Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed Facing Imminent Deportation


  • Read my op-ed about Congressman Jim McDermott’s private bill.
  • Read the brief submitted by the Department of Justice to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals responding to Mohiuddin’s petition for asylum. It is a damning document that lays out Mohiuddin’s crimes.


Nearly 32 years after he committed his crimes, convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed’s days of evading justice are coming to an end. His petition for rehearing and petition for enbanc hearing have been denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court denied the petition on May 23, 2007. The docket reads [PACER login required]:

Filed order ( Thomas G. NELSON, Eugene E. Siler, Michael D. HAWKINS, ): The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. [6133233-1]  [03-74603] (wp)

He faces deportation to Bangladesh as early as May 31, 2007.

Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington State, has introduced a private bill in the House to try to prevent Mohiuddin’s deportation. The bill is currently referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has no cosponsors. The bill, HR 2181, claims, after the 9th Circuit found him guilty, that Mohiuddin "is an innocent Bangladeshi citizen." The bill aims to do the following:

  • stay Mohiuddin’s deportation indefinitely
  • release Mohiuddin from custody
  • makes Mohiddin eligable for permanent residence
  • gives Mohiuddin and his family preferential treatment in the granting of permanent residence over all other applicants for permanent residence from Bangladesh
  • if Mohiuddin is deported, he shall be permitted to seek asylum in a foreign nation

This appears to be Congressman McDermott’s Terry Schiavo moment. The Congressman should explain why he believes a convicted terrorist deserves permanent residence over all other immigrants who have been patiently waiting in line. The Congressman should also explain why he thinks Mohiuddin is innocent when all courts that have looked at Mohiuddin’s case, including the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, have found him to be duly convicted of murder and terrorism.

Mohiuddin, an former Bangladeshi army officer, of course is now returning to Bangladesh at a time when the political situation there might work in his favor. Nonetheless, the United States Congress should not intervene by passing a private bill on behalf of a convicted terrorist after the courts of the land have ruled. His guilt is not in doubt. 

Certainly, a convicted terrorist should not be given permanent residence in the United States or allowed to escape justice by going into exile.

This entry was posted in Bangladesh, Foreign Policy, Terrorism. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed Facing Imminent Deportation

  1. Mash says:

    Raihan/Rouben, please read my many posts on the subject.

    As you well know, Mohiuddin failed to prove to the 9th circuit court of appeals that his trial was unfair. He failed to prove his trial was unfair to the lower court as well. The US State Department has stated the trial was fair. Amnesty International has not questioned the fairness of the trial.

    None of that apparently is good enough for you. Facts apparently do not matter.

    The bottom line is that you failed, after lengthy court cases, to prove the trial was unfair.

    Add to that that Mohiuddin and his friends Farook, Rashid, etc are quite famous in Bangladesh for their role in the coup, your protestations simply fly in the face of all obvious evidence and all court findings.

    To give you an example of the new found protestations of innocence from Mohiuddin and his fellow Majors, Nur Chowdhury tried to argue in Canadian courts that he was innocent. The Canadian courts rejected his bogus arguments.

    The height of it of course is when coup leader Farook claims his innocence now. Farook of course is the guy who bragged to the Sunday Times of London that he killed Mujib and dared Bangladesh to try him. When Bangladesh did try him, he all of the sudden claimed he was innocent.

    Here’s the famous Sunday Times article from May 30, 1976. It’s titled “I helped kill Mujib, dare you put me on trial?”

    Here’s a quote from Farook when he and the rest of the Majors landed in Bangkok on November 3, 1975. This is from a Washington Post report:

    “Our main guns would have caused a bloodbath among the diplomats, their wives and children,” said Farook. Asked if there wasn’t a certain irony in his concern after he and his fellow junior officers had cold-bloodedly murdered Mujib and his entire family on August 15th, he replied, “We killed only those who had to be removed. Our original plan was to kill just Mujib, but we had no choice. We had to kill the others too, although we’re very sorry about that.”

