Tuesday, October 6, 2009
News Coverage - Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/IITs-alumni-press-for-release-of-techie-locked-up-in-US/articleshow/5085856.cms
News Coverage - Times Now TV
http://www.timesnow.tv/Free-Vikram-Buddhi-cries-grow-louder/articleshow/4328805.cms
News Coverage - PTI
http://www.ptinews.com/news/313669_India-will-take-due-interest-in-Buddhi-case--Krishna
India will take due interest in Buddhi case: Krishna
STAFF WRITER 18:11 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 4 (PTI) External Affairs Minister S M Krishna today assured the family of Vikram Buddhi, who is in a US Federal jail from 2006 for allegedly posting anti-Bush remarks on a web site, that the Indian mission there would take "due interest" in the case.
"I can assure his family that I will see that the Indian mission takes due interest in this case. The whole idea is that India is particular that a fair trial has to be given to Mr Vikram Buddhi," the minister told CNN-IBN.
Buddhi, a PhD student at the Purdue University, was arrested in April 2006 after being charged for posting anti-Bush remarks on a web site.
Krishna hoped that Buddhi would come out innocent of the charges levelled against him.
Buddhi's father, a former Navy captain, and several IIT alumni have been fighting a legal battle to secure his release.
India will take due interest in Buddhi case: Krishna
STAFF WRITER 18:11 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 4 (PTI) External Affairs Minister S M Krishna today assured the family of Vikram Buddhi, who is in a US Federal jail from 2006 for allegedly posting anti-Bush remarks on a web site, that the Indian mission there would take "due interest" in the case.
"I can assure his family that I will see that the Indian mission takes due interest in this case. The whole idea is that India is particular that a fair trial has to be given to Mr Vikram Buddhi," the minister told CNN-IBN.
Buddhi, a PhD student at the Purdue University, was arrested in April 2006 after being charged for posting anti-Bush remarks on a web site.
Krishna hoped that Buddhi would come out innocent of the charges levelled against him.
Buddhi's father, a former Navy captain, and several IIT alumni have been fighting a legal battle to secure his release.
News Coverage - Open Magazine
www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/innocent-but-guilty
Innocent but Guilty
An Indian maths scholar in the US is convicted on the absurd charge of threatening George W Bush. He faces over three decades in prison. His scientist father was once unjustly jailed by India for being a US spy. The story of a family’s battle for justice.
Dr Buddhi Kota Subbarao is not a man of few words. He is a scrupulous storyteller, who always starts at the beginning, maintains chronological order, and habitually fact-checks himself. Experience has taught this 68-year-old Supreme Court lawyer and former Indian Navy Captain, with a PhD in nuclear technology, the importance of covering every minute detail, of the power of technicalities, especially when it comes to the law. And it is precisely because of intricate details and indisputable facts that Dr Subbarao believes his son, Vikram S Buddhi, has been wrongfully convicted by an American court of threatening to kill former President George W Bush.
For several months now, and intermittently for the past three years, the case of Vikram Buddhi has featured in the International pages of several newspapers: ‘Desi arrested for threatening Bush’, ‘Threat to Bush, Indian Gets Bail’, ‘Terror Suspect’s Father Writes Again to Obama’. One headline after the other summarised various episodes in the curious tale of a gifted doctoral student who spent ten years pursuing PhD programmes in Pure and Applied Mathematics at Purdue University, Indiana, before suddenly morphing into a defendant in the case of United States of America vs Vikram S Buddhi. According to the US government, Vikram threatened Bush and others close to him through a series of Internet messages traced to Vikram’s university computer.
It’s too late to presume his innocence because Vikram was found guilty in June 2007; since then, he has spent more than two years in jail, and when he’s sentenced on 19 November 2009, the 37-year-old scholar faces up to 35 years in prison. So, sitting in their tiny flat in Vashi, a distant Mumbai suburb, his parents are hoping someone will notice that their brilliant introverted son hasn’t really done anything wrong.
The sentence will be the controversial end to a saga that first began on 16 January 2006, when Vikram was taken from his residence to be interrogated by members of the presidential protection agency, the Secret Service. According to the Criminal Complaint filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, ‘On 12/13/05, a concerned citizen contacted Secret Service’s Dallas Field Office to report a subject, using the screen name ‘extremist_bush’, posted a threatening message directed towards President George W Bush, Vice President Richard B Cheney, First Lady Laura Bush, Second Lady Lynne Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a Yahoo! Finance message board dedicated to Sirius Satellite Radio. The subject’s message was titled, CALL FOR ASSASSINATION OF GW BUSH.’
During a two-month-long investigation decoding IP Addresses, MAC Addresses, Address Resolution Protocols, and ARP Tables, the Secret Service tracked down the computers used to post the messages to terminals in Purdue University, and eventually they surmised the ‘subject’ of their investigations was Vikram. For two-and-a-half days they interrogated Vikram, then let him off, and filed a report clearly stating that he was not a threat to anyone. The matter should have ended there. But it didn’t. Ostensibly without a new motive, in the early evening of 14 April 2006, Secret Service agents arrested Vikram from his university apartment at Purdue.
Someone using various misspelt versions of the username ‘extremist_bush’ posted the controversial Internet messages over several months towards the end of 2005. Contrary to the US government’s contention that the messages threatened Bush and co, the messages, in fact, called upon Iraqis to avenge the war on their country. The posts are misguided, racist, and in appalling language, calling upon Iraqis to rape and kill ‘ANGLOSAXONS’ in a ‘TIT-FOR-TAT WAR’.
Dr Subbarao is adamant his son was not the author of the messages; the investigating officers reported that during interrogation, Vikram “admitted to posting the threatening messages… also admitted to deliberately using IP addresses other than his own in an attempt to conceal his identity”; Vikram didn’t deny it during his trial.
“Even if they can prove he wrote it, they do not have the ingredients required to prove he was a threat,” says Somnath Bharti, a Supreme Court lawyer who is familiar with the US justice system and canvassing for Vikram’s release. “They need to prove intent to act and pursuance of the intent. There is no act here, what has he done? All they have are lines on a webpage asking Iraqis to do something—you can’t put a man away for 35 years on that.”
Maybe not in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles. But in Hammond, Indiana, there are limits to freedom of speech, especially if you’re just an immigrant Indian student. Indiana is a small but industrial state, which is socially and politically conservative. Though its name means ‘Land of the Indians’, Indiana is overwhelmingly White; in Hammond, where the trial took place, over 70 per cent of the population is White. And starting from the early part of the 20th century, Indiana has had a difficult, often embarrassing relationship with the White supremacist organisation Ku Klux Klan, which reportedly still operates various centres in the state.
It isn’t difficult to imagine how a Hammond judge and jury would have looked at Vikram, a mousey, serious, unemotional young man, whose personal experiences had taught him to rely only on himself. “He never talked about friends, he was a reserved person. He cared only about his studies,” says mother Syamala, who hasn’t seen him since he left for America in 1996. People who don’t know the grueling history of the Subbarao family may find it hard to understand how a son could have stayed away for so long. Any mother other than Syamala would have wondered if her son loved her at all. But Vikram, the middle child between an older and a younger sister, proved his merit as a considerate child through what was till 2006, the most traumatic experience of their lives.
Those who remember the ascent of Rajiv Gandhi and India during its Soviet phase may also recollect the story of a retired Indian naval captain, who was charged under the Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy Act on suspicion of being an American spy. On 30 May 1988, Dr Subbarao, who retired from the Navy in 1987, was scheduled to fly to America on a consulting project (he was hired by Ceat, a company of the RPG Group to which Open belongs, as an advisor on a Ceat-AT&T communications project). “I was supposed to go for five weeks, one week for myself to show my PhD thesis to professors at MIT and Harvard,” remembers Dr Subbarao. But there were portentous signs from the moment he stepped outside his family home. “As I opened the door to leave, the lights went out in the building, my children and I walked down 12 storeys to get my suitcase to the gate,” he says. “I didn’t know then it was a sign that the light was about to go out of our lives forever.”
Dr Subbarao was arrested at the immigration counter; he wasn’t told why. At some point during his 90-day custody at a police station near the international airport, an officer told him the papers were calling him “deshdrohi”, a traitor.
The Maharashtra government claimed that a document in Dr Subbarao’s suitcase proved that he intended to sell information on India’s nuclear programme to the US. The matter reached such stratospheric levels of government that John Gunther Dean—America’s then Ambassador in India—was “confronted” by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In Dean’s documents at the Jimmy Carter Library & Museum, he admits an India-based American official was in charge of looking into India’s nuclear programme, but he doesn’t appear to know Dr Subbarao.
The document found in Dr Subbarao’s suitcase was titled ‘The Nuclear Power Plant Modelling and Design, Multivariable Control Approach’, which, as it turned out, was his doctoral thesis at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay. Vikram, who packed his father’s suitcase, had placed the work atop clothes and toiletries so his father would have it in good condition to show his MIT friends. It should have been simple enough to prove, but the law is also a matter of interpretation. After a year of incarceration without bail, Vikram insisted his father represent himself. “My son went on hunger strike till I agreed because he thought I could do a better job,” says Dr Subbarao, who began his study of Indian law with Criminal Procedure Code, a book Vikram brought to him in jail.
