Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

[Click image for PDF of Pakistan Observer news article from November 8, 1971]

In October of this year, Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, Secretary General of the Jamaat-e-Islami party in Bangladesh, declared that his party did not work against the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. He went on to say that "in fact anti-liberation forces never even existed."

Today, on the eve of the 36th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh, Mr. Mujahid declared "Bangladesh is ours. We will run this country." He then added, "all irrespective of caste and creed have to be tolerant. Others have to take a vow to protect independence and sovereignty of the country." [Emphasis added by me.]

Mr. Mujahid must have forgotten his party’s - the Jamaat-e-Islami’s - active support of the Pakistan military in 1971 as it committed genocide against Bengalis. Mr. Mujahid must have forgotten that Jamaat-e-Islami supplied the manpower for the Razakars - the al-Badr and al-Shams - that were trained by, paid by, and armed by the Pakistan army. Mr. Mujahid must have forgotten how the Razakars massacred Bengalis and raped Bengali women and girls. He must have forgotten the leading and public role played by his party’s leader in 1971, Golam Azam, in calling for the elimination of Bengalis.

However, I don’t understand how he can forget his own role. In 1971 Mr. Mujahid was the President of Pakistan Islami Chhattra (Student) Sangha and leader of the al-Badr in Dhaka city. It is difficult to understand how he could have forgotten his very public role leading forces against the liberation of Bangladesh.

To help him get over his amnesia and as a public service, below is the text of an article that appeared in the Pakistan Observer newspaper on November 8, 1971. The Pakistan Observer was under Pakistan military censorship at the time and was a propaganda outlet for pro-military positions. I hope the following text reminds Mr. Mujahid of his book-burning ways and of his lack of tolerance for other religions. I hope the following text reminds Mr. Mujahid that he himself was an anti-liberation force. I hope the following text reminds Mr. Mujahid, and those in Bangladesh who are willfully rewriting history, of who the anti-liberation forces really were:

——–

Badr Day rally in city
Pakistan Observer, November 8, 1971

The firm determination of the people to defend the solidarity and integrity of Pakistan was reiterated in Dacca on Sunday at a rally held at Baitul Mukarram in observance of "Badr Day" under the auspices of the Pakistan Islami Chhattra (students) Sangha, reports APP.

Speakers at the rally spoke on the significance of the war of Badr in the history of Islam and appealed to people to draw inspiration from it in fighting for Islam and to frustrate the conspiracy hatched by India and her agents to break Pakistan.

Slogans were raised at the rally pledging firm resistance against Indian aggression and the miscreants and the establishment of Islamic society. They also raised the slogans: Crush India and her agents.

The President of the organization Mr. Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid told the rally that theirs was a fight not only for the Muslims in Pakistan, but for the Muslims all over the world. He said their struggle would continue until the recovery of Baitul Mukaddas.

Mr. Mujahid said from today (Monday) no library would be allowed to have books written by Hindu writers or pro-Hindu Muslim writers. He said their volunteers would burn those books if found in the libraries, to save Muslims from Un-Islamic influences.

He said we have to look at the situation against the background of unprovoked Indian shelling into Pakistan along different parts of the border and the killing of those who believe in Pakistan. He added India has alerted their Army, Navy and Air Force against us.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

The first word in the Holy Koran is "Read". When I was a child growing up in Bangladesh, my parents hired the imam of the neighborhood mosque to teach me how to read the Koran. Twice a week after school the imam, an old man with a kindly face, would come to our house for an hour to give me lessons. He would ask me to read out loud certain passages from the Koran, and as I would be reading, he would slowly drift off into a sound sleep. At the end of the hour I would wake him and thank him for the day’s lessons. Although the imam taught me how to read the Koran in Arabic, he did not teach me what the words meant. One day I asked him what the words of the Koran meant. He smiled and replied that I would have to learn the meaning myself. He said Islam was about knowledge and the first word in the Koran was an instruction to Muslims to acquire knowledge.

*****

Growing up in Bangladesh you learn tolerance. I am a child of genocide. My identity, and that of the country of my birth, Bangladesh, was forged by resistance to racial and religious hatred. Three million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistani military and their Islamist collaborators in the name of "God and a united Pakistan". We were killed for not being "pure" enough - for being Hindus, or converted Muslims, or Muslims who sympathized with Hindus or converted Muslims; in short, we were killed for being Bengali. Yet we resisted, and at a cost of three million lives, we created a free Bangladesh with the dream of a secular state where Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and others could live without fear of intimidation or persecution.

Over the years the Islamists have crept back into Bangladesh. Yet they operated at the margins amongst a populace who had fresh memories of the killings and rapes of Bengalis at the hands of these Islamists. Democracy in Bangladesh ensured that as long as the people had a voice the Islamists would remain at the fringes.

Today with democracy and fundamental rights suspended, and a ruthless military regime at the helm, the dream of Bangladesh is under threat. Today a young Bangladeshi man, Arifur Rahman, is behind bars for a cartoon he drew. His cartoon offended the Islamists and the military government obliged them by putting the young cartoonist in jail. The military government has suspended publication of the magazine that published the cartoon and its editor, one of the most important voices in the Bangladeshi media, has been forced to publicly apologize to the leader of the Islamists - an apology facilitated by the military government’s Information and Law Advisor. Out of fear, no lawyer dared to defend the cartoonist in court as he was shipped away to jail.

The editor and publisher of Prothom Alo, the newspaper that published the cartoon, have been charged with sedition and blasphemy. No publication in Bangladesh has dared to defend the cartoonist. In fact, the most progressive English language newspaper in Bangladesh, The New Age, published an editorial yesterday that offered no support to the cartoonist and backed the government’s decision to jail the young man for retelling a joke that even Islamists themselves have published before:

Alpin’s controversial cartoon seems to have been a product of the pseudo-liberal minds and the editorial authorities of the daily have rightly offered unqualified public apology for hurting the ‘religious sentiment’ of the Muslims at large. And that the Prothom Alo authorities do not subscribe to the pseudo-liberal idea of the cartoonist was also apparent, at least for now, in the administrative measures that they took against the person/s responsible for publishing the cartoon. The government, on the other hand, has justifiably confiscated the particular issue (September 17) of the fun magazine, and taken legal steps as regards the cartoonist. The matter should end here, while the cartoonist, already arrested, should be ensured justice within the framework of the law of the land.

When The New Age newspaper, a paper which has been outspoken against the military in spite of constant intimidation, capitulates and cannot find the voice to defend a cartoonist for drawing a cat, Bangladesh has succumbed to a climate of fear.

To add to the climate of fear created by the military government and the Islamists, another publication was banned yesterday because it contained an article that apparently hurt "the religous sentiments of the people."

Today in a show of force Islamists demonstrated in Dhaka against the Prothom Alo newspaper. They demanded the execution of both the editor and publisher of the newspaper:

Demonstrators gathered at the north gate of Baitul Mukarram national mosque and brought out a procession after the juma prayers, demanding ban on Prothom Alo and arrest of the editor and publisher of the daily.

Protestors clashed with police as lawmen prevented them from marching towards the newspaper’s office at Karwan Bazar. At least 50 people were injured when the police used clubs to disperse the protesters, witnesses said.

