gun which is not the case. Alpha was very cleared and straight on this.
Regards
Harris K Johnson
Thanks so much, Harris, for helping to clarify on this. I appreciate you taking the time and effort.
Best,
Tracey
Hi Tracey,
The next time you go to The Hague to watch the trial, could you please give a description of yourself and what you will be wearing. I have a mental image of you, but I would like to see if my mental image matches your physical image.
That goes to Alpha too. You guys have been reporting as protected reporters for too long. It’s about time to remove the veil.
Hi Big B — You know, you can already see what Alpha looks like as we have a photo of him on the site which you can see here: http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/about/who-we-are/
It’s never occurred to me to put a photo up on the site of myself, but I can talk to our comms people about the possibility. We have really wanted to focus this site on the issues emerging from the trial and not so much on Alpha and myself as individuals, but I can understand the curiousity of wanting to have a visual image of the people with whom you are conversing or whose work you are reading each day.
Let me see what is possible.
Best,
Tracey
Folks,
Let us just take a keen look at what the judges marked for identification and accepted as evidence of Mr. Yanks Smythe and compare it to the Mr. Koumjian and the prosecution exhibits. You will soon realized that what they took more from the defence compare to what they took from the prosecution. Folks, it is not even close. The judges took more from Yanks Smythe evidence than that of the prosecution
READ THE JUDGES RULINGS.
“Now, in this case, the Defence itself has applied to tender
the entire document in evidence, and therefore it is not
prejudiced by the tender either.
We find that it is in the interest of justice to admit the
whole document into evidence, and that is our holding.
Having done that, I will now give the exhibit numbers of
the documents that were marked for identification, starting with
the Defence exhibits. These are documents that were tendered or
introduced into evidence through witness DCT-179, Yanks Smythe.”
Here comes the bomb shell folks.
“Now, the document MFI-408, that was a list of 15 persons
that the witness drew up, saying that he trained with these
persons at Camp Tajura. That is admitted as D-92.
The document MFI, which is a map of Liberia as marked by
the – MFI-409 is a map of Liberia as marked by the witness. That
is defence exhibit D-93.
MFI-410, which is a copy of an organogram, that is,
Prosecution exhibit P-54, as now marked by the witness is defence
exhibit D-94.
MFI-411, this is another organogram that was formerly
exhibit P-55, as marked by the witness is now D-95.
MFI-412A is a photograph, formally DP-210. It is now
Defence exhibit D-96A.
MFI-412B is also a photograph. It is now defence exhibit
D-96B.
MFI-412C is a photograph and is now deference exhibit
D-96C.
MFI-412D is a photograph and is now defence exhibit D-96D.
MFI-412E is a photograph and is now defence exhibit D-96E.
MFI-413 is a photograph and is now defence exhibit D-97.
MFI-414 is a photograph and is now admitted as D-98.
MFI-415 is a photograph and is now admitted as D-99.
MFI-416A is a photograph and is now admitted as D-100A.
MFI-416B, a photograph, is admitted as exhibit D-100B.
MFI-416C is a photograph admitted as exhibit D-100C.
MFI-416D, a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit D-100D.
MFI-416E, a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit D-100E.
MFI-417 is a photograph now admitted as exhibit D-101.
MFI-418, a photograph, is admitted as D-102.
MFI-419 is a one-page document entitled, “business office
of HE Charles G Taylor Sinkor, Monrovia, leases and rents”. That
is admitted as exhibit D-103.
MFI-420A, which is a copy of the official identity card of
the witness Yanks A Smythe, and that is the front page showing
his photograph, that is now admitted as exhibit approximate
D-104A.
MFI-420B, which is a copy of that same identity card, but
showing the reverse side of the card, is now admitted as exhibit
D-104B.
MFI-421A is a one-page letter from the Assistant Director
of Operations SSS, Yanks Smythe, to Honourable G Bestman,
Minister of Finance, dated 12 April 1999. That is now admitted
as D-105A.
MFI-421B, which is a one-page document entitled, “official
purchase and special services voucher” dated September 2, 1998,
is now admitted as exhibit D-105B.
MFI-422A, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-106A.