    Here’s the link. Gee, I wonder where Major Mohiuddin was on November 3, 1975?

    So, yea, Bangladesh definitely got the right guys. The trial was fair and convicted the right people after giving them due process. They continue to get due process since they are in the middle of appeals to higher courts in Bangladesh many years after they were sentenced.

    And, Rouben, if you are trying to claim innocence for your father, it probably doesnt help his case claiming to be an innocent bystander when you name your blog “Revolution of 1975 in Bangladesh“. It kind of makes it sound like you are a supporter of the coup when you are trying to argue that your father was an innocent bystander. Its along the same lines as Farook, the coup leader, calling his political party the “Freedom Party” and launching it on August 15th, the day of the killings – it kinda makes the pleas of innocence sound weak.

  2. Mash says:

    Rouben/Surf’s Up, that’s just great. Blame the law when you are found guilty. I think its quite clear what the 9th circuit said about the fairness of the trial and the fact that the conviction could be relied upon. Here is the text of the decision:

    Mohiuddin A.K.M. Ahmed petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

    Ahmed is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for two reasons:

    (1) because he engaged in terrorist activity, and (2) because he assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of others on account of their political opinion. Even his own account of his actions established that he assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of persons on account of their political opinion.

    Ahmed failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his in absentia murder trial and conviction in Bangladesh was fundamentally unfair and thus deprived him of due process of law. Therefore, the IJ properly relied on the conviction.

    Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s denial of protection under the CAT. Ahmed did not present evidence so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that he would not be tortured if returned to Bangladesh.


    By the way, comparing Mohiuddin to Lech Walesa is a bit much dont you think?

  3. Raihan says:

    Quote #19 “Also, those who are arguing that Mohiuddin did not get due process should note that Mohiuddin got a public trial and substantial due process. He got infinitely more due process than the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Yet I do not see a single American Congressman floating a private bill on behalf of those at Guantanamo who have been locked up for nearly 6 years without any hint of due process.” Are you honestly comparing Mr. Ahmed a retired diplomat to the terrorist in Guantanamo?

  4. /g says:

    Mash, with all due respect, I do not believe the information you are receiving is accurate in regards to Mohiuddin Amhed. You have to consider that the information is coming from a corrupt regime who will of course not report anything contrary to \

  5. Mash says:

    Rouben/Raihan, you say:

    Are you honestly comparing Mr. Ahmed a retired diplomat to the terrorist in Guantanamo?

    Don’t make me laugh. How did your father get his diplomatic job? The entire country of Bangladesh knows. Tell me how a 28 year old Major in the army becomes a diplomat overnight, pray tell?

    For those who do not know, let me tell you. You and your Major buddies get together and kill the head of state and two dozen members of his family, including a 10 year old boy and pregnant women. Then you plunge the country into 16 years of military rule. As a reward, and as a way to keep you out of the country, the military regime gives you a diplomatic post. That is how a 28 year-old Major in the army suddenly becomes a diplomat overnight.

    So dont make me laugh. Your father, as well as the other Majors, got nice little diplomatic posts doled out by the military government.

    I happen to know the Bangladesh diplomatic civil service corps quite well. I mean the ones that are civil servants and diplomats, not army guys who commit a coup and get rewarded. So, please dont insult me with nonsense.

  6. RM says:

    Not everyone who alleged to be involved in the coup took up diplomatic posts. The coup plotters surely did not.

    As my fathers role the “road block 1/2 mile away” was an order that was given to him on the night of Aug 15th. He was never part of the planning.

    We all know Farook and Rashid are the coup plotters. They are the ones who publicly declared their involvement. My father was never interviewed by any newspapers or anybody, as he was not part of the planning and was NOT at the presidents residence at the night of the coup.

