[ALOCHONA] Re: FW: Testimony of Sixty event: Program & PRESS RELEASE

I did not find AL anywhere in your piece and I was not looking for it. I said it was a good initiative.

I don't hate AL and BNP per se. I hate the stupidity and wickednes that has consumed these two great parties which house the politics of the majority of our countrymen.

Which crimes do I attribute unfairly to AL - or BNP? Come on - tell me. Rather, you unfairly attribute too little to any party. And in doing so you withdraw your valuable voice from the majority of our citizens who suffer daily at the hands of our politicians.

Politics is everything in Bangladesh. Everything. That little which is not impacted by politics is so little that it might as well be included in 'everything'. I have been around long enough to have seen many a technical discourse - intellectually pure, bereft of any politics. And the result? Apart from the self satisfaction of the particpants - absolutely bloody zero. Because of POLITICS.

What do you think? That the issues of 1971 are not impacted by politics? From top to bottom politics will play its role. Because you, the darn private citizen, are a nobody. Unless you happen to be on the right side of the politicians on the day.

Traitors of 1971 should all be hanged. I believe it. But is that it? 30 bodies hanging from a rope? Enough? How about a 20 second soundbite on BBC World Service? Or even 3 minutes of Dipu Monu on CNN saying Bongobondhu five times? Well it would be enough for our countless political baboons. Okay - lets hope we get at least that far. But...

We don't want to know how many of our people died in 1971! We don't want to apportion any repsonsibility to Mujib for turning on the very democracy that empowered him! We don't want to hold Pakistani war criminals to account! We don't want to have an unreserved apology from Pakistan! We don't want reparations from Pakistan! Above all we don't want to change the way we are today! All because of our politics! Thanks Farida for defining the scope of justice.

And still you say that AL is too stupid to be held accountable for many things. What are you doing? That's a classic cover used by AL/BNP to reject responsibilty and accountability. And you espouse it. Real power, the only power, is vested in politicians. If they are too stupid to exercise that power properly well, they are still accountable.

This is not turning into an anti AL forum. It's turning into an anti government forum and that government happens to be formed by AL. Sure the BNP dogs are having a field day. But you don't have to deal with them - let me know directly what you think I should not be complaining about. The same was true when BNP was in government.

Lets hope the war criminals are hanged quickly.

And lets hope soon after that you will break your deafening silence and start taking to task those who hold real power.

Unless of course you are one of those closet party supporters who turns a blind eye to murder, extortion and injustice perpetrated by people in the AL(or BNP)fold because you think these are necessary evils. I hope not.

I can't be polite forever.

-- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Farida Majid <farida_majid@...> wrote:
>
>
> Where exactly did you find a mention of "Awami League" in either my plea, the statement of
> Mohahammadullah, or the Press Releae? What has your hated "Awami League" got to do with what we were
> doing all over the world in 1971 for an independent, democratic, secular Bangladesh? You attribute far too
> many crimes to Awami League which the stupid party was not capable of committing, either in 1971 or in 2010.
>
> This forum has become BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL obssessed to a ridiculus extent!
>
>
>
> To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
> From: Ezajur@...
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:03:00 +0000
> Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: FW: Testimony of Sixty event: Program & PRESS RELEASE
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a good initiative.
>
> Lets hope that Awami League 2010 behaves differently to all governments, including Awami League 1972, and conducts an actual count of the war dead. Of course whatever Mujib says is the gospel truth for many but it may not be enough on the international stage.
>
> The world, especially Pakistan, has never taken seriously our claims of 3 million dead. 3 lakh dead still constitutes a genocide.
>
> I hope the mass murderers of 1971 are brought to trial. And I hope an international inquiry is set up into just how many of our people were killed directly by Pakistanis and Rajakars.
>
> And I hope the actual dead is 3 laks and not 3 million - firstly because a smaller loss of life is better than a biger loss of life. And secondly because maybe, just maybe, more of us will realise that much of what we stand on is rotting garbage.
>
> --- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Farida Majid <farida_majid@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > To all ALOCHONA members:
> >
> > Please circulate the following Press Release to the deshi Bangla and English print and electronic
> > news outlets.
> > It is important fpr us to gather sympathy and good will from deshi, protibeshi, or bideshi friends,
> > just as we did 39 years ago, NOW, as we start trial works at the International War Crimes Tribunal
> > to seek justice for the Genocide 1971.
> >
> > Prof. Farida Majid
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:50:18 -0700
> > From: smullah41@
> > Subject: Fw: Testimony of Sixty event: Program & PRESS RELEASE
> > To: akkuchoudhury71@; oli@; hasanferdous1971@; sarawarharun@; sarwarharun@; minhaj23@; minhaz23@; tajulimam@; razib_stv@; fahimnur@; farida_majid@; Ziauddin.Ahmed@; bangalee@; banglapatrikausa@; bzkhasru@; bzkhasru@; ibutsab@; janmobhumi@; jyotipadutta@; kamallohani1934@; khabor@yahoogroups.com; lutfunnahar777@; lutfunnahar777@; mithunahmed@; mithunahmed@; mithunny@; mithunny@; modaktabla@; Mohidur.Rahman@; muktadhara@; muktomona@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com; niniwahed@; nykiron@; odhomrana@; purabibasu@; purabidutta@; razib_stv@; reepia@; salekin22@; sbiswas1@; arif.ullah@; arif_ullah@; asifllh@; atiqueullah@; zahmed@; ziatoronto@; smullah41@
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > We now have finalized our program for the Testimony of Sixty event on October 21 in front of the United Nations. Permission for holding the event has been acquired by Mr. Oli Mohammad from the police precinct. It has been decided that there will be a gathering on that date at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza on 47th Street between 1st and 2ndnd Avenues in New York City. It will beging at 10 A.M. and continue to 4 P.M, the peak time being 12-2 P.M. Tributes will be paid to the martyrs of 1971 Bangladesh and speakers will draw attention to the need for bringing to justice the persons responsible for the genocide and express support to Bangladesh's current government's initiatives in this regard. Posters depicting the genocide, atrocities, massacre and uprooting of millions of people in Bangladesh in 1971 committed and caused by Pakistan army and its collaborators will be displayed at the site. Such posters are available with Mr. Tanvir Rana. Flyers in English will be distributed among the passersby. One flyer will include a very brief introduction to the events of 1971 Bangladesh, followed by the full text of the 'Testimony of Sixty' statement issued on October 21, 1971 by sixty leading citizens of the world deploring and calling international community's attention to the genocide being committed in Bangladesh. Haroon and I discussed the possible idea of printing it as a trifold. If this can be done, then the first and last page of the six-page brochure can have pictures of killings and uprootings. There may be another one-sheet flyer describing the events that took place in 1971 in Bangladesh, the initiative of the current government to bring to trial those responsible for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Bangladesh in 1971 and the on-going efforts to build a permanent and fitting museum in Dhaka to commemorate the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. Mr. Oli and Mr. Sarwar Haroon are requested to finalize and print the tri-fold and flyer. Separetely, I am issuing a press release on our October 21 New York event. As agreed before, Mr. Minhaj Ahmed is requested to circulate it among the Bangladeshi media both in America and in Bangladesh. Besides, he is being requested to forward the release to all our compatriots in the cause urging them to come, join us along with their family and friends at the October 21 event in front of the United Nations. Besides, all of us who are involved with the October 21 event in front of the United Nations are urged to contact by e-mail and phone and through various internet sites as many people and groups as possible requesting them to participate at the event.
> >
> > Thank you all,
> >
> > Syed M. Ullah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Press Release
> >
> >
> > A day-long event commemorating the historic document known as the 'Testimony of Sixty', a statement issued On October 21, 1971 by sixty outstanding citizens of the world including Mother Theresa and Senator Edward Kennedy deploring and calling international attention to the genocide being committed at the time in Bangladesh by Pakistani armed forces and their cohorts will take place this year on Thursday, October 21 in front of the U.N. Headqurters in New York City (Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 47th Street off 1st Avenue).
> >
> > The event will commence at 10 A.M. and will wound up at 4 P.M. but the peak time will be 12-2 P.M. An elaborate program has been drawn up for the event which will include speeches, poster displays and flyer distribution, among others.
> >
> > The observance of the anniversary of this Testimony has acquired added significance in the light of the current initiative of the Government of Bangladesh to bring to justice persons responsible for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Bangladesh in 1971. There have been persistent denials by groups and persons responsible that any such crimes were committed and like in the past they are engaged even now in an elaborate, well organized and well funded campaign at home and abroad to sabotage and derail the trial effort. They have powerful allies within and outside the country.
> >
> > We urge all who believe in the cuase of truth and justice and want to see that those responsible for commiting acts of genocide, massacre, rape and other crimes against humanity in Bangladesh in 1971 should be brought to justice to come and join the this October 21 rally in front of the United Nations and make their voice heard both nationally and internationally.
> >
>

------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History

Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History

by George Crile

A review by Charles Taylor

How do you react to a very funny book about something that isn't funny at all? George Crile's Charlie Wilson's War is a classic story of good intentions gone wrong, a comedy of can-do Americanism loose in a world it really doesn't understand. Crile's protagonist, the boozing, womanizing Texas congressman Charlie Wilson, and his roster of allies ranging from socialites to dictators to CIA operatives, are figures who might have stepped out of one of the late Ross Thomas' comic thrillers of Americans up to their necks in Third World skullduggery.

Crile, a producer at 60 Minutes, has hold of a story here that everyone else missed, and his elation at having a big scoop dovetails with the enthusiasm that Charlie Wilson brought to his cause — arming the Afghan rebels to defeat the invading Soviet army in the '80s. Crile has written an extraordinarily entertaining piece of reportage that has much to tell us about how the U.S. armed a group of people who are now using the weapons we provided them to kill us. A fiction writer would be hard-pressed to come up with a comparable tale of American shortsightedness, or one with more hairpin reversals and rich, comic irony.