Dr Subbarao secured his own bail after some 20 months behind bars; the naval captain eventually won his case in the Sessions Court, and High Court—till the Supreme Court, tired of the Government’s persistent witch-hunt, confirmed his acquittal, and granted Dr Subbarao Rs 25,000 to cover his costs. It took five years. After his acquittal, Dr Subbarao took the Bar exam and now practises as a Supreme Court lawyer.
Looking back, he says he was a victim of the politics within India’s nuclear community. He believes he was targetted because Rajiv Gandhi secretly offered him the post of technical head of the nuclear submarine programme, and because Dr Subbarao was a constant critic of India’s sometimes - comical lot of nuclear scientists.
It’s unlikely that Vikram was unscathed by the trauma of his father’s incarceration and the ill treatment his family suffered as result. “People stopped talking to us. Since my daughters were both studying, it was always me and Vikram who went everywhere, arranging money, finding a lawyer. He had to grow up,” says Syamala.
Vikram was only 18, a first-year BSc Student at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. After his BSc and an MSc from IIT-Bombay, Vikram went to Purdue to study mathematics. He was a good student there, and a celebrated teacher’s assistant. But, according to Dr Subbarao, an incident changed Purdue’s perception of Vikram and, he alleges, incited university authorities to point fingers in Vikram’s direction during the initial Secret Service investigation.
“One African-American student was expelled from the university because he was allegedly copying, but no action was taken against three White students who were also caught,” recounts Dr Subbarao. “Vikram wrote a letter to the university president pointing out that the [US] Constitution requires all students be dealt with equally, but the administrators were annoyed that an Indian student had the audacity to point out something that amounted to racial bias. They were waiting for something to use against him when the [Internet] messages issue came along.”
About a month after Vikram was arrested, Dr Subbarao got a call from John Martin, Vikram’s court-appointed lawyer. It was the first time the parents heard what happened to their son. “We don’t have any relatives in the US, so I was asked to come over as early as possible so Vikram could be released on a bond.”
It took Dr Subbarao over a month to get an emergency visa; he arrived in America on 7 June 2006, with less than ten days to go for the trial to begin. After two Indian mathematics professors—friends of Dr Subbarao—posted $10,000 upfront for a $100,000 bond, Vikram was released. The duo leased an apartment from the only landlord in Hammond who agreed to take them on. They had so little money that both often skipped meals, and spoke to Syamala in Mumbai just once a week, and even then for just a few minutes at a time.
Vikram’s trial itself proceeded so dubiously, it sounds like it was staged in the one-eyed justice system of a banana republic, not in the United States of America. When it began on 26 June 2007, Vikram, accused of threatening American leaders and their wives, found himself in front of conservative Judge James T Moody, who has been described as “a hard-ass” by people who know him and his court manners. As one independent American observer said, “It seemed like he wanted to see this guy behind bars.”
Case records show that Judge Moody declared in open court that he would not instruct the jury on the commands of the First Amendment, leaving 12 men and women without a clue of the rights of the defendant. Moreover, the Judge warned the Defense Attorney (DA) that he would embarrass the DA if he attempted to link facts in the case to instructions in the First Amendment. “If it was some homespun hate-monger, there would probably have been more leeway, but for an outsider to say these things, it inflamed people,” says the observer.
The US Supreme Court has unambiguously stated in the past that in the context of expressing strong political opposition, even abusive speech is protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment rights. Gregory P Magarian, professor of law at Washington University School of Law, is not connected with Vikram’s case, and he didn’t have enough time for an exhaustive study of the details, but his reaction to Vikram’s conviction was decisive: “I believe the statements that led to the conviction are protected speech under the First Amendment. This conviction is very disturbing; I think it reflects serious disregard of our constitutional liberties. The First Amendment is supposed to protect appalling speech, as long as that speech doesn’t embody a true threat.” It seems in a country with the world’s most liberal gun laws, where protestors who turn up at a presidential healthcare meeting with firearms and put up poster threats go unpunished, an Indian mathematician’s words are deemed more dangerous than a Neanderthal with a Smith & Wesson.
Vikram’s trial only lasted four days in 2007, and midway through it, he was expelled from Purdue. He spent the initial months of his incarceration in county jails in Indiana, where he was the victim of verbal and physical attacks. According to his case files, ‘Throughout October 2007, an inmate repeatedly harassed Mr Buddhi calling him a ‘crazy Arab’ and a ‘crackhead’. The inmate then approached Mr Buddhi as he waited for his food tray and said that people like him should not be in this country. The inmate then pushed Mr Buddhi’s head against a metal doorframe. Mr Buddhi suffered a one inch laceration to his skull.’ Vikram was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois, where he’s still awaiting his sentence. In the American system, an appeals process can only be initiated after sentencing, which in this case has taken an unusually long time.
Earlier this year, a new lawyer, one Arlington Foley, was appointed to his case. Foley has so far had only a single conversation with Dr Subbarao. (Foley’s secretary Susie perpetually insists he’s not in the office; he doesn’t answer his own emails, she prints it out for him.)
Dr Subbarao’s one-year Emergency Visa wasn’t renewed, despite his application specifically stating that he wanted to stay in the country till his son was sentenced. On 21 August 2007, Dr Subbarao’s passport was confiscated before he could appeal the visa denial, and jailed for one week. Without his passport he couldn’t get a ticket home and the appeals and petitions he filed to stay immigration proceedings dragged on for two years, before he was finally deported to India on 8 August. His passport was returned in Mumbai at the Immigration counter.
“They knew I would do everything I can to help my son if I was there so they kicked me out,” he says. But at least he is back home with his wife after being separated for three years. Since the beginning of 2009, Dr Subbarao has written to everyone from President Obama to Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna, asking that his son get a fair trial. Not a pardon—a fair trial. Unlike the US, which once sent a former President to North Korea to get its citizens out, and fought for the release of American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi from an Iranian prison, the Indian Government seems to be hoping that the Vikram Buddhi issue will go away on its own. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) had an opportunity to bring up the case during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s India trip, but did nothing.
When Open spoke to MEA sources in August, they insisted that SM Krishna has asked US diplomats for a ‘clarification’. “When it comes to the security of NRIs, the Indian Government doesn’t care. Let’s see if they can make a few phone calls for an ordinary man,” says lawyer Bharti, who also met the minister on this issue. “They get all excited when Shah Rukh Khan is caught at the airport for two hours... but what about normal people?”
While the Government takes its time, NGO Delhi Forum has initiated an online petition and intends to organise a protest closer to the sentencing date. Lawyers who’ve looked at this case believe the American authorities will most likely deport Vikram—because if this outrageous case is posed with an appeal in front of the US Supreme Court, then it could find that the jury grossly misread the facts and/or that the judge misapplied the law, which could possibly cause international embarrassment.
Till then, somewhere in a jailhouse in Illinois, Vikram spends his time reading law books and teaching himself the vagaries of the US Constitution. Perhaps one day he may have to fight for himself. Like his father once did.
Innocent but Guilty
An Indian maths scholar in the US is convicted on the absurd charge of threatening George W Bush. He faces over three decades in prison. His scientist father was once unjustly jailed by India for being a US spy. The story of a family’s battle for justice.
Dr Buddhi Kota Subbarao is not a man of few words. He is a scrupulous storyteller, who always starts at the beginning, maintains chronological order, and habitually fact-checks himself. Experience has taught this 68-year-old Supreme Court lawyer and former Indian Navy Captain, with a PhD in nuclear technology, the importance of covering every minute detail, of the power of technicalities, especially when it comes to the law. And it is precisely because of intricate details and indisputable facts that Dr Subbarao believes his son, Vikram S Buddhi, has been wrongfully convicted by an American court of threatening to kill former President George W Bush.
For several months now, and intermittently for the past three years, the case of Vikram Buddhi has featured in the International pages of several newspapers: ‘Desi arrested for threatening Bush’, ‘Threat to Bush, Indian Gets Bail’, ‘Terror Suspect’s Father Writes Again to Obama’. One headline after the other summarised various episodes in the curious tale of a gifted doctoral student who spent ten years pursuing PhD programmes in Pure and Applied Mathematics at Purdue University, Indiana, before suddenly morphing into a defendant in the case of United States of America vs Vikram S Buddhi. According to the US government, Vikram threatened Bush and others close to him through a series of Internet messages traced to Vikram’s university computer.
It’s too late to presume his innocence because Vikram was found guilty in June 2007; since then, he has spent more than two years in jail, and when he’s sentenced on 19 November 2009, the 37-year-old scholar faces up to 35 years in prison. So, sitting in their tiny flat in Vashi, a distant Mumbai suburb, his parents are hoping someone will notice that their brilliant introverted son hasn’t really done anything wrong.