    My father entered the diplomatic core as a junior officer (2nd secretary) he worked under 8 different administrations both military and civilian, He followed the regular process in the Bangladesh foreign service and over the course of 21 years was promoted in the ranks to Ambassador.

    Who ruled on the guilt of my father? : The Bangladeshi Courts….
    21 years after the facts, when a survivor of the slaying, Ms Hasina, comes to Political Power…Ok, that’s fair, given that the political situation during these 16 years (mash is saying) prevented an investigation from occurring…

    But 21 years later a couple of witnesses pop up, with incredible recall, said recall apparently not troubled by the utter chaos, the noise, confusion, screams, shots that ALWAYS occur in events like these…?
    Artillery shells falling, darkness, lots of people in a confined area,….And they have such a great recall of faces …?

    And that in a trial occurring in Bangladesh, whose sad disregard for the rule of Law continues to this day …? Please…


  7. RM says:

    Mash, just out of curiousity I have a question for you?

    Ref: #31 – T from PP Says: “Mash”? What is your connection and why do you want this guy dead so bad?

    Any comments?

  8. Mash says:

    Rouben, if you want to know about me, read the “About” page. As a person who lived through that traumatic time, I have an interest in seeing that the people of Bangladesh get justice for the crimes that were committed. I have an interest in seeing murderers who have evaded justice, those who have lived a comfortable life after denying that same privilege to those that they killed, those who plunged Bangladesh into 16 years of military rule, those convicted criminals are brought to justice and not allowed to roam free and make a mockery of justice.

    Justice has been much delayed – but justice is much deserved. Maybe your father can cut a deal to spend the rest of his life in prison and get his death sentence commuted. As long as he is not allowed to get away with murder, I would think justice would be served. He has been duly convicted with overwhelming evidence. The convictions are not questioned by any credible court or government that has looked at the case.

    And, yes, my name is Mash. All my regular readers know that.

  9. Mash says:

    Rouben from #56, your father’s “I was manning a roadblock” story flies in the face of all evidence. Mohiuddin, along with Major Nur and Captain Huda and others were inside Sheikh Mujib’s house while the killings were taking place. Mohiuddin was an active plotter of the coup with Farook, Rashid, Huda and others. The roadblock story is a litle ludicrous because his claim that he heard nothing until hours later when he was “shocked” to find out people had been killed is simply inane. You yourself just said there were artillary shells flying – and there was, since half the city heard them. Your father’s story that he was unaware of all of this at the time is simply not credible and obviously was not credible to any court.

    Rouben, how many of the 8 administrations that your father served as diplomat were during the 16 years of military rule? It sounds impressive when you say it except when one points out that 16 of those years were under military rule.

    But, you dont have to convince me, you have to convince the court. The 9th Circuit didnt buy these stories because they are all full of holes and contradict available historical evidence and multiple witness testimonies.

    By the way, I’m just curious, where was your father between November 2, 1975 and November 5, 1975?

    So much for the “Revolution of 1975” as you so proudly put it on your blog.

  10. RM says:

    In Reference to post #11 –

    This is an interesting article I read on the Readers Opinion (Bangldeshnews) and wanted to share –

    Re:”US Congressman McDermott’s Bill for Mohiuddin Ahmed”

    Tuesday June 05 2007 11:44:48 AM BDT

    Shabbir Bashar, USA

    I write in response to Mashuqur Rahman, a Virginia-based blogger and a member of the Drishtipat Writers’ Collective, article published in the Daily Star (June 5, 2007) titled “Congressman McDermott’s support for Mohiuddin”. I happen to be a Bangladeshi who is resident of the State of Washington which Jim McDermott respresents in the US Congress. Amongst the writer’s claims is his call to explore whether the US Government should be actively sheltering a convicted murderer.

