|
|
March 24, 2008 Barack Obama Would Let Shoaib Choudhury DieBy Richard L. BenkinAnd, thankfully, things
have turned out that way. Support for Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
on Capitol Hill has been a celebration of bi-partisan cooperation.
When the Bangladeshi paramilitary force, Rapid Action Battalion (RAB)
kidnapped Shoaib recently, I called four members of Congress-two
Republicans, two Democrats. All four lawmakers had previously been
outspoken in their support for Shoaib, and they came through again.
Not only did all of them call the Bangladeshis, but they also had other
lawmakers do the same; leading to Shoaib's release.
Last March, Congress passed
House Resolution 64, authored by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and co-sponsored by
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY). The vote was 409-1, Ron Paul being the lone
dissenter. I was present for the debate on the Resolution.
After a pantheon of Democratic and Republican lawmakers offered
impassioned speeches on Shoaib's behalf-and not incidentally in praise of
Rep. Kirk -- the Republican and Democratic floor leaders (Gary Ackerman of
New York and John Boozman of Arkansas respectively) both commented on the
bi-partisan nature and strong solidarity of the afternoon. Boozman
called it a "a very bipartisan effort." Ackerman said he hoped "we
might bring this kind of approach and dedication" to all issues before the
Congress.
A really telling incident
occurred not long before the 2006 election when I approached two senators
at about the same time. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) is about as far
on the left as we can find. Then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is
about as far on the right as we can find. Both men responded with
identical support and public action. I later suggested to Santorum
that it might have been the only time that he and Durbin agreed on
anything.
In fact, I approached about
15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators: Democratic,
Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it. And every one of
them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one.
Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an
imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism? That's right,
my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
I first met with his staff
in April 2005 in his DC office. Keep in mind this was the same week
that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) spent hours learning about the case and then
met well after "working hours" in a very difficult meeting with the
Bangladeshi ambassador and me to secure Shoaib's release. I brought
Obama's staff extensive documentation of the injustice, as well as other
evidence of Shoaib's activities; we spoke for quite a long time, but they
never called back. In fact, they ignored all my subsequent follow-up
contacts. But it was, after all soon after his election; perhaps
early disorganization was to blame. Yet, I spoke personally with Obama 13 months later at a general meeting hosted by Obama and Durbin. To my delight, when my name was mentioned, Durbin responded immediately with praise and support, saying that it was "an important human rights case," and asked to see me privately about the matter. I spoke with to both him and Obama, who at his best moments looked quizzical and confused. While Durbin later sent a formal protest to the Bangladeshis, Obama never responded; nor again did he or his staff reply to my subsequent entreaties. I spoke with Obama one
other time about Shoaib's case, less than six months later. I
reminded him or our last encounter, gave him an update on the case, and
asked for his support in one of any number of ways. He hesitated a
moment then held out his hand and said, "Well, we're sure happy for all
the work you are doing." Propriety prevents me from
verbalizing what I was thinking then. I offered to send him more
information, which he asked me to do. And, guess what, I never heard
back despite the reams of evidence I did send.
Barack Obama wants us to
think that he has a special sensitivity to injustice and that his entire
life has been about combating it. Yet, in this one concrete
situation he faced, he failed to act. The fact that not one
of the dozens of other lawmakers failed speaks volumes. The
fact that support was never contingent on ideology speaks volumes. I
often wondered if his refusal to act was strategic, ignorant, or simple
cowardice. No matter, the impact on Shoaib Choudhury was the same,
as it would be on any freedom fighter.
When speaking about this, I
ask potential voters this question. If Barack Obama does not have
the ability to stand up against injustice in Bangladesh, where is he going
to find the moral courage to stand up to Iran, North Korea, or China?
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|