But there is a contradiction at the heart of the book that Crile has not been able to resolve. He's torn between seeing Charlie Wilson as a hero and knowing what his unconditional support of the mujahedin cost us. Crile has written a satirical epic of inadvertent hero worship.

Crile's confusion over Charlie Wilson is likely to be the reader's as well. You'd have to be very straitlaced not to like the guy. In the '80s, Wilson was an east Texas congressman, a Democrat, a social liberal and a fierce anticommunist who had a seat on the House Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for funding both the Pentagon and the CIA. Wilson's public persona was something of a joke. A rangy 6-footer (his cowboy boots added a few inches) with a booming voice and the demeanor of the prototypical confident American, Wilson was more known for his shenanigans than his statesmanship. The ladies in his life included a Playmate, a former Miss World contestant, an east Texas divorce who became his personal belly dancer, and a Houston socialite who so endeared herself to the Pakistan dictator Mohammed Zia ul-Haq that Pakistan's then ambassador to the U.S. made her the country's honorary consul.

At the beginning of the book, Wilson is enduring the scandal of being found in the hot tub of the Fantasy Suite at Caesar's Palace with two showgirls and a goodly supply of cocaine. "Both of them," he remembers, "had ten long, red fingernails with an endless supply of beautiful white powder ... The Feds spent a million bucks trying to figure out whether, when those fingernails passed under my nose, did I inhale or exhale — and I ain't telling." When he was later appointed to the House Ethics Committee (largely due to the machinations of then House Speaker Tip O'Neill) he told a reporter it was because "I'm the only one of the committee who likes women and whiskey, and we need to be represented." There's no getting around how refreshing that sounds now, following a period where the government went crazy because the president got a blow job.

It was just that sort of reputation that made people underestimate Charlie Wilson, and thus allowed him to work unseen. From the time he was a boy, mesmerized by the battles the Allies waged in World War II, Wilson saw himself as a man of destiny. Graduating from Annapolis (with more demerits than anyone in his class) and spending his time at sea chasing Russian submarines, Wilson was possessed of an unwavering patriotism and convinced of the Soviet threat. Inspired by John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, Wilson won election to the Texas Legislature in 1961 and then to Congress 12 years later. Never having seen combat duty, Wilson felt that he had, in Crile's words, "cheated his country."

In Congress, he became a passionate advocate of Israel. That advocacy left him heartbroken in 1982 when he went to a Palestinian and Lebanese Shiite refugee camp outside Beirut where Ariel Sharon had permitted Lebanese Christians to enter and begin a two-day slaughter. With that experience, and his lifelong hatred of the USSR, it was easy for him to transfer the need to find a heroic cause to the mujahedin, then fighting the Soviet invaders.

His chipper Virgil in this circle of hell was the aforementioned Houston socialite Joanne Herring. Like Wilson, she's an easy figure to laugh off. She became acquainted with the plight of the Afghans through her then husband, a Texas oil tycoon. Her response to the poverty she encountered in Afghan villages was to persuade her designer friends, among them Emilio Pucci, Oscar de la Renta and Pierre Cardin, to come up with designs Afghan women could use as patterns to make dresses and rugs and thus lift themselves out of poverty. Meeting Wilson, she used her wiles to persuade him that the mujahedin were a cause worth promoting. And seeing his potential through Joanne Herring's eyes made it easier for Charlie Wilson to believe he was on his way to being the man he'd always wanted to be.

It should be said that Wilson wasn't entirely thinking with his pecker. The news reports of Afghan refugees fleeing into Pakistan by the thousands and helicopter gunships destroying villages while the mujahedin refused to give up were honestly appalling. For the right, it was a nightmare of Soviet imperialism, and for the left it was another chapter in the series of outrages against Hungary and Czechoslovakia and other countries. With the will to do something for the Afghan rebels, and in the catbird seat of the House Appropriations Committee, Charlie Wilson only had to find the people who could guide his efforts. The contacts provided by Joanne Herring were one channel. And Gust Avrakatos was another.

Avrakatos is the book's second major character, emphasis on character. A Greek-American out of the steel towns of Pennsylvania, and like Charlie, stirred to public service by JFK's "Ask not what your country to do for you" speech, Avrakatos was a cunning and ruthless CIA agent whose working-class crudeness kept him out of the Agency's inner circle, the province of the "gentlemen spies" epitomized by Allan Dulles. With typical bluntness, Avrakatos says of the CIA's old-boy network, "the only reason half of them got anywhere is because they jerked off Henry Cabot Lodge's grandson at some prep school."

If Avrakatos knows this talk sounds colorful, it's also his genuine way of speaking. Crile notes that he still speaks the language of the rough Pennsylvania streets where he grew up. He called his black secretary (who adored him and who he rescued from financial ruin by co-signing a loan, cutting up her credit cards and putting her on a strict budget) at the CIA a "nigger" several times a day. Yet his working-class ethic led him time and again to champion the secretaries at the Agency (who were also an invaluable source of information). When Avrakatos was re-posted in late 1986, the black workers gave him their annual Brown Bomber Award, the only white man ever to receive it. The woman who presented it to Avrakatos said, "We want to give this award to the blackest motherfucker of us all."