    Having read the Congressman McDermott’s Bill (HR 2181), heard Mohiuddin Ahmed’s radio interview with CBC (May 31, 2007) from United States Federal Correctional Institution on Terminal Island, in Los Angeles, the crux of Mr. Rahman’s article seems somewhat one sided. Bill HR 2181 states that Mohiuddin Ahmed has exhausted all legal available avenues in the US and is awaiting deportation to Bangladesh where will be executed. Since Mohiuddin Ahmed was convicted to death in absentia in Bangladesh and did not appeal within the stipulated legal time, he cannot have his case re-opened in Bangladesh and must be put to death within 21 days of return.

    As a Bangladeshi citizen, I do not know whether Mohiuddin Ahmed is innocent or not. But what I do know is that the victim of a crime cannot also be the judge that sentences the alleged criminal to face his punishment. In essence that is what seems to have happened: Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of slain Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was the defacto judge in the case against Mohiuddin Ahmed, the alleged assassin of her father….

    The rest of the article can be found at –


  11. NiRBashito says:

    Thank you, Mash, for your lone fight. I have tried to help in the pages of DP. Didn\’t think it\’d be appropriate to cross-post those in here. It\’s surprising to see here: ignorance and irrationality is not limited to just mullahs and rednecks. People with an apparent education and access to the internet can be just as bad. Maybe worse.

  12. Mash says:

    NiRBashito, please feel free to comment here. I would welcome your views just as I welcome everyone’s views. And thank you for clearing through all the spin and pointing out the facts in the DP posts.

    Mohiuddin is fighting a PR battle to win in the political arena because he was unable to win in courts of law. I think it would be a travesty of justice if they were to convince a few congressmen to stay the deportation. But, you cant blame them for trying. Facts, the law, and the evidence are not on their side. So, their tactic is to shout and shout loudly and raise doubts by pushing stories that are patently false, and have been proven so in courts of law.

    My voice is not as loud nor do I have the finances to counter such a massive PR campaign. But as long as people read my blog, I will continue to point out the facts and the history of this case. I am confident that in the end justice will be served.

  13. NiRBashito says:

    Rouben, and others of the Din family: Perhaps your father should take a lesson from Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Bangabandhu, and muster up enough courage to fly home and fight the \

  14. Raihan says:

    Post #63. What an idiotic statement,are you guys on the payroll? Hasina does not and did not have a pending death penalty provided by a court system that is plagued by corruption not according to me but according to the international society. Furtheremore, She still has the right to fight her current murder charges. Perhaps you should look at this whole thing from an educated point of view instead of an emotional one.

  15. Raihan says:

    Mash(MR. Rahman?) you know whats comparing to flying pigs? The Honesty of any Governmental Institution of Bangladesh. Ever thought of comedy as a career?

  16. Mash says:

    Rouben/Raihan, with all your protestations you still could not convince any US court the trial was unfair. Keep making up fiction and tossing out blanket accusations. I see today that the CBC is also catching on to the bill of goods you guys tried to sell them.

    I also recommend that you read all my posts on Mohiuddin including the post that refers to my op-ed in the Daily Star. Maybe then you wont be putting question marks around my name. :(|)

  17. Esq says:


    What happened? The cat get your tongue? Or are you embarrassed b/c I speak the truth about your tactics in silencing your opponents? You are clever, but you are not honest. If you were honest, then you would post my reply and give us an opportunity to have a real dialogue, not your usual SOP (standard operating procedure).

    Like how you in #9 when you responded to Steve and Hasib:

    ” Steve and Hasib, if you have any evidence that Mohiuddin is innocent, you should forward it to the 9th circuit court of appeals.” Your response implies that the reason the 9th circuit didn’t change the decision of the lower court is b/c Din has no new information to support his innocence. However, while your statement will get a lot of chuckles from your supporters and friends, your statement only shows your ignorance. Reviewing courts determine whether ‘as a matter of law’ the lower court properly applied the law, they base their decision on the record of the lower court, and they do not decide whether the evidence was adequate.

    And how you twisted the meaning and made a joke out of the ‘being in the dark house’ quote – is this the only way you know how to win an argument?

