Why are Naomi Campbell and Mia Farrow testifying in Charles Taylor’s war crimes trial. I understand why uncut diamonds are forbidden, but the trial isn’t about whether these women have or had an uncut diamond. It’s about Taylor’s actions. So, what do these two celebrities have to do with anything?
Apparently, the question is whether or not Charles Taylor gave Naomi Campbell an uncut diamond. The prosecution is claiming he did, which shows that he had these diamonds, suggesting that he participated in the illegal diamond trade.
This may be a stupid question, but was Naomi Campbell compelled to testify? How exactly? IIRC a report I saw on CNN stated that she did not want to testify but “had” to. If the UN decided I knew something about Charles Taylor and subpoenaed (sp?) me in the US, why couldn’t I just tell them to jump in a lake? Who is going to come get me and force me to show up?
I’d assume agents of the US government. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is a United Nations tribunal operating with US cooperation, and a US judge.
I suppose, but I can’t think of a single example where the US has allowed the UN to haul a citizen out of the country against their will to appear as a witness.
If this UN tribunal wanted Mia Farrow to testify, she refused and government agents showed up in Hollywood, cuffed her, hauled her aboad a plane and flew her out of the country, that would create a pretty big “new world order” firestorm it would seem.
It is possible that, while not compelled in the sense of being physically dragged to the venue, various pressures could have been brought to bear on Ms. Campbell such that she felt “forced” to testify. Particularly for a celeb who might need to travel internationally for her profession, pissing off other countries might not be a good idea.
This article from the AP explains it. Snippets ensue:
So apparently the The Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague has the ability to compel British authorities to take Campbell into custody and deliver her to the court, and to imprison or fine her if she refuses to testify.
The diamonds Naomi Campbell has can be shown the country of origin via atomic signatures. These diamonds came from Sierra Leone during the time of the brutal insurgency there. At that time, the U.N. prohibited trade in these diamonds to prevent the insurgency from using them to trade for weapons.
It is my understanding that Naomi Campbell isn’t being charged with any crime. Her testimony helps connects the illegal trade in these diamonds to Charles Taylor. The testimony is taking place in the Netherlands at the Hague.
At least according to The Special Court for Sierra Leone it does, but the article doesn’t say the British authorities actually did anything to carry out the court’s threats or coerced her to comply in any way.
Just to make sure we avoid confusion, Ms. Campbell is a British citizen, not American.
Not necessarily. It could be that the British government had power to compel Campbell to testify and chose to exercise that power without being itself compelled to do so by the Special Court.
Or that the British government voluntarily entered into treaty obligations to support the tribunal in the same way that it supports British courts, and abided by them. (I don’t think this is the case, though. The government of Sierra Leone has accepted an obligation to enforce witness summonses, etc, but I’m not aware that any other government has. The UK, and a number of other, governments have entered into agreements to enforce sentences of the Special Court; this keeps open the possibility of persons convicted in the Special Court serving their sentences in the UK.)
Or, most likely , that when Campbell says she “had” to testify, she doesn’t mean that she was compelled by by force or by law, but that having received a witness summons she felt constrained by other pressures - social, commercial, whatever - to testify.
The Special Court has an agreement with Sierra Leone, and has an authority under an Act of Parliament of Sierra Leone, to issue witness summonses in the same way that the ordinary courts of Sierra Leone can These are enforceable within Sierra Leone just like an ordeinary witness summons. This means that other countries will treat a Special Court witness summons in the same way that they would treat a witness summons issued by the courts of Sierra Leone. They are both summonses issued under the authority of an Act of the Parliament of Sierra Leone.
No, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t, just that it wasn’t necessary. I would imagine Gideon Benaim, the lawyer who agreed to accept the subpoena on Campbell’s behalf, advised her to appear under the very good likelihood that she would be taken into custody and forced to appear otherwise.
And while I don’t know it for a fact, I would imagine the U.N. court in The Hague has fairly strong subpoena powers among participating nations. It would be difficult to try anybody for anything if the only witnesses who could be compelled to testify were those already in The Hague itself.
But since you raise the issue, I’ll ferret about the internet and see if I can find some conclusive information.
And UDS, you’re right. “Compelled” was a poor choice of words. I was thinking that any actions taken by the British authorities would have been voluntary.