CHARLES TAYLOR
3 MARCH 2010 OPEN SESSION
SCSL – TRIAL CHAMBER II
Page 36622
MFI-422B, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-106B.
MFI-423A, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-107A.
MFI-423B, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-107B.
MFI-423C, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-107C.
MFI-423D, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-107D.
MFI-423E, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-107E.
MFI-423, which is a copy of a Prosecution exhibit P-98 as
highlighted by the witness, is now admitted as exhibit D-108.
MR ANYAH: I apologise for interrupting. I have that as
MFI-424.
PRESIDING JUDGE: What did I say? I do beg your pardon.
Let me repeat that again.
MFI-424, which is formerly a copy of Prosecution exhibit
P-98 as highlighted by the witness or as marked by the witness is
now exhibit D-108.
MFI-425, which is a one-page document entitled, “list of
official delegation representing the Ministry of State for
Presidential Affairs, Paris summit, November 23, 1998″ is now
admitted as exhibit D-109.
MFI-426, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-110.
MFI-427 is a one-page document entitled, “press release of
the Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs Reginald
111:58:46
11:59:30
CHARLES TAYLOR
3 MARCH 2010 OPEN SESSION
SCSL – TRIAL CHAMBER II
Page 36623
Goodridge, Deputy Minister of State”, dated 13 July 2000, is now
admitted as exhibit D-111.
MFI-428A, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
D-112A.
MFI-428B, a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit D-112B.
MFI-428C, a photograph, is admitted as exhibit D-112C.
MFI-429, a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit D-113.
Lastly, the statement of Yanks Smythe, which consists of
two portions, is admitted as follows:
The cover page, which consists of his bio data and other
matters, personal matters, is admitted as exhibit D-114A and will
be marked confidential.
The rest of the statement of the witness comprising 25
pages is marked D-114B and is not confidential.
Which brings me to the Prosecution exhibits tendered
through the witness as follows:
MFI-430 which is a diagram drawn by the witness of NPFL
command structure as at March 1991, that is admitted as
exhibit P-386.
MFI-431, which is a photograph from the guardian.co.uk, a
photograph depicting Charles Taylor and others, without the
caption underneath that photograph is admitted as exhibit P-387.
MFI-432 is a list of NPFL radio stations as of January 1,
1992, as indicated by the witness DCT-179, that is admitted as
exhibit P-388.
MFI-433 is one page of a document – page 1 of a document
entitled “IRIN-WA, Weekly Round Up, 32/1999, University of
Pennsylvania, African Studies Centre, Office of the Coordinator
of Humanitarian Affairs, Integrated Regional Information Network
CHARLES TAYLOR
3 MARCH 2010 OPEN SESSION
SCSL – TRIAL CHAMBER II
Page 36624
Now let look at the prosecution exhibit.
For West Africa.” That page 1 is admitted as exhibit P-389.
MFI-434 is also a single page, page 1 of a document
entitled “BBC News article 1986″, the article is entitled “US
launches air strikes on Libya” and is dated 15 April 1986, that
is admitted as exhibit P-390.
MFI-435 is a document comprising two pages entitled “Libya,
Agriculture, Production, Consumption, Imports and Exports.” That
is admitted as exhibit P-391.
MFI-436 is a diagram drawn by the witness of the SSS
structure when the witness served as assistant director of
operations in the SSS. That is admitted as exhibit P-392.
MFI-437, which is a map of Monrovia city as marked by the
witness, is admitted as exhibit P-393.
MFI-438 is a photograph and that is admitted as
exhibit P-394.
MFI-439A is a photograph out of the guardian.co.uk, a
photograph of Charles Taylor and others, without the caption on
the right side of the photograph, the caption is not admitted,
but the photograph alone is Prosecution exhibit P-395A.
MFI-439B, which is a photograph, is now admitted as exhibit
P-395B.
MFI-439C, which is a photograph, is admitted as Prosecution
exhibit P-395C.
MFI-440 is also a photograph, it is admitted as exhibit
P-396.
MFI-441A is a photograph, it’s now admitted as
exhibit P-397A.
MFI-441B is a photograph, now admitted as exhibit P-397B.
And I think that is the entire list of the documents.
Folks, seriously, this thing is laugable.