Avrakatos' anticommunist ideology was the same as Wilson's. In Wilson he saw a great opportunity to bypass the bureaucracy of the CIA as well as potential congressional oversight (the CIA was under a great deal of scrutiny at the time as Democrats tried to curtail Reagan's romance with the Contras) and strike a crippling blow to the Soviet Union.

The machinations that Charlie and Gust went through included securing matching funds from the Saudis (so that any congressional appropriation to the mujahedin was automatically doubled), involving Zia (who didn't want to prompt a Soviet invasion of his country by openly giving aid to the rebels), and finding a way to make sure that the weapons given the rebels bore nothing that would mark them of an American make. What it finally added up to was the largest and most expensive CIA covert operation of all time. And with the eventual withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan, Crile argues it was eventually central to the collapse of the Soviet empire.

It would be too complex, and deprive potential readers of the fun of the book, to go into the details of all the cloak and dagger enterprises here. But time and again, what strikes you is the riotous sense of culture clash at play. Given the strictures of Muslim countries, Charlie Wilson vowed never to visit one of those countries without liquor and a woman in tow. So Crile recounts hilarious scenes like when one of Charlie's companions, in order not to offend the strict Muslim warriors, sat in on a meeting in her idea of a conservative outfit: a pink nylon jumpsuit with a zipper down the front. When Charlie and Gust arrange for Tennessee mules to be sent in to ferry the arms shipments to the rebels in the mountains, word comes back that though the mules are doing their job, they are also being buggered and eaten by the mujahedin.

It also strikes you that, dedicated and maybe cracked as they were, Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakatos were, in the midst of the Reagan administration, measurably less nuts than the people around them. One of the schemes devised by Richard "the Prince of Darkness" Perle, Oliver North and NSC staffer Walt Raymond was to encourage Soviet soldiers to defect to the mujahedin. The Afghan rebels were to use loudspeakers to tell the soldiers that deserting was their passage to the West and freedom. When Avrakatos went to the Reagan White House to brief them on the efficacy of the plan, he took several photographic blowups to show what Soviets who defected could expect. The photos showed the Soviet soldiers being raped, hanged and castrated by the mujahedin. Crile also recounts Avrakatos' attempts to derail the Iran-Contra scheme (including denying Oliver North access to a CIA Swiss bank account), not only because he thought it was crazy but because he knew it was illegal.

When Crile writes of Avrakatos standing up to the mad schemes of his superiors, or when he details Charlie Wilson heading off yet another potential disaster to his program, there's no doubt that he digs the ad hoc James Bondmanship of these two. And since they are such immensely entertaining personalities, Charlie a master of bullshit and Gust the kind of guy who could cut through a truckload of it with one sentence, you can't help but dig them, too.

Nor is Crile coy about the effects of their efforts for the mujahedin. The book ends with a long epilogue detailing just how the great panoply of weapons that Wilson was instrumental in procuring for the Afghan fighters ended up being turned against us. Crile encountered stories about what the mujahedin were doing in 1991 when he went to Afghanistan for "60 Minutes." He heard tales of mobs burning a free health clinic for women convinced it was promoting free sex, of murdering women working in Afghan refugee camps as teachers and nurses, of civilian populations being shelled to "liberate" them from the infidel.

But what nags at you reading Charlie Wilson's War is the discrepancy between the admiration and affection it's so easy to feel for Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakatos and the way that they represent everything blinkered and duplicitous about American intelligence. Particularly in light of Sept. 11, you don't have to be a right-winger to acknowledge that for intelligence to be effective, it has to operate, at least to some extent, in secrecy. But is it fair, as some conservatives were quick to do, to blame the failure of intelligence that allowed Sept. 11. on things like the Church Committee of the '70s (which uncovered the CIA's role in overthrowing Salvador Allende and installing Pinochet), or on the Democrats' opposition to Reagan's proxy wars in Central America during the '80s? An institution funded by the public has to admit to some public scrutiny. It hardly denies the brutality of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to see the United States' arming of the mujahedin as part of the anticommunist fervor that led Wilson to champion U.S. meddling in Chile and Central America. (He was an admirer of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.)

How are we to react when Charlie Wilson weeps at Zia's funeral? Crile has done a fine job of relating what the man meant to Wilson, how much of a friend and ally he had become, and he doesn't shortchange his hero's emotion. But knowing Zia had Pakistan leader Ali Bhutto murdered, and that he was working toward building a nuclear bomb, you can't help but feel that the tragedy of Zia's death is that it didn't come by strangulation in the cradle.

Military and intelligence officials and politicians are not mind readers. Not every consequence of every action can be foreseen. But surely someone as shrewd as Gust Avrakatos, someone who recognized the warlord culture of Afghanistan for what it was, was not incapable of seeing the consequences of arming a group that included more than its fair share of fundamentalist Islamic wackos. If there's anything worse than a rube, it's a rube with a Stinger missile.