The sentence will be the controversial end to a saga that first began on 16 January 2006, when Vikram was taken from his residence to be interrogated by members of the presidential protection agency, the Secret Service. According to the Criminal Complaint filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, ‘On 12/13/05, a concerned citizen contacted Secret Service’s Dallas Field Office to report a subject, using the screen name ‘extremist_bush’, posted a threatening message directed towards President George W Bush, Vice President Richard B Cheney, First Lady Laura Bush, Second Lady Lynne Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a Yahoo! Finance message board dedicated to Sirius Satellite Radio. The subject’s message was titled, CALL FOR ASSASSINATION OF GW BUSH.’
During a two-month-long investigation decoding IP Addresses, MAC Addresses, Address Resolution Protocols, and ARP Tables, the Secret Service tracked down the computers used to post the messages to terminals in Purdue University, and eventually they surmised the ‘subject’ of their investigations was Vikram. For two-and-a-half days they interrogated Vikram, then let him off, and filed a report clearly stating that he was not a threat to anyone. The matter should have ended there. But it didn’t. Ostensibly without a new motive, in the early evening of 14 April 2006, Secret Service agents arrested Vikram from his university apartment at Purdue.
Someone using various misspelt versions of the username ‘extremist_bush’ posted the controversial Internet messages over several months towards the end of 2005. Contrary to the US government’s contention that the messages threatened Bush and co, the messages, in fact, called upon Iraqis to avenge the war on their country. The posts are misguided, racist, and in appalling language, calling upon Iraqis to rape and kill ‘ANGLOSAXONS’ in a ‘TIT-FOR-TAT WAR’.
Dr Subbarao is adamant his son was not the author of the messages; the investigating officers reported that during interrogation, Vikram “admitted to posting the threatening messages… also admitted to deliberately using IP addresses other than his own in an attempt to conceal his identity”; Vikram didn’t deny it during his trial.
“Even if they can prove he wrote it, they do not have the ingredients required to prove he was a threat,” says Somnath Bharti, a Supreme Court lawyer who is familiar with the US justice system and canvassing for Vikram’s release. “They need to prove intent to act and pursuance of the intent. There is no act here, what has he done? All they have are lines on a webpage asking Iraqis to do something—you can’t put a man away for 35 years on that.”
Maybe not in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles. But in Hammond, Indiana, there are limits to freedom of speech, especially if you’re just an immigrant Indian student. Indiana is a small but industrial state, which is socially and politically conservative. Though its name means ‘Land of the Indians’, Indiana is overwhelmingly White; in Hammond, where the trial took place, over 70 per cent of the population is White. And starting from the early part of the 20th century, Indiana has had a difficult, often embarrassing relationship with the White supremacist organisation Ku Klux Klan, which reportedly still operates various centres in the state.
It isn’t difficult to imagine how a Hammond judge and jury would have looked at Vikram, a mousey, serious, unemotional young man, whose personal experiences had taught him to rely only on himself. “He never talked about friends, he was a reserved person. He cared only about his studies,” says mother Syamala, who hasn’t seen him since he left for America in 1996. People who don’t know the grueling history of the Subbarao family may find it hard to understand how a son could have stayed away for so long. Any mother other than Syamala would have wondered if her son loved her at all. But Vikram, the middle child between an older and a younger sister, proved his merit as a considerate child through what was till 2006, the most traumatic experience of their lives.
Those who remember the ascent of Rajiv Gandhi and India during its Soviet phase may also recollect the story of a retired Indian naval captain, who was charged under the Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy Act on suspicion of being an American spy. On 30 May 1988, Dr Subbarao, who retired from the Navy in 1987, was scheduled to fly to America on a consulting project (he was hired by Ceat, a company of the RPG Group to which Open belongs, as an advisor on a Ceat-AT&T communications project). “I was supposed to go for five weeks, one week for myself to show my PhD thesis to professors at MIT and Harvard,” remembers Dr Subbarao. But there were portentous signs from the moment he stepped outside his family home. “As I opened the door to leave, the lights went out in the building, my children and I walked down 12 storeys to get my suitcase to the gate,” he says. “I didn’t know then it was a sign that the light was about to go out of our lives forever.”
Dr Subbarao was arrested at the immigration counter; he wasn’t told why. At some point during his 90-day custody at a police station near the international airport, an officer told him the papers were calling him “deshdrohi”, a traitor.
The Maharashtra government claimed that a document in Dr Subbarao’s suitcase proved that he intended to sell information on India’s nuclear programme to the US. The matter reached such stratospheric levels of government that John Gunther Dean—America’s then Ambassador in India—was “confronted” by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In Dean’s documents at the Jimmy Carter Library & Museum, he admits an India-based American official was in charge of looking into India’s nuclear programme, but he doesn’t appear to know Dr Subbarao.
The document found in Dr Subbarao’s suitcase was titled ‘The Nuclear Power Plant Modelling and Design, Multivariable Control Approach’, which, as it turned out, was his doctoral thesis at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay. Vikram, who packed his father’s suitcase, had placed the work atop clothes and toiletries so his father would have it in good condition to show his MIT friends. It should have been simple enough to prove, but the law is also a matter of interpretation. After a year of incarceration without bail, Vikram insisted his father represent himself. “My son went on hunger strike till I agreed because he thought I could do a better job,” says Dr Subbarao, who began his study of Indian law with Criminal Procedure Code, a book Vikram brought to him in jail.
Dr Subbarao secured his own bail after some 20 months behind bars; the naval captain eventually won his case in the Sessions Court, and High Court—till the Supreme Court, tired of the Government’s persistent witch-hunt, confirmed his acquittal, and granted Dr Subbarao Rs 25,000 to cover his costs. It took five years. After his acquittal, Dr Subbarao took the Bar exam and now practises as a Supreme Court lawyer.
Looking back, he says he was a victim of the politics within India’s nuclear community. He believes he was targetted because Rajiv Gandhi secretly offered him the post of technical head of the nuclear submarine programme, and because Dr Subbarao was a constant critic of India’s sometimes - comical lot of nuclear scientists.
It’s unlikely that Vikram was unscathed by the trauma of his father’s incarceration and the ill treatment his family suffered as result. “People stopped talking to us. Since my daughters were both studying, it was always me and Vikram who went everywhere, arranging money, finding a lawyer. He had to grow up,” says Syamala.
Vikram was only 18, a first-year BSc Student at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. After his BSc and an MSc from IIT-Bombay, Vikram went to Purdue to study mathematics. He was a good student there, and a celebrated teacher’s assistant. But, according to Dr Subbarao, an incident changed Purdue’s perception of Vikram and, he alleges, incited university authorities to point fingers in Vikram’s direction during the initial Secret Service investigation.
“One African-American student was expelled from the university because he was allegedly copying, but no action was taken against three White students who were also caught,” recounts Dr Subbarao. “Vikram wrote a letter to the university president pointing out that the [US] Constitution requires all students be dealt with equally, but the administrators were annoyed that an Indian student had the audacity to point out something that amounted to racial bias. They were waiting for something to use against him when the [Internet] messages issue came along.”
About a month after Vikram was arrested, Dr Subbarao got a call from John Martin, Vikram’s court-appointed lawyer. It was the first time the parents heard what happened to their son. “We don’t have any relatives in the US, so I was asked to come over as early as possible so Vikram could be released on a bond.”
It took Dr Subbarao over a month to get an emergency visa; he arrived in America on 7 June 2006, with less than ten days to go for the trial to begin. After two Indian mathematics professors—friends of Dr Subbarao—posted $10,000 upfront for a $100,000 bond, Vikram was released. The duo leased an apartment from the only landlord in Hammond who agreed to take them on. They had so little money that both often skipped meals, and spoke to Syamala in Mumbai just once a week, and even then for just a few minutes at a time.
Vikram’s trial itself proceeded so dubiously, it sounds like it was staged in the one-eyed justice system of a banana republic, not in the United States of America. When it began on 26 June 2007, Vikram, accused of threatening American leaders and their wives, found himself in front of conservative Judge James T Moody, who has been described as “a hard-ass” by people who know him and his court manners. As one independent American observer said, “It seemed like he wanted to see this guy behind bars.”
Case records show that Judge Moody declared in open court that he would not instruct the jury on the commands of the First Amendment, leaving 12 men and women without a clue of the rights of the defendant. Moreover, the Judge warned the Defense Attorney (DA) that he would embarrass the DA if he attempted to link facts in the case to instructions in the First Amendment. “If it was some homespun hate-monger, there would probably have been more leeway, but for an outsider to say these things, it inflamed people,” says the observer.
The US Supreme Court has unambiguously stated in the past that in the context of expressing strong political opposition, even abusive speech is protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment rights. Gregory P Magarian, professor of law at Washington University School of Law, is not connected with Vikram’s case, and he didn’t have enough time for an exhaustive study of the details, but his reaction to Vikram’s conviction was decisive: “I believe the statements that led to the conviction are protected speech under the First Amendment. This conviction is very disturbing; I think it reflects serious disregard of our constitutional liberties. The First Amendment is supposed to protect appalling speech, as long as that speech doesn’t embody a true threat.” It seems in a country with the world’s most liberal gun laws, where protestors who turn up at a presidential healthcare meeting with firearms and put up poster threats go unpunished, an Indian mathematician’s words are deemed more dangerous than a Neanderthal with a Smith & Wesson.
