Robert Blair: In Defense of Charles Taylor

This blog was written by Robert Blair at Huffington Post. We received permission from Mr. Blair to cross-post it here. We ask that, if you have a Huffington Post account, you leave any comments there.

------------------------------------

It is beyond my imagination that anyone would believe the president of Liberia would go into Sierra Leone because he wants to terrorize the people and take their wealth.

That was Liberian warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor testifying at The Hague this week for his role in the Sierra Leonean civil war, a conflict that raged for 11 years and claimed nearly 50,000 lives. Taylor has been alternately cogent and bombastic in his own defense. Not surprisingly, the more lurid details from the trial have provided the most popular grist for the media mill both in Liberia and abroad (see, for example, coverage in the New York Times, ABC, and the Liberian Analyst). With every headline, the charges that Taylor ridicules as beyond the imagination seem only more irrefutable, his crimes more outrageous and cruel.

Meanwhile, to many Liberians, Taylor remains a hero. For foreigners like myself, this is not an easy thing to understand. At times, his popularity seems a byproduct of his savagery. During the Liberian civil war, recruits for Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) were often heard chanting a grim refrain: "He killed my ma, he killed my pa, I'll fight for him." A decade later, this mystique has not dissipated in many pockets of the country. While we in the international peanut gallery gape at the spectacle of the trial - a murderer defending indefensible acts - many Liberians continue to endorse Taylor and his charismatic brutality.

Why?

Over lunch the other day, I asked two Liberian colleagues and ardent Taylor fans to explain to me their views on the trial. Johannson Dahn and Zeleh Kolubah (featured in this blog post as well) once fought as rebels in the NPFL. They now work at the National Ex-combatant Peacebuilding Initiative, a local NGO that provides psychosocial counseling for veterans of the war. Taking particularly sharp aim at the U.S. and its inept meddling in Liberia over the past two decades, Dahn and Kolubah offered an eloquent if not always convincing defense of their former commander-in-chief. This is what they told me.

For my Liberian colleagues, the sham of Taylor's trial began with his election as president in 1997 and the almost instantaneous calls for his resignation from around the world. "There was a serious war being fought in Liberia," explains Dahn. "Taylor was elected by the Liberian people. He had a mandate to protect their lives and property." Of the voices demanding Taylor's removal, none was so hypocritical as that of the Americans. When the war erupted in 1989, some 2,000 heavily-armed American Marines were stationed just off the Liberian coast. But then-President George H.W. Bush refused to send a single American soldier to help diffuse the crisis, and when a smaller contingent finally grounded in Monrovia, they were ordered only to protect the enormous embassy compound and the American civilians hiding inside. Throughout the subsequent 14 years of war, the American government sat on its hands as thousands of Liberians were slaughtered. Asks Dahn: "What interest did the Americans have in telling Taylor to leave if they did not have any interest in protecting the Liberians themselves?"

Taylor's indictment was no more lawful or legitimate than his exile in 2003. Now it was Bush the Younger's turn to tinker with Liberian politics. "The indictment was carried to the White House for review and revision," says Dahn. "Why? Is that the advisory board to The Hague?" Taylor is accused of 11 counts of war crimes in Sierra Leone. This is the stuff you'll recognize from Hollywood: cannibalism, child soldiers, sex slaves, hands, ears, and noses hacked off as punishment for minor misdeeds or for no reason at all.

To Kolubah, this is nonsense. "I fought with the NPFL," he explains. "We did not forcefully amputate people." The fact that forced amputation never entered the NPFL's repertoire suggests that someone other than Taylor must have been calling the shots in Sierra Leone. "If Taylor cannot be linked to forced amputation," asks Dahn, "then how can he be linked to massacres and other war crimes?" Who, then, is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated there? Dahn offers a categorical answer: "The Sierra Leoneans themselves."

And what of the crimes committed in Liberia? In the press, much has been made of Taylor's justifications for the grisly NPFL tactic of mounting human heads at road blocks as warnings to passersby. "Yes, it's true," says Dahn. "When enemy soldiers got killed, the bodies were used to instill fear in the advancing enemy." But this, he argues, is no different from the signage we use in the West to warn each other away from hazardous things. "On some of the chemicals you produce, we see signs with human skulls and cross-bones. What do those signs mean? They mean death. They mean danger."

When I suggest that there is a difference between a drawing of a skull and the real thing - and that, in any event, the dead deserve a proper burial - Dahn agrees. "But this was a warzone," he says. "There was no chance to bury the dead because of sustained gunfire and enemy attacks. And which one will be more fearful? A head that is dead and rotting? Or a silly picture?"

These arguments may not persuade you of Taylor's innocence, just as the trial will not convince many Liberians of his guilt. Loyalties die hard. For those of us watching from the comfort of our Western sensibilities, it is tempting to explain away this devotion as the result of ignorance or dogma. How can so many Liberians still adore Taylor after all we've learned about his crimes? Don't these people read the newspaper?