It's reasonable to conclude that both Wilson's and Avrakatos' fervent desire to bring down the USSR was tragically, comically, ignorantly shortsighted in terms of the potential danger to the United States. And it seems to me that both they and Crile overestimated the power of the USSR at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, it was the Soviet Vietnam, and Crile is particularly good on how ordinary Russians turned against their government which, in the face of young men returning from combat minus limbs, denied there was even a war going on. But the question of just how much of a played-out power the USSR was by the '80s is not addressed.

So Charlie Wilson's War is a book divided against itself, Crile's enthusiasm and his large gifts as a storyteller pitted against his critical intelligence. (The book never strikes the balance of satire and celebration Philip Kaufman achieved in his film of Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff.") But you can't condemn Crile too harshly for that as it divides the reader in the same way. Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakatos come off as attractive, shrewd, lusty, larger-than-life characters who blundered us right into arming people who now want nothing more than to see us dead. Perhaps the best way to honor them is with the same toast Charlie Wilson gave when he watched Soviet Cmdr. Boris Gromov, the last Russian to leave Afghanistan, make his departure on TV: "Here's to you, you motherfuckers."

http://www.powells.com/review/2003_08_22

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Senior lawyers condemn AG’s conduct : Chief Justice given farewell

Senior lawyers condemn AG's conduct : Chief Justice given farewell

Chief Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim yesterday was accorded farewell with Attorney General Mahbube Alam accusing him of violating the Constitution in not giving oaths to two additional judges and the president of the Supreme Court Bar for strengthening the judiciary.

The Chief Justice delivered a routine lecture and refrained from responding to the attacking remarks made by the Attorney General. Senior lawyer Barrister Rafiqul-ul-Haq told journalists later in his 50 years in the profession he never observe the farewell given to an outgoing CJ in such a manner. "What the AG told the CJ is shameful for me, the country and all others," he said, adding, "No gentleman can address the CJ in such a manner."

The AG said, "The government could take constitutional steps against you (CJ) in this regard, but didn't do so considering honour and dignity of the post."

The farewell was arranged to facilitate the outgoing Chief Justice, who is scheduled to go on retirement today, at his court room of the Appellate Division.

"You were superseded four times during appointment of CJ; President Zillur Rahman honoured you and protected from a tense situation through appointing you CJ this year; you should honour others," Mahbubey Alam said.

"During your CJ tenure, you fulfilled wish of the people and some of them were against the Liberation War," he alleged. Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Khandker Mahbub Hossain also delivered his farewell address to the CJ.

He termed the refusal of the two judges' oath even after having pressure from the Executive as the CJ's courage and wisdom that paved the way of strengthening the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law.

The court room was full with lawyers, and judges of both the High Court Division and the Appellate Division at that time.

Interestingly, the two superseded judges of the Appellate Division-- Justice Md Abdul Matin and Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman-- in appointing the new CJ didn't attend the farewell. When contacted, a high official of the CJ office confirmed that 'they were not in vacation'.

Chief Justice Fazlul Karim will go on retirement today (Thursday). President Zillur Rahman appointed Justice ABM Khairul Haque as the next CJ superseding the two senior judges. Khairul Haque will be sworn-in today by the President at Bangabhaban.

It may be mentioned here that the President on April 11 this year appointed 17 additional judges, including Advocate Md Ruhul Kuddus Babu and Advocate M Khasruzzaman to the HC.

But, Chief Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim on April 18 administered oath of 15 judges out of 17 and declined to sworn-in the two others citing 'unavoidable circumstances'.

SCBA President Khandker Mahbub Hossain protested appointment of the two judges and urged the CJ not to administer their oath alleging that Khasruzzaman was involved in vandalising the SC on November 30, 2006 and Babu was the prime accused in a murder case.

However, AG Mahbubey Alam told reporters Babu was brilliant lawyer and allegation brought against Khasruzzaman was not right.

Mahbubey Alam also alleged that the outgoing CJ didn't take steps as per a report of a corruption probe conducted by the previous CJ Md Tafazzul Islam.

Bar President Khandker Mahbub expressed his deep gratitude to the CJ for his strong stance in upholding fundamental rights and freedom of the press.

 

http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/09/30/news0727.htm

 

http://amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2010/09/30/46299

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] A War Crimes Trial without Dead Bodies!

A War Crimes Trial without Dead Bodies!

 

The detestable and morally bankrupt politician Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury (SQC) made quite an acute and insightful remark recently when he questioned why the war crimes investigators were interviewing witnesses but not going to the graveyard. It is very likely that SQC probably did not himself quite realize the legal implication and evidentiary significance of what he had just said. Put quite simply how can there be a trial if there is no proof of an offence having been committed? It is not sufficient simply to have witnesses testify that a crime has been committed there needs to be actual physical evidence that a crime was in fact committed. In the case of murder this should obviously be the object of the crime i.e. a dead body. In the more compelling situation of war crimes and mass murder there would probably need to be a large number of dead bodies put in evidence or the existence of a mass grave or two. Since Sheikh Mujiur Rahman himself estimated the number of dead during the 1971 war to be around 3 million finding the requisite number of dead bodies for a conviction in a war crimes trial should be a trifling matter. However, so far not a single piece of physical evidence of the type required has been produced by the investigators.

