Canada Begins To Wake Up To Mohiuddin’s Fiction

Today CBC Radio in Canada aired an interview with Lawrence Lifschultz, former South Asia reporter for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Lifschultz covered the Bangladesh coup of 1975 extensively. He is quite familiar with the killer Majors who orchestrated the coup, including convicted murderer Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed. In the interview he talked about the geo-political intrigue surrounding the coup, including Kissinger’s purported role in it. He also talked specifically about the fairness of the trial in Bangladesh and Mohiuddin’s role as one of the coup plotters. None of what he mentioned is unknown to those familiar with the events of 1975. All of it however contradicts the fiction cooked up by Mohiuddin as he tries to convince American congressmen to help him to continue to evade justice.

Initially Canadian media bought Mohiuddin’s victim card. But as the media in Canada has started to look at the facts of the case rather than the spin coming from Mohiuddin, they are beginning to see a clearer picture of Mohiuddin’s guilt.

CBC Radio introduced the interview with Lifschultz as follows:

When "As It Happens" first told the story of Mohuiddin Ahmed back on the 29th of May, it seemed like a relatively simple cry for help. A former Bangladeshi army officer was begging Canada for asylum. He was about to be deported from the United States to face execution for his role in a thirty year-old coup.

But we’ve been doing a little spadework since then. And with every interview, the story reveals itself to be more and more like a Graham Greene novel — in which individual lives are caught up in international intrigues beyond their ken.

Lawrence Lifschultz has been following the story of the 1975 coup from the beginning. He’s the former South Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review. We reached Mr. Lifschultz in Branford, Connecticut. [Emphasis added by me.]

Click here for the audio of the interview.  Some highlights of the interview:

  • The interview begins at 9:25 minutes.
  • Lifschultz describes the geo-political backdrop of the coup beginning at 10:15 minutes.
  • Lifschultz describes how the Majors were protected by the military after the coup and how some of the Majors were given diplomatic postings to protect them beginning at 18:38 minutes.
  • Lifschultz mentions Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed as one of the Majors who were the coup plotters beginning at 20:35 minutes.
  • Lifschultz explains why the trial in Bangladesh was fair at 20:51 minutes.

Current Status of Mohiuddin’s Deportation

Mohiuddin’s lawyers filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the District Court for Central California on June 1st, citing the private bill introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott that aims to give Mohiuddin a green card. The District Court judge stayed the deportation pending a hearing that occurred on June 5th:

MINUTES before Judge Gary A. Feess: (In Chambers). Petitioner Mohuiddin A.K.M. Ahmed seeks a writ of habeas corpus that would stay his deportation pending Congress consideration of a priviate bill introduced on his behalf. Deportation shall be STAYED until close of business on 6/5/2007. Counsel for both Petitioner and the Government are ORDERED to appear for argument on 6/5/2007 at 09:30 AM. IT IS SO ORDERED.

At the June 5th hearing the District judge heard the motions from the lawyers and extended the stay of deportation by one day:

MINUTES before Judge Gary A. Feess: Deportation Hearing. Matter called. Counsel state their appearances for the record. Counsel argue their motion to the Court. The Court orders the extension of the current stay until 6/6/2007 at 05:00 PM. Pacific Daylight Time. IT IS SO ORDERED.

On June 6th the judge ordered Mohiuddin’s lawyers to submit a brief explaining their reasons to stay the deportation order by June 8th. He also ordered the government to respond by June 11th. He scheduled a hearing for June 13th at 9am and stayed the deportation order until then:

