Charles Taylor, The ICC, and Why Syria Still Matters

From 1997-2002, Sierra Leone was engaged in a brutal civil war. 50,000 people died during the 11-year conflict, but that statistic is not why Sierra Leone is remembered. 

On March 23, 1991, The Revolutionary United Front (RUF), supported by Liberian President Charles Taylor, attempted to overthrow Sierra Leone's established government. Throughout the ensuing conflict, there were widespread reports that the RUF recruited child soldiers, drugged their soldiers, and encouraged their soldiers to embark on a campaign designed to terrorize the citizens of Sierra Leone. This campaign of terror included rape, mutilation (known as "short sleeves" for amputations above the elbow or "long sleeves" for amputations above the wrist), and beheading. On April 26, 2012, Charles Taylor was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and aiding and abetting acts of terror. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Last Thursday, (September 26) Charles Taylor lost his final appeal at the International Criminal Court

Charles Taylor

(ICC). Mr. Taylor's attorneys argued that a 50 year sentence for "aiding and abetting" was extreme. They argued that legal precedent differentiates between the person(s) who actually committed the crime and the individuals who lent support to the perpetrators. His attorneys argue that Mr. Taylor was not personally responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. Instead, he aided in the crimes inadvertently. Mr. Taylor provided supplies to the RUF that included vehicles and other supplies that are generally used in an non-offensive and non-criminal way. His attorneys suggest that he should not be held accountable for how the RUF chose to utilize his support.

The ICC disagreed and their ruling has important implications for the United States' role abroad. Instead of supporting Mr. Taylor's claims that "aiding and abetting" is an inferior crime, the ICC broadened the definition that term.

According to the Associated Press it is no longer required, "that to prove a leader has aided and abetted a crime, the assistance has to be specifically directed at committing a crime." Instead, if the aid provided was used for criminal purposes and if the lending country/individual understood that the aid was at risk for abuse, that leader can be tried and convicted for war crimes.

The Implications for Syria

Obviously this had broad implications for any country involving itself in the affairs and intrigues of other nations and it quite clearly has profound implications for the United States.

There is no "rebel faction" fighting in Syria. There are multiple rebel factions, some of whom are allied with Al Qaida. Americans may no longer be facing the immediate threat of our bombing the Syrians, but we are facing the reality that our government has now begun to arm certain rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Will our resources be used appropriately? Have our national leaders considered the possibility that our well-intentioned aid could fall into the hands of rebels who desire to inflict terror upon the citizens of Syria? These are important questions, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the Fast and Furious scandal. Both the international community and the United States people are wary of U.S. involvement in foreign disputes and while the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the actions of U.S. leaders, a condemnation by an institution with the kind of prestige that the ICC carries, would do irreparable damage to our credibility abroad. Not to mention that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, if we arm soldiers who use our supplies for evil, there is a strong possibility that we are morally culpable for the crimes they perpetrate.

Sources:

U.S. Weapons Reaching Syrian Rebels
Liberia's Charles Taylor Loses Appeal Against War Crimes Conviction
Court Upholds 50 Years for Liberia's Taylor
Link to BBC World News Radio Report- 1st Story