 

It is not sufficient in a court of law to have eye witnesses merely say that an accused was at a particular time and place where the offences were committed but more tangibly and specifically the actual object of the crime must also be produced in court (or more practically photographic evidence of the dead bodies) unless this proves entirely impossible to do. This may occur if the murderer pushed his victim into the sea and the body becomes impossible to recover. In such a situation conviction will rest on the credibility, believability and plausibility of the accounts of the eye witness testimonies alone. In the specific situation of the war crimes investigation in Bangladesh no such daunting problem exists. I assume that since 3 million people lost their lives in the war there must be an abundance of damning physical evidence to convict the several accused now in custody.  Of course, for conviction to stand a generic number of dead bodies will not do but the actual victims for which the accused is standing trial must be produced in court (normally through photographic and forensic samples). There is, however, also the additional complicating matter of proving the manner of death of the alleged victims. The dead body must show signs of (abnormal or artificially induced) injury sufficient to cause death. Presumably in the case of war crimes the specific victims may indicate a bullet hole through the skull or fractured bones suggesting massive internal and external bleeding caused by repeated beating with a blunt instrument. Has the investigation committee exhumed any bodies or have they even sought permission to do so? Without this most basic and essential piece of evidence conviction is almost impossible and the trials will merely become a media charade and legal farce and justice will not be seen to be done. Sentiment and emotion alone will not bring a conviction in these cases. 

 

If one takes as an example the Nuremberg Trials and the subsequent prosecutions brought against Nazi war criminals there was a mass of physical evidence produced in court as well as eye witness testimonies and documentary materials. In Bangladesh the investigators seems to be relying purely on testimonies of witnesses many of whom were not even present during the committing of the offences. None of those questioned appear to be actual eye witnesses to the events of murder committed during 1971. Everything that has been produced as evidence by the investigators appears to be purely circumstantial in nature. A witness may have seen an accused at a particular place and time where the crimes were committed but unless he actually saw the committing of an offence his testimony is of little intrinsic value. Similarly without the actual dead bodies produced in court in the form of photographic evidence and other forensic testimony to identify the bodies and the manner of death there is really no meaning to these trials.

 

Sohail Taj

 

Postgraduate Student

 

University College London

 

  

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia--stange logic

Dear sirs,

Assalamu Alaikum.Sheikh Mujibur Rahman also used to call Jinnah sahib Quaid e Asam ( please see the proceedings of Pakistan National Assembly from 1957 to 58 ,as quoted in Bangladesh independence documents, volume 1.Sheikh sahib’s party also made his sister Fatima Jinnah as Presendial candidate in 1964.In his speeches with Fatima Jinnah ,Sheilh sahib always referred that she was the sister of Quaide Azam ( see Ittefaq and Azad of that time).

There is no law in  Bangladesh prohibiting the use of Quaid e Azam for Jinnah sahib..

 

Dear readers ask Akbar sahib to let us know what is his Islam,

 

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

---

From: alochona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:alochona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Akbar Hussain
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:24 AM
To: alochona group
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia--stange logic

 

 

If hypocrisy is prohibited or haram in Islam read S.A.Hannan. The shameless man who still call Muhammad Ali Jinnah as his,Quaid e Azam although he holds a Bangladeshi Passport and permanently lives in Bangladesh. I am reading this man for the last few years whose religious fanaticism has miserably failed his education and age. To him the rusted views of an ignorant mullah are more important than anything. He relentlessly propagates his 7^th century views on Islam to negate secularism. He never understood the importance of freedom in life. He firmly believes in dogmas to demonize intellect. His ignorance knows no bound.

 

Akbar Hussain

 

 

---

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
CC: sahannan2004@yahoo.co.in; azmi2171@yahoo.com; azharhabib_03@yahoo.com; a.moonmoon@yahoo.com; ahmadtotonji@yahoo.com
From: sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:12:16 +0600
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia--stange logic

 

 

Dear sirs,

Assalamu Alaikum.Quaid e Azam did not make only one speech, he spoke many times before and after this speech.You can see his Dhaka speeches in March 1948 ( in volume 1 of independence documents of Bangladesh) and his speech in State Bank of Pakista, you will know what he wanted.

 

Secularism was a revolt against religion, it is close to Atheism in actual action. Secularism by propaganda and actual action threw out religion from public life and captured it for itself.

 

Mr Abdul Kareem, if he is Abdul Kareem ( servant of Kareem-  Allah) then how can he forget that Prophet (sm) established a state in Madina where the law was islam with full rights for Non-Muslims.

 

Secularism is the reason for complete breakdown of morality in political, economic and international behavior apart from other destructive effects in family and society.