MINUTES before Judge Gary A. Feess: (In Chambers). ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING. Because of the importance of these issues, the Court declines to resolve them before the parties further elucidate their positions. Therefore, the Court ORDERS further briefing pursuant to the following schedule: 1) Petitioner shall submit a brief, not to exceed 20 pages, no later than close of business on 6/8/2007. The brief shall be served upon the Government by that as well, and aslo shall be accompanied by a courtesy copy to chambers. 2) The Government shall submit a response, also not to exceed 20 pages, no later than close of business on 6/11/2007, also accompanied by service upon Petitioner and a courtesy copy to chambers. 3) The matter will be heard on 6/13/2007 at 09:00 AM. In the meantime, Petitioner removal shall remain STAYED through 5:00 PM. Pacific Daylight Time on 6/13/2007. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The judge will presumably decide on the habeas petition on June 13th at the hearing. Unless McDermott’s private bill is marked up by the House Immigration Subcommittee by then, it is highly unlikely the judge will stay the execution. Given the debate around illegal immigration in Washington, it would be astonishing if the Immigration Subcommittee acts on a private bill granting a convicted murderer a green card. However, the stay of deportation until next week buys Mohiuddin’s lawyers time to plead their case with Canada for asylum. Although Canada does not deport individuals to countries where they may face the death penalty, it would be surprising if Canada allowed into its borders a convicted murderer who the United States has judged to have engaged in terrorist activities. The precedent this would set would make Canada a magnet for thugs and murderers escaping justice the world over.

If you would like to contact the House Immigration Subcommittee to tell them not to support the private bill (HR 2181) that will grant a green card to a convicted terrorist and tell them the facts of the case as opposed to the spin, contact the offices of the chairwoman and the ranking member:

  • Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, chairwoman, at (202) 225-3072
  • Congressman Steve King, ranking member, at (202) 225-4426


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

33 Responses to Canada Begins To Wake Up To Mohiuddin’s Fiction

  1. bongobongo says:

    very interesting. how do you think Ahmed will argue jurisdiction in light of REAL ID?

  2. bongobongo says:

    hmm, i looked more closely at your postings! Are you Joy’s alter ego? Are you getting paid by the wazed family to do this blog? this is like the bangladesh fox news. I suggest that the next time you are in the library of congress, you do a little research regarding Bangladesh prior to Aug 15, 1975. Say hello to Joy and Hasina for me!:-w

  3. Mash says:

    bongobongo, you guys are simply too much. I understand that the truth hurts when lies are the only hope Mohiuddin has.

    Let me understand this. I think if I understand your comment properly, you are suggesting that pointing out Mohiuddin’s guilt or pointing out that the trial was fair makes someone a member of the Awami League or on the payroll of the Awami League?

    I guess that would make the State Department, Amnesty International, the US immigration courts, and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paid agents of the Awami League.

    You should perhaps consider the interest Bangladeshi citizens have in seeing that murderers are not allowed to roam free. Allow me to quote the Amnesty International report on the Bangladesh trial on why this is a very important interest:

    Amnesty International believes that the phenomenon of impunity is one of the main contributing factors to the continuing pattern of human rights violations the world over. Impunity, literally the exemption from punishment, has serious implication for the state of human rights protection in a country. By bringing criminal charges against perpetrators of human rights violations, the government sends a clear message that such violations will not be tolerated and that those found responsible will be held fully accountable.

    If extrajudicial executions, torture and other grave human rights violations are to be brought to an end, Amnesty International believes that all governments must fulfil certain fundamental responsibilities. First, there should be prompt, thorough, impartial and independent investigations conducted according to international standards into all allegations of human rights violations in order to determine responsibility. This principle should apply wherever the perpetrators happen to be, wherever the crime was committed, whatever the nationality of the perpetrators or victims and no matter how much time has elapsed since the commission of the crime. The results of such inquiries should be made public. Secondly, those found responsible for human rights violations should be brought to justice before a civilian court without delay. Thirdly, their trials should follow internationally established fair trial standards. Fourthly, amnesty laws or indemnifying provisions should not be allowed to prevent the emergence of truth and accountability before the law through a fair judicial process. Amnesty International take no position on pardons after conviction, but it does insist that in each case of human rights violation, a judicial process is completed and the truth is revealed.

    Amnesty International welcomes the repeal of the Indemnity Ordinance to facilitate investigation into past human rights violations – including those committed in the context of 1975 coup. However, it reiterates that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that at no times should any of the accused be themselves subjected to human rights violations.

  4. Robbie says:

    Because we need facts and a little levity around here…

    Habeas corpus? What’s that? Isn’t it that thing the Bush Administration suspended with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006? :d

    I wonder what those ‘Cons (and Paris Hilton’s lawyers) think about that.

