Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The Bangladesh desk of Amnesty International responded to an enquiry from Drishtipat, a Bangladeshi Human Rights organization, regarding their position on the deportation of convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed to Bangladesh.

In response to the query from Drishtipat, Amnesty wrote:

Amnesty will not oppose the investigation of those accused of human rights violations, and the trial and conviction of those who have been found to be involved in human rights violations. However, such investigtions and trials should be informed by three main standards: that torture is not used to extract information; that trials are in accordance with international fair trial standards, and that the death penalty is not imposed as punishment.

In the case of Mr Mohiuddin Ahmed, his conviction to death is a very problematic issue and, on that ground, Amnesty will not be able to support his extradition. [Emphasis added by Drishtipat]

Drishtipat asked for further clarification on the question of torture and fair trial. Drishtipat was kind enough to forward their question and the response they received from the Bangladesh desk of Amnesty International to me via email.

Drishtipat wrote:

Just for clarification, do you believe that fair trial was used and torture was not used as a method to extract information — the first two standards you mentioned.

Amnesty’s Bangladesh desk responded with the following clarification:

We had raised our concern regarding allegations of torture made by Zubaida Rashid, as is reflected in the document I sent to you. We had not received serious allegations of torture from others, or serious allegation of use of unfair trail procedures. If such allegations are made, we will investigate them. Our main concern with regard to these cases is the death penalty, which Amnesty opposes at all times. [Emphasis added by me.]

The one allegation of torture came from Zubaida Rashid, the wife of Lt Col (relieved) Khandaker Abdur Rashid (one of the main coup leaders). The allegations were however never substantiated, but were of concern to Amnesty and other human rights organizations. According to the report from 1997 referred to above in the response from Amnesty:

One of the defendants, Zobaida Rashid, has alleged that she has been subjected to torture in police custody. Amnesty International urges the Government of Bangladesh to institute an independent and impartial investigation to establish the truth about these allegations. Should the allegations be substantiated, the government must ensure that those found responsible are brought to justice without delay.

…

Zobaida Rashid, wife of Lt Col (relieved) Khandaker Abdul Rashid was arrested from her home in Dhaka on charges of possessing her husband’s firearm and involvement in the killing of Sheikh Mujibur and his family members. Her lawyer argued that the weapons recovered had legally-obtained licenses, that she had not been involved in the assassination at all, and that she was being "held as a hostage by the government for securing the surrender of her husband" who is believed to have gone abroad.

…

In February 1997, Zobaida Rashid told the court that she had been forced by the police to sign a "confessional" statement under duress and withdrew that statement. She alleged that during her 9-day period in police custody in November 1996 she had been given electric shocks, was made to lie on a cold bare floor, and was denied sleep for prolonged periods. She was allegedly denied any medical treatment during this period. Zobaida Rashid was eventually released on bail on 3 April 1997 on order of the High Court. Her lawyer had argued that she needed treatment for her medical conditions in an "open atmosphere".

…

On 8 April 1997, police sources announced that the court dealing with the case had framed the charges against the accused. These were: conspiracy to kill former president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman along with his family and relatives, execution of the plan and attempts to conceal and destroy evidence. Five of the six prisoners appeared in court that day and pleaded not guilty. Zobaida Rashid – already released on bail – did not appear; her lawyer told the court that she was ill. Following several days of pre-trial hearings, the court set 21 April 1997 as the trial date after indicting the 20 alleged coup plotters. The judge told the defendants: "We are here to ensure justice of a murder case under the laws of the land and the accused will get maximum protection and facilities as far as the law allows." Each of the 14 defendants to be tried in absentia were believed to have been appointed a lawyer by the courts to ensure they were defended at the trial.

On the first day of the trial on 21 April, the trial was suspended after a "no confidence" application against the judge was moved by Zobaida Rashid’s defence lawyer. The High Court rejected the motion, saying it was not moved properly. Defence sources said they intended to move the application again.

…

On 4 May, Bangladesh’s High Court suspended all trial proceedings for one month pending the outcome of an appeal challenging the framing of charges against Zobaida Rashid.