    And how you misstate the truth with ” Does the congressman know that Mohiuddin still has appeals left in Bangladesh?” If you knew the facts as well as you attest you do, you would know that Din has no more appeals. The Bangladeshi government has a warrant for his arrest and an order for his execution. And given the obvious thirst for revenge demonstrated by you and your friends, I am certain Din will be killed upon his return.

    At #19, you write:

    “Also, those who are arguing that Mohiuddin did not get due process should note that Mohiuddin got a public trial and substantial due process.” You surely are not saying that a Bangladeshi judicial system is equal to our US judicial system? B/c in the US, due process is not judged based on “substantial due process’, but on the letter of the law. And a “public trial” is not the same as a “fair trial”, is it?

    And then you throw in your red herring – yes, the comparison of due process for Din versus the due process for the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. These kind of statements and distractions only show how desperate you are.

    At #24, you try something new when you responded to Kit – you have suddenly become a mind reader: ” He fled Bangladesh because he knew the evidence was overwhelming.” (Mash, you really need to change occupations.)

    At #29 when you address Freude’ doubt – “The doubt is coming from Mohiuddin’s defense – that should not be surprising.” Bingo, put down the questioning skeptic, silence your opponent; that is how you remain the winner on your Blog, isn’t it Mash.

    At #44 when you respond to Raihan with ” your spin sounds pretty much like, well, spin.” Another example of not participating in a dialogue, but in being ‘put down King of your own Blog’. Tell me, you do not spin?

    At #51, when you state: Amnesty International has not questioned the fairness of the trial. Not questioning fairness is not the same thing as affirming there was fairness. Again, you are playing with words to recreate a new truth.

    And then you judge Din by association with “Add to that that Mohiuddin and his friends Farook, Rashid, etc are quite famous in Bangladesh for their role in the coup”. And you go on to add a Nur Chowdhury to that list. Mash, we don’t support guilt by association in this country. But perhaps they do in Bangladesh.

    At #2 on June 8th you say: ” He has been duly convicted with overwhelming evidence.” If this statement is true, then you have confirmed for me that Din did not get a fair trial. In America, the evidentiary standard for criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not overwhelming evidence.

    In conclusion, I doubt you have the courage or integrity to post this reply, as you did not post my first reply. But I know you read my first ‘reply’ and I am certain you have read this one.


  18. Mash says:

    Esq at #67, dont be an idiot. I dont moderate comments. Everyone who posts on this blog knows the comments they post appear when they click the “Submit Comment” button. You might have noticed that a lot of comments on this thread are from Mohiuddin’s son and supporters. None of them agree with me. So please dont embarrass yourself with nonsensical charges.

    Nothing you have written in the comment is able to make an argument that the trial was unfair. It only makes you look foolish. If you had an argument to make, you could have made it in the US courts.

    I think I have made my case quite thoroughly in the many posts I’ve written on this topic. You are not obliged to agree with any of it. The real test is to convince courts of law – which Mohiuddin has not been able to do because the evidence is too damning, regardless of the spin you put on it outside a court room.

  19. Raihan says:

    You know what Mr. Rahman (Mash) fact of the matter is none of reader can still understand (besides the one sitting next to you) why you give soo much of a @#$% about this specific case particularly. You sure respond to all reply asap. Is this is your profession? Blogging 24hrs a day? Furtheremore your site specifically each and everyone of your comment and no matter how you want to disagree is biased. If you ask anyone living in bangladesh whether they believe corruption exists? They will say yes. So let me put it bluntly, as much as you and your readers who belive that bangladesh had or has an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY? I doubt it. I do and soo does many other educated person like yourself. And thats why I dont understand your argument. And this is what discredits all your articles. The one on the Daily star and everywhere else. Lets be honest, its obvious, your on the payroll.

