Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
A federal grand jury has indicted an Uzbek refugee living in Denver for alleged material support to an Uzbekistan group that the U.S. State Department designates a foreign terrorist organization. But the group is fighting the Uzbekistan dictatorship that U.S. diplomats spoke out against for its indiscriminate use of force after police mowed down hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators in 2005. The regime practices torture of activists and ordinary citizens using electric shock, boiling water and the threat of rape and sexual humiliation, thus radicalizing many Uzbeks. A professor calls the Uzbek dictator one of the world’s worst human-rights violators. (Reminds me of the US government’s help in creating the Iranian Islamic regime via support for the Shah of Iran’s widespread repression and human rights abuses.) Human Rights Watch claims that the material-support law is overbroad and that it’s a problem if our government uses the law improperly against anybody who was not actually involved in terrorism. An article in The Denver Post explains the story:
AURORA — The Uzbek refugee facing terrorism charges in Denver was a merchant turned human-rights activist who tried to defend farmers, opposed Uzbekistan’s dictator after a 2005 massacre, endured a detention that left him bloody, saw his sister arrested on a false murder charge…
The plight of Jamshid Muhtorov, 35, looked so bleak that the United Nations and U.S. government rescued him, along with his wife and two small children. U.S. authorities gave Muhtorov a comfortable new perch in Colorado…
But now the same government that rescued Muhtorov is prosecuting him under a law that prohibits “material support” for terrorists.
FBI agents arrested him in Chicago on Jan. 21 while he was en route to Turkey. A federal grand jury indicted him for allegedly providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union — which the U.S. State Department has designated a foreign terrorist organization — and attempting to provide material support.
It’s a complicated case that raises questions about the fine line between freedom fighter and terrorist. The portrait of Muhtorov that emerges from State Department reports — including a leaked diplomatic cable, and from interviews with human-rights colleagues — is one of an idealist forced to flee for his life. He — like Libyans, Egyptians and others — remained keenly aware of the continuing repression and fight for freedom back home…
…A federal affidavit does not reveal much about the substance of his alleged material support...
The law [that prohibits "material support" for terrorists] is controversial.
“Human Rights Watch definitely has concerns that the material-support law is overbroad,” said Laura Pitter, an adviser on counterterrorism for U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, which worked with Muhtorov inside Uzbekistan. “If the material-support law was being used improperly against somebody who was not actually involved in terrorism, then that would be a problem.”…
…In 2005, U.S. diplomats spoke out publicly against Uzbekistan’s indiscriminate use of force when police mowed down hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators at Andijan, near where Muhtorov was working.
Since then, [Uzbekistan's dictator, Islam Karimov's] repression has intensified and includes torture of activists and ordinary citizens using electric shock, boiling water and the threat of rape and sexual humiliation, said Hugh Williamson, director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe and Central Asia division...
“The longstanding dictator of Uzbekistan is one of the worst human-rights violators in the world,” said Nader Hashemi, an assistant professor at the University of Denver who studies Middle East and Islamic affairs.
Ruthless torture and oppression by Karimov “have radicalized a lot of Uzbeks who are seeking a revolutionary change. The IJU emerges out of that political context,” Hashemi said.
While union members have been charged with attacks on U.S. and German targets overseas and could have links to al-Qaeda, “Muhtorov may not have any intention of committing a terrorist act against Americans. It depends on where he was flying to and what the objective of the mission was,” he said.
“My sense is the target of his ire and his angst is back in his native country. If he was targeting Western forces, that would raise serious concerns,” Hashemi said. “But if one wants to be objective, it would be highly irresponsible for someone to render a judgment on this case without bringing it back to Uzbekistan and the political regime there.” Read more here