On July 6, 1997 the High Court ruled that all charges against Zobaida Rashid should be dropped and the trial against the others continued after charges were dropped against her.

After the conviction and sentencing of Mohiuddin and his co-conspirators Amnesty released a public statement reiterating its stance against the death penalty, but also stating that Amnesty "believes that a continued determination to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations will not only enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but also eliminate the need to deal with these at a later date."

Mohiuddin’s supporters, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, have asserted that he did not receive a fair trial, and they have cited Amnesty International as supporting their assertion. All evidence is to the contrary. All defendants had recourse to the law and recourse to appeal to a higher court. The multiple motions and appeals during the trial by the defense, all of which received a hearing, are testament to the fairness of the trial and of the due process afforded the defendants. That Bangladesh was able to hold a fair trial in such a politically and emotionally charged trial is to its credit. Today, even the United States, which is known for the protections afforded by its legal system, has failed to offer due process to detainees it considers terrorists, holding many without trial and without due process for over five years.

Mohiuddin’s tactics to fight deportation have been used by the other absconding murderers convicted with Mohiuddin. As an example, read the case of Nur Chowdhury, another convicted terrorist and Mohiuddin’s co-conspirator, who was judged to be inadmissible by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. Chowdhury however remains in Canada and will not be deported to Bangladesh because Canadian law forbids the deportation of criminals to their home countries if they are facing a death sentence. Mohiuddin is hoping for a similar fate – but the United States has no such restriction.

[Click here for a timeline of the long trial of Mohiuddin and his cohorts.]

[This post is part of a series of posts on the case of Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed that I have written and plan to write until Mohiuddin is deported to Bangladesh as has been ordered by the US courts. It remains to be seen if political intervention by Dana Rohrabacher and others on behalf of this convicted terrorists will succeed in subverting a lawful order by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I intend to write about this case to continue to raise awareness and to counter the spin coming from Mohiuddin and his supporters. You can read all related posts on this case here.]

Supporters of convicted terrorist Mohiuddin AKM Ahmed have asserted that sending Mohiuddin back to Bangladesh to face his crimes would be "fundamentally unfair" because he would be taken "from the plane to the gallows." The implication is that Bangladesh is a country where the death penalty is dispensed without due process, and swiftly. Bangladesh of course is a convenient target because it is a majority Muslim country. If one were to believe Mohiuddin’s supporters, including Dana Rohrabacher, one would expect Bangladesh to be a bloodthirsty country where many people are executed on a routine basis.

Let us put some facts on the table and see if the spin coming from Mohiuddin’s backers holds up to closer inspection.

Below is a chart (click chart for enlarged image) showing the number of death penalty convictions and the number of executions in Bangladesh from 1997 to 2005 (the latest year for which Amnesty International has data). You will notice that Bangladesh carried out no executions in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2002. In the years that executions were carried out, they ranged from a low of 2 in 1997 and 2003 to a high of 7 in 2004. You will also note a sharp rise in convictions, though not executions, since 2001 when the center-right party came to power. The rise in convictions did not give rise to a rise in executions partly due to the automatic and long appeals process in death penalty cases in Bangladesh. It should be clear from the chart below that Bangladesh does not carry out a large number of executions.

Now, let us compare the number of executions in Bangladesh with those in the United States, and specifically, in the state of Texas. The chart (click to enlarge) below shows the number of executions in Bangladesh, the United States, and Texas between 1997 and 2005. You will notice that the executions in the United States and Texas dwarf the executions carried out in Bangladesh for each year represented in the chart. The executions in the United States varied from a low of 59 in 2004 to a high of 98 in 1999. Similarly, executions in Texas varied from a low of 17 in 2001 to a high of 40 in 2000. As I noted earlier, the most executions carried out in a single year in Bangladesh was 7 in 2004, while in 4 of the 9 years we are looking at Bangladesh carried out no executions.

