Thanks,

Dave

You tell me. However, I asked you a simple question based on your assertion that President Taylor escaped from justice for the Liberian lives lost. You however, failed to answered. Nontheless, the question was/is, which court in Liberia that has prosecuted the likes of Mr. Taylor in the context of rebel war?

Samuel Doe is dead therefore he cannot be brought to court. With regards to the other horrible incidents in Liberia’s history, perpertrators should be brought to justice without reference to association or affiliation. Anybody who committed crimes against the Liberian people should be held accountable. This will not only give value to those violated, but it will also serve as a deterent to future violators that you cannot kill people, take an entire country hostage and committ inhumane acts against its populace with impunity. There are lots of people that are not so ingenuitive and are waiting to copy tyrants and rebels alike, therefore the sooner we can put stop to this vicious cycle of violence, the sooner we can live as a civil society.

Just to add more background as food for further conversation about the international justice courts: there is now a hybrid court operating in Cambodia for the Khmer Rouge crimes of the 1970s – one of the people indicted is the former head of state during that period, Kheiu Samphan. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was set up in 1993 to try people most responsible for the balkans war in Europe, and it included the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (although the case never came to the point of judgment as Mr. Milosevic died before his case concluded) and so far has indicted and prosecuted 161 people; and the International Criminal Court – while its current cases are all in Africa – is also analyzing a number of other countries to determine whether to take them up as cases: this includes Georgia; Colombia; Palestine; and Afghanistan.

Best,
Tracey

In regards to the issue raised as to why the interantional Courts seem to only prosecute African leaders, I am also of that opinion. Yes they throw in one or two Eastern European leader for effect but the actual people they are constantly persuing are Africans.

I do not believe that this is because there are no adequate justice system in Africa, it is rather another means by which the West is exercing superiority and world dominance. Again they claim that we do not have any courts in Africa. They have brought to Africans a foreign political system called democracy which is not always compatible with the traditional African way of life. AFRICANS PRACTICED THEIR UNIQUE FORM OF DEMOCRACY FOR CENTURIES AND IT WORKED. Over the centuries we had leaders that governed and listened to the views of their people and had the coorperation and consensus of their people. It worked then. The West however came and brought their form of democracy that is contrary in some respects to the culture of a collectivist African social structure. This helped to disentegrate the moral fabric and social structure of our societies. As a result of this their has been persistent instability.

Africans have to be left alone to formulate a system of governance that works for them without constant intervention from the socalled western international institutions. It took the West several hundred years to develop their unique form of democrasy, so why are they faulting us as we develope ours?

I am not saying that Africans should be given a carte blanche to committ atrocities; however, I believe the prosecutions of Africans should be by Africans and not the West, especially when it tis the west who in most cases are at the root of many of the conflicts in Africa in the first place.

Another point to note is that whenever a Eurpoean or person from the West is a party to any of the atrocities in Africa, they are always let off on some watered down charge or most times not charged at all and are allowed to live normally. So why are they different? In the case of South African apathied, the West did not rest until they negotiated for a truth and reconciliation commission, despite the fact that these crimes were so heineous that they make even the strong minded cringe. We then look at Sierra Leone where Sandline and Executive Outcome have been implcated in the crimes committed but they are immuned from any from of prosecution. Is it because they are of European decent?

The whole concept of international justice has become a tool of the West to punish those who do not fall in line with them and what they want (world dominance). There have very well been African leaders who if following their logic should have been on trial but simply because they are stooges or friends of the west, are left alone.

one other example is with the atrocities being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are those generals, commanders and those that bear the greatest responsibilities not prosecuted? Those Americans that committed the atrocities are given very short sentences. Is this justice? If these atrocities had been committed by any other smal country, they would be in the Hague facing war crimes; but not Americans or British citizens. They are untouchable. The Americans have gone to the extent of getting countries to sign up to the convention stating that US citizens cannot be prosecuted or be held accountable before an international tribunal and yet they (Americans) are the first to call for the prosecution of everyone else except their allies and friends from the West. This is by far not a level playing field.

Yes I do fully agree that this international justice system is biased. I believe it is only for third world countries and emering countries. The developed western countries are the untouchables and can act with impunity whenever they choose.

I totally disagree with your position here. It is through processes such as this that the real truth is heard by the world. This is the second decade of the millenium where individuals are capable of thinking for themselves and can no longer be fooled as they were in the last decade.

The world is watching the international justice system and they are also no trial here in this case. If they bring a guilty verdict without evidence it will serve as a very dangerous precedent and will totally undermine the credibility of an already very fragile international justice system. Those involved I am sure are wise enough to know this.

As to your insistance that Taylor will start war in the region, is to assume that he is the one who is and has been responsible for the wars that raged in the west African region. That is all conjecture and you know that. So Taylor has been incarcerated for over 3 years, is he also responsible for the instability in Guinea? Come on and get real here.

What is the relevance of mentioning all those institutions? They are not all responsible for international justice and many of them are very flawed in their decisions and conclusions, as we are getting to see.

As for the fact of former Taylor officials still languishing on a Travel Ban and Asset Freeze is a total travesty of justice and indeed an embarassment for the UN. It is in violation of their very Charter and the Universal rights of a human being as spelt out in the Universal Declarration of Human Rights, which serves as a guideline for all humanitarian rights. If anyone is smart enough, they will be not gloating over the UN being a vein by which the rights of individuals to fair trial and recourse before a competent jurisdiction before being penalized, is denied; but we all would be demanding that the UN do the right thing and either charge those individuals and thus give them an opportunity to defend themselves or release them immediately.

This entire sanction regime on individuals is tantamount to detention without trial that they speak out against so vehemently. Are you aware of this? Do you know that many of these individuals do not even know why they are on the list and have not been told despite persistent efforts being made by lawyers and themselves. Do you think this is a way the international system should be run? Should individuals not have a right to a fair trial? I should hope not.

You may dislike Mr Taylor but face it the prosecution has been very sloppy and given a very dismal performance. They have gravely fallen short of presenting any tangible evidence on this man. The whole process is becoming very comical. Even you can see this.

If the man is not guilty of the crimes he will walk; and as seen thus far there is no evidence presented that alludes to guilt. The fact that you think he is evil without evidence is irrevelant.

You and your Human Right people should start investigating your role first in African conflicts. You and your Human Right people should start asking the question of how arms and ammunition are sent to Africa, when in fact, these people do not have arm factories. You and your Human Right people should start looking at western government double standard first. However, I know you need a job. But not in our names.