Vikram’s trial only lasted four days in 2007, and midway through it, he was expelled from Purdue. He spent the initial months of his incarceration in county jails in Indiana, where he was the victim of verbal and physical attacks. According to his case files, ‘Throughout October 2007, an inmate repeatedly harassed Mr Buddhi calling him a ‘crazy Arab’ and a ‘crackhead’. The inmate then approached Mr Buddhi as he waited for his food tray and said that people like him should not be in this country. The inmate then pushed Mr Buddhi’s head against a metal doorframe. Mr Buddhi suffered a one inch laceration to his skull.’ Vikram was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois, where he’s still awaiting his sentence. In the American system, an appeals process can only be initiated after sentencing, which in this case has taken an unusually long time.
Earlier this year, a new lawyer, one Arlington Foley, was appointed to his case. Foley has so far had only a single conversation with Dr Subbarao. (Foley’s secretary Susie perpetually insists he’s not in the office; he doesn’t answer his own emails, she prints it out for him.)
Dr Subbarao’s one-year Emergency Visa wasn’t renewed, despite his application specifically stating that he wanted to stay in the country till his son was sentenced. On 21 August 2007, Dr Subbarao’s passport was confiscated before he could appeal the visa denial, and jailed for one week. Without his passport he couldn’t get a ticket home and the appeals and petitions he filed to stay immigration proceedings dragged on for two years, before he was finally deported to India on 8 August. His passport was returned in Mumbai at the Immigration counter.
“They knew I would do everything I can to help my son if I was there so they kicked me out,” he says. But at least he is back home with his wife after being separated for three years. Since the beginning of 2009, Dr Subbarao has written to everyone from President Obama to Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna, asking that his son get a fair trial. Not a pardon—a fair trial. Unlike the US, which once sent a former President to North Korea to get its citizens out, and fought for the release of American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi from an Iranian prison, the Indian Government seems to be hoping that the Vikram Buddhi issue will go away on its own. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) had an opportunity to bring up the case during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s India trip, but did nothing.
When Open spoke to MEA sources in August, they insisted that SM Krishna has asked US diplomats for a ‘clarification’. “When it comes to the security of NRIs, the Indian Government doesn’t care. Let’s see if they can make a few phone calls for an ordinary man,” says lawyer Bharti, who also met the minister on this issue. “They get all excited when Shah Rukh Khan is caught at the airport for two hours... but what about normal people?”
While the Government takes its time, NGO Delhi Forum has initiated an online petition and intends to organise a protest closer to the sentencing date. Lawyers who’ve looked at this case believe the American authorities will most likely deport Vikram—because if this outrageous case is posed with an appeal in front of the US Supreme Court, then it could find that the jury grossly misread the facts and/or that the judge misapplied the law, which could possibly cause international embarrassment.
Till then, somewhere in a jailhouse in Illinois, Vikram spends his time reading law books and teaching himself the vagaries of the US Constitution. Perhaps one day he may have to fight for himself. Like his father once did.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Article in Mail Today
August 13, 2009
Indian rots in US jail for ' threatening' Bush family
By Neha Tara Mehta in New Delhi
Indian rots in US jail for ' threatening' Bush family
By Neha Tara Mehta in New Delhi
http://epaper.mailtoday.in/
WHEN Vikram Buddhi, 37, a national science talent scholar and IIT- Bombay silver medallist, got an admission to the prestigious Purdue University's mathematics department in 1996, he told his parents he was excited about the challenges his course would bring.
Little did he know then that less than a decade later, the challenge was to be a gritty legal battle fought from a Chicago jail.
The fight is to exonerate himself of a charge, brought against him by the US Secret Service, of posting threats on a Yahoo! chat board to the lives of former US President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, former Vice- President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynn, and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
On June 25, 2007, a grand jury at a US district court in Indiana held Vikram guilty of the 11 charges brought against him under a law called Title 18, United States Code. But for some reason, the district judge has not yet pronounced his sentence. Vikram faces up to 35 years in jail for an offence that his father, retired Indian Navy captain B. K. Subbarao, insists has no basis in truth.
The Indian government hasn't responded to his appeals to intervene in the matter. Subbarao, who was garnering support for his son in the US, was deported from there earlier in August, after being paraded in chains on the Purdue campus. The action against Subbarao has made it impossible for him to go back to that country in the next 10 years. Subbarao had gone to the US on an emergency visa on June 25, 2006.
Vikram, who was pursuing a twin- track Ph. D. in pure and applied mathematics, was honoured twice with the best teaching award by Purdue's department of mathematics.
His troubles started in January 2006 when messages on Yahoo! chat boards that urged Iraqi people to avenge the deaths of innocent people in their country were traced to a Purdue IP address. It has not yet been established whether the IP address was being used by Vikram.
The US Secret Service picked him up for interrogation on January 16, 2006, but released him two days later after finding no cause to press charges against him.
The Secret Service, according to transcripts presented to the US court hearing the case, had prepared a report stating clearly that Vikram was no threat in any way to any of its protectees. Yet, on April 14, 2006, the Secret Service arrested him and launched a federal prosecution.
The case has several disturbing aspects. The trial transcripts, according to lawyers in India who are mobilising public opinion for Vikram's release, seem to suggest that Judge James Moody did not allow the jury to be briefed on the law regarding speech threat cases.
More importantly, the chat board postings could not be linked to Vikram in any way. The Purdue computer system, from which these messages were posted, has had a history of being hacked. But these facts did not impress the judge.
Says Somnath Bharati, a Supreme Court advocate and member of the IIT- Delhi senate, who has been busy mobilising opinion in favour of Vikram's release: " They have not been able to link the messages to Vikram. They have not been able to establish that they were posted from his computer. He is a victim of racial discrimination." Subbarao has written to external affairs minister S. M. Krishna and also to US President Barack Obama, secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, and former US attorney- general Alberto R. Gonzales on Vikram's case. He is yet to hear from any of them.
Delhi Forum coordinator Vijayan M. J., who is campaigning for Vikram's release, says: " The Centre has not moved a finger on the case. The way the judge has behaved smacks of a racial bias. No American student would have been dealt with like that." Says Bijulal M. V., human rights researcher at the law unit of the Indian Social Institute, " Vikram's right to be treated as an equal before the law has been violated. What is India doing to help Vikram? Nothing. Compare this with the efforts of the American government to free the journalists in North Korea and the case of Roxana Saberi, an Iranian- American journalist who was sentenced by an Iranian court." Subbarao, too, had spent months in jail on the charge of being an American spy. A critic of the original design of India's nuclear submarine, he was arrested in May 1988 under the Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy Act, 1962, from the Sahar International Airport, Mumbai, before he could leave for a conference abroad.
Subbarao argued his own case in prison and successfully disproved the charges against him. He studied law in jail and went on to get a law degree, and is now an advocate in the Supreme Court.
" While in jail, I helped 17 innocent prisoners get released," he reminisces.
But he is yet to see justice being done to his only son. Someone put it aptly - " Lightning has struck the same family twice."
Monday, August 10, 2009
TOI Article: Vikram's father is deported
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/mumbai/I-was-handcuffed-before-deportation/articleshow/4872390.cms
'I was handcuffed before deportation'
MUMBAI: B K Subbarao, who has been waging a lone battle for the release of his researcher son from a US prison, was handcuffed by the immigration authorities there and not allowed to contact his family before being deported to India.
The scientist-lawyer and former captain of the Indian Navy, was picked up from a public library at Purdue University campus on August 5, detained in a police station at Chicago and later put on a Korean Air flight on the Seoul-Mumbai route. He landed here early on Saturday and was set free after being debriefed by intelligence agencies.
Subbarao (68) left for the US in April 2006, determined to secure the release of his only son Vikram (37). Vikram, who was teaching and researching at Purdue University, was arrested for allegedly sending threat e-mails to the then US President George Bush and other VIPs. Vikram has denied the charge.
Subbarao said he is convinced that "there is no rule of law or real democracy'' in the US. He said a jury found Vikram guilty of 11 charges, which included issuing e-threats to "President Bush and Mr Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney and Mr Dick Cheney, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the wives of the President and vice-president.'' He was also found guilty of threatening an unidentified "installation''. The sentencing is expected to take place later this month.
"I was barred from entering the trial court because the authorities feared that I will help defence lawyer on technical aspects of computer hacking. Vikram was questioned by the US secret service in December, 2005 and again in January 2006.''
Asked for the possible reason for Vikram's detention, Subbarao replied, "One reason is my article titled `Indo-US nuclear deal; Unexplored angles' which appeared online on March 26, 2006. Soon after that, Vikram was arrested. Also, Vikram had written a letter to the Purdue varsity president protesting the expulsion of an Afro-American student who was caught copying in the exam. Soon after that three non-Afro-American students were also similarly caught, but were not expelled. Vikram was upset by this discrimination and led the protest. This was the second reason for his arrest. They wanted to silence dissent on the campus.''
Subbarao said he was deported even as his appeal against the US immigration authorities was pending in a court.