In reality, loyalties survive for reasons steeped in culture and history, story-telling and myth-making. The same lesson that Dahn and Kolubah teach about Liberia applies to the U.S. as well, where our own political allegiances seem sometimes to defy empirical evidence. The experiences of our two countries are hardly comparable, but the point is the same.

Meanwhile, as Taylor takes the stand for crimes that Dahn and Kolubah insist he did not commit, the other architects of the Liberian crisis are free to live, work, and hold office in their home country. Dahn calls them Charlie's Angels: "They're clean. Pure from heaven. No spot on them. But they are imposters." Taylor is their "sacrificial lamb" - a "brave, generous man," a man "who does not lie," a "humanitarian." Says Dahn: "All these white collar guys you see around here in the big vehicles, supported by Americans. They are very good planners of very bad things. And they have met their match: Charles Taylor. Oh yeah."

The Future: Collaboration

How would you feel if everyone you added to an email could edit it all they want? It sounds like it could be a disaster. One of your friends editing your words, childishly making it appear as if you are telling everyone that you eat poop. If that is not your first thought, you probably have not spent enough time in online networking sites, or in middle school. So, while there are many interesting possibilities, there is also that danger of immature... "input" we'll call it. Especially when you open up the wave to the general public.

This may sound like a ridiculous idea to some, but that is exactly what Google is doing with the Wave. We were lucky enough to snag one of the developer accounts, and subsequently have had trouble walking away from the computer for the last few days. Since the Wave is still closed to the public, the only chance to truly interact with others is through waves that are opened up to all the developers. Apparently 6,000 people (and counting) can participate in these waves. So you would expect to find at least one childish, annoying little bastard who just wants to mess with people. Yet that isn't happening.

Le'ts take the wave detailing different extensions and robots as an example.This wave is open to everyone, and anyone can reply or edit. What you'll find when you enter it, is the power of collaboration. Rather than resting the responsibility on one person to locate all these extensions, find out what they do, and add the details, the responsibility is on all of us. Thanks to the playback feature, I can show you exactly how this works. In this picture, you'll notice that at step 158, when I was added to the wave, the Bit.ly bot (bottom of the first list of accounts) has no description by it. Obviously that isn't very helpful.


In this next picture, you'll see that I edited the original post, adding a description of the Bit.ly bot. Anyone looking at the screen at that moment, would have seen my typing live. They would see every letter I typed.



Some may say, well this isn't that different from google docs. Which is slightly true, you can collaboratively edit documents in google docs. But google docs don't have gadgets, robots, and extensions that add maps, video, and images, links you up with twitter, facebook, and blogger, translates live typing into almost any language, corrects spelling, shortens URLs, creates polls, checklists, charts, and event attendee lists... etc. And google docs don't have email.

Essentially, we have never seen collaboration at this level from our web browsers. The Wave is supposedly going to be available in a beta version some time in September. So get ready. It is going to revolutionize how we think about communicating online.

Abortion Clinic Escorting Day One: The Sidewalk Dynamic

My first escorting experience was a lot different than Will's was last week. Though we both had about the same number of Anti-abortion protesters ('Anti's'), the ones at my location were a lot more mellow, probably because I was in a progressive, pro-choice part of town. This clinic apparently also has a lot of seasonal protesters, who take the summer off. Many of the Anti's simply prayed outside in front of the clinic, each with rosary in hand, and made no attempt to interact, much less convert or berate any women entering the clinic. Some prayed out loud, some just mouthed their devotions, with a barely audible 'Hail Mary' here and there. One woman's routine actually included some singing. She broke out with a few operatic "Ave Maria"s then continue the rest under her breath. I found my self wondering if they were saying the same prayer, if they each had individual prayers to say, or if they were rotating invocations. I could clearly tell that 'Hail Mary's' were involved here and there, but I couldn't tell if their repertoire went any deeper.

The importance and influence of religion is quite striking. Since each and everyone had a rosary (at least one, apparently they give them out) I'm pretty sure each and every protester was Catholic. I had assumed that many of the protesters would be Catholic, but I didn't expect every single one of them to be. I know that there are people who aren't Catholic who are against abortion and I know that some Catholics are pro choice, but from what I could tell from my one experience today, those who protest abortion clinics are predominantly, if not exclusively Catholic. I believe the moral nature of the abortion debate begs the religious separatism, though I am interested to hear and see how a secular anti-abortion approach would manifest.