Look at what they took from Mr. Koumjian. U.S launching Air Strike on Libya. How is this related to the case? Look at the second one. Libya Agricultural, Production, Consumption, Import and Export. How do you get a guilty verdict from this? be patient folks. More to come. The picture of President Taylor on the U.K Guardian only and not the caption or writing. And yet some still think the prosecution has provided a mountain of evidence. UNBELIEVABLE. IN CONTRAST, ALMOST ALL OF YANKS SMYTHE EVIDENCE WAS ACCEPTED.
Seriously guys, what Libya Agriculture has in relatioship to the 11 counts. The entire thing doesn’t even make sense. I can’t help but to laugh. The judges accepted a photograph of Mr. Taylor on the U.K co. Guardance, but not the caption. To me, it makes a whole lot of sense. The judges are very smart. Apparently they know that the the U.K News Paper could just find a photo of president Taylor and plaster it on the front page of their paper and just write what ever the heck they want to write. What they are writing may/may not be true. Moreso, the writing is not under oath. As the result, the judges did accept the caption as exhibit or evidence. Folks, Taylor is winning this thing openly.
ANYAH: Madam President, Mr Griffiths has carriage of
the next witness. May he be heard from your Honours.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I beg your pardon, Mr Griffiths.
MR GRIFFITHS: Madam President, I will be dealing with the
next witness who bears the appellation DCT-125.
Reply
Are you with this trial or are you here to distract us from concentrating on the main issues here that involved sexual slavery, rapes, gross abuse of basic rights of the people and many more that this man stands accused of? who really cares about this long posting that seems to just take up space? Who cares how many days smytes train with taylor, had dinner, or drank beer at mataba training camp? What is inportant here is the facts that taylor and this witness contradict one another several times, Jose! that is the Prosecution’s point and objective, Jose! Chill out a bit Buddy!
Fallah,
I can understand how tough it is for the prosecution. I certainly also understand how rough and tumble it might be for the prosecution and its supporters to see the disproportionate acceptance of almost all of Yanks Smythe’s evidences as compare to the little bit of the prosecution evidence. Fallah, not even close.
Fallah, how is this any distraction? I posted the two sides evidence that was presented in court. I certainly posted what the judges accepted from both sides as evidence. How is this being a distraction from the case? UNBELIEVABLE.
Folks, President Taylor is winning this thing openly. There is no other way to put it.
Hi Tracey,
Alpha is a cool. The picture I had painted in my mind of Alpha was an old man out of shape with a big belly from the old school.
This is despicable, to me, for someone to be interested in knowing how reporter looks.. and etc! Is this getting weird or is this a joke? I really think people should respect others personal space, to say the least! This Liberian mentality of establishment of relations just from brief acquaintace is not only silly, but seems bizarre. Let’s focus on the trial of this mass accuser,taylor, for God’s sake, my people!
As far as I am concern you are moribund .You are the less puissant person on this site. It is preposterous for you to refer to someone as silly, bizarre or having a Liberian mentality. What is the Liberian mentality? You are being very inquisitive. Tracy and Alpha are capable of defending themselves.
Thanks Big Joe. There is a saying ” he who knows not, and knows he knows not, is wise.”
Sorry Mr.Joe, the above comment was meant for Big B, my dear brother!
J fallah menjor,
This is considered a social site also. If we would like to see pictures of Alpha, Tracey and even maybe you. I don’t see that as a problem.
I wouldn’t advise that you or Alpha submit photos to these guys. What ulterio motive do they have? I don’t think I would trust anybody, since there is a saying that “Birds of the same feathers flock together” If there is any future disturbaces in Liberia, we can predict from whence…..Let’s get back to the basics tomorrow. I want to see Justice Served to taylor. Too many lives are involved to play games here! We want total vidict to jail or free taylor to go back to liberia to rule after Ellen’s second term, that is being welcome by 98% of Liberians! that is my concern here!
Dear J. Fallah Menjor — thank you for raising your concerns with us here.
You are indeed right that it is important for us not to lose focus on the main purpose of this site: that is, to discuss the issues emerging from the Taylor trial.