The scientist-lawyer and former captain of the Indian Navy, was picked up from a public library at Purdue University campus on August 5, detained in a police station at Chicago and later put on a Korean Air flight on the Seoul-Mumbai route. He landed here early on Saturday and was set free after being debriefed by intelligence agencies.
Subbarao (68) left for the US in April 2006, determined to secure the release of his only son Vikram (37). Vikram, who was teaching and researching at Purdue University, was arrested for allegedly sending threat e-mails to the then US President George Bush and other VIPs. Vikram has denied the charge.
Subbarao said he is convinced that "there is no rule of law or real democracy'' in the US. He said a jury found Vikram guilty of 11 charges, which included issuing e-threats to "President Bush and Mr Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney and Mr Dick Cheney, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the wives of the President and vice-president.'' He was also found guilty of threatening an unidentified "installation''. The sentencing is expected to take place later this month.
"I was barred from entering the trial court because the authorities feared that I will help defence lawyer on technical aspects of computer hacking. Vikram was questioned by the US secret service in December, 2005 and again in January 2006.''
Asked for the possible reason for Vikram's detention, Subbarao replied, "One reason is my article titled `Indo-US nuclear deal; Unexplored angles' which appeared online on March 26, 2006. Soon after that, Vikram was arrested. Also, Vikram had written a letter to the Purdue varsity president protesting the expulsion of an Afro-American student who was caught copying in the exam. Soon after that three non-Afro-American students were also similarly caught, but were not expelled. Vikram was upset by this discrimination and led the protest. This was the second reason for his arrest. They wanted to silence dissent on the campus.''
Subbarao said he was deported even as his appeal against the US immigration authorities was pending in a court.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Petition for Vikram Buddhi
Please sign the following petition:
www.petitiononline.com/freevb/petition.html
There is also a facebook group: Justice for Vikram Buddhi
www.petitiononline.com/freevb/petition.html
There is also a facebook group: Justice for Vikram Buddhi
Article in Countercurrents by Dr. Buddhi
Roxana Saberi And Vikram Buddhi – Compel A Comparison
By Dr. Buddhi Kotasubbarao
21 April, 2009Countercurrents.org
Among the ways to measure the greatness of a country, the administration of justice ranks the highest and the military might the least.
A comparison of the case of 31 year old Iranian-American journalist Ms. Roxana Saberi sentenced by Iranian Court and the case of 37 year old Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Mr. Vikram Buddhi awaiting sentencing after a helpless jury found him guilty in US District Court, has much to show the entrenched preferences of the United States of America.
With all the proclaimed adherence to the rule of law, the administration of justice in the United States fails as badly as in any other country of the world and sometimes even more badly. Neither the powerful and pervasive American media nor the recent popularity of President Barack Obama can hide this fact. Of course, like in any other country, there are people in the United States who are justice minded and rational but their role to set right the things is limited.
Saberi is charged in April 2009 of spying for the United States, convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Buddhi was charged in April 2006 of threatening to kill President Bush and others. The jury, which was deliberately kept ignorant of the law governing the case, found Buddhi guilty in June 2007 and his sentencing is yet to take place. But he has been kept in prison in Chicago, consequent to the jury verdict, awaiting sentence.
According to the media reports, Saberi was at first taken in custody in January 2009 for allegedly buying a bottle of wine, and subjecting her to other charges afterwards. Vikram Buddhi was at first interrogated in January 2006 by US Secret Service for allegedly posting messages on Internet Yahoo space which had called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to kill President G W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others. After thorough interrogation, the US Secret Service set Buddhi completely free in mid-January 2006 and in February 2006 the Secret Service even made a formal report that Buddhi is not a threat to US President or any other person. But for some mysterious reason, the US Secret Service arrested Vikram Buddhi on April 14, 2006 and launched federal prosecution charging that he threatened to kill US President and others.
Saberi’s charge of spying for the United States is criticized because the evidence is not disclosed and the trial is held in secret. Buddhi’s charge of threatening to kill President Bush and others has no evidence at all. If the Internet Messages on Yahoo space were to be treated as the basis for the charge against Buddhi then it is necessary to mention in the charge, the essential fact of Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq through those Messages. But in none of the eleven counts of charge there is even a whisper about the Internet Messages on Yahoo space and the call given to the people of Iraq. Thus the entire charge against Vikram Buddhi is fundamentally flawed. It is not in conformity with the revered Constitution of the United States and the Statutory Law of the United States and the Rules made there under. Moreover, during the jury trial, the Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those Internet Messages were really posted from Buddhi’s computer.
Saberi’s trial details are still to be known. Whereas Buddhi’s jury trial Transcripts clearly show that the US District Judge James T. Moody discriminated against Buddhi. To assess whether there is ‘true threat’ it was necessary to instruct the jury on the commands of the First Amendment to US Constitution which affords protection when speech is made criminal. By established law Internet Messages are treated as speech. But Judge Moody openly declared his firm resolve to banish First Amendment from the case. Judge Moody boldly threatened the Defense Attorney John E Martin that the Defense Attorney would be embarrassed if he tried to explain to the jury linking the First Amendment and the evidence on record. While struggling to understand the case, the jury noticed a contradiction in a crucial Judge’s Instruction to the jury and sent a written note to the Judge, seeking clarification. Judge Moody sent a prompt written reply to the jury asserting that there is no contradiction in any of his instructions to the jury and therefore the members of the jury should continue their deliberations. In twenty minutes thereafter, the helpless jury delivered guilty verdict.
Saberi’s father was not allowed to witness his daughter’s trial. However, there is no discrimination against Saberi’s father as no public was allowed to witness the trial. Whereas in Vikram Buddhi’s case, the father, Kotasubbarao Buddhi, was deliberately denied opportunity to witness his son’s trial. Fraud was committed on the Court to keep Buddhi’s father away from the trial. The prosecutor Philip C. Benson named Buddhi’s father as a Government witness. There was no summons to give evidence as Government witness. Judge James T. Moody refused to hear the objection of Buddhi’s father who was waiting for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial. The fraud got confirmed when Buddhi’s father was not called to the Court as a Government witness. Naming him as a Government witness was only a ploy to keep the father away from the Court during the jury trial. Prosecutor Benson knew that Buddhi’s father is an attorney of Supreme Court of India and also a knowledgeable person in computer networks with his Ph.D in technology from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India. US Prosecutor Benson fraudulently planned and succeeded in denying Vikram Buddhi the benefit of his father’s experience and expertise. There is no known such unfair practice and professional misconduct of Prosecutors in Saberi’s case in Iran.
Saberi’s father and mother arrived in Iran to help in their daughter’s case. There is no attempt from Iranian Government to remove Saberi’s father or mother from Iran. Whereas in Buddhi’s case, after the jury’s guilty verdict on June 28, 2007, the Government of the United States has embarked on a meditated plan to remove Vikram Buddhi’s father from the United States, though the father entered the United States on June 7, 2006 with an Emergency Visa issued by the American Consulate, Mumbai, to help in his son’s federal prosecution in the United States.
On July 30, 2007, the US Authorities declined to extend the stay of Buddhi’s father in the United States. On August 21, 2007, the US Authorities forcibly stopped Buddhi’s father on a public road while he was on his way to file timely petition before appropriate forum for review of the decision declining extension of stay. Thus Buddhi’s father, Kotasubbarao Buddhi, was denied his legal right to seek review from appropriate forum. There is no such arbitrary treatment from Iranian Government to Saberi’s father.
After accosting Buddhi’s father on a public road in West Lafayette of Indiana State, the US Authorities illegally took away from him his Indian Passport on August 21, 2007, handcuffed him, chained him and arrested him without a warrant. Thereafter US Authorities granted $1500 bond. But when a friend of Buddhi’s father came forward to pay the bond amount and requested the release of Buddhi’s father, the US Authorities refused to accept the payment. Only after subjecting Buddhi’s father to inhuman treatment and humiliation for a week in three different jails at long distances apart- Mariano County jail (Indianapolis), Grayson County Detention Center (Kentucky) and McHenry County jail (Chicago), Buddhi’s father was released on bond. But his Indian passport has not been returned to him so far. There is no such known arbitrary and inhuman treatment meted out by the Iranian Government to Saberi’s father.
Buddhi’s father being unable to have a just and fair decision from the Departments of US Government allowing a reasonable opportunity to help in his son’s federal prosecution had to approach US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago. Buddhi’s mother is in India alone remaining in anxiety over her son getting justice in US Courts. Iranian Government has not mounted any such ordeal on Saberi’s father or mother. Instead, the Iranian President Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has urged the Iranian judiciary to allow American-journalist Roxana Saberi a full and fair defense during the appeal process.
Buddhi’s father sent a detailed letter dated October 21, 2008 to the then US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey explaining the false and frivolous charge against Vikram Buddhi and the unfair trial and the discrimination. There was no response from Mukasey.
After President Barack Obama assumed office, Buddhi’s father sent a concise letter dated February 9, 2009 to President Obama explaining the miscarriage of justice in Vikram Buddhi’s case. The letter also explained that the case of Vikram Buddhi is not an isolated case and there is monumental failure of justice in the United States because of which the population-wise percentage of people in the US jails is the highest compared to any other country in the world. There is no response so far from President Obama. Similar communications have been sent to US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and he has not responded so far.