…

Demonstrations were also reported in Chittagong and some other district towns. Copies of the newspaper and effigies of its editor and publisher were burnt in Dhaka and Chittagong.

The clash broke out in Dhaka at around 2:20 pm when a group of activists, apparently belonging to Hijbut Tahrir Bangladesh, tried to cross the barbed-wire barricade near police control room at Shahbagh crossing. Later, some other groups joined the Hijbut Tahrir, but the police chased the demonstrators and used batons to disperse them.

The protests were led by Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamist political party that aims to create an Islamic Caliphate. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a media savvy Islamist group that has tentacles in many Muslim and European countries. In August of last year, I wrote about them in a post entitled "Meet The Enemy". Hizb ut-Tahrir was at the forefront of the Danish cartoon protests and never misses an opportunity to exploit controversy to push its Islamist agenda. Until now, however, their reach and their influence has been limited in a largely secular Muslim country such as Bangladesh. Last year I wrote:

While bin Laden hides in caves Hizb ut-Tahrir takes its message freely to the young people of the Muslim world. It targets colleges and universities in the Muslim world looking for recruits to its idea of jihad and of an enduring Caliphate. For example, in Bangladesh, which is a largely secular Muslim majority country, Hizb ut-Tahrir is starting to make inroads with university students and intellectuals.

The group’s presence as a political party in Bangladesh is small but nonetheless vocal. It markets itself as a discussion group to university students and openly holds weekly meetings at the country’s leading universities. It feeds on political unrest in the country and presents itself as a utopian alternative to all the country’s ills. It capitalizes on Muslim grievances and focuses hate and anger toward the West and the country’s own government. 

…

The tactic is always the same: blame the West and then find a way of tying the country’s government to the West. In many cases, the grievances are legitimate. That is exactly where Hizb ut-Tahrir’s appeal lies. It first voices a legitimate grievance and then pivots the rhetoric into hate.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are masters at capturing the media spotlight and magnifying the smallest hint of a controversy. During the Danish cartoon controversy, it was Hizb ut-Tahrir in Bangladesh and elsewhere that engineered the protest marches for the benefit of Western cameras

In a largely secular country like Bangladesh, Hizb ut-Tahrir will not garner much support and will likely remain in the fringes. However, it need not have a huge following to mobilize hate. Its target audience, university students who are looking to channel their frustration, are the engine that fuel the armies of hate. [Emphasis added.]

The situation in Bangladesh has changed dramatically since last August. Democracy has been squelched and the country is now under military rule. Dissent has been criminalized under draconian laws passed by the military government. The secular political parties have been silenced. In this environment, where the will of the people becomes irrelevant, Islamist parties thrive.

Military governments in South Asia come to power at the cross-section of three forces: the "civil society", the Islamists, and the military. It is "civil society" that makes a military coup viable. In a naive and arrogant hope that they can substitute their wisdom for that of the masses, "civil society" enables the military to overthrow the "corrupt" political leaders. Once the military comes to power it is "civil society", in the mistaken belief that this time the military will "fix" the system, that enables the military as they implement more and more draconian policies and roll back more and more fundamental freedoms. There is however no room for "civil society" on the autocratic end of the "J curve" and at some point disillusionment sets in as the military turns on "civil society". At the same time, the Islamists inevitably benefit from military rule as dissent and the free flow of ideas are stifled. Islamists provide a ready constituency for the military and in return the Islamists get what they crave from the population: silent obedience. This pattern of military rule has happened in Bangladesh once before and has been the norm in Pakistan for most of its history.

In Bangladesh, it was "civil society" types like Motiur Rahman, the editor of Prothom Alo, and Mahfuz Anam, the publisher of Prothom Alo and the editor and publisher of the leading English language newspaper The Daily Star, who were the most fervent supporters of the military coup last January. Today both Motiur Rahman and Mahfuz Anam find themselves facing the wrath of the Islamists, the beneficiaries of the regime they helped bring to power. When Motiur Rahman, once one of the most powerful editors in the country, begged forgiveness on bended knee to the leader of the Islamists the capitulation was complete.

The Islamists now have the upper hand in Bangladesh. With the military government’s help they have managed to silence the very outspoken Bangladeshi media. They have bred fear in the hearts of the population. They have set Bangladesh on a path of both militarization and extremism. Tolerance, the essence of a stable society and the founding dream of Bangladesh, has vanished from the streets of Bangladesh. Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Islamists are today burning newspapers and anything else they can find that hurts their "religious sentiments". The first instruction of the Holy Koran, to read - to acquire knowledge, is being abandoned in Bangladesh.

With the mainstream media cowed into silence, the Bangladeshi blogosphere is raising its voice. Today the battle is joined. Brave Bengali language bloggers from inside Bangladesh are speaking out at Somewhere In blog and at  Sachalayatan. Expatriate English-language Bangladeshi bloggers like Rumi Ahmed, Dhaka Shohor and Rezwan are spreading the word to the outside world, and group blogs like E-Bangladesh (where I also write) and Deshi Voice are giving voice to those who are living in fear.

I ask you the reader to join us in spreading the word about the slow death of the dream of Bangladesh. The real war on terror is being fought on the streets of Bangladesh. It is not a war between the West and Islam - it is a war between knowledge and willful ignorance; between freedom and persecution; between reason and insanity. It is a battle in which all of us have a stake.

The Washington Post today carries an article entitled (at least on its homepage) "Pakistani Immigrants Fret Over Fate of Homeland". Not to be outdone, the New York Times has its own article about Pakistan entitled "Al Qaeda Threatens; U.S. Frets". Both articles exhibit the fear and ignorance that has led the United States, over the last half century, to be the prime benefactor of Islamist extremism in the world.

The Washington Post takes a man-on-the-street approach by reporting the views of Pakistani immigrants in the Washington DC area. In a paragraph overflowing with ignorance, the Post captures the essential failure of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Islamist extremism. The Post writes about Pakistani immigrants and of Pakistan:

Although almost all are observant Muslims and many attend mosques, local Pakistanis tend to be moderate and well-integrated into American culture. Now, many say they fear that their once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy — could become the next victim of the violent militancy that is causing mayhem in many Islamic countries.

The Post seems to imply that somehow it is exceptional to both be moderate and attend mosques at the same time - a prejudice that obscures a more enlightened understanding of the struggles in the Muslim world. Then the Post reveals its ignorance further in the very next sentence. To state that Pakistan was a "once-tolerant native land — founded in 1947 as a Muslim democracy" it to ignore a half century of history. The name of the country, "Pakistan", means "Land of the Pure" - there is nothing tolerant in that formulation. To be "pure" means to be a "Muslim", that is, to be a "Muslim" untainted by cultural or other local "impurities". This is not a theoretical matter. In 1971 the Pakistan military slaughtered, with support from the Nixon administration, up to 3 million Bangladeshis - a spasm of insanity and genocide that was made possible because Bangladeshis were viewed as "impure" and tainted by Hindu and Bengali culture.

The New York Times, meanwhile, explains how Washington is "captivated" by the current Pakistani strongman:

Washington is captivated by General Musharraf because he is a secular moderate, which is not to be confused with a civil libertarian. John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state who until late last year tracked the gathering Qaeda threat as the director of national intelligence, ended a trip to Pakistan a month ago convinced that General Musharraf’s government had, at long last, gotten the message about the tribal areas in the northwest officially known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. [Emphasis added by me.]

