Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, Obama sides with Islamists

For Obama, It’s only human rights if it’s anti-US

Dr. Richard Benkin  Bio

Email Article

Shop CFP

Photo Gallery

Although you would never know it from the mainstream media, many Americans never bought the ridiculous argument that Barack Obama was some sort of human rights activist.  In fact, for some of us, he was just the opposite.  As reported in an earlier Canada Free Press article (“Obama Sides with Islamists in Choudhury Case”), Obama was the only Washingtonian asked who did not take any action to support Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.

In 2003, Shoaib was arrested by Bangladeshi officials after he exposed the rise of radical Islam in his country, urged relations with Israel, and advocated genuine interfaith understanding based on religious equality.  For 17 months, I fought to end this Islamist-engineered atrocity until with the help of Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), we succeeded.  Both before and after we did—for his persecution has not stopped and he still faces capital charges for his “crime”—I approached approximately 15 percent of the House and a handful of Senators.  Every one of them—Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative—responded with support; every one of them except my own junior Senator, Barack Hussein Obama.

I met with his staff in Washington in April 2005, the same week that Kirk and I went well after “working hours” engaged in the very long and difficult meeting with the Bangladeshi ambassador that secured Shoaib’s release.  I brought them extensive documentation of the injustice and other evidence of Shoaib’s activities.  Most significantly, I told them how Shoaib was one of those rare, courageous and truly moderate Muslims—not like the anti-American Islamist supporters Obama places in that category.  He opposes radical Islamists publicly and unequivocally while refusing to let the Islamists intimidate him into leaving his home inside the Muslim world.  I told them how he proudly proclaims himself pro-Israel and pro-US; but Obama’s staff never called back and ignored all subsequent contacts.  I spoke with Obama personally 13 months later at a meeting he and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) hosted.  Durbin called the matter “an important human rights case,” remained on top of it, and protested formally to the Bangladeshis.  At his best moments, Obama looked quizzical and confused and never even sent out a form letter.  I spoke with Obama one other time about Shoaib’s case, less than six months later.  It was a chance meeting, and I reminded him of our last encounter.  I updated him on the case and suggested several ways in which he could support the besieged journalist.  He hesitated a moment then held out his hand and said in a used-car-salesman kind of way, “Well, we’re sure happy for all the work you are doing.”  I really had to restrain myself and just mumbled something about it not being about me, but I do not think he got that; and, not surprisingly, I never heard back despite the reams of evidence I sent at his request.

It is bad enough that Obama easily turns the other way when another human being is being tortured for his beliefs; but far more sinister is Obama’s rejection of basic American values and their defense.  As I noted above, support for Shoaib Choudhury crossed party and ideological lines.  The day that Durbin sent his letter of protest, then-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) did the same.  Everyone recognized the common American value of supporting those who stand against injustice; everyone, except Barack Obama.  If we examine his human rights record since taking office, President Obama’s behavior has not changed.

While he takes his wife on a date to Paris, human rights atrocities occur daily across our planet.  Islamists or their fellow travelers perpetrate the greatest number.  Ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims in Bangladesh—Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and others—is proceeding without a break.  Even as this article is being written, about 15,000,000 Bangladeshis are facing state-supported oppression.  Currently, Obama’s friends in Islamabad are completing the destruction of Pakistan’s Hindus.  Christian communities throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority—are being systematically destroyed.  Palestinian and other Arab authorities continue to teach their children the vilest sort of anti-Semitism.  And an openly Islamist Turkish government has implemented policies that prevent religious minorities from owning land, training clergy, or offering religious education above high school; this in addition to tolerating anti-minority violence and bigotry.  Leftists are guilty as well.  There are massive human rights violations in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, targeting both political opponents and the country’s Jewish community.  Neither has Cuba nor China moved to give their peoples freedom.

Yet, the perpetrators of these atrocities are Obama’s friends, and so he allows these human rights violations to proceed without so much as a whimper of protest.  Yet, he consistently talks about two issues in human rights terms, Guantanamo and the Palestinians, and points an accusing finger at the United States and Israel.

If we examine his silence on the one hand and his aggressive stance on the other, a very clear pattern emerges.  It seems that human rights issues exist for Obama only if the supposed victim is anti-American; conversely, those violations should be “understood” if the perpetrator is anti-American.  His stance is ideological not moral; and certainly not based on the values that are the bedrock of American society.  Obama’s actions in the Choudhury case are consistent with that.  Shoaib Choudhury publicly supports the United States and Israel in a part of the world where—according to Obama’s Cairo speech and other pronouncements—we should be ashamed of what the US and Israel have done and apologize for it.