Persecuted Bangladeshi journalist Salah Choudhury goes before a court tomorrow, his case no longer monitored by U.S. diplomats.
Earlier this month, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a self-described “Muslim Zionist,” traveled to the U.S. to address audiences in New York City and at Yale University. Publisher of the largest English-language weekly newspaper in Bangladesh, Choudhury has been jailed, beaten, nearly blinded, and is now on trial for his life for his reporting, and for his pro-American, pro-Israeli views.
“They say I have conspired against the sovereignty of Bangladesh by trying to travel to Israel and praising Jews and Christians,” Choudhury said last week at a gathering in New York of the Hudson Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank described on its web site as dedicated to promoting “global security, prosperity, and freedom.”
Bangladesh has slapped Choudhury with charges of blasphemy, treason, and sedition, the last of which potentially carries the death penalty. Disturbingly, as Choudhury returns to Bangladesh this week to face trial, the United States has seemingly turned its back on him.
Prior to the inauguration of Barack Obama, the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka was sending observers to monitor Choudhury’s trial, according to Richard Benkin, an American human rights activist who helped, with the cooperation of U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), to secure Choudhury’s release from prison in 2003. But since January, Benkin says, the U.S. embassy has stopped sending the observers.
“That is significant,” Benkin says, “because [the presence of observers] let the Bangladeshis know there were eyes on this…. Having no observers makes it easier for the Bangladeshis to place Islamist ideology, which includes demonizing the U.S. and Israel, over the norms of Bangladeshi law and norms of justice and human rights.”
During the Bush years, according to Choudhury and Benkin, not only were monitors sent into the courtroom, but the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh regularly checked in with the Bangladeshi government to monitor the case. Since January, 2009, however, Choudhury says “[The] US Embassy in Dhaka has stopped monitoring [his] case.”
This development is ominous because the Bangladeshi government continues to move the case forward without respect to the law in an effort to please radical Islamists within that country, according to Benkin.
“Since the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka has stopped sending observers, the Bangladeshis have moved the trial forward towards a likely conviction,” said Benkin. “Government witnesses have not been challenged when presenting false information or information completely unrelated to the case. When observers were there, this did not go on.”
Some decry any U.S. involvement in another country’s judicial affairs. But Benkin points out that the observers were not on hand to impose U.S. or international standards of justice. Rather, they were local Bangladeshi attorneys with a mandate to monitor the court’s adherence to Bangladeshi law. Their absence increases the likelihood Choudhury will be offered up as a sacrificial lamb to please Islamists, Benkin fears.
“Not having observers sends a signal [that] the Bangladeshis do not have to concern themselves with a negative reaction from the U.S.,” he said. “So if there’s not going to be resistance, they’ll make the Islamists happy.”
Choudhury’s personal story illustrates why his case is especially significant. In 2003, after doing online research about Israel and publishing articles about the Jewish state, he received an invitation to attend a writers’ conference there. On his way, he was arrested by government agents at the airport in Dhaka, incarcerated, and tortured.
After 17 months imprisonment, during which time he was denied medication for his glaucoma and nearly lost his vision, Benkin, a friend via online correspondence (although they had never met), managed to secure Choudhury’s release with help from Kirk. In March 2007, Kirk led his congressional colleagues in passing HR 64, a resolution calling on Bangladesh to drop all charges against Choudhury, cease harassment of him, and provide him security protection.
The security protection was intermittent, and the harassment continued. Choudhury and his staff were attacked several times subsequently by mobs thought to be sent by the government, which at that time was center-right. In March, 2008, he was abducted at gunpoint by the Rapid Action Battalion (R.A.B.), a paramilitary wing of the government, and then released following advocacy on the part of Kirk and other members of the U.S. Congress.
This February, individuals whom Choudhury believes to be members of Bangladesh’s current ruling party, the left-wing Awami League, stormed his newspaper’s offices and beat him so severely he sustained hearing loss (Benkin points out that while the government in Bangladesh has changed several times since 2003, one constant has been the persecution of Choudhury).
But Choudhury continues to publish his newspaper, whose print circulation is now 37,000. This month he published a book, Inside Madrassa, that chronicles his investigation into the 73,000 Muslim religious schools, or madrassas, of Bangladesh. He charges that these schools are funded by sources in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran to turn the children of his traditionally moderate Muslim country into jihadists programmed to “kill the Jews and the Christians … and remain good Muslims.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?