Washington is so captivated by the General that they fund him and his military to the tune of $2 billion a year, even though this money has resulted in failure after failure. Banking on Musharraf being a "secular moderate" is naive.

The New York Times continues:

Yet, when asked how the United States would respond if Al Qaeda were to plot a successful attack on the United States from the tribal areas, the answer from one intelligence officials was direct: “We’d go in and flatten it.” [Emphasis added by me.]

I hate to point out the obvious, but Al Qaeda did plot a successful attack on the United States from Pakistan on September 11, 2001. I am quite confident no "flatten"ing has occurred in Pakistan - in spite of the bravado.

Pakistan has been a breeding ground for Islamist extremists since its founding. The Pakistani Constitution itself institutionalizes religious persecution. The primary benefactor of Islamists in Pakistan has been the Pakistan military. The Pakistan military, through the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), has consistently stifled democratic opposition in the country while at the same time used Islamist extremists to carry out its domestic and foreign policy goals - the organization and funding of genocidal Islamist extremists in Bangladesh, the funding of Islamists extremists in Kashmir, and the creation and backing of the Taliban are only a few of the extreme examples. Throughout, from the Pakistani dictator Ayub Khan to Islamist General Zia-ul-Haq to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan military and the Islamist extremists have co-existed in a symbiotic relationship. The Islamists have acted as a support pillar for the military while the military has generously funded the Islamists and the growth of Islamist thought in Pakistan and beyond. Both groups share a common antipathy toward secular democracies. In this relationship, the Pakistani military is the dominant partner. An Islamist takeover of Pakistan is at best remote and certainly not necessary from the Islamist’s point of view. Islamists do not have to rule Pakistan to wield enormous power - many of their policy objectives are helped along by the Pakistan military, an institution that controls much of Pakistani society and is in no danger of collapsing. In this atmosphere, the occasional flexing of muscle by the military against extremists that go off the reservation is window dressing.

Pakistan was the birthplace of modern Islamist thought. The primary Islamist party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami, has been, since its founding, at the forefront of political Islam, or Islamism. It is an ideology that is inconsistent with secular democracy and distinct from Islam, the religion that is practiced by me and more than a billion other adherents. It is also an ideology that cannot win the day in the Muslim world. However, it finds a home within military dictatorships as in Pakistan. The consequences of this coddling of Islamists by the military for Pakistan, South Asia, and now the world have been severe.

Yet, the United States has consistently supported military dictatorships in Pakistan at the expense of political freedom. It has done so while engaged in games of geo-political chicken, sacrificing wisdom for expediency. It has propped up Pakistan’s military dictatorship, and in doing so it has given aid to the very extremists it now hopes to combat. Dealing with Islamist extremism without first addressing its big brother in Pakistan is simply folly. Propping up the Pakistani military regime by sowing fear that Islamists will takeover otherwise is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Fretting however is not the answer.

Convicted murderer Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed was deported from the United States and arrived in Bangladesh today. Mohiuddin’s arrival in Bangladesh was front page news in every Bangladeshi paper:

After leading a fugitive life of nine years in the United States Lt Col (retd) Mohiuddin Ahmed, a killer of the founding father of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was brought back to Dhaka yesterday from Los Angeles, as a US court rejected his appeal to stay.

Col Mohiuddin, one of 12 former army officers given death sentence for assassinating Sheikh Mujib and his family on August 15, 1975 through a bloody coup, was deported by the U.S. Homeland Security after a district court in California turned down his last appeal on June 14.

All the killers left Bangladesh after the coup and were absorbed in Bangladesh missions abroad following an understanding with the post ‘75 regimes.

Mohiuddin, 60, was a major at the time of the coup when most members of Sheikh Mujib’s family were killed and his three and half year old elected government was toppled.

Mohiuddin was tried in absentia and sentenced to death in 1998 during the second Awami League (AL) government led by Mujib’s daughter Sheikh Hasina, who was its Prime Minister.

While serving as a Bangladeshi diplomat in a Middle-Eastern country, Mohiuddin entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in 1996. Since then, he has fought a long legal battle to stay in the U.S.A.

Of the convicts, only four Lt Col (Retd) Syed Farooq Rahman, Lt Col (Retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Lt Col (retd) Mohiuddin and Maj (retd) Bazlul Huda are behind the bar. Aziz Pasha died in Zimbabwe, two are living in Canada, the remaining persons, including Lt Col Rashid are reportedly living in unknown places outside Bangladesh.

The death sentence against the convicts has not yet been executed as their appeals are still pending before the Supreme Court.

Mohiuddin was flown in to Zia International Airport at about 12:18 noon by a Thai airplane (TG-321) from Los Angeles. Two officials of the US Homeland Security escorted him to the airport. The US officials handed him to the airport immigration. They left Dhaka for Bangkok by the return flight at 1:20pm.

Airport Thana police arrested the repatriated convict under Section 54 of the CrPc on his return. Clad in bulletproof jacket and helmet in his head, he was whisked in a convoy to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) court amidst foolproof security at about 1:35pm.

Police produced him in the court of Magistrate Shafique Anwar along with a report. The report reads: Mohiuddin is a condemned fugitive in the case of assassination of Sheikh Mujib on August 15, 1975. The case was filed with Dhanmondi police station in 1996.

The court was also informed that he was also an absconding accused in the Jail Killing Case filed with Lalbagh thana in 1975 as well as in Abdur Rab Serniabat Killing Case filed with Ramna thana in 1996.

After hearing the case statements, the court ordered that Mohiuddin be sent to Dhaka Central Jail with “custody warrant”. He was put behind bar at Dhaka central jail at about 2:00pm.

Mohiuddin was deported after a District Court judge in California denied his last minute petition for a stay of deportation [Click here to view the judge’s decision.]. Mohiuddin was scheduled to be deported on June 2nd after losing his final appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but filed a Habeas Corpus petition with the District Court in Central California on June 1st citing Congressman Jim McDermott’s private bill that aimed to give Mohiuddin a green card. The judge temporarily stayed his deportation until he had a chance to rule. Mohiuddin’s lawyers had contended "not only that the government’s execution of his removal order was improper, but also that on June 1, 2007, which was during Congress’ Memorial Day recess, staff members of the Department of Homeland Security ( "DHS" ) had misled congressional staff as to when Petitioner would be deported, thereby depriving him of the possibility that Members could intervene on his behalf." 

The judge (1) denied Mohiuddin’s claim that DHS misled Congress and as a consequence he was deprived possibility of relief, and (2) dismissed Mohiuddin’s claim that the government’s execution of the deportation order was improper.

On the second claim, that the deportation was improper, the judge ruled he had no jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a deportation order.

On the first claim, that DHS lied to or misled Congress, the judge ruled that Mohiuddin’s argument does not prevail on the merits. The judge wrote in his decision:

 As the government notes, Petitioner presents only extraordinarily thin evidence that DHS misled congressional staffers concerning the timing of his removal. His evidence is a declaration from an associate of his lawyer…

…even Petitioner himself acknowledges that some congressional staffers were told he could be deported at any time, and others were told his departure was imminent. Because both statements were true, Petitioner’s own evidence demonstrates it is virtually impossible that DHS misled congressional staffers at all, except on the remote possibility that some were intentionally kept out of the loop.

Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s representation at the first oral argument, the Court has received no declarations from staffers or Members of Congress indicating they were misled.

…

Finally, even if a misrepresentation occurred, and even if it prevented congressional action that otherwise could have occurred, any injury that might have occurred has been mooted by this Court’s stays for further briefing. Because the House Judiciary Committee enacted its rules on June 6, 2007, it has now had a full week in which to act - with full knowledge of Petitioner’s predicament - but has declined to do so. Thus, Petitioner can hardly argue that any harm created by a misrepresentation remains ongoing.

The Court remains firm in this conclusion even after Petitioner’s contention at the second oral argument that "Congress is like the Titanic" and takes so much time to act that any misrepresentation could continue to prejudice Petitioner even now by delaying relief. Petitioner cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that Congress could have been nimble enough to have helped him at the eleventh hour but for a DHS lie, but at the same time too sluggish to help him with a week’s notice.

Thus, for each reason set forth above, the Court concludes that Petitioner has no claim based on a misrepresentation from DHS to congressional staff.

The District Court judge did not accept Mohiuddin’s claim that DHS had tried to mislead Congress. Last week a Canadian reporter had written that it was the judge himself who "charged the Department of Homeland Security with misleading Congress, particularly those members fighting the deportation order."  This report that the judge had "charged" DHS with misleading Congress was repeated by other news organizations. It turns out, from the judge’s ruling, that the "charge" came from Mohiuddin, and not from the judge. In fact, the judge found that Mohiuddin’s claim was "extraordinarily thin".

 Thus ended Mohiuddin’s efforts to fight deportation. His 9 years in the United States as a fugitive from justice has now come to an end.

Mohiuddin’s return to Bangladesh is not a moment for celebration, but one of reflection. There is no joy in seeing murderers taken into custody - only sadness that the murders occurred. Justice has been delayed in this case, but nonetheless, it has now arrived. It is a solemn reminder of the frailty of human life and the capacity of some to take it with such ease.

Now Mohiuddin faces justice for murders he committed nearly 32 years ago. Mohiuddin’s return to Bangladesh is an important event in Bangladesh’s history. It is one important step in bringing to closure the national upheaval that began on August 15, 1975. One by one the killers of 1975 who had enjoyed impunity for so many years are being brought to justice.

With their return to Bangladesh comes tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of the current Bangladeshi government. It is the responsibility of being just in the execution of justice. Mohiuddin was successfully returned to Bangladesh because the US courts were confronted with overwhelming evidence from Mohiuddin’s trial. The US courts were able to satisfy themselves that the trial in Bangladesh was free and fair and that Mohiuddin had received due process. If his trial had been a show trial, his return to Bangladesh would not have occurred. Mohiuddin’s deportation demonstrates very clearly the importance of fair trials and due process. Now that Mohiuddin is in Bangladeshi custody, the current government needs to ensure that Mohiuddin’s remaining appeals to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh are handled as transparently as his trial in 1997. Mohiuddin received due process and a deliberate consideration of his petitions in the United States - that deliberate process must continue in Bangladesh.

In May of this year Congressman Jim McDermott made a speech in the House of Representatives. It was entitled "The Terrorist We Caught But Won’t Prosecute". In it he demanded that the Bush Administration hand over a terrorist caught on immigration charges to face his conviction in Cuba and Venezuela. He said:

Mr. Speaker, next week Luis Carriles is scheduled to stand trial for allegedly lying to immigration authorities when he entered the United States 2 years ago.

Most Americans have probably never heard of Carriles, but everyone should know the real case against him because it shows the double standard of the Bush administration and its so-called commitment to fight terrorism.

Carriles is being prosecuted for an immigration violation in America, but he has been convicted in other nations for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner over 30 years ago that killed 33 innocent people. He is a wanted international fugitive. The Bush administration knows this, but instead of turning Carriles over to the sovereign Governments of Cuba or Venezuela, as they have asked, we are going to get him on an immigration violation. [Emphasis added by me.]

You will note that this is the same Congressman who, again in May of this year, introduced a private bill in Congress, HR 2181, to give a green card to Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed, an international fugitive who has been convicted of murder in Bangladesh, with overwhelming evidence, and who has lost all his appeals in front of US courts and has been found to be involved in terrorist activity by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Homeland Security was all set to deport, or as the congressman puts it - was about to turn over Mohiuddin to the sovereign government of Bangladesh - until McDermott introduced his private bill in Congress.

In the case of Mohiuddin, the Congressman was ready to substitute his judgment over the judgment of multiple US courts, the US State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bangladesh justice system, and the historical documentation. Congressman McDermott succeeded in postponing Mohiuddin’s deportation by one week. However, this week a District Judge once again ruled against Mohiuddin in his bid to try to use the private bill to stay the deportation. Once again Mohiuddin’s deportation appears imminent.

It is ironic that Jim McDermott should be talking about double standards.

The case against convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed is overwhelming. The evidence presented at the Bangladesh trial was overwhelming. The case against him in the US courts was overwhelming. On the other hand Mohiuddin’s answers at various times to the United States government, in front of the asylum officer and in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals, were inconsistent and simply not credible. When Mohiuddin’s appeal came to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the judges had a fairly easy decision to make based on the evidence and Mohiuddin’s failure to counter any of it. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mohiuddin’s petition for asylum on the grounds that he had engaged in terrorist activities and that he failed to prove that his trial in Bangladesh was unfair and that he did not receive due process.

In front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the respondent’s brief was filed on behalf of the United States government by Assistent Attorney General Peter Keisler and, Michael Lindemann and Ethan Kantor of the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Department of Justice. Click here to view the US government’s brief. It is a damning document and should be read from beginning to end.

When Mohiuddin’s son and supporters started commenting on my blog this week claiming that he did not get a fair trial, I pointed out that the 9th Circuit had rejected that argument. I had also posed two questions to them that Mohiuddin will find difficult to answer. Not surprisingly I have not received an answer from his supporters. The questions were:

• Where was Mohiuddin living between August 15, 1975 and November 3, 1975?
• Did Mohiuddin take a flight to Bangkok in early November 1975?

After the coup of August 15, 1975 the coup plotters, the army Majors including Mohiuddin, took up residence in the presidential palace surrounded by their tanks. They remained there until November 3, 1975 when they and their families fled Bangladesh by airplane for Bangkok, Thailand. Mohiuddin was among the Majors who fled Bangladesh on that flight. Later, some of these Majors, including Mohiuddin, where given diplomatic posts abroad as a reward for the killings and as a way to protect them. These facts are undisputed and well documented in newspaper accounts as well as historical documents.

At Mohiuddin’s asylum hearing, the issue of the infamous flight to Bangkok was raised by the US government. Mohiuddin’s response was not credible to say the least:

With the counter-coup imminent, and because the August coup plotters were " "afraid,'’ AR 889, President Mushtaque assisted Mohiuddin and the ""other officers who are now being named or accused or convicted,'’ in leaving Bangladesh, initially to Thailand, and then to various diplomatic assignments abroad. AR 890. These assignments were continued by General Zia who quashed the counter-coup and later assumed the presidency. AR 890; see AR 888-892, 2265. When asked on cross-examination how he ended up on the airplane with the coup plotters if, as he claimed, his own role was so limited, Mohiuddin replied that it was ""an order that I received,'’ and some officers ""just escorted me to the aircraft.'’ AR 897. [Emphasis added by me.]