  5. Mash says:

    Robbie, thanks for your comment. I was starting miss my old friends since I attracted new friends with my posts on Mohiuddin. :-b

    Someone probably needs to tell Mr. Bush that someone in the US is in danger of getting due process. Oh the horror! :-ss

    Of course it would be nice if those being held without trial or due process in Guantenamo were afforded one iota of due process this guy has received.

  6. Robbie says:

    No worries, Mash. I’ve been a little busy myself lately. I still make it here on a near-daily basis, even if I don’t have the time to comment. I’m sure Ingrid is around here somewhere.

  7. Mash says:

    Robbie, as you can see a lot of my blogging time has been occupied with this topic lately. This week of course there has been an onslaught on this blog on this topic.

    I am looking forwarding to writing my Sunday post on topics that I normally focus on.\:d/

    But it looks like my little blog has drawn some attention regarding Mohiuddin. So I expect more of the same for a little while longer.

  8. bongobongo says:

    Joy/Mash. it is ironic that you cite amnesty international. I guess that you stopped understanding at \

  9. bongobongo says:


    “However, it reiterates that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that at no times should any of the accused be themselves subjected to human rights violations.”

    If your research was thorough, you would know that Amnesty International Canada and Amnesty international USA both support Ahmed’s efforts. accordingly, if following your logic, AI is the final arbiter, Ahmed goes to Canada.

    face it joy/mash/hasina, Bangladesh is one big human rights violation. may i suggest that you rea the most current state department report.

  10. Mash says:

    bongobongo, Amnesty International Canada supports Mohiuddin’s deportation to Canada explicitly because Amnesty is against the death penalty at all times. Amnesty has never said Mohiuddin’s trial was unfair. I will quote from Amnesty’s letter as it appears on Mohiuddin’s site below:

    This is with respect to the case ofMr. Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed, a Bangladeshi national, currently in the United States and facing imminent removal to Bangladesh. We
    understand that he is facing the death penalty in Bangladesh.

    Amnesty International opposes the imposition of the death penalty at all times and considers it to be an ultimate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The right
    to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. It is guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both of these treaties have been signed and ratified by
    Bangladesh. However Amnesty International Report 2007 indicated that in the previous
    year, Bangladesh sentenced 130 people to death, and conducted one execution. This year, on 5 April 2007 we reported the execution of six men who were hanged two weeks ahead of schedule for “security reasons”. These executions followed the President’s rejection of a petition for clemency on 4 March 2007.

    Given Mr. Ahmed’s imminent removal from the United States to Bangladesh, Amnesty International supports any measure the Canadian government can take to ensure that he is not returned to Bangladesh to face the death penalty. We encourage your government to
    work with the United States authorities to find options forMr. Ahmed, which will prevent a return to the death penalty.

    Even the sources you refer to do not suggest that Mohiuddin’s trial was unfair.

    Your mudslinging toward me by trying to link me to political parties in Bangladesh again does not change the facts of this case.

  11. bongobongo says:

    Mash/Joy/Hasina, correct me if i am wrong, but i did not say that the trial was fair or unfair, nor did i attribute such to AI. However, I will remind you that the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NEVER made a judgement as to whether Ahmed recieved a fair trial in Bangladesh or not. Rather, the Court merely said that Ahmed was unable to prove to the immigration judge that due process was not accorded to him by the Bangladeshi government. Furthermore, the state department opinions that were relied upon by the Immigration Judge were not specific to Ahmed. They were general statements regarding the trial of both those tried in absentia, and those who had counsel of their own choosing. Apples and oranges Joy/Hasina/Mash, apples and oranges. In any event, everyone knows that the state department opinions were produced upon reliance of what the awami thugs was providing to the Department of State in 1996. Sadly, it appears that the Immigration Judge took those opinions as holy writ.

  12. Mash says:

    This is getting old. This is what the 9th circuit said:

    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.