Looking at the data above, one might conclude that perhaps the reason Bangladesh has such low numbers of executions is that it does not have a large population. So, let us look at the populations and compare them with the number of executions. The chart (click to enlarge) below compares the total number of executions between 1997 and 2005 in Bangladesh, the United States and Texas with their respective populations. The chart shows that while the United States has twice the population of Bangladesh, it carried out 38 times more executions than Bangladesh. The chart also shows that while Texas has less than 13% of the population of Bangladesh, it carried out over 14 times more executions than Bangladesh.

To put the above numbers in perspective, let us look at the number of executions per million people. The chart (click to enlarge) below shows the number of executions per million people in Bangladesh, the United States and Texas between 1997 and 2005. The numbers are striking. From 1997 to 2005, Bangladesh executed 0.11 people for every million people in the population, the United States executed 2.17 people for every million people in the population, and Texas executed 12.4 people for every million people in the population. In other words, the United States executed at the rate of nearly 20 times more people than Bangladesh, and Texas executed at the rate of nearly 113 times more people than Bangladesh.

I think the above data clearly show that the death penalty is carried out far more often in the United States than in Bangladesh. Further, the death penalty is carried out at an alarming rate in the state of Texas. Bangladesh by no means is a leading state killer – the United States, and particularly the state of Texas, are far more adept and prolific at killing their own citizens.

Clearly the notion floated by his supporters that Mohiuddin will be taken "from the plane to the gallows" is not supported by the facts. In fact, none of the other persons sentenced to death with Mohiuddin for the killings in 1975 have been executed – even though their appeals were exhausted in 2001. I do not see a rush to the gallows. Further, Bangladesh tried Mohiuddin and his cohorts through the normal judicial process of the country. Bangladesh did not create a special tribunal to try these killers – even though, because the murders involved the killing of the head of state, Bangladesh could have chosen to set up a special tribunal. Instead, Mohiuddin and his cohorts were given full due process and automatic right to appeal all the way to the High Court (where 3 of the 15 originally convicted were acquitted). Furthermore, Mohiuddin’s trial in Bangladesh was judged to be fair by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When Mohiuddin was sentenced to death for his crimes in 1998, Amnesty International released a carefully worded statement that reiterated Amnesty’s stance against the death penalty and called on Bangladesh to commute the death sentences. The statement also stated Amnesty’s belief that "continued determination to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations will not only enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but also eliminate the need to deal with these at a later date." The full statement is below:

Amnesty International is disturbed by reports that 15 people were recently sentenced to death in Bangladesh on charges of involvement in the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family in August 1975.

Although the process of judicial appeal to the High Court has just begun and those sentenced have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court and to petition the Head of State for clemency thereafter, Amnesty International is calling on the government of Bangladesh to commute these and other death sentences at the earliest opportunity.

The organization welcomes investigations into past human rights abuses but insists that, once the truth is revealed, decisive measures must be taken to ensure that punishment for such abuses does not itself constitute a violation of human rights.

Amnesty International is opposed to the death penalty at all times and in all cases. It appeals to the government of Bangladesh to abolish this punishment once and for all, and calls on the opposition parties to support any move towards this goal. This will be in keeping with a worldwide trend towards the abolition — in law and practice — of the death penalty.

The organization also urges the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that the drive to investigate past human rights violations does not target only selected groups, but that all perpetrators of human rights violations are brought to justice without exception, no matter who they are or where and when the violations occurred.

At the same time, it calls on the authorities to ensure that trials conform at all times to internationally established fair trial standards, and that the treatment of the accused in detention and the sentences imposed on them by courts do not themselves constitute violations of human rights.

Amnesty International believes that a continued determination to bring to justice perpetrators of human rights violations will not only enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the country but also eliminate the need to deal with these at a later date.

Amnesty did not say that the trial was unfair or that Mohiuddin did not get due process. Instead, Amnesty reiterated its long standing position against the death penalty in all cases.

Contrary to the claims of Mohiuddin’s supporters, all observers including the courts in the United States have concluded that Mohiuddin received due process. And contrary to Mohiuddin’s supporters’ claims, Bangladesh is not exactly a "bloodthirsty" nation that carries out swift executions.