The US government also relied on an advisory letter that the State Department sent to the immigration judge that stated that the trial was fair and that Mohiuddin received due process. The State Department’s letter was based on the assessment of the trial made by the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka who closely monitored the trial:

In an advisory letter to the immigration judge, dated October 18, 1999, the State Department conveyed the assessment of the trial made by the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh, noting the Embassy’s belief that the ""18-month trial process, the acquittal of four of the defendants, and the independence of the High Court now considering the appeals, demonstrate that the defendants received due process.'’ AR 1495. The Embassy also noted its ""belie[f] that the prosecution presented credible evidence that [Mohiuddin] participated in the conspiracy that led to these multiple, politically motivated murders in 1975.'’ Id. Based on the Embassy’s trial assessment, the State Department highlighted several indicia of the trial’s fairness: (1) the trial was ""conducted under a public spotlight,'’ (2) it was ""conducted under normal Bangladeshi judicial procedures,'’ (3) ""defense lawyers agreed that the judge allowed them the opportunity to put forward the questions and arguments they wanted,'’ (4) the length of the trial was partly attributable to ""the judge’s tolerance for protracted cross-examination by the lawyer for Farook Rahman, the main defendant in custody,'’ and (5) ""[w]hile it could be argued that the accused could have obtained more effective legal counsel had they chosen to return,'’ the trial judge ""acquitted two defendants represented by state-appointed counsels.'’ AR 1496-97.

All the convictions underwent ""confirmation'’ review by the High Court ""to ensure that death sentences are supportable on a factual and legal basis.'’ AR 1497. In addition, the four defendants in custody filed their own appeals for simultaneous review by the High Court. Id. The State Department noted that one such appeal, by a defendant who was then-recently returned to Bangladesh by Thailand, was ""particularly relevant, since it also includes challenges to the in absentia prosecution.'’ [Emphasis added by me.]

Mohiuddin’s defense in court, as it has been in public, is that the trial was essentially a "kangaroo court". The US government specifically rejected these blanket claims in a detailed decision by the Immigration judge and in briefs:

Trials against nineteen accused coup participants, six in custody, and thirteen fugitives including Mohiuddin, commenced on March 13, 1997. AR 3243. Mohiuddin and the other fugitives tried in absentia had state-appointed defense counsel. Id. The trial lasted eighteen months and was ""comprised of 149 hearings, involving 61 witnesses, documentary evidence, 10 attorneys for the state, and 18 attorneys for the defense, and was monitored by the international press.'’ AR 144. It resulted in a 100-page judgment of the Bangladesh High Court on November 8, 1998. See AR 1495 (State Department report); AR 1517-1616 (High Court Judgment). The High Court convicted Mohiuddin and fourteen others of the August 1975 coup murders, and sentenced them to death. AR 1495. [FN3] Of the nineteen defendants, four were acquitted, including two defendants who were tried in absentia. Id.; see also AR *14 1275 (from State Department Country Report on Bangladesh, February 2001).

…

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. See AR 130-72.

…

The immigration judge found that Mohiuddin lacked credibility when he denied any knowledge of the purpose of his assignment on the night of the coup. The Asylum Officer was ""a credible witness'’ who had not ""created the facts that placed [Mohiuddin] only 150 yards from the presidential residence,'’ he found. Id. Thus, Mohiuddin’s attempt to ""distance himself even further from the presidential residence, such as by stating he was not even sure where it was, demonstrated his lack of credibility,'’ the immigration judge ruled. Id.

[Emphasis added by me.]

The US government of course lays out the background of the murders committed by Mohiuddin and his co-conspirators:

This immigration case arises out of the events in Bangladesh on August 15, 1975, when two regiments of the Bangladesh military, led by a group of majors including the petitioner, Major Mohiuddin A.K.M. Ahmed, staged a coup d’etat in which they shot and killed the first president and founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (known as ""Mujib,'’ or ""Bangabandhu,'’ meaning " "Bangalis’ friend,'’ AR 1862). Bangabandhu led the independence movement in 1971 that created Bangladesh from what had been East Pakistan. AR 131, 2262. Beyond *5 overthrowing Bangabandhu, however, the coup participants massacred forty-five people including Bangabandhu’s wife, his two adult sons and their wives, Bangabandhu’s ten year-old son, and the pregnant wife and four grandchildren (ages 5, 10, 11, and 15) of one of Bangabandhu’s cabinet ministers. AR 1933-35. [FN1]

FN1. The record contains numerous accounts of the coup and massacre, among them the report of journalist Anthony Mascarenhas in his book, BANGLADESHA Legacy of Blood (Hodder and Stoughton 1986), a chapter of which the State Department attached to its May 22, 1997 advisory opinion in Mohiuddin’s asylum case. See AR 3242-60; see also id. at 1854-1959 (historical and political context on the coup); AR 2241 (description of the coup from Marcus Franda, BANGLADESH The First Decade (South Asian Publishers Pvt Ltd. 1982); id. at 2235-52 (causes and aftermath of coup).

 …

As ""chief martial law administrator,'’ AR 2265, Mushtaque [the man installed in power by the Majors] issued the " "Indemnity Ordinance, 1975,'’ which amounted to ""a comprehensive pardon for the men who had slaughtered the Founding Father of the nation and 21members *6 of his family.'’ AR 1943.

Mushtaque’s regime was short-lived, ending in a counter-coup less than three months later. AR 2265-66. Just prior to the November 1975 counter-coup, however, Moshtaque helped shuttle petitioner Mohiuddin and sixteen other coup leaders and participants out of the country to diplomatic assignments abroad. AR 888-94. ""For over 21 years no one was brought to trial for the murders.'’ AR 131.

In elections held in June 1996, the Awami League won a majority in parliament, and its leader, Sheikh Hasina Wajed - the daughter of slain President Mujib, spared by her absence from Bangladesh during the August 1975 coup - became Prime Minister. AR 132. Sheikh Hasina declared her intention to bring to trial the suspects in the August 1975 killings. AR 132. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Mohiuddin and nineteen other alleged coup plotters and participants. Id.; see AR 1520, 3273. The State Department observed that while the decision to bring charges against the coup participants may have been related to Sheikh Hasina’s election, ""this need not, in our view, lead to the conclusion that the Government of Bangladesh is seeking to persecute this applicant.'’ AR 3243. The State Department noted that the Prime Minister had obtained her post in ""elections which were widely described as free and fair by a variety of international and domestic election observers,'’ and that the " "Bangladesh judiciary, *7 especially at the higher levels, displays a high degree of independence and often rules against the government, even in politically controversial cases.'’ AR 3243

The US government presented extensive evidence showing Mohiuddin’s active involvement in the coup. Mohiuddin’s changing stories of his own involvement did not help his cause or his credibility:

Extensive background materials detail Mohiuddin’s role in the coup, such as journalist Anthony Mascarenhas’s book, Legacy of Blood, based on interviews with the two principal leaders of the coup, Major Farook Rahman (""Farook'’) and Major Abdur Rashid (""Rashid'’), who admitted - indeed, celebrated - their organizing role in the coup. AR 1858; see also Pet. Br. at 22 (conceding that ""Farook and Rashid, admitted their participation in broadcast interviews as early as 1976′’). ""[A]ll the available evidence'’ demonstrates that the coup was ""conceived and commanded by 12 to 20 military and ex-military men, none of them above the rank of major.'’ AR 2241. Two regiments, artillery and ""Lancers'’ or tanks, respectively, were involved, with Mohiuddin commanding one of four Lancers squadrons. AR 1927-37. Mohiuddin and another major ""were assigned the task of knocking off Sheikh Mujib.'’ AR 3247. ""Their instructions were that they should kill Sheikh Mujib … [b]]ut were given latitude to proceed according to developments and, if necessary "wipe out anything en route.’ ‘’ Id. In executing the plan, the ""main killer team led by Majors Mohiuddin, Noor and Huda … blocked off the surrounding area.'’ AR *8 3249-50. ""Then the majors and the men went in.'’ Id. at 3250. As the coup leaders described it to Mascarenhas, Mohiuddin ""was one of the officers who stormed the President’s residence.'’ AR 3242. [FN2]

FN2. Multiple witnesses in the Bangladesh trial describe Mohiuddin storming Mujib’s residence, ""firing continuously.'’ AR 1534; AR 1549 (Mohiuddin’s Lance Sergeant, L.D. Bashir, testified he saw Mohiuddin " "entering Bangabandhu’s house [and] later heard the sound of gun shots and the screams of men and women inside Bangabandhu’s residence.'’); see also AR 1535-36, 1550, 1585.

By his own account, Mohiuddin’s role was less dramatic, though no less integral. In his written application for asylum, filed prior to the initiation of removal proceedings, Mohiuddin admitted that his ""task was to block the roads leading to Sheikh Mujib’s house from the north and the west to stop any outside interference.'’ AR 3270. At his asylum interview, he stated that the majors anticipated possible interference from the President’s special security forces (the Rakkhi Bahini) who were based ""one and a half miles from presidential palace.'’ AR 1078. His assignment, he said, was to ""[b]lock a road close to [the] president’s house.'’ AR 1073. Thus, he stated, he positioned his squadron on the road about ""150 yards from the residence,'’ id. at 1074, and was prepared to ""stop [the Rakkhi Bahini] by force if necessary.'’ AR 1079.

In denying Mohiuddin’s affirmative asylum request, the Asylum Officer concluded that he should be barred from asylum ""because he participated in the *9 persecution of others on account of their political opinion.'’ AR 1355 (Asylum Officer’s denial and referral for removal proceedings, August 29, 1997). ""Even without answering the allegations reported by the State Department'’ on Mohiuddin’s role in attacking the presidential residence, his " "own testimony revealed that he played a key role in the 1975 coup d’etat.'’ AR 1354. The Asylum Officer found that Mohiuddin admitted that ""he and all members of his squadron … were prepared to use force if necessary to accomplish the coup, thereby causing death, severe injuries to the President and his family.'’ Id. ""As a result of his support and participation in the coup d’etat, the President… his wife, young children and other close family members and trusted aides were killed,'’ she found. Id. She rejected Mohiuddin’s contention that he was ""only following orders,'’ noting that it " "did not relieve him of the responsibility for his role in the carnage,'’ and that Mohiuddin ""was not required to follow the order of the coup leaders, because he too was a major … the same military rank as … Maj. Farook and Maj. Rashid.'’ Id.

Following his asylum denial, Mohiuddin was placed in removal proceedings for overstaying his tourist visa. AR 4344. At a hearing on his renewed application for asylum, Mohiuddin downplayed his role in the coup further. He testified that he was ordered to participate in what he understood would only be a *10 ""peaceful coup,'’ and that the possibility of violence and killings " "simply did not strike my mind.'’ AR 735. At the same time, he asserted that if he had resisted the plan he would have been ""straightaway shot.'’ AR 485. Mohiuddin testified that he was assigned to block traffic on a road, but he claims he did not know the significance of this mission or the road’s close proximity to the president’s house. AR 814. He said he was not even sure where the president’s house was located. AR 860. Asked how he could be unaware of that location when soldiers from his own regiment performed routine security duties there, Mohiuddin denied knowledge of any such security duties. AR 864-66; compare AR 3250 (noting that ""Lancer sentries'’ at the president’s house " "quietly stepped aside'’ when their comrades approached). He also asserted that his earlier written statement that his mission was ""to block the roads leading to Sheikh Mujib’s house,'’ AR 3270, reflected information he learned only later. AR 817; see id. (claiming that only knowledge ""gathered over the last 21 years'’ informed him that his mission was to ""stop any outside interference,'’ AR 3270).

When confronted with the Asylum Officer’s report that Mohiuddin stated his job was to prevent the president’s security forces from disrupting the coup, Mohiuddin dismissed his prior statement as ""hypothetical,'’ and then refused during the hearing ""to answer hypothetical things.'’ AR 820.

*11 Mohiuddin repeatedly asserted that during and after the coup he had no ""active role other than obeying … orders.'’ AR 886; see e.g. AR 471, 481, 895. He said he remained at his post until ordered to return to base and resume his routine duties. AR 881. He said he only learned of the coup’s success from soldiers under his command who ""heard the radio.'’ AR 878.

Mascarenhas and others reported that after the coup, the group of majors went to the ""radio station'’ to announce the coup and broadcast declarations of allegiance to the new government. AR 1938; see AR 1938-41. Witnesses in the Bangladesh trial testified that Mohiuddin was among the majors at the ""radio center'’ on the day of the coup, and further place him ""in conference in the President’s office'’ later that day for the oath-taking ceremonies of the new president and cabinet. AR 1568, 1579.

Mohiuddin said nothing of these momentous actions at his asylum hearing. However, he did acknowledge his role in events leading to a counter-coup which took place less than three months after the establishment of the new government. The Library of Congress study observes that certain elements in the Bangladesh military ""were deeply resentful of the majors,'’ and that one of the ""Mujib loyalists, Brigadier Khaled Musharraf, launched a successful coup on November 3, 1975.'’ AR 2265. In Mohiuddin’s written asylum statement, he said that two of *12 General Khaled’s officers attempted to persuade soldiers in Mohiuddin’s regiment to join the counter-coup. AR 3271. Instead, Mohiuddin’s soldiers arrested the officers. AR 3271. Mohiuddin wrote: ""Brig. Khaled ordered me to release them or face dire consequence but I did not comply with his order.'’ AR 3271. At the removal hearing, Mohiuddin again downplayed his responsibility in the matter, asserting that his soldiers acted on their own, that he was ""sleeping at home'’ at the time, that he was called in to the regiment after the fact, and that he refused the Brigadier General’s order because he was simply ""trying to sort of understand what was going on.'’ AR 900; see AR 901. [Emphasis added by me.]