  20. Raihan says:

    MR.Rahman, first off let me tell you I have nothing personal at all. However please tell me this why is half the BNP and AL official in jail or waiting of corruption charges if according to you Bangladesh is free of corruption and has a independent judiciary? Please do explain by beating around the bush.

  21. Raihan says:

    If government Institution including the justice system was bullet proof as you put it, than why would you say the founding fathers of the Unites States saw a need for a system with checks and balances? Why do you think than the people of this world feel that there is a great need for instituions like Oxfam, ACLA, Amensty international, and many many more that repeated have stepped in and saved innocent lives from being wrongfully procecuted. Please feel free to comment.

  22. Mash says:

    Raihan/Rouben, you asked:

    You know what Mr. Rahman (Mash) fact of the matter is none of reader can still understand (besides the one sitting next to you) why you give soo much of a @#$% about this specific case particularly.

    Read my comment here to find out why I think Mohiuddin’s case is important. It has everything to do with seeing that justice prevails for a people who have been denied justice for over 3 decades. Mohiuddin’s case is not the only issue that I care about as a quick review of my blog will show any curious reader.

    You cannot make a blanket argument about corruption in Bangladesh to claim Mohiuddin’s trial was unfair. I am well aware of corruption issues in Bangladesh. I have blogged about it.

    You have not been able to show any credible evidence that Mohiuddin’s trial was unfair. You had ample opportunity to present your case in US courts – you failed. The court did not accept blanket statements of “oh everything is so corrupt therefore the trial was unfair”. That is a lazy argument and will never work in any court or with any intelligent person.

    The Bangladesh government and courts conducted this trial under the watchful eye of foreign observers such as human rights organizations and foreign governments. It was important that a trial such as this was both fair and seen to be fair. As such, the trial itself lasted two years. The appeals process has lasted about seven years so far – there are more appeals to go.

    No credible observer who looked at the trial has said it was unfair. I have repeated ad nauseum that these include the US 9th circuit court of appeals and the lower US immigration court. So, I can say with confidence that the trial was fair and the verdict was just. I can say that inspite of your blanket statements of corruption in Bangladesh because intelligent arguments, and convincing arguments, deal with specifics and not broad generalities.

    Justice systems are not bulletproof. That is why it is important to have the burden of proof on the state.That is why it is important to have transparent and open trials. That is why it is important to have recourse to appeals to give the defendent an opportunity to show that the original trial was not fair or due process was not followed. Mohiuddin chose to flee Bangladesh, like some of his other fellow Majors, and chose to play out his appeals here in the US. The US courts afforded him significant due process over 9 years. He has lost all his appeals and failed to convince the courts that his trial was unfair.

    No one who makes it their business to follow these types of cases, including Amnesty International, has concluded this trial was unfair. All your protestations aside.

    Finally, you say:

    You sure respond to all reply asap. Is this is your profession? Blogging 24hrs a day? Furtheremore your site specifically each and everyone of your comment and no matter how you want to disagree is biased. …

    Lets be honest, its obvious, your on the payroll.

    Then you go on to say that you “have nothing personal at all”.

    You will not win your argument, and certainly not in court where it matters, by accusing me of being “on the payroll”. You say that my comments are “biased”. Of course they are – I am giving you my opinion on this topic by relying on facts and references. You are free to argue a different point of view as you amply have. I am under no obligation to accept your view as you are under no obligation to accept mine. I have advocated my position in the belief that getting justice is important. If my posts bother you to an extent that you must constantly question my motives, then you have a very weak case indeed.

    Unfortunately I am not on anyone’s payroll. However, if anyone wants to put me on the “payroll”, feel free to send me a check. :d I am sure I could use the extra money since my daughter has been agitating to go to Disneyworld this summer. \:d/

    These Google ads certainly are not making the money roll in. Come to think of it, I havent gotten a single check from Google for all the ads this blog has served up. It may be time to pull the ads! :-w

  23. Esq says:

    Mash – You never posted this one which I submitted on June 8th. Esq

    June 8, 2007

    #1 Response:

    I have never wished to participate in a Blog b/c it is like holding a meeting with a group of people with one person on a speaker phone; when the person on the speaker phone speaks, everyone else must listen.