It is more than likely that Mohiuddin would have already been executed if he had committed his crimes in the United States, and worse still, if he had committed his crimes within the boundaries of the state of Texas. As it is, he has a better chance at surviving his sentence in Bangladesh than he would have stood here in the United States.

 References

• Death penalty data from Amnesty International’s Annual Reports and from Texas Execution Information Center.
• Demographic data from CIA World Factbook (Bangladesh and the United States) and 50States.com.
• Tabular data for the charts included in this post are downloadable as an Excel Workbook.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has intervened on behalf of convicted terrorist Mohiuddin A.K.M. Ahmed. Rohrabacher has used his good offices to try to prevent Mohiuddin from being deported to Bangladesh where he has been convicted of multiple murders, including those of women and children. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mohiuddin’s petition to block his deportation in late February. He was to be deported last week until Dana Rohrabacher intervened on his behalf:

But time is running out. Ahmed was to have left the country Monday night, but Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) called Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s office and requested a delay.

"Amnesty International and our State Department has questioned the integrity of the Bangladeshi judicial system," said Tara Setmayer, a spokeswoman for Rohrabacher.

"And because of that, Dana felt as though there would be no harm in trying to buy some time for his legal counsel to find a country" where he would not be put to death.

"Given the circumstances, he said he’d be willing to place a phone call or two to buy some time and figure things out," she said.

It is touching to see that Dana Rohrabacher cares so much about the human rights of convicted terrorists. However, it was not always so. Below is a sampling of Congressman Rohrabacher’s views about terrorists and how they should be dealt with.

Rohrabacher’s position on countries that refuse to extradite cop killers and murderers to the United States:

It is absolutely horrifying to think the United States has no penalities for countries who refuse to extradite criminals such as cop killers back to the United States. While the tragic case of David March, a Los Angeles County Sheriff gunned down by an illegal alien who fled to Mexico, is very much on the minds of everyone in southern California, this situation has been going on for years. Germany, Canada and France are some of the other countries who have refused to extradite vicious criminals back to our country to face justice.

House resolutions and lots of angry talk will never convince these countries to do the right thing. However, punishing them financially will. I introduced H.R. 2259 to forbid any country or any private company financing a project in that country from obtaining any loan or financial assistance from any international bank that the United States helps fund with taxpayer dollars if that country refuses to extradite criminals who have committed a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death. This includes Export-Import Bank of the United States, the North American Development Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Rohrabacher’s position on extrajudicial killings by Israel:

The Israeli elimination of Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi was justified, as was the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Until Hamas unequivocally and officially rejects the intentional murder of Israeli non-combatants as a means to achieve their ends, any leaders of Hamas have declared themselves "open season". Hamas has officially taken credit for suicide bombings and other murderous actions whose only targets were women, children and helpless people. This is the purest definition of terrorism and cannot be tolerated. That a leader of such as organization, which targets noncombatants, is eliminated should not be condemned.

Rohrabacher’s position on keeping Guantanamo Bay open:

The House of Representatives today adopted an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act introduced by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that expresses the sense of Congress that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should remain open.

“The recent criticism of Guantanamo fails to mention that this a prison full of terrorists, the kind who target innocent women and children,” said Rep. Rohrabacher. “Of some 24,000 interrogations that have taken place there, investigators found nine possible cases of abuse which are being aggressively pursued. This is far from an ‘American Gulag’ or some of the more outrageous comments made about it.”

Rohrabacher’s position on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

Today we celebrate the successful elimination of a criminal who was responsible for countless murders of innocent Iraqis, including children, as well as brutal attacks on American troops. While terrorizing the people of Iraq, Al-Zarqawi was not an Iraqi and thus his crimes against Iraqi people and the American military were even more heinous.  His death is a major step forward in bringing about a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Iraq, which will serve as a model for the Muslim world.

As the reader can clearly deduce from the positions quoted above, Dana Rohrabacher does not normally shed a tear for terrorists or those he considers murderers. So, it is quite peculiar to see Dana Rohrabacher offer aid and comfort to a convicted terrorist. Why has Rohrabacher suddenly gone yellow in the "war on terror"?