 The US government comprehensively refuted Mohiuddin’s arguments in court:

Substantial record evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding under each of the three grounds of statutory ineligibility found by the Board and the immigration judge to be applicable to Mohiuddin. All three such bars derive from one set of facts: Mohiuddin’s participation in the slaughter of Bangabandhu, twenty-one members of his family, and tens of other individuals on the night of August 15, 1975. Mohiuddin’s challenge on this appeal is essentially two-fold. First, he argues that while he participated in the coup, he merely followed orders, and his involvement was not of a degree sufficient to bring him within any of the bars to asylum and withholding. See, e.g., Pet. Br. at 14 (asserting he should not be barred, because he was ""not involved in the planning and orchestration of the coup and did not participate in the killings.'’). Second, he argues that the massacre itself ""while ugly and regrettable,'’ was necessary to accomplish a valid political objective because it was ""directly related to revolution.'’ Pet. Br. at 17. In pursuing these arguments, Mohiuddin advances the *34 identical arguments and cases rejected by the immigration judge, and further rejected by the Board.

In repeating his arguments before this Court, however, Mohiuddin has made several legal and factual concessions which are devastating to his case. On this appeal, he declines to challenge the bulk of evidence from which the Board and immigration judge found probable cause to believe that he is guilty of the Bangladeshi murder charges. Thus, for example, he does not discuss or confront the background material detailing his role in the killings. Compare Pet. Br. at 11-30 with AR 1405-19 (1982 United Kingdom ""Commission of Enquiry'’ on the coup), AR 1854-1960 (Mascarenhas account in Legacy of Blood), AR 2235-67 (Franda and Library of Congress studies on the coup and massacre), and AR 1367- 90 (television interview with Majors Farook and Rashid). Nor does he challenge hundreds of pages of Bangladesh trial witness testimony and the High Court’s summary of the evidence, including accounts of his actions on the night of the massacre, such as blocking access to the presidential residence, storming the president’s house, and acting in concert with the other majors to install the new government. See AR 1462-74, 2872-3214 (translations, summaries and transcriptions of witness testimony in Bangladesh trial, including, e.g. at 2877, 3089, 3161, 3205 ""cross examination in favour of Major A.K.M Mohiuddin *35 Ahamed'’); and AR 1517-1616 (November 1998 Judgment of the High Court).

This has not always been the case. Mohiuddin mounted a challenge to this evidence at his removal hearing: (1) asserting he was misidentified in the High Court Judgment, (2) claiming the criminal case was solely the product of Sheik Hasina’s vengeance; and (3) charging that the translations and transcripts from Bangladesh were ""tampered, altered, and tainted.'’ See AR 148-56. Significantly, however - other than two cursory points addressed below - Mohiuddin has now dropped these arguments, as well as any attempt to confront the immigration judge’s methodical rejection of them. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1988)(""It is well established in this circuit that claims which are not addressed in the appellant’s brief are deemed abandoned.'’).

Mohiuddin has similarly abandoned any contest regarding the fairness and independence of the Bangladesh judicial system that rendered and affirmed the judgment against him. He declines to criticize the State Department’s consistent endorsement of the integrity of Bangladesh criminal procedure and the independence of its judiciary. See AR 2480-2500, 1265-1316, 2663-96, 1426- 56, 3215-32, and 3375-88 (State Department’s Bangladesh Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001). Nor does he challenge the State Department’s individual letter opinions on the fairness of the *36 Bangladesh proceedings, judicial independence, credibility of evidence against Mohiuddin, and the unlikelihood of mistreatment if Mohiuddin is returned to Bangladesh. Compare Pet. Br. 11-30 with AR 1494-1502, 3233-41, 3242-44. Again, it is well to note that in his removal hearing he raised objections to the foregoing evidence before the immigration judge, but now utterly fails to confront the immigration judge’s exhaustive and favorable review of the State Department submissions. Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60 (issues not raised and supported in petitioner’s opening brief deemed abandoned). [FN10]

FN10. These concessions and Mohiuddin’s due process argument, see Pet. Br. at 29, are mutually exclusive. Thus, the Board correctly rejected his due process argument. See AR 5.

Here, his sole challenge to the Bangladesh evidence consists of the argument, raised for the first time on this appeal, that the ""conviction record itself establishes that six people recanted their "confessions’ as being obtained under torture.'’ Pet. Br. at 12. However, this new argument is also barred because Mohiuddin did not raise it to the Board. See AR 74-78; INA § 242(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (requiring exhaustion of remedies); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (""[f]ailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter'’) (citation omitted). In any case, Mohiuddin *37 undercuts this argument by conceding the voluntariness of the accounts given by two such ""confess [ors]'’ - principle coup leaders Farook and Rashid. See Pet. Br. at 22 (conceding that ""Farook and Rashid, admitted their participation in broadcast interviews as early as 1976′’).

Regarding Bangladesh criminal and judicial process, Mohiuddin offers a one-sentence critique, asserting that he was ""reliant on defense counsel appointed and compensated by a hostile government.'’ Pet. Br. at 12. This implied charge of bias is overwhelmingly refuted, however, by: (1) the Board’s and immigration judge’s analysis and approval of the State Department’s opinions on that issue, see AR 2-5, 156-63 (immigration court analysis of Bangladeshi judicial process); (2) the State Department’s report that ""defense lawyers agreed that the judge allowed them the opportunity to put forward the questions and arguments they wanted,'’ and further report that the trial judge ""acquitted two defendants represented by state-appointed counsels,'’ see AR 1496-97; and (3) the Bangladesh High Court’s opinion, in its November 1998 Judgment, commending ""learned counsels for the accused,'’ for conducting the trial ""by detailed cross examination, arguments, and submissions even on behalf of the absconding accused,'’ see AR 1614. In sum, substantial and abundant record evidence supports the Board’s finding that the in absentia conviction, and the underlying evidence, provide probable cause to *38 believe that Mohiuddin is guilty of the crimes charged against him in Bangladesh.

Without the facts on his side, Mohiuddin attempts to argue the law. His arguments, rejected below, must also be rejected here. Regarding the persecution bar, Mohiuddin claims that he has not ""assisted or otherwise participated'’ in persecuting others within the meaning of INA sections 208(b)(2) or 241(b)(3) because his assistance was not "" "active, personal, and knowing.’ ‘’ Pet. Br. at 15 (quoting Ofusu v. McElroy, 933 F. Supp. 237, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). However, even apart from his abandoned challenge to the evidence demonstrating otherwise, by insisting to this Court that ""he decided to participate in the coup out of military duty and a concern for his country’s future and in response to appeals from his military colleagues,'’ he hardly disproves an active, personal, and knowing participation. Pet. Br. at 15.

On a different tack, Mohiuddin argues that the slaughter of children, household servants, and others having no conceivable function in government, was a ""harm'’ resulting ""incidentally from behavior directed at another goal, the overthrow of a government.'’ Id. at 16-17 (Rodriguez-Majano, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 814-15). The crux of his argument against both the persecution and nonpolitical crime bars is that his actions were justified by political necessity.

…

The Board and immigration judge cogently and properly rejected these arguments, finding no factual or legal basis for the view that August 1975 massacre in Bangladesh of children, mothers, and house servants was directly related to revolution, the only means by which to change the government, or a purely political act. See AR 4 (holding that Mohiuddin’s actions were ""grossly out of proportion with any political objective'’); AR 164 (distinguishing Izatula and Dwomoh, where Mohiuddin is not facing return either to the government he tried *40 to overthrow, or to a totalitarian government which would not accord him fundamental fairness at trial); id. (rather, unlike Dwomoh and Izatula, procedures are available to Mohiuddin in Bangladesh to ""adjudicate the charges and any defenses … including the defense that there was no other alternative to changing the government'’).