Only mis-guided persons will say that behavior of present regime in Bangladesh is democratic.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

---

From: alochona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:alochona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of muhammed kareem
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 4:26 AM
To: alochona magazine
Cc: sahannan2004@yahoo.co.in; azmi2171@yahoo.com; azharhabib_03@yahoo.com; a.moonmoon@yahoo.com; ahmadtotonji@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia--stange logic

 

 

Dear Mr. Hannan,

I have always been amused by your naivete. May be you should care to explain what secularism is. Based on my limited understanding, the principal feature of secularism is "separation of church and state". Essentially, it means that people will not be judged by their faith. They will be equal partners in affairs of the state. In one of his famous speeches, Jinnah said,

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship. . . . We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state."

Based on that speech, Pakistan should clearly have been a secular state (As we all know Jinnah was not much of a Muslim anyway).

You try to score points by stating "The solution for political issues there is democratization which should not be delayed". Very true, but given the nature of democracy in our country what exactly does it mean. In fact, we currently have a democratically elected government, which has many shortcomings but is democratic nonetheless. Are you suggesting that the current government is undemocratic?

thanks,

reza

---

To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
CC: sahannan2004@yahoo.co.in; azmi2171@yahoo.com; azharhabib_03@yahoo.com; a.moonmoon@yahoo.com; ahmadtotonji@yahoo.com
From: sahannan@sonarbangladesh.com
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:45:21 +0600
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia--stange logic [1 Attachment]

 

[Attachment(s) from S A Hannan included below]

Dear sirs,

 

Assalamu Alaikum.This is a discordant view of an individual person.He also does not know secularism, otherwise he could not say that there is no conflict between Islamic and secular values.

The solution for political issues there is democratization which should not be delayed.

Please also see the attached article.

 

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

---

From: alochona@yahoogroups.com [mailto:alochona@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Farida Majid
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:27 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia

 

 

               I have a;ways been saying that secularism is about equal rights of individuals uner conrtitutional law.
 
Secularization of the Saudi judicial system will be implemented when we give the concept of the law preference over the concept of the fatwa. 
 