On March 27, 2009 Vikram Buddhi’s father sent letters to US Attorney General Eric H. Holder and to Inspector General, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, explaining the prosecutorial misconduct in Vikram Buddhi’s case. But there is no response so far from either of them.
However, surprisingly, about a week after posting the letters dated March 27, 2009 pointing out the professional misconduct of Philip C. Benson, US Assistant Attorney in Vikram Buddhi’s case, reports appeared informing that US Department of Justice took action to vacate the conviction of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, on the basis of “prosecutorial misconduct.” and in the “interest of justice.”. But so far no action is taken by US Department of justice on prosecutorial misconduct in Vikram Buddhi’s case.
Never the less, notwithstanding US Government’s complete silence over Vikram Buddhi’s case, President Barack Obama promptly said he is “deeply disturbed and his thoughts and prayers are with the family” of Roxana Saberi. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promptly expressed her “deep disappointment” over Roxana Saberi’s case. “We will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement released on Saturday April 17, 2009. According to National Public Radio of the United States, on Monday April 20, 2009, Mrs. Clinton in a stepped up call sought immediate release of Roxana Saberi, saying the charges against Saberi are baseless. There is no hesitation to find fault with Iranian Court verdict. What about the false and baseless charges against Vikram Buddhi in US District Court?
President Obama who studied and taught law is surely aware that the loss from erosion of justice cannot be compensated from the sway of eloquence and charm. It is unfortunate President Obama has no hesitation to disagree with a Court verdict in Iran and to express concern for Roxana Saberi, while remaining silent on the grave miscarriage of justice mounted on Vikram Buddhi in US District Court.
Who is there in the United States Government to express any concern over the blatant miscarriage of justice in the United States in Vikram Buddhi’s case?
Justice is universal, not Iranian or American.
The above views are only for comparison of justice administration and not for extrapolation to draw inferences in any other sphere.
Dr. Buddhi Kotasubbarao is former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in nuclear technology. After 24 years of active naval service, took voluntary retirement in the rank of confirmed Captain and thereafter became an advocate of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India. In a number of Public Interest Petitions represented the social organisation 'Citizens For A Just Society' founded by Dr.Usha Mehta, noted Gandhian, freedom fighter and Padma Vibhushan.E-mail address bksubbarao@gmail.com
By Dr. Buddhi Kotasubbarao
21 April, 2009Countercurrents.org
Among the ways to measure the greatness of a country, the administration of justice ranks the highest and the military might the least.
A comparison of the case of 31 year old Iranian-American journalist Ms. Roxana Saberi sentenced by Iranian Court and the case of 37 year old Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Mr. Vikram Buddhi awaiting sentencing after a helpless jury found him guilty in US District Court, has much to show the entrenched preferences of the United States of America.
With all the proclaimed adherence to the rule of law, the administration of justice in the United States fails as badly as in any other country of the world and sometimes even more badly. Neither the powerful and pervasive American media nor the recent popularity of President Barack Obama can hide this fact. Of course, like in any other country, there are people in the United States who are justice minded and rational but their role to set right the things is limited.
Saberi is charged in April 2009 of spying for the United States, convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Buddhi was charged in April 2006 of threatening to kill President Bush and others. The jury, which was deliberately kept ignorant of the law governing the case, found Buddhi guilty in June 2007 and his sentencing is yet to take place. But he has been kept in prison in Chicago, consequent to the jury verdict, awaiting sentence.
According to the media reports, Saberi was at first taken in custody in January 2009 for allegedly buying a bottle of wine, and subjecting her to other charges afterwards. Vikram Buddhi was at first interrogated in January 2006 by US Secret Service for allegedly posting messages on Internet Yahoo space which had called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to kill President G W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others. After thorough interrogation, the US Secret Service set Buddhi completely free in mid-January 2006 and in February 2006 the Secret Service even made a formal report that Buddhi is not a threat to US President or any other person. But for some mysterious reason, the US Secret Service arrested Vikram Buddhi on April 14, 2006 and launched federal prosecution charging that he threatened to kill US President and others.
Saberi’s charge of spying for the United States is criticized because the evidence is not disclosed and the trial is held in secret. Buddhi’s charge of threatening to kill President Bush and others has no evidence at all. If the Internet Messages on Yahoo space were to be treated as the basis for the charge against Buddhi then it is necessary to mention in the charge, the essential fact of Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq through those Messages. But in none of the eleven counts of charge there is even a whisper about the Internet Messages on Yahoo space and the call given to the people of Iraq. Thus the entire charge against Vikram Buddhi is fundamentally flawed. It is not in conformity with the revered Constitution of the United States and the Statutory Law of the United States and the Rules made there under. Moreover, during the jury trial, the Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those Internet Messages were really posted from Buddhi’s computer.
Saberi’s trial details are still to be known. Whereas Buddhi’s jury trial Transcripts clearly show that the US District Judge James T. Moody discriminated against Buddhi. To assess whether there is ‘true threat’ it was necessary to instruct the jury on the commands of the First Amendment to US Constitution which affords protection when speech is made criminal. By established law Internet Messages are treated as speech. But Judge Moody openly declared his firm resolve to banish First Amendment from the case. Judge Moody boldly threatened the Defense Attorney John E Martin that the Defense Attorney would be embarrassed if he tried to explain to the jury linking the First Amendment and the evidence on record. While struggling to understand the case, the jury noticed a contradiction in a crucial Judge’s Instruction to the jury and sent a written note to the Judge, seeking clarification. Judge Moody sent a prompt written reply to the jury asserting that there is no contradiction in any of his instructions to the jury and therefore the members of the jury should continue their deliberations. In twenty minutes thereafter, the helpless jury delivered guilty verdict.
Saberi’s father was not allowed to witness his daughter’s trial. However, there is no discrimination against Saberi’s father as no public was allowed to witness the trial. Whereas in Vikram Buddhi’s case, the father, Kotasubbarao Buddhi, was deliberately denied opportunity to witness his son’s trial. Fraud was committed on the Court to keep Buddhi’s father away from the trial. The prosecutor Philip C. Benson named Buddhi’s father as a Government witness. There was no summons to give evidence as Government witness. Judge James T. Moody refused to hear the objection of Buddhi’s father who was waiting for one year in the United States to witness his son’s trial. The fraud got confirmed when Buddhi’s father was not called to the Court as a Government witness. Naming him as a Government witness was only a ploy to keep the father away from the Court during the jury trial. Prosecutor Benson knew that Buddhi’s father is an attorney of Supreme Court of India and also a knowledgeable person in computer networks with his Ph.D in technology from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India. US Prosecutor Benson fraudulently planned and succeeded in denying Vikram Buddhi the benefit of his father’s experience and expertise. There is no known such unfair practice and professional misconduct of Prosecutors in Saberi’s case in Iran.
Saberi’s father and mother arrived in Iran to help in their daughter’s case. There is no attempt from Iranian Government to remove Saberi’s father or mother from Iran. Whereas in Buddhi’s case, after the jury’s guilty verdict on June 28, 2007, the Government of the United States has embarked on a meditated plan to remove Vikram Buddhi’s father from the United States, though the father entered the United States on June 7, 2006 with an Emergency Visa issued by the American Consulate, Mumbai, to help in his son’s federal prosecution in the United States.
On July 30, 2007, the US Authorities declined to extend the stay of Buddhi’s father in the United States. On August 21, 2007, the US Authorities forcibly stopped Buddhi’s father on a public road while he was on his way to file timely petition before appropriate forum for review of the decision declining extension of stay. Thus Buddhi’s father, Kotasubbarao Buddhi, was denied his legal right to seek review from appropriate forum. There is no such arbitrary treatment from Iranian Government to Saberi’s father.
After accosting Buddhi’s father on a public road in West Lafayette of Indiana State, the US Authorities illegally took away from him his Indian Passport on August 21, 2007, handcuffed him, chained him and arrested him without a warrant. Thereafter US Authorities granted $1500 bond. But when a friend of Buddhi’s father came forward to pay the bond amount and requested the release of Buddhi’s father, the US Authorities refused to accept the payment. Only after subjecting Buddhi’s father to inhuman treatment and humiliation for a week in three different jails at long distances apart- Mariano County jail (Indianapolis), Grayson County Detention Center (Kentucky) and McHenry County jail (Chicago), Buddhi’s father was released on bond. But his Indian passport has not been returned to him so far. There is no such known arbitrary and inhuman treatment meted out by the Iranian Government to Saberi’s father.
Buddhi’s father being unable to have a just and fair decision from the Departments of US Government allowing a reasonable opportunity to help in his son’s federal prosecution had to approach US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago. Buddhi’s mother is in India alone remaining in anxiety over her son getting justice in US Courts. Iranian Government has not mounted any such ordeal on Saberi’s father or mother. Instead, the Iranian President Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has urged the Iranian judiciary to allow American-journalist Roxana Saberi a full and fair defense during the appeal process.
Buddhi’s father sent a detailed letter dated October 21, 2008 to the then US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey explaining the false and frivolous charge against Vikram Buddhi and the unfair trial and the discrimination. There was no response from Mukasey.