ETA: In light of **UDS’ **informative post I see no need for further ferreting on my part.
Thanks everyone for the discussion. So, if I’m understanding correctly, the prosecution wants Campbell to say that she got the diamond from Taylor. If that is so, then this is evidence that Taylor has used uncut diamonds to finance his activities in Sierra Leone. So, assuming that he did give the diamond to Campbell, why would he do that? Campbell doesn’t have guns to give him. (At least, I’m assuming she doesn’t. Super model and gun-runner seems a strange dual occupation.) But now, Mia Farrow’s testimony conflicts with Campbell’s.
Clearly I am missing something because this just seems to so strange to me. Campbell and Farrow are wealthy enough to legitimately purchase nearly any diamond they would like. This evil guy gives Campbell an uncut diamond (why?) and Campbell, suspecting it is illegal, shows it off to her friends, including Farrow. Why would Campbell accept a diamond from Taylor? How does she intersect with him? I don’t typically pay a lot of attention to celeb gossip, but, in this case, it seems that these celebs have gotten involved in something legitimately serious. However, the press that I’ve seen seems to cover it like Lindsey Lohan’s latest legal woes.
You mean - why would this corrupt and powerful man give an unusual and valuable trinket to a famous, wealthy, glamourous woman widely held to be among the most beautiful on the planet? Really? Why would it be anything more complicated than ‘powerful man wants to show how powerful he is, on the offchance pretty lady might think sexy thoughts about him’? Mia Farrow, although undoubtedly a better actress, and IMO seeming to be a better class of human being generally, didn’t get a diamond - but then she’s got x years on Naomi Campbell and hasn’t made her entire career on her beauty.
Not quite. It’s evidence that he had access to uncut diamonds, and used them for other purposes (to impress, to seek after status). This doesn’t prove that he used them to finance a war. But it does refute his claim that he had no access to them, and so couldn’t have used them to finance the war. So it helps to breakdown his case, and to build up the prosecution case.
Charley has it. He hopes to impress with his power, his wealth and his generosity. He hopes to benefit from associating with the cosmopolitan glamour that (he thinks) Campbell represents. Is he hoping to get laid? Probably not or, at least, not primarily. He’s just hoping to get noticed, and he thinks that cultivating an association with Campbell will get him noticed. Why was Campbell even invited to the dinner in the first place? The charity for whose benefit the dinner was given hoped to benefit from associating with her.
For the same reason that boxers or footballers might hang out with underworld bosses. Just as Taylor is seeking to benefit from an association with cosmopolitan glamour, so Campbell is seeking the visible approbation of powerful and wealthy men. That is why she accepts the diamond, and that is why she shows it off. She’s not interested in the intrinsic value of the diamond, which in fact she gave away shortly afterwards.
Naturally they do. There are celebs involved.
From the testimony of Carol White, Campbell had to be convinced to give the diamonds to the Mandela charity, on the basis that it may be illegal to take the diamonds from South Africa. I’m pretty sure Campbell wanted to keep them - she did not need them, but such a gift would appeal to her vanity. The guy from the charity realised that there may be deeper problems with the diamonds (possibly compromising the charity) and so held on to them, and has now passed them to the authorities.
Si
Or, to misquote Serge Gainsbourg, 'e wanted to fuck 'er.
You can’t think of a single example because it doesn’t work like that.
If a US citizen were to be required to attend and the US government were cooperating with the summonsing authority they would make it known to the party in question that, if they did not attend voluntarily, they would be arrested and suffer the ignominy of being shipped out of the country in the same way as a common criminal.
So what you really haven’t seen is any instance of such a situation where the person in question has decided to force the US government to arrest them and suffer being forcibly sent to testify - in order to make some point.
It’s not so straighforward. The efforts of some notwithstanding, the US government does actually need a lawful authority to arrest a US citizen and deport them to another country. “We want to please the authorities in country X” isn’t enough.
In a nutshell, the Gubmin can’t arrest someone “in the same way as a common criminal” unless that person is, in fact, a common criminal, or the Gubmin can point to some other legal authority for treating them in that way.
I thought it would be taken as read that when I said “US government were cooperating” that I meant they had a legal basis for such cooperation - i.e. there existed a legally enforceable treaty obligation.