What gives Dana?

Could it be that Dana’s bark is worse than his bite, especially when it comes to Islamists and terrorists such as Mohiuddin:

Federal documents reviewed by the Weekly show that Rohrabacher maintained a cordial, behind-the-scenes relationship with Osama bin Laden’s associates in the Middle East—even while he mouthed his most severe anti-Taliban comments at public forums across the U.S. There’s worse: despite the federal Logan Act ban on unauthorized individual attempts to conduct American foreign policy, the congressman dangerously acted as a self-appointed secretary of state, constructing what foreign-affairs experts call a "dual tract" policy with the Taliban. A veteran U.S. foreign-policy expert told the Weekly, "If Dana’s right-wing fans knew the truth about his actual, working relationship with the Taliban and its representatives in the Middle East and in the United States, they wouldn’t be so happy."

…

Nowadays, Rohrabacher and his numerous aides are quick to provide copies of the congressman’s pre-Sept. 11 rants against the Taliban. They will tell you that he labeled them "a pack of dogs killing anyone" and "the most anti-Western, anti-female, anti-human rights regime in the world." They will also show you records of the congressman berating Clinton administration foreign-policy advisors for misreading Taliban intentions and for trying to negotiate peace in Afghanistan with the militant Islamic group’s Mullah Mohammed Omar, a bin Laden associate.

What they won’t mention is that Rohrabacher also once lobbied shamelessly for the Taliban. A November/December 1996 article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reported, "The potential rise of power of the Taliban does not alarm Rohrabacher" because the congressman believes the "Taliban could provide stability in an area where chaos was creating a real threat to the U.S." Later in the article, Rohrabacher claimed that:

• Taliban leaders are "not terrorists or revolutionaries."
• Media reports documenting the Taliban’s harsh, radical beliefs were "nonsense."
• The Taliban would develop a "disciplined, moral society" that did not harbor terrorists.
• The Taliban posed no threat to the U.S.

…

Evidence of Rohrabacher’s attempts to conduct his own foreign policy became public on April 10, 2001, not in the U.S., but in the Middle East. On that day, ignoring his own lack of official authority, Rohrabacher opened negotiations with the Taliban at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, Qatar, ostensibly for a "Free Markets and Democracy" conference. There, Rohrabacher secretly met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, an advisor to Mullah Omar. Diplomatic sources claim Muttawakil sought the congressman’s assistance in increasing U.S. aid—already more than $100 million annually—to Afghanistan and indicated that the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden, wanted by the Clinton administration for the fatal bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. For his part, Rohrabacher handed Muttawakil his unsolicited plans for war-torn Afghanistan. "We examined a peace plan," he laconically told reporters in Qatar.

…

After Taliban-related terrorists attacked the U.S. last September, Rohrabacher associates worked hard to downplay the Qatar meeting. Republican strategist Grover Norquist told a reporter that the congressman had accidentally encountered the Taliban official in a hotel hallway.

But that preposterous assertion is contradicted by much evidence:

• Qatari government officials who told Al-Jazeera television on April 10, 2001, that Rohrabacher sought the meeting in advance and that they had assisted in the arrangements. Muttawakil said he agreed to the meeting "on the basis of allowing each party to express their point of view."
• The congressman himself told other Middle Eastern news outlets that his discussions with the Taliban were "frank and open" and their officials were "thoughtful and inquisitive." Hardly a casual chat in the hallway.
• Similarly, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, Rohrabacher’s entourage described the meeting as "a high-level talk."

I wonder how Dana Rohrabacher feels about the Taliban chopping people’s heads off in soccer stadiums. Is the Taliban Rohrabacher’s idea of a "disciplined, moral society"? Rohrabacher’s views on the Taliban might explain his support for Mohiuddin. After all, Mohiuddin’s Islamist tendencies go hand in hand with his and the Taliban’s practice of brutal murder.

Human rights indeed!