    Ahmed was convicted of murder at a trial. If he is arguing to the 9th circuit that the trial was unfair or he did not get due process, he has to have grounds for it. The appeals court does not have to prove to Mohiuddin that the trial was fair. That is not how the law works. If you are appealing a decision, you must show by a preponderance of evidence that you have grounds for the appeal, otherwise you have no case. Just saying the trial was unfair without presenting evidence does not work in a court of law. The bottom line is that the 9th circuit did not find that his trial was unfair nor did it find that he was denied due process. All your protestations are kind of silly.

    You also say:

    Furthermore, the state department opinions that were relied upon by the Immigration Judge were not specific to Ahmed. They were general statements regarding the trial of both those tried in absentia, and those who had counsel of their own choosing. Apples and oranges Joy/Hasina/Mash, apples and oranges. In any event, everyone knows that the state department opinions were produced upon reliance of what the awami thugs was providing to the Department of State in 1996. Sadly, it appears that the Immigration Judge took those opinions as holy writ.

    Sheesh, you really cannot accept anything that contradicts the fiction you want everyone to believe. The State Department said that the trial was fair – I am not sure what about that is unclear to you. If there were aspects of the case that the US objected to, they would have said so. They didnt, instead they said the trial was fair.

    I love the part of your quote that I bolded above. It really is quite comical. Oh yes, its a world wide conspiracy against Mohiuddin. Anyone who has said the trial was fair must have not understood the “truth” that you know and that you failed to show in any court. I see a pattern here where when the facts stare you in the face, you always have some excuse about how everyone has been somehow hoodwinked or are involved in a conspiracy to frame Mohiuddin.

    Let me try this on one more time. I asked this in a comment but of course did not get a response. Two questions:

    • Where was Mohiuddin living between August 15, 1975 and November 3, 1975? Please be specific in the answer as to location within the city.
    • Did Mohiuddin take a flight to Bangkok in early November 1975?

    Specific answers will be much appreciated.

  13. Robbie says:

    Play that bongobongo, Mash! >:)

  14. AsifY says:


    I haven’t read the entire article yet, just skimmed the first few comments. Let me congratulate you right away on becoming not just the daughter of the father of the nation, but also the first Bangladeshi politician on the blogosphere.

    Congratulations also on becoming “a fair and balanced” news source that caters to millions after having been a personal blog expressing personal opinions.

    In any case, I hear you’re being paid to write all this. Because God knows everyone who objected to BAKSAL wanted Mujib dead, and now don’t want justice for him. They must all be PAID to want justice. I’d give you the benefit of the doubt, but alas, the double bongo has spoken and your fate is sealed in my books.

    Just make sure you’re making enough. After all, wanting justice for Mujib must give you a really bad conscience. Can you sleep at night dude?

    (I promise a more sober response once I’ve stopped laughing at bongobongo’s comments.

  15. bongobongo says:

    mash/joy/hasina, please post the state department opinions that were submitted in the immigration trial so that we can all read them. not the general opinions, the specific opinions.

    thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing them for myself instead of all of this hearsay.


    ps. regardng your questions, i am not sure why it is relevant. perhaps Joy could tell you.

  16. Mash says:

    Robbie, can you hear the beat? <):) Asif, the jig is up, you got me! =)) 3:-o But you dont get off so easily, I must find a way to implicate you in this worldwide conspiracy. Please post your Swiss bank account number here so that I can send you money for services rendered. :)] And to answer the last part, due to my conscience I have stopped sleeping at night. Thats why I am up at all hours commenting on this blog/Bangladeshi faux news delivering the best in "fair and balanced" gibberish! :-b On a serious note, I look forward to your comment on the Mohiuddin saga.

  17. Mash says:

    bongo, you mean all this time you’ve been relying on hearsay?!?

    Oh the horror!!!

    Of course you dont find the questions “relevant”. They would point to.. oh what’s the word…let me think… “guilt”!

  18. bongobongo says:

    the request remains . . . post the opinions please. otherwise i must assume that it is you whose reliance is based upon hearsay.

  19. Mash says:

    Bongo, you said:

    Furthermore, the state department opinions that were relied upon by the Immigration Judge were not specific to Ahmed. They were general statements regarding the trial of both those tried in absentia, and those who had counsel of their own choosing.