In talking with the other escorts, I found there was much more diversity. Though I didn't ask all 8 or so of us there, those who I spoke with were all Jewish, Protestant (from one denomination or the other), or not religious. The escorts were from all over, some native to DC and some who moved here at some point in their lives, and worked in a variety of fields. A few of them had been doing this for at least a year, but most of us had only been escorting a few months, if that. A couple mentioned Dr Tiller and how his slaying motivated them to take action. To be honest though, it was very difficult to have a legitimate conversation to get to know the fellow escorts. Because we don't know what the protesters might do if they had our personal information, and because many protesters will heckle individual escorts, we don't want to bring up any personal information while they are in earshot. Though it appeared that none of these protesters would escalate to that level, we try to not even use each others first names, just incase.

This meant that most of the morning was spent in relative silence. Some of us spread up and down the block from in front of the clinic where all of the Anti's were, in order to be closer to approaching women, and got a chance to chat a bit more during the down time. But for the most part, much of the day is a very awkward coexistence on the sidewalk. On the street side, there is a line of Anti's praying to themselves and observing. On the other side of the sidewalk and onto the lawn of the clinic were several escorts standing in silence so the Anti's have nothing on us. There appeared to be an uneasy respect between both crowds. Everyone involved has been moved by their own beliefs to take action, just their beliefs and subsequent actions vary widely. So we all stand there (or, in my case, pace around a bit) looking at each other, uneasily but cordially, waiting for someone to approach.

Since I mostly observed, I'm going to hold off on going into the details of what actually escorting people into the clinic is like until I've done it some more. But my first day was a great transition to escorting. As opposed to Will who's first few experiences were a baptism by fire (no pun intended), my experience today was quite fulfilling and educational but ultimately uneventful. I receive a lot of appreciation for just being there though, which was quite nice. The bright orange shirts "Pro-Choice Escort" shirts make us stand out and we were thanked by both clinic attendees and random individuals alike, which made it all worthwhile.

I very much look forward to my next escorting experience. I feel a lot more comfortable after my first day and will share how my next one goes. If you live in the greater Washington Metropolitan region and are interested in escorting yourself, go to WACDTF. If you live elsewhere, contact your local clinic or contact us with questions and we will try to pass them along to the right people. Please keep checking back to Sum of Change for more information about our experiences and our documentary project. Thanks and I'll talk to y'all again soon.

Mitch

A Couple Health Care Myths to Look Out For

So there are tons of myths, and flat out lies, floating around about the health care bill. I will try to run through a few of them for you. (You will notice that I actually put a link to the bill so you can check for yourself, unlike most people that are criticizing it)

Myth 1: Page 16 outlaws private insurance.

Truth: Page 16 details how regulations on private insurance will take effect. These regulations relate to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and consumer protection. In other words, these are the same regulations that President Obama campaigned on and Americans voted for. Page 16 states that these regulations shall not apply to current plans, there is a 5 year grandfather clause, but that they do apply to future plans.

Myth 2: Page 416 forces end of life care on seniors every five years.

Truth: This is a complete and utter lie. First off, page 416 does not say a single thing about "end of life" care. It's page 425-426 that does. But when you actually read it, it does not sound so ridiculous. It does not mandate that they receive end of life care every five years, it says that if it has been more than five years since the last time they received "advance care consultation" than they shall on their next visit. And it is definitely not euthanasia, as the right is most certainly attempting to imply. It is not like a doctor kicks your door down after five years and demands that you get the consultation, but that it will be provided on the next regular check up. And this is to prevent situations like Terry Schiavo that can rip families apart.

WJLA Channel 8 Report on Kidsave

Recently, WJLA Channel 8's Let's Talk Live did a report on Kidsave and the Summer Miracles program. They asked us if we could share our footage from Dulles Airport for their segment, to which we were happy to oblige.




If the embedded video above is not working for you (it sometimes acts funny in firefox), try this link.

Mark Walsh Speaks to Grow the Hope About Messaging

In May, Mark Walsh, founding CEO of Air America and a Democratic media strategist, accepted Grow the Hope's invitation to speak to the community about messaging and media. Many of the people in attendance had rallied behind Obama on his presidential campaign. Their work is not over, however. As David Hart, the founder of Grow the Hope (GTH), would say:

"Electing a smart and moral man as our President was an important step, but it's not enough... The challenges we face are far too massive for any one person to solve alone. The task is not his alone, it is ours together."

Using the lessons they learned during the campaign, and new lessons like Mark Walsh's tips on messaging, members of Grow the Hope are rallying to make real the changes they want to see in the world.

Grow the Hope (GTH) was founded by David Hart and other volunteers from Maryland's Bethesda Obama office. Their goal, is to "nurture the spark of creativity and hope that came alive during the Obama campaign." They have held numerous house meetings since the election, as well as direct actions to make concrete changes in their communities. Recently, we highlighted their efforts to fill food banks and their organizing around health care. Today, we chose to focus on their work to educate their community on messaging. We at Sum of Change have been following GTH, since shortly after the election, to document the work they are doing, and will continue to do so.

nothing to see here...

Just posting a code for Technorati.com

mavdjrf4zp

move along now....