    I can see why you spend so much time writing on this Blog and on others, such as Daily Kos. You get everyone’s attention. No one really gets to challenge you on what you are saying, b/c if you don’t agree with them, you just repeat yourself and proclaim yourself the winner. I truly don’t understand why anyone should believe half the stuff you write. To quote you: “Just because Mohiuddin claims something does not make it true.” This applies to you as well.

    You are a bright man but you are also a bully. For those who challenge you, you deny their facts b/c you say they got their information off of Din’s website. And where do you get your information? And is that source any less biased?

    I don’t intend to have a shouting match with you. I just believe if you want a serious dialogue on this subject, using put-down techniques, circular reasoning, and blanket generalizations does not encourage dialogue but is nothing more than a diatribe.


  24. Mash says:

    Esq, look, let me explain to you how this works. You write a comment and then click the “Submit Comment” button. And voila, your comment appears right away. Yet you insist I didnt post your comment. This blog is not moderated and so do not claim that I have screened your comments in the nanosecond it takes between the time you submit your comment and the time it takes for it to appear. So, dont make a fool of yourself by claiming something that is patently false.

    No one is forcing you to come to my blog and submit comments. You can feel free to stay away. I will reiterate something that should be obvious – just because Mohiuddin claims his innocence does not make it so. He failed in all courts of law.

    You say:

    You are a bright man but you are also a bully. For those who challenge you, you deny their facts b/c you say they got their information off of Din’s website. And where do you get your information? And is that source any less biased?

    Well, I have quoted newspaper accounts, Amnesty International and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I am sure you believe the 9th Circuit is biased against Mohiuddin, because the only other explanation is Mohiuddin is guilty – and that may be something you cant wrap your mind around.

    Your personal attacks against me does not change the specific facts of this case. You are welcome to make your arguments about Mohiuddin’s case here just as everyone else has done. I welcome your point of view, but I will also vigorously defend mine. However, if you want to lower the tone of the debate with personal attacks and wild accusations, do not be surprised if your views are discounted.

  25. "V" says:

    YES, it is possible to make a blanket accusation with regards to corruption in Bangladesh….

    As it is possible to make a Blanket accusation against the Chinese Givernment in their Treatment of Falun Gong…

    As it is possible to make a blanket accusation against any State that has shown clearly the untrusion of the Political Thought into the Judiciary System, such as most 3rd World countries, among which Bangladesh…

    So, by this statement, don’t bother expressing the fairness of the Bangladeshi Courts…That is just a travesti…


  26. "V" says:

    why bother? you are monitoring…

  27. "V" says:

    Doctor Strangelove…

    Any reason you picked a Nazi for your site’s name..? Lol, this is just too funny…

    Try Paul Wolfowitz… After all, he is as convinced as you are of things that do not exist… And he makes (made) great arguments…


  28. Mash says:

    V, please don’t embarrass yourself. \:d/

    I am guessing this comment thread has now hit rock bottom.

  29. "V" says:

    It has hit rock bottom…The day you started to accuse someone without proof… and for someone to claim his blog is anti torture, you sure seem keen to send a man back to a country where mistreatmnent exists…
    I will not say that you are pathetic…. you already know that..


  30. "V" says:

    so now, only cute little drawings as answers…… well no surprise there….
    Have a chat with the Chinese Courts…They will teach you about fairness in a Political World…. You are a nice Idealist…maybe…. so…wake up..



  31. Mash says:

    V, the proof in the case was overwhelming. No one, not me, nor the US government, nor the Bangladesh government claimed Mohiuddin was a coup plotter without offering substantial proof.