After President Barack Obama assumed office, Buddhi’s father sent a concise letter dated February 9, 2009 to President Obama explaining the miscarriage of justice in Vikram Buddhi’s case. The letter also explained that the case of Vikram Buddhi is not an isolated case and there is monumental failure of justice in the United States because of which the population-wise percentage of people in the US jails is the highest compared to any other country in the world. There is no response so far from President Obama. Similar communications have been sent to US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and he has not responded so far.
On March 27, 2009 Vikram Buddhi’s father sent letters to US Attorney General Eric H. Holder and to Inspector General, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, explaining the prosecutorial misconduct in Vikram Buddhi’s case. But there is no response so far from either of them.
However, surprisingly, about a week after posting the letters dated March 27, 2009 pointing out the professional misconduct of Philip C. Benson, US Assistant Attorney in Vikram Buddhi’s case, reports appeared informing that US Department of Justice took action to vacate the conviction of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, on the basis of “prosecutorial misconduct.” and in the “interest of justice.”. But so far no action is taken by US Department of justice on prosecutorial misconduct in Vikram Buddhi’s case.
Never the less, notwithstanding US Government’s complete silence over Vikram Buddhi’s case, President Barack Obama promptly said he is “deeply disturbed and his thoughts and prayers are with the family” of Roxana Saberi. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promptly expressed her “deep disappointment” over Roxana Saberi’s case. “We will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement released on Saturday April 17, 2009. According to National Public Radio of the United States, on Monday April 20, 2009, Mrs. Clinton in a stepped up call sought immediate release of Roxana Saberi, saying the charges against Saberi are baseless. There is no hesitation to find fault with Iranian Court verdict. What about the false and baseless charges against Vikram Buddhi in US District Court?
President Obama who studied and taught law is surely aware that the loss from erosion of justice cannot be compensated from the sway of eloquence and charm. It is unfortunate President Obama has no hesitation to disagree with a Court verdict in Iran and to express concern for Roxana Saberi, while remaining silent on the grave miscarriage of justice mounted on Vikram Buddhi in US District Court.
Who is there in the United States Government to express any concern over the blatant miscarriage of justice in the United States in Vikram Buddhi’s case?
Justice is universal, not Iranian or American.
The above views are only for comparison of justice administration and not for extrapolation to draw inferences in any other sphere.
Dr. Buddhi Kotasubbarao is former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in nuclear technology. After 24 years of active naval service, took voluntary retirement in the rank of confirmed Captain and thereafter became an advocate of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India. In a number of Public Interest Petitions represented the social organisation 'Citizens For A Just Society' founded by Dr.Usha Mehta, noted Gandhian, freedom fighter and Padma Vibhushan.E-mail address bksubbarao@gmail.com
Another Angle...
There is an important detail that should be mentioned here which, quite possibly, has a bearing on this case.
Capt. Subbarao (Vikram Buddhi's father) was a senior officer in the Indian Navy and decided to do his PhD and he worked at BARC, TIFR and IIT Powai. He then came into conflict with the Navy and the Atomic Energy establishment and decided to leave India and go to the US. He was arrested at the airport and thrown into prison on charges of being a spy. At the trial, it emerged that the `secret document' that he had in his posession was his PhD thesis.
While in jail, he taught himself law which is how he is now a supreme court advocate.
I would not be surprised if this has some bearing on the case. Vikram Buddhi seems to have committed no crime apart from (if the allegations are true, which they may not be) posting some obnoxious messages on a yahoo chat-board while being in a possibly inebriated state.
For this, he was convicted of a "conspiracy to assassinate the president". This is absolutely ridiculous.
More strangely, the secret service interrogated him, decided that he was not a threat (obviously, he wasn't a threat to anyone) and then after some time reversed course, decided to catch him, throw him in jail and launch a serious and expensive prosecution. I would not be entirely surprised if the entire background of his father played into this. Someone vicious in the Indian establishment may have `tipped off' someone in the US.
Capt. Subbarao (Vikram Buddhi's father) was a senior officer in the Indian Navy and decided to do his PhD and he worked at BARC, TIFR and IIT Powai. He then came into conflict with the Navy and the Atomic Energy establishment and decided to leave India and go to the US. He was arrested at the airport and thrown into prison on charges of being a spy. At the trial, it emerged that the `secret document' that he had in his posession was his PhD thesis.
While in jail, he taught himself law which is how he is now a supreme court advocate.
I would not be surprised if this has some bearing on the case. Vikram Buddhi seems to have committed no crime apart from (if the allegations are true, which they may not be) posting some obnoxious messages on a yahoo chat-board while being in a possibly inebriated state.
For this, he was convicted of a "conspiracy to assassinate the president". This is absolutely ridiculous.
More strangely, the secret service interrogated him, decided that he was not a threat (obviously, he wasn't a threat to anyone) and then after some time reversed course, decided to catch him, throw him in jail and launch a serious and expensive prosecution. I would not be entirely surprised if the entire background of his father played into this. Someone vicious in the Indian establishment may have `tipped off' someone in the US.
Appeal from Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao
APPEAL FROM
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao
Indian Navy Captain (Retired)
Advocate Supreme Court of India
Now temporarily residing at:
711 Vine Street, West Lafayette
Indiana -47906 USA.
E-mail: bksubbarao@gmail.com.
To:
The Honourable External Affairs Minister, Shri. S.M. Krishna
Government of India
New Delhi.
Respected External Affairs Minister, Shri. S.M. Krishna,
Subject: Racial Discrimination of Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi in the United States and Denial of Justice.
1. This e-mail submission is about racial discrimination of an Indian Graduate Student in an American University and denial of justice to him. There are some legal aspects discussed below which can be fully appreciated by you since it is well known you have a Law degree from University Law College, which was then known as Government Law College in Bangalore, and studied in the United States, graduating from the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas and The George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C, where you were a Fulbright Scholar and later in the faculty where you taught International Law.
2. This is to bring to your kind notice and to the notice of the Government of India that an Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University at West Lafayette, Indiana, United States, Buddhi Vikram has become a victim of racial discrimination. A federal prosecution has been launched against him in April 2006 under the false charge that he threatened to kill the then President of the United States George W. Bush and others. In June 2007 he was denied fair trial with the presiding Trial Judge refusing to instruct the Jury on the applicable law and even threatening the Defense Attorney that he (the Judge) would embarrass the Defense Attorney if the Defense Attorney attempted to link the evidence on record with the applicable law during the closing address of the Defense Attorney to the Jury. Consequently on June 28, 2007, the Jury being ignorant of the applicable law pronounced the Defendant (Vikram Buddhi) guilty. However the sentencing has not taken place so far, as a result the appeal could not be filed up till now.
3. Awaiting his sentencing Vikram Buddhi is in incarceration at a US Prison in Chicago. In prison, he has been conducting himself in a dignified manner, teaching mathematics to inmates as per the formal program prescribed by the Prison authorizes, and in the rest of the time making a serious and in-depth study of US Federal Criminal Laws with the hope that a time would come where some US Court would apply its judicial mind to secure the ends of justice and his life and liberty would be restored to him.
Vikram was a National Science Talent Scholar during his student days in India. He graduated in mathematics with M.Sc degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, stood first in the class and received silver medal from IIT. Thereafter he worked for a year at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay and then joined the mathematics department of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana in the year 1996. At Purdue he received MS degree in mathematics and thereafter has been pursuing Ph.D degrees simultaneously in pure and applied mathematics. At Purdue he received two times Best Teaching Award from the Department of Mathematics.
4. I am father of Buddhi Vikram. I am former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, in nuclear technology. I am also an advocate of Supreme Court of India, having degree in law from Bombay University. I have represented successfully in public interest matters before Bombay High Court taken up by the social organization ‘Citizens For A Just Society’ founded by Dr. Usha Mehta, noted Gandhian, Freedom Fighter and Padma Vibhushan, during her life time and also subsequently.
Upon coming to know the federal prosecution launched against my son Vikram Buddhi, I have applied for and obtained Emergency Visa from the American Consulate, Mumbai and arrived in the United States on June 7, 2006, to help Vikram in general and in legal work. Some US Authorities have resorted to arbitrary methods to prevent me from helping my son Vikram Buddhi and they took away my Indian Passport on August 21, 2007 and they have launched removal proceedings against me compelling me to leave the United States on voluntary departure, though I entered the United States legally with proper Visa. In due course, I had no option but to take the matter in appeal to the US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago, where it is pending for final orders. My Passport has not been returned to me so far despite repeated requests for its return. In order to deprive my son of any help from me, some US Authorities are now attempting to deport me to India and to claim thereafter that my appeal before the US Appeals Court (Seventh Circuit, Chicago) has become in-fructuous. It is under these circumstances I am making this submission listing at the end some specific requests to you and to the Government of India.