    I assume you read the state department’s position or were you just making it up?

    Now you say:

    the request remains . . . post the opinions please. otherwise i must assume that it is you whose reliance is based upon hearsay.

    You declared what the State Department opinion was, feel free to post it here. Otherwise google it for the many news reports that refer to it.

    Frankly, I dont care what you assume. I have humored you even after you have hurled personal attacks at me. Your case is so weak that the only thing you have left are personal attacks.

  20. bongobongo says:

    you have answered my question. you don’t have them, yet you make bold declarations. :-w

  21. Robbie says:

    Ignorance is not bliss…:-w

  22. Mash says:

    bongo, I presume you have seen the report and you also know it is not available online. I also presume you are not disputing that the State Department ruled that the trial was fair.

    I do not cite facts without references to news articles or original documents. I have sourced this before with online links. I’ll do it again using a news article that is favorable to Mohiuddin so it should be diffucult for you to argue bias.

    Here’s the recent Toronto Star article about Mohiuddin. Please note that it states “the U.S. state department has ruled that his trial in Dhaka followed due process.”

    Ouch. Facts are a bitch, aren’t they? How’s that for a bold declaration.

    Let me see. The State Department, Amnesty International, the US courts – hmm, seems like no one credible buys Mohiuddin’s victim card. So keep commenting away.

  23. Mash says:

    Robbie, ignorance seems to be available in spades these days :-”

    Calgon, take me away….~X(

  24. bongobongo says:

    LOL toronto star as your source. you are really reaching joy.\:d/

    what is next . . the daily star? l-)

  25. Mash says:

    Lol, bongo, you are right. The reason I cited Toronto Star is because that article is prominently featured on Mohiuddin’s web site. \:d/

    Mohiuddin’s site likes the article so much that it even made a PDF out of it. Click here.

    The link to the Toronto Star article is right on the front page at Mohiuddin’s site.

    I guess I could have cited you as well from this comment:

    Furthermore, the state department opinions that were relied upon by the Immigration Judge were not specific to Ahmed. They were general statements regarding the trial of both those tried in absentia, and those who had counsel of their own choosing. Apples and oranges Joy/Hasina/Mash, apples and oranges. In any event, everyone knows that the state department opinions were produced upon reliance of what the awami thugs was providing to the Department of State in 1996. Sadly, it appears that the Immigration Judge took those opinions as holy writ.

    Oops! 😮

    I’d love to hear any other constructive comments you may have.

  26. Robbie says:

    I’m a Toronto Globe & Mail guy myself, but that’s for the hockey coverage on the Leafs. :d

  27. AsifY says:

    Frankly I really have very little to say about the trial directly. As you may have read elsewhere, I want justice for Mujib in as much as I want justice for anyone. I don’t support the death penalty, and hope they get life sentences instead.

    I think the trial was free, fair and followed due process. My problem with the trial is that it represented a form of political inequality. There are still loads of people from 1971 who deserve having their cases investigated, who are waiting for justice. While Razakars roam free, energy has been spent on the trial of Mujib and family. I’ve made this same point in DP and on my blog. Would Sheikh himself have wanted it that way? I’d like to think not.

    But what is done is done, and Mohiuddin has to face the justice system, no matter how unequal, of the very country of which he claims to be a patriot. After all, Mujib did.

    Another point of interest has been what I can only call the shallow, knee-jerk liberalism of Westerners. In trying to defend Mohiuddin, they have inevitably tried to portray Bangladesh with all the stereotypes available for “third world” countries. “Banana republics”, “bought judges”, “barbarian justice” etc etc. To think that such things have any purchase 30 years after “Orientalism” was published on this very continent is rather depressing for me personally. A better understanding of other countries and of their own present limitations in information would serve Western audiences and those they are trying to help in the “third world” much better.