    There is simply no reasonable doubt here. Mohiuddin’s defense failed miserably in the asylum hearings, in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals and in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Simply making up facts does not work in court in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    So your protestations are laughable.\:d/

  32. Esq says:

    Response #3:

    This is my Reply to Mash at #12 on June 9 & #18 on June 10:

    I find it interesting that you are so quick to accuse me of being the idiot (see #12). Your first assumption is that you know all the facts and thus, you know the truth.

    But what is truth? Could Din have been both at the road block and inside the house killing people at the same time? No, we can all agree that one person cannot be at two places at one time. However, the truth is not limited to just two alternatives, but at least 4 possibilities.

    (1) The witness inside the house did see Din shooting people. (2) It may be that the witness inside the house was confused and saw someone who looked like Din shooting people. (3) It may be that the witness never saw Din or anyone looking like Din inside the house shooting people. (4) And it may be that Din was at the road block during the shooting and was never inside the house shooting people.

    To determine whether the truth is (1), (2), (3) or (4), we must look to all of the evidence available (and/or presented) and weigh the truthfulness of that evidence. We can do this by comparing the statements of other witnesses both inside the house and those at the road block. Their statements will support whether (1), (2), (3) or (4) is the truth. And in doing so, we must also look to the motivation of these witnesses in determining whether their statements are trustworthy. And of course, the evidence in Din’s case must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Unfortunately, we cannot, no matter how much we may want to, reconstruct what actually happened the night of August 15, 1975; but we can demonstrate how difficult it is to determine what is the truth in any given situation. For example:

    Who is the idiot?

    My evidence:

    On June 8th, I completed the Reply form and clicked the “Submit Comment” button. But after 24 hours passed and my Reply #1 did not appear on your Blog, I assumed the following: (1) you do monitor your Blog, or (2) you have a technical defect and my Reply Comment had not been received. Now I know that you are a Senior Software Architect, so surely you would not have permitted a technical defect to occur on your Blog. But perhaps you do?

    Now you can call me a liar, but where is my motivation? And you have already heard from other witnesses who have experienced trouble posting Reply Comments on your Blog (see #33 and #34). Thus, I have third party, independent support for my position.

    So you see, Mash, the truth is not always what you believe it to be, no matter how much you want it to be, is it?

    Who is the idiot?


  33. Asif says:

    Comment moderation is not necessarily a bad thing.

  34. Mash says:

    Asif, comment moderation does have its benefits. I have chosen not to use it on my blog. However, Esq seems to insist I am moderating his comments in the split second between it takes to post a comment and for it to appear.

    Esq, you might want to consider the possibility of reposting your comments if it does not immediately appear or unless you have gotten a “You comment is awaiting approval from the blog ownder” message.

    As for your claims about Mohiuddin’s innocence, I refer you to my latest post on the matter. I’ll let the US government, and historical accounts speak for themselves. However, you can carry on with your protestations by making up hypotheticals when the facts are quite well known.

    Din’s own accounts, as spelled out in interviews with the US government, undermine his claims.

  35. Mash says:

    Oh, and I hope it pleases you that I used “Din” to refer to Mohiuddin:d

  36. Rashid says:

    Thank you Mash. I appreciate you standing up for what is right. It is well documented that Mohi is a killer and he should have been punished a long time ago. But I am glad that we are getting to some kind of closure at last. People who truly love Bangladesh should welcome this good news.

  37. Mash says:

    Rashid, you are right, closure for Bangladesh and the victims has been long delayed.

    According to news reports Mohiuddin has been deported and is currently en route to Bangladesh escorted by two DHS agents.

    I’ll have a follow up post later in the day.

  38. Freude says:

    May we all remember our humanity.

  39. Brenda says:

    I found your site quite by accident but like it

  40. North Port Florida Business Reviews

  41. Capital Gains Tax Canada – Cut Your Capital Gains Taxes to the Bone. Our 7 Secrets Are Yours Free!… –

Comments are closed.