BY GLENNA GORDON | JULY 28, 2009
The Sierra Leonean government and the United Nations established the Special Court to try those who bear the greatest responsibility for the decade-long war that displaced a third of the country’s population of six million and left tens of thousands dead. During the war, which started in 1991, armed factions funded and supplied by countries like Liberia and Libya battled for control of Sierra Leone’s diamond mines. They used revolutionary rhetoric and sheer brutality to recruit young men, and often children, to their swelling ranks — and to the decimation of Sierra Leone.
All the other cases that have been and will be tried by the Special Court have taken place in this very room.
But not Taylor’s. The Special Court indicted him on 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Sierra Leoneans and the international community agreed that trying him in Freetown was a grave threat to regional security. He still enjoys widespread popular support in Liberia to this day. The fear that his supporters would return to Sierra Leone and wreak more havoc was very real.
His case was transferred to The Hague, to keep him and Sierra Leone safe. It streams live across the world over the Internet. And it is broadcast in this courtroom in Freetown.
As I write this, Taylor is identifying people by name in a faded color photograph, 3,200 miles away. Not that most Sierra Leoneans care. Taylor has brutalized and terrorized this country since 1991. His case sparked a flurry of interest at first. But now, most seem more interested in moving forward than looking back at the Liberian strongman they blame for most of their problems.
4 Comments
Does innocent-until-proven-guilty apply in this case?
[Reply]
It does – but the idea of innocent until proven guilty is not too widespread in the land of mob justice. I think that's one of the reasons Sierra Leoneans are so disconnected from the case – that concept doesn't resonate, especially since they're sure he's guilty.
[Reply]
Ah, but the idea is in place precisely to counter the kind of extra-judicial condemnation that they (the people Sierra Leone) are handing out. Them and this blog post (heading).
I'm sure there are many that we are "sure" are innocent, yet who are probably not. George Walker Bush, for one. Anyway, I wish there was a bit more of the subjunctive in that title. It's too strong a condemnation of someone who, at the very least, possibly only had as much power as any single one of his foot-soldiers did to say "No!" to these crimes he's already been condemned for.
Would anyone believe him if he pulled out a piece of paper with names of American politicians and generals who were his commanders? I wouldn't, but that's just me.
)
Maybe I'm just being the classical advocatus diaboli. It must the Ugandan in me that's saying loudly: Innocent Until Proven Guilty!
Cheers.
[Reply]
You're right that the headline says "warlord" and not "accused warlord." But, there's certainly consensus that he was a warlord, I think the court is trying to prove some of the claims specifically though.
It it makes you feel any better (which it probably won't) I didn't write the headline.
[Reply]
Post a Comment