5. To show the need for appropriate action from the Government of India, I am covering in this e-mail submission the following points:
(a) Root cause of the federal prosecution against the Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University, Vikram Buddhi. (Please see paragraph 6, below)
(b) What makes the charge against Vikram Buddhi a false charge? (Please see paragraph 7, below)
(c) How the jury trial turned out to be an unfair trial. (Please see paragraph 8, below)
(d) The method and the manner in which the father of Vikram Buddhi is being harassed and is being prevented to help his son. Detailed letters have been written by the father to the concerned US Authorities bringing to their notice the miscarriage of justice in the federal case against Vikram Buddhi. (Please see paragraph 9, below)
(e) Specific requests to the Indian Government. (Please see paragraph 10, below)
Before I discuss briefly below these points, mentioned at (a) to (e) above, it is pertinent to mention at the outset the Constitutional and legal rights available to resident aliens in the United States.
The Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in the United States the individual rights and liberties. These rights include:
First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
Right to due process – not to deprive life and liberty without following the procedure established by law.
There is well established law repeatedly stressed by the Supreme Court of the United States that a person who enters the United States lawfully is entitled to, like every other citizen in the country, the above mentioned individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. My son Vikram Buddhi entered the United States lawfully and has been pursuing studies as well as research for over nine years and even received two times Best Teaching Award at Purdue University. Therefore, Vikram Buddhi is entitled to the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. But he has been discriminated, deprived of his life and liberty without following the procedure established by law, falsely accused and denied a fair trial in the federal prosecution launched against him. I have entered the United States lawfully and therefore I am also entitled to the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States as enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States. But in an arbitrary manner I am being deprived of those rights and liberties. Hence the need for the Government of India to initiate appropriate action to remind the concerned quarters in the United States of the need to respect the rule of law while dealing with the resident alien Indians.
6. Root Cause
Sometime prior to December 2005 Indian Graduate Student Vikram Buddhi wrote a letter to the then President of Purdue University Dr.Martin C. Jischke bringing to Dr. Jischke’s notice a case of racial discrimination at Purdue University. The letter pointed out that an African American student Mr. Kendal Deas had been expelled from Purdue University for allegedly copying in an examination, but subsequently no action was taken against three non-African students who were similarly caught copying in examination. The administrators of Purdue University were annoyed at the audacity of an Indian Graduate Student pointing out the racial discrimination at Purdue University and made Vikram Buddhi a marked person. Vikram Buddhi did not expect that in the days to come, he himself would become target of much more serious discrimination and racial bias, for venturing to write such a letter to the President of Purdue University, though it was respectfully worded and underlined the need for upholding justice, rule of law and equality.
Piqued by the courage of Indian Graduate Student Vikram Buddhi to send such a letter to the President of Purdue University, the Administrators of Purdue University initiated steps to harass Vikram Buddhi but since the academic Faculty Members were happy with the performance of Vikram Buddhi, no substantial harm could be done to Vikram. It was in such circumstances, in December 2005 and January 2006 some Internet Messages appeared on Yahoo space calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war launched by President G W Bush and killing 312,769 IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAQ by that time, making millions of Iraqis refugees in other countries and destroying vast infrastructure in Iraq. Those Internet Messages appeared after the horrible sexual abuses committed by American Armed Forces Personnel and after the lurid details in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became known to the world.
US Secret Service came to know from Yahoo that the Internet Messages were routed through Internet Protocol (IP) addresses belonging to Purdue University. There is a known history of Purdue Computer Networks being hacked. A person by name Scott Ksander at Purdue University who is not knowledgeable in computer hacking, and such other illegal ways of breaking into computer networks, (as admitted by Scott Ksander himself during the jury trial) made crude guesses. At first, Scott Ksander traced it to the computer of a Graduate Student of Purdue University by name Anthony Cimasko. US Secret Service interrogated Cimasko and left him free. Then, perhaps at the instance of Purdue University Administrators, after some days Mr.Ksander made another crude guess and pinned it on Vikram Buddhi. The US Secret Service interrogated Vikram Buddhi also and after thorough interrogation the Secret Service let Vikram Buddhi also free on January 18, 2006. The US Secret Service even made a report on February 3, 2006 confirming that Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or any other person. All these facts have now become part of the record of evidence before the Trial Court. But the Administrators of Purdue University being keen to harm Vikram Buddhi did not allow the matter to rest there as per the report of US Secret Service in February 2006. Instead the Administrators worked from behind the scenes and brought pressure on US Secret Service to proceed against Vikram Buddhi. Thus for some mysterious reasons, the US Secret Service arrested Vikram Buddhi on April 14, 2006, and launched federal prosecution, i.e., four months after he was let go free by the same US Secret Service.
Some friends in India are of the opinion that the action against Vikram Buddhi in April 2006 is on account of my critical article in March 2006 in countercurrents.org
“Indo-US Nuclear Deal- Some Unexplored Angles”,
http://www.countercurrents.org/ind-subbarao090306.htm.
7. False Charge
An essential requirement of a criminal charge is that it should mention clearly the act or omission which is considered to be offense under the statutory penal provisions of the country.
The federal prosecution in the present case against Vikram Buddhi is supposed to be based on the Internet Messages on Yahoo space found posted in December 2005 and January 2006 with a call given to the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and therefore the only point for judicial examination will be whether the Internet Postings with such a call given to the people of Iraq would be an offense under any Section of Title 18 United States Code.
But the essential fact of the Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq is completely missing in all the eleven counts of charge in the Indictment under Title 18 United States Code. The charge omitted the essential facts and merely tracked the statutory language of Sections 871(a) (threat to President G W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), 879(a) (threat to Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney) , 875(c) (threat to the then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). All the eleven counts of charge are, more or less, identically worded. It is enough to look at Count No.1 of the charge which reads:
“On or about December 13, 2005, in the Northern District of Indiana and elsewhere, the defendant, Vikram S. Buddhi did knowingly and willfully threaten to kill the President of the United States, George Bush; All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871(a).”
All other Counts of the indictment (charge) are also similarly worded- “did threaten to kill” or “did threaten to destroy”. In what way the threat is made is not mentioned at all. There is not even a whisper in any of the eleven count charge in the Indictment about the Internet Messages and the call given to the people of Iraq on moral grounds, whoever might be the author of those Internet Messages on Yahoo space.
There is nothing in the Internet Messages, whoever the author might be, to show that the author would personally commit any act of violence. It is clear from those Internet Messages that the unknown author of those Messages on moral grounds merely gave a call to the Iraqis to seek revenge over the perceived unjust Iraq war. Yet the Indictment in all eleven counts has been worded to convey that the defendant, Vikram Buddhi threatened to do the things himself which is patently false.
Consequently, the case United States v. Vikram Buddhi, Case No: 06 CR 63, before the US District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, with no mention of the Internet Messages on Yahoo space in any of the eleven counts of charge is ill founded and is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The Indictment (Charge) avoided to mention the essential fact of the Internet Messages and the call therein given to the people of Iraq, mainly with a meditated mind to avoid the commands of the First Amendment and the benchmarks set by US Supreme Court in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) regarding protected speech protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. According to the well established law enunciated by the US Supreme Court, the Internet Messages are deemed to be speech. When speech is made criminal, the speech should be subjected to the commands of the First Amendment (protected speech) and the bench marks set by the US Supreme Court. But the Indian Graduate Student Vikram Buddhi, while he faced federal prosecution for allegedly posting Internet Messages, was denied the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, though he is entitled to those rights and liberties.
The fact is, in those Internet Messages on Yahoo space found posted in December 2005 and January 2006, there is strong political opposition to President Bush and a mere abstract advocacy of violence to the people of Iraq with no imminent danger from such advocacy, hence those Internet Messages become protected speech under the commands of the First Amendment as per the benchmarks set by US Supreme Court in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). It is to deny this law established from the judgments of US Supreme Court, the Indictment in the instant case completely avoided the essential fact of the Internet Messages on Yahoo space containing mere advocacy of violence to the people of Iraq with no imminent danger to anybody.
The entire world is told that the federal case against Vikram Buddhi is because he is allegedly posted some Internet Messages on Yahoo space. But the essential fact of the Internet Messages on Yahoo space and the call given to the people of Iraq in those Messages is completely missing in all eleven counts of charge in the Indictment. Whereas the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) provides, “The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”. Hence it is mandatory to include in the Indictment the essential fact of the Internet Messages on Yahoo space and the call given to the people of Iraq if someone is to be charged with the allegation that he or she committed offense for posting those Internet Messages with such a call to the people of Iraq. For lack of essential facts constituting the offense, the Indictment in the instant case violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) and it also ignored and neglected the ruling of the US Supreme Court,
“an indictment that tracks the statutory language can nonetheless be considered deficient if it does not provide enough factual particulars to "sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763.
And thus it is clear that the Grand Jury passed the Indictment in April 2006 without following due process and all of it resulted in deprivation of the following Constitutional Rights to the defendant (Indian Graduate Student, Vikram Buddhi):
Denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee to the defendant that in a criminal prosecution the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,
Denial of the Fifth Amendment guarantee to protect the right of an accused to be free from double jeopardy,
Denial of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that the accused shall be indicted by Grand Jury following due process.
Thus it is clear the Grand Jury passed the Indictment (charge) without following due process and the Indictment violated Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ). The Internet Messages on