Best,
Tracey
Fallah,
You don’t have a nano of an authority to provide advisory services to Tracey. Myself likes to see her foto because I feel she’s a beautiful lady, and I love to see beautiful ladies .So please, Tracey don’t listen to Fallah . He’s a shy person. I don’t know why…..ha..ha..
Mr Fallah Menjor Charles Taylor is now a dead beat former rebel leader who is fighting for his own life he’ll not be able to hurt anybod even if he will be able go free and Liberia is awaiting him too anyway I want to thank to Alpha and Tracy for the good job they are doing on this site please keep it on GREAT JOB !!
Thank you so much, Joe, for your words of encouragement and support for Alpha and I.
Best,
Tracey
Joe,
Your comments of “Liberia is awaiting him anyway, if he will be able to go free”, clearly helps the world to know and understand all the trigger happy war mongers. Why will you go after him? Do you think you can even come close or touch him in Liberia? You have the TRC Report right in Liberia and in front of you, and yet, the current government and their international partners are finding every reason not to implement it. But you are telling us, Liberia awaits Taylor anyway if he is acquitted. Way to go boss.
Joe, what do you mean anyway when you say that “even if he is to be able to go free, Liberia awaits him”? How and why? Are you aware that Ellen said Liberia has no charge on him when she was turning Liberia beloved president over?
Noko4, do you see now what I was telling you? When I say, let the TRC Report be implemented now while Ellen is still president and Taylor is still in the custody of the powerful? I know what I am talking about, because I understand these guys trick.
That report primarily is for Taylor and his people. But thank God Jerome Vodier did one thing for Liberia by including Ellen in that report. Hadn’t been for it, boy boy, long time that report is being implemented. In fact, speaking about Vodier, I remember just like yesterday. In 2006, there was a Town Hall meeting in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. I told Chairman Jerome Vodier how powerful of a man he is as the result of being chairman of the TRC. I also told him that he has the means of restoring lasting peace or plunging the country back into war. He listened to me very quietly. I asked him to be fair in the process and not to cherry pick, especially when it comes to the so-called progressives, like Dr. Sawyer, Dr. Fahnbullah, Dr. Patrick Sayon, Brownie Samukai and ect. One of the reasons why I stressed on those names was because I know he is a part of that group and I did not want him to be lenient on those guys. Anyways, he concluded by saying “I will do my best.” However, just what I was talking about came to be true. Those guys names are not mentioned.
So Joe, please tell the world more about your comment that says “even if he is able to go free Liberia awaits him anyway.”
People of Sierra Leone. I hope you are paying attention to these comments. Some of these Liberians that are saying things against Taylor in disguise of Sierra Leone, are not doing it because they are seeking your interest. Instead, they are using your good name in seeking their own political agenda/interest.
Jose,
Pekin, you know when the cat is not around, mice , rats coach roaches,pupu fly and house fly will all be jumping all over the place. Joe is only saying what he’s saying now, because the Zoe Ghankay is not out yet. But , my brother ,watch it, how long. All the big mouth they are making around here will soon be over. I bet, the day Mr. Taylor is set free, most of these guys will never be able to travel to Liberia. They will all be afraid like bunch of girls…
The image of taylor should be the one for the Liberian to be concerned with at this moment. Not the image of others! Taylor is our main image of focus here and nothing else. This is the guy who thought Liberia was his personal domain and Liberians as second class citizens that deserved no basic rights since they could be killed, raped, BBQed, or sold into slavery across West African Refugee camps at will! Anyone who takes this lightly is not only welcoming future acts of revenge, but showing insensitivity of this grave matter. There needs to be concerns about the future of Liberia and what may come next after this..because people may not be as ignorant this time around! At least I know the difference between Proper and Improper Noun! I remain truly jfallahmenjor.
J fallah manjor,
Apparently you just don’t get it. Revisit the 11 counts indictment, there is nothing in the indictment that pertains to Liberia. Don’t “ambush” the indictment. Stop asserting as though President is being indicted for crime he committed in Liberia. Writing loosely with out substantial evidence is not only dangerous but misleading. After all, many people believe what they read.
You are now speaking from the two corners of your mouth. Before, you always said that President Taylor is guilty. Now, all of a sudden you are talking about guilty or not guilty. Are you beginning to smell what the defense is cooking?
