Afghan journalist sentenced to death - and we can help (please!)

The Independent has the jailhouse interview:

"There was no question of me getting a lawyer to represent me in the case; in fact I was not even able to speak on my own defence."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-he-was-sentenced-to-die-786832.html

As I've said, situations like these often take a long time to play out, so I thank everyone here for their patience in keeping this thread around. It's all too easy to get discouraged with the state of the world - and to turn away from the ignorance and cruelty and fear - but it's important to remind ourselves what's at stake as we move through history. It's also important to do something. Fight that ignorance and cruelty when you have the chance.

So write, if you haven't. Send an email to your congressional representative or the Secretary of State or the White House or the UN. Sign a petition. Do something.

 

Today, from the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pervez-verdict-is-wrong-says-jail-chief-787285.html

 

jmac While I applaud your support of this writer and his right to free speech I am a bit puzzled. At the same time you have been vocal against the war, but at some level, isn't the war about freedom of speech and support for democracy?

 

I'll answer the question because I think it's important, Boom. But I'll also tread lightly because I don't want to see this thread politicized.

My support for free expression is unqualified and apolitical. I think the solution to most human problems lies in the freedom of human thought. The repression of those ideas, and the prevention of their dissemination and expression, is both a cause and a consequence of our human failing, and lies at the very root of a lot of our human cruelty.

I also oppose war in all its forms - while understanding its inevitability given the violent imperfections of our species.

Our war in Afghanistan was not originally proposed to us as a fight for freedom of expression or democracy on the subcontinent. Those arguments were made later. It was originally intended as a police action designed to destroy Al Queda and apprehend, or kill, Osama Bin Laden. The same is true of the arc of our involvement in Iraq. We were given an explicit set of reasons for going in. Over time, those reasons changed.

In neither case has my commitment to the freedom of individual expression in either of those places changed. I was writing and agitating to get writers and thinkers out of the Taliban's prisons, and I'll write and agitate to get them out of Karzai's.

As a personal matter, I don't think you can successfully spread democracy and intellectual freedom at the point of a bayonet. Throughout history, those ideals must arise organically, bubbling up through a population. Later perhaps, those freedoms are won and secured by war, as in our own revolution. They are defended by war. But all you need to do is look at Iraq to see what happens when you try to impose democracy from the top down by means of external force.

When I was invited to join PEN I was tremendously flattered, because it's one of the world's first human rights organizations. George Orwell was one of the original members and driving intellects behind it. They set out 80 years ago to keep writers and poets and playwrights and journalists and academics out of prison and off the gallows. To keep ideas free. We're not pacifists by any means. There are certainly some ideas worth fighting - and dying - for.

So I see no dissonance in the idea of speaking up for human rights and freedoms on the one hand, while decrying wars undertaken in bad faith on the other.

 

So in other words the pen is mightier than the sword. It's a nice thought but unrealistic in today's world.

Freedom for all will not come from the pen when unfortunately those who want to quell free speech are willing to embrace tyranny and death to advance their cause.

 

If that's your reading of what I wrote, then I apologize for having expressed myself so poorly.

In the meantime, perhaps Afghanistan's troubles with "freedom of expression," "democracy," and the "rule of law" have something to do with the example we're setting for them.

http://www.cpj.org/news/2008/asia/afghan26feb08na.html

U.S. authorities should disclose evidence and specify charges against Afghan journalist Jawed Ahmad, who has been held by the military since late October, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. In a February 22 letter to CPJ, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Ahmad had been designated an “unlawful enemy combatant” but did not disclose the allegations or evidence against the journalist.

Ahmad, a locally hired journalist for Canadian Television (CTV) in Afghanistan’s southern provincial capital of Kandahar, was arrested on October 26 at the air base in that city that is used by International Security Assistance Force troops. He was transferred some time after that to the U.S.-run detention facility at Bagram Air Base in the north of the country. Today marks Ahmad’s fourth month in custody. He has not been charged with any criminal offense.

 

Sorry I will reread. I have short attention span.

As far as Afgan Journalists go that can be a loose term -- ask Ahmad Masood.

 

Rather than turn this thread into an argument, I'd like to return it to its higher purpose, which is to get a young journalist out from under a death sentence for merely having read something. I'll gladly take this up with anyone who wants to argue the merits or faults of our foreign policy decisions on another thread.

Here's the update from the Independent today:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/judge-backs-appeal-hearing-for-pervez-788585.html

 

Thread did not start out with that higher purpose but you co-opted it albiet for a worthy cause.

Look forward to the debate. Advise on thread location.

 

Can't do it for another couple days, Boom. But will send up a flare when I'm out from under.