---

---

Subject: Saudi Columnist: Secularism The Only Option For Saudi Arabia   If you are having trouble viewing this email click here.       Special Dispatch|3224 |September 12, 2010 Saudi Arabia/Democratization and Reform in the Arab & Muslim World       Saudi Columnist: Secularism – The Only Option For Saudi Arabia                 In a highly unusual article in the Saudi daily Al-Wiam, Saudi columnist Ahmad 'Adnan called for the secularization of Saudi Arabia and for the separation of religion and state. He said that there is no contradiction between secular and Islamic values, and that secularization in the country would prevent the Islamists from imposing their views and would ensure equal treatment for all Saudi citizens. He also discussed the conflict between the liberals and the Islamists in Saudi Arabia, which has been widely covered by the media, particularly on the issue of mixing of the genders.[1] Following are excerpts from 'Adnan's column:[2]   "The Modern State, by Its Very Essence, Cannot be Anything but Secular" "The discussion of secularization in Saudi Arabia sometimes looks like a type of madness; many fatwas accuse secularists of unbelief, and ban secularism, claiming that it is a regime that does not act in accordance with shari'a, or that it is a satanic regime. They do so because the sites holy to Islam are within the borders [of this country], and because the establishment of the [Saudi] state was based on an alliance between the religious institution and the political institution. But in the present circumstances, and considering the uncertainty of Saudi future, the cultural and political elite in the country may find that this madness [i.e. secularism] has, with time, become a necessity of reality...  "Thee elements have served as catalysts in the discussion on secularism as a necessity in Saudi Arabia: a) [Saudi] Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal's March 2010 statement to The New York Times that Saudi Arabia is 'breaking away from the shackles of the past,' and 'moving in the direction of a liberal society'; b) a media report about a Saudi citizen who was granted political asylum in New Zealand after he converted to Christianity; and c) the ongoing struggle between liberals and Islamists in the Saudi press and media... "The discourse about the secular option means the following: advancing the political and religious institutions' independence from each other, and differentiating between religious standards and political standards... The modern state, by its very essence, cannot be anything but secular. The talk about completing [the process of] building the state and its institutions, or instituting reforms, means drawing closer to secularism. Drawing away from intentions for reform and for building [the appropriate] institutions means drawing away from secularism... which aims to free the social structure from its bonds but not from its values, and to ensure justice and equality for all citizens." Saudi Arabia Must be a State with Religious Sites, but Not a Religious State "In Saudi Arabia, where the political regime is based on the implementation of the Koran and the Sunna, secularism is aimed at actualizing values that are drawn from the Koran and the Sunna, or that [at least] do not contradict them – that is, justice, guarantees of citizen's freedom, and civil and security rights. The basis of the regime's legitimacy is the satisfaction of the citizen and his acceptance of its authority. Accordingly, secularizing [this regime's] foundation will form the basis for a real social compact between the political regime and the citizens. "Saudi Arabia should be referred to as Al-Harmain [that is, the land of the two holy places, Mecca and Medina] from a religious perspective [only], not from a political perspective. That is, Saudi Arabia [as a state] is not the Al-Harmain state, but a [state] in which Al-Harmain exists – and within that state, the Al-Harmain is subject to special laws that must not be applied to other areas... "If the Saudis are charged with spiritual responsibility because Al-Harmain are within its boundaries, then they must emphasize the tolerance of Islam and its culture, [Islam's] interaction with the zeitgeist; its integration with human rights and women's rights, and its alliance with democracy and civil [values]. Unfortunately, however, we see that the religious institution in Saudi Arabia plays the opposite role – and there are all too many examples of this. This is a negative reflection on the image of Islam in the world, and it holds back progress, modernization, and openness in the country." "Secularization … will be Implemented when We Give the Concept of the Law Preference Over the Concept of the Fatwa" "Secularization of the Saudi judicial system will be implemented when we give the concept of the law preference over the concept of the fatwa. If we set aside the limitations and instructions appearing in the Koran, we will find that most of the rules implemented in Saudi Arabia are man-made, or do not appear in the Koran or in the Hadith... Some are cunning and say that this or that [state] law does [in fact] appear in the Koran and Sunna, or that it does not contradict them. They do not understand that law – [which is anchored] in supreme values [that stem from] the principles of truth and justice – will never contradict the Koran and the Sunna. It is inconceivable for a state to be run only by the implementation of Koranic punishments... "Religious jurisprudence is ultimately a human effort [that can be] either right or misguided, and it is amendable. The structure of the state institutions and the complexity of their function forces them to turn to man-made laws that need to be legislated by experts, and must satisfy the citizen. [This is done] with respect for the laws of Islam concerning personal status... and with consideration for the requirements of reality and its innovations...  "The secularization of Saudi education means giving the citizen the freedom, and the right, to determine what kind of religious education his children will receive, and at what level [of piety]. Thus, the regime is freed from conflicts with minorities, [such as] Ismailis and Shi'ites, and from conflict with the Sunni schools of thought that do not follow the practices of the official Hanbali school..." The Role of the Elite in Advancing Secularism "Most unfortunately, the Saudi elite is being swept away by the populist tendency to condemn and renounce secularism. Therefore, this elite is asked to correct its misconceptions regarding secularism, particularly because secularism is not [totally] absent from Saudi public life. It [made inroads] via the pan-Arab movement and the leftist movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and today it has considerable influence through... the liberal movement.  "One result of the renunciation of secularism is the media-cultural battle currently underway among the [various] streams of thought in Saudi Arabia. Its most recent manifestations are the liberals' and Islamists' reciprocal attacks over the issue of the call for gender mixing; over the issue of [Saudi cleric] Dr. Muhammad Al-'Arifi's declaration of his intention to visit Jerusalem; over the issue of [the call by Saudi] preacher Yousuf Al-Ahmad [to raze the Mecca mosque in order to rebuild it so men and women are separated]... These wars have been dominated on both sides by sordid, hostile language, because of each side's fear that the political establishment will heed the calls of the other side. "The propaganda in favor of the idea of secularization in Saudi Arabia does not mean a desire to repress the conservative or Islamist movements. It is a solution [aimed at] preventing the conservatives from forcing their views on others. The secular state is a state that serves as arbiter [between two sides], and is not biased towards a particular side. At the same time, it bans any movement from forcing its position on the other. This demands two fundamental things: a) freedom for the individual to choose his belief and to exercise his rights unmolested, and b) equal rights and obligations for all citizens under the law. Neutrality does not mean a policy of appeasement... It is the state's commitment to assure its citizens the right to live, believe, and express their opinion... "The negative image of secularism that is widespread in Saudi Arabia is obvious, and stems from the circumstances in which the state was established, and from its clerics' social, cultural, and political standing. This image must be handled with a research approach, not [by way of] preaching. In order to arrive at the desired development, the reform program must be completed, the Islamic religious discourse must be renewed, towards genuine reconciliation with [such concepts as] the state, citizenship, rule of law, freedom, and human and women's rights, and advocacy for the values of common sense and the scientific doctrine..."   [1] For a long time in Saudi Arabia there has been an ongoing jurisprudential dispute over whether a man and a woman can be in close proximity without them being considered "alone together," which is banned by shari'a. Many fatwas on this matter have been issued; some have been perceived in the country as bizarre or extremist: for example, a fatwa by senior Saudi sheikh 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Barak permitting the killing of anyone allowing mixing of the genders (islamlight.net, February 22, 2010); a fatwa issued following the allowing of gender mixing at King 'Abdallah University for Science and Technology (KAUST); and Sheikh 'Abd Al-Mohsin Al-'Obikan's fatwa permitting a woman to breastfeed a man who is not a close relative so that they can work together or be in close proximity for other reasons (alarabiya.net, May 21, 2010; see also MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 626, " Controversy in Saudi Arabia over Fatwa Permitting Breastfeeding of Adults," July 28, 2010, http://memri.convio.net/site/R?i=5Rnj4swT0YnQfSPz1Htewg..). [2] Al-Wiam (Saudi Arabia), May 5, 2010. Please remember the environment before printing. For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request. MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution. MEMRI P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837 Phone: (202) 955-9070 Fax: (202) 955-9077 www.memri.org UNSUBSCRIBE | DONATE | CONTACT US                                                                       nonprofit software

 

 

__._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___