Lastly, I am perplexed why would Tracey commend you in the same posting you call other reader names.
Big B,
Tracey did the same “thank you thing” to Joe after he said what he had to say about President Taylor acquittal in his March 9, 2010 @12:12 AM post and how Liberia awaits him even if he is to be set free.
Good obversation Big B. I don’t know her strategy. Perhaps, she is trying to help the drowning side by saying thanks to them in a piece that they have ranted in already, or she probably doesn’t understand these guys tricks of invoking she and or Alpha name after their rants in order to be grnated some legitimacy. What ever the case is, good observation.
Thanks Jose,
Tracey doesn’t have a dog in this fight; my advice to her is to stay out!
Hi Big B – my hope is that there is no fight to be in here, just a discussion among people with an interest in the trial. I remain grateful for people’s contributions, and I think I have made my stance on personal attacks clear: they are not allowed.
Best, as always,
Tracey
Hi Tracey,
When I mentioned that you do not have a dog in the fight, my intent was not a physical fight. In the United States the phase not having a “dog in the fight” means neutrality. Not taking side in a dispute.
Thanks and best regards.
Oh, I understand now, Big B. Thanks for clarifying. You are correct — my role is to be neutral in this debate. (And I now have learned a new phrase as well!)
Best,
Tracey
Tracey,
When will we get the SUMMARY of Mr. Taylor from the LEGAL group?? The pros and cons??
Hi Noko4 — I will check in with them. Good question.
Best,
Tracey
Mr. Griffins,
Will you allow Mr. Taylor to accept a deal from the prosecutors?
The prosecutors may want to know and indict the entire financiers, like Col. Kaddafi of Libya, Bliese Comparee of Burkina Faso and maybe Mrs. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. I strongly believe these people are equally responsible for the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone as Mr. Taylor who was the actual executor and so should be prosecuted as well.
Albert Zaza,
President Blaise Campoire of Burkina Faso is also indicted in this very case with President Taylor as being a co-conspirator.
TO all the Taylor supporters,what would you say if CT was found guilty, would you say the trial was unfair, tinted, political, the West is Evil, the West is the Devil, etc.
Or if he’s found not guilty would the trial then be consider fair.
JOhn Thompson,
This is a political trial first and fore most. If he is found guilty I believe it will be not so much for the evidence presented but by the pressures from the powers that be. Remember the UK already volunteered a cell for Taylor before the trial even begun. If they wanted to even show a hint of being fair they should have offered Taylor political asylum if he was found not guilty also. As we all know they did not do this.
Sorry but “fight” is what most admirers of violence promote! But as civilized individuals, we will continue to show civility on this site despite the temptations posed by few disgruntled individuals that have no significant contributions to make to mankind nor their Motherland, but to create atmosphere that breed hatred.
I am grateful for being able to participate in the debate on this trial, because I now truly know the general thoughts of most from the Motherland. I do not regret being away from the Motherland for 26 years! yes, I love the West and its Peoples because there is justice at least and no body talks garbage to anyone without consequences of their acts!
Tracey,
quick question.. Can an indictee serve as a witness for another?
Hi Noko5 — that is an excellent question. In fact, the Special Court has already issued a paper about this regarding other people who have been convicted by the Special COurt and whether they can appear as witnesses.
In short, Justice Winter, in her capacity as President of the Special Court, decided that people who had been convicted by the Special Court may indeed be allowed to appear as witnesses if the prosecution or defense ask for them to be a witness in a different case. So for example, one of the RUF commanders who were convicted by the Special Court, for example, Issa Sesay, could technically be allowed to give testimony in Mr. Taylor’s case if either the prosecution or defense team requested it. The prosecution or the defense would need to first apply to the judges to have that person appear as a witness, the judges may decide that the person can either give evidence remotely (that is, through video- or audio-link if htat can be arranged) or else be transferred to The Hague to give evidence in person.
You can find the full document here — it is short — only 2 pages — if you want to read it: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=A5AdltbuIek%3d&tabid=176.
Best,
Tracey
Thanks Tracey…
You’re most welcome, Noko5.
Best,
Tracey