    Robbie, while not a huge hockey fan, I must say I’m appalled by your choice of the Leafs! 😉

  28. HALA says:

    Mash – One has to think the blogs you write about the Ahmed case with such heartfelt conviction, you could very well have more than just a “simple interest” in the matter. It is the duty of a writer, journalist, or anyone providing information,to offer it from a non biased standpoint. I do not feel your blog postings have really done that. Sure, you readily provide links to articles, amnesty’s declaration of due process during the 1996 trial, etc.. but the archived article from the Washington Post interviewing the “majors” – was only 1 person – Farook. No where in the article, or ANY article for that matter, was there any mention of Ahmed. HE HAS NEVER GIVEN AN INTERVIEW ABOUT THE COUP. How can you call THAT fair to lead your viewers towards believing the propaganda/skewing of the facts. Also, The title of this blog.. “Canada begins to wake up to Mohiuddin’s fiction..” how dramatic.. What the Canadians realize is that there is much more to the coup than just Mohiuddin.
    The denial of Mohuiddin’s asylum in the US was based on whether he recieved a fair trial – and yes, according to the Us State Dept report, it was fair. But do YOU have amnesia, or just selective memory – the evidence brought forth was given to the US by the Bangladeshi government. Lost in translations, as the documents show. The lack of willingness to post that on your blogs also does not give the viewer the opportunity to judge this matter fairly. Your convictions are set on his guilt and execution. To address your continuous question regarding Ahmed’s innocence to his supporters, and the proof to substantiate it, the 9th circuit court does not look into the evidence of the case. What they look at is whether or not Ahmed’s case received due process in the lower immigration court in the US. Ahmed is not being tried in the US for the coup. His case is regarding immigration process., not the Mujib trial in Bangladesh. Also, the 9th circuit does not allow new evidence to be submitted.
    Everyone who has an opinion, will continue to believe what they want, regardless of what facts lie in front of them. It is interesting to see how polar the discussions are regarding the 75 coup and Mohiuddin Ahmed.

  29. bongobongo says:

    joy/mash : based upon our conversation yesterday, it is fair to say that the following has been established . . . (1) you have never seen the relevant State Department reports; (2) the 9th circuit never said that the Bangladeshi trial was fair; and (3) Amnesty International is against sending Ahmed to Bangladesh.

    warm regards,
    bongo bongo.

  30. Mash says:

    Hala, I have read your comments on Dristhipat about this case. You have clearly stated that you feel the trial was unfair. However you have provided no proof that it was unfair other than blanket statements.

    It is also not true that the State Department relied on the Bangladesh government’s documents to conclude the trial was fair. The US embassy observed the case and made an independent assessment of the case. Just repeating the falsehood that the State Department was simply fed mistranslated documents by the Bangladesh government does not make it a fact.

    I have posted the US government’s case against Mohiuddin in great detail here. Enjoy reading:

    All arguments you and others have put forth were thoroughly refuted in American courts. The US government presented substantial background information, independent assessments of the trial, and evidence of Mohiuddin’s guilt. The 9th circuit in its ruling specifically stated that Mohiuddin was involved in terrorist activities. That was a finding of fact based on overwhelming evidence presented of Mohiuddin’s guilt, not a comment on the fairness of the Bangladesh trial only.

    You also say:

    One has to think the blogs you write about the Ahmed case with such heartfelt conviction, you could very well have more than just a “simple interest” in the matter. It is the duty of a writer, journalist, or anyone providing information,to offer it from a non biased standpoint. I do not feel your blog postings have really done that.

    This blog has a bias towards facts and truth. There is no obligation to strike a balance between a truth and a lie. I simply will not create a false balance between what was proven in court and what Mohiuddin claims – claims that have been roundly rejected as not credible by the US government. Mohiuddin’s guilt is simply not in doubt – in spite of baseless claims rejected by the US government in a court of law.

    I have noticed this tendency to question my motives when the facts are simply not on Mohiuddin’s side. This is the same tactice Mohiuddin tried in court and it is the same tactic rejected by the US government as simply not credible.