…

The record overwhelming establishes reasonable grounds to believe that Mohiuddin participated in the assassination of Bangladesh’s first president and the merciless slaughter of his family and other innocent people. [Emphasis added by me.]

The case against Mohiuddin is overwhelming. He has been convicted of these murders in a free and fair trial in Bangladesh. Instead of facing the charges Mohiuddin chose to flee the country and thus became an international fugitive. The United States government, which along with other foreign observers closely monitored the trial, presented substantial evidence in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After reviewing the evidence presented, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rightly ruled against Mohiuddin’s petition for asylum and also ruled that he engaged in terrorist activities.

The facts are not, and never have been, on Mohiuddin’s side. He has tried to spin all the evidence against him as concocted. But the historical record shows otherwise. Even ignoring the overwhelming evidence presented at trials in the US and Bangladesh, Mohiuddin simply cannot explain away the fact that he, along with his co-conspirators, boarded a flight on November 3, 1975 and fled Bangladesh for Bangkok, Thailand. That flight and his subsequent diplomatic assignments should convince any reasonable observer that he was an active coup plotter. The "killer Majors" who orchestrated the coup in 1975 are very well known in Bangladesh. We who lived through the time saw their tanks, the tanks of the 1st Lancer Regiment, on the streets of Dhaka and around Bangabhaban, the presidential palace, during the summer of 1975. To those who know the events and know the case Mohiuddin’s defense that he was "sleeping at home" or found out about the killings when he "heard the radio" or that he fled Bangladesh along with the coup plotters because someone just "escorted me to the aircraft" simply make a mockery of common sense. It appears that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also found his absurd claims incredible and therefore ruled against him.

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

Last week I wrote a brief post about Congressman Jim McDermott’s introduction of a private bill, H.R. 2181, that aims to give a green card to convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed. Today the leading Bangladeshi English language newspaper, The Daily Star, published an op-ed written by me about Congressman McDermott’s private bill.

The op-ed is reprinted below:

—–

Congressman McDermott’s support for Mohiuddin
Mashuqur Rahman

On May 31, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the mandate that ended convicted killer AKM Mohiuddin Ahmed’s asylum appeals and made him deportable from the United States. However, the long saga has moved from the courts to the political arena after a congressman introduced a private bill to issue Mohiuddin a green card.

The rationale presented in the bill needs discussion both in the United States and Bangladesh; and it is time to explore whether the United States government should be actively sheltering a convicted murderer.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was set to deport Mohiuddin to Bangladesh on or around June 2. However, Mohiuddin’s lawyers managed to get a temporary stay of deportation from a lower court judge until Tuesday, June 5. A US District Court judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday June 5 to consider a stay of deportation.

The hearing will not reconsider the asylum case since the lower court does not have jurisdiction and cannot overrule the Court of Appeals decision. Mohiuddin’s lawyers have, instead, asked the District Court to consider whether Mohiuddin could be deported while there was a private bill on his behalf pending in the US Congress.

On May 3, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was still considering Mohiuddin’s last petition, a Democratic congressman from Washington State, Jim McDermott, introduced a private bill in the US House Judiciary Committee on his behalf. A private bill is a rare legislative procedure in the United States used to pass a law that benefits only one person rather than a class of individuals.

Private bills are sometimes used in immigration cases by members of Congress to grant relief to individuals who, because of an unusual set of circumstances, may be facing deportation from the country. For example, they are sometimes used to give relief to family members who would otherwise be separated if one member were to be deported, causing severe hardship to the rest.

Private bills rarely become laws. To become a law, the bill must first be passed by the US House Judiciary Committee, then by the US House of Representatives, then by the US Senate, and finally must be signed into law by the president of the United States.

The private bill introduced by congressman McDermott, known as H.R. 2181, aims to help Mohiuddin in a number of ways. First, it aims to stay the deportation order against him indefinitely. Second, it aims to release him from custody and bars the DHS from deporting him to Bangladesh, or to any country that has an extradition treaty with Bangladesh.

Third, it aims to grant a green card to Mohiuddin, which would allow him to get preferential treatment before all other green card applicants from Bangladesh. It also aims to grant him the card by reducing the number of green cards available to other Bangladeshis by one. Finally, it states that Mohiuddin will be allowed to seek asylum in any foreign country of his choosing.

Congressman McDermott’s bill also makes some extraordinary "findings." The bill claims that Mohiuddin is an "innocent Bangladeshi citizen." It also claims that the Bangladesh court "erroneously convicted Mr. Ahmed of murder and sentenced him to death." It further claims that the trial and conviction are "sufficiently suspect as to warrant the immediate intervention" by the US government to prevent his deportation.

However, the claims in the bill directly contradict the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision denying Mohiuddin’s petition the court wrote: "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." Mohiuddin failed to convince the US court that his trial was unfair.

The court did not find that Mohiuddin was "erroneously convicted," or that the trial was "sufficiently suspect." It felt that it was proper to rely on the conviction in the Bangladeshi court.

Therefore, the congressman’s claim that Mohiuddin is an "innocent Bangladeshi citizen" is not supported by the facts, and is also not something that Mohiuddin was able to convince any court of.

Furthermore, the US State Department has stated that Mohiuddin"s trial — a high profile trial observed by the world community and human rights organizations — followed due process.

The bill also claims that Mohiuddin was merely manning a roadblock on August 15, 1975, and that he "had no knowledge of, nor did he support, the violent coup that erupted that night."

Again, this claim in the bill directly contradicts the 9th Circuit’s ruling. In the ruling the court wrote: "Ahmed is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for two reasons:

• Because he engaged in terrorist activity,
• 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."
  Perhaps the most inexplicable part of the bill is its reference to the Indemnity Act. The bill states "…when Sheikh Hasina Wajed, daughter of the assassinated prime minister, came to power, and then broke her promise to respect the Bangladeshi constitutional amendment which provided immunity to officers involved in the 1975 coup. Rather, Sheikh Hasina Wajed orchestrated the repeal of the constitutional amendment."

The congressman, in the bill, seems to be advocating immunity for the murderers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family. It is difficult to understand why a US congressman would suggest that repealing of a grant of immunity to murderers of children and pregnant women should be called into question.

Congressman McDermott’s bill is based on false or misleading information. It claims as facts the many arguments Mohiuddin and his supporters have been publicly making, but failed to prove them in US courts of law where facts and evidence count.

By introducing the private bill, congressman McDermott has staked his reputation on the word of a convicted murderer who has been found to engage in terrorist activity by US courts of law.

At a time when the United States is engaged in a global war on terror, a Congressional intervention on behalf of an individual deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity is an extraordinary step.

Given the political sensitivity of the bill, and its awkward position within the war on terror, it is highly unlikely that the bill will ever become law. However, for Mohiuddin to get a stay of deportation the bill does not have to become law.

If the House Immigration Subcommittee takes up the bill and requests a report from the US immigration authorities, it would result in a stay of deportation. All indications are that the Subcommittee has not taken up Mohiuddin’s private bill — if it had, a stay of deportation would have already occurred.

Without such action it will be