    This from the US government’s brief in front of the 9th Circuit:

    The State Department’s 2000 country report reflects that the High Court’s confirmation review resulted in a split decision in which the senior judge ” “upheld the convictions and death sentences of 10 of the 15 previously convicted persons,” while the junior judge upheld all convictions and sentences. AR 1274. In the spring of 2001, a third judge “”reconfirmed the death sentences of… those originally sentenced, including [Mohiuddin].” AR 133. The State Department also observed that while there is “”no automatic right to a retrial if a person convicted in absentia later returns,” the absent defendants “”may not file appeals until they return to the country.” AR 1275.
    Transcripts and summaries of the evidence and witness testimony taken in the Bangladesh trial, as well as certified copies of the High Court’s judgment and the State Department’s periodic assessments of the eighteen month trial were *16 admitted at Mohiuddin’s removal hearing. Mohiuddin attacked the evidence as “”absolutely biased,” “”spurious and false,” “”fabricated,” and “”a complete frame-up.” AR 516, 549, 633, and 668, respectively. He alleged that the criminal case against him was “”motivated by the personal vengeance of Prime Minister Sheik Hasina, backed by the political power of the ruling Awami League, to achieve a preordained verdict against him.” AR 148. Mohiuddin attempted to support this wholesale condemnation of the evidence and judgment against him by citing problems with the translations of the Bangladesh trial testimony supplied by the Bangladesh government. He claimed that the Bangladesh government “”selectively provided and even altered the witness testimony in its translations to intentionally mislead [the immigration] court.” Id.
    Mohiuddin’s arguments were addressed and rejected in an exhaustively detailed decision issued by Immigration Judge Henry P. Ipema, Jr. on May 29, 2002, denying Mohiuddin’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Torture Convention.

    My position is consistent with the US government position and the findings of all US courts who have ruled against Mohiuddin. So, please give it a rest with the “you could very well have more than just a “simple interest” in the matter” and see if you can refute any of the facts of the case. Mohiuddin’s own defense and his supporters here have not been able to do so. And certainly did not do so in a court of law.

  31. Mash says:

    And bongo, read my latest post. You might find that it quotes from the State Department report.

    Your claims in comment #28 about the trial are roundly disputed by the evidence presented in the US courts and the State Department report.

  32. Mash says:

    AsifY, you are right. There are a lot of war crimes from 1971 that still need to be addressed. It is the tragedy of Bangladesh that well known war criminals and Islamists have returned to Bangladesh and still enjoy impunity.

    But the Mujib murder trial and hopefully future trials of these war criminals are not unconnected. The direction Bangladesh took after Mujib was murdered has a lot to do with why these folks have not faced their day in court.

    It is vitally important for Bangladesh as a nation that the coup plotters are brought to justice. It will bring national closure to the events of 1975 and will pave the way to eliminating impunity for the culture of murder that has its roots pre-liberation, and runs through the coup of 1975.

    To that end, removing the Indemnity Act was an essential first step. If Bangladesh is to see long term stable democracy and develop as I know it can into a robust and vibrant secular beacon in a world that is becoming increasingly polarized, it must deal with these very important national issues. Bangladeshis, regardless of political persuasion, have a common interest in seeing the rule of law prevail.

  33. AsifY says:

    Just read the DS piece on how successive governments have stalled on the Mujib case. Depressing to say the least. Decided I had to reply to you on this one. Yes, I agree totally that the culture of impunity needs to be banished forever if we are to have any justice.

    At the same time, I feel that most people who clamour for justice for Mujib are not like you at all. I feel they treat it like a single-issue thing without considering the broader ramifications or pushing for greater coverage of this right to justice.

    To the general populace, I feel we are sending the signal that it’s ok to kill 1.5 million (and I’m sticking to that figure till a study is done) “ordinary” people. But if you kill someone rich and powerful, you will get expedited justice. Which itself has to wait for 32 years to take effect! That’s the message I really don’t like receiving as a citizen.

    In any case, none of this is directed at you. You make a lot of sense when you attack that culture of impunity. But when I read the DS article, I had to ask myself: what’s a greater tragedy, that no government has tried to bring back Mujib’s killers or that no government has even talked about compiling a list of the dead and missing from 1971 so that when Pakistanis can claim that it’s 26,000 we can expose them for the lying ****s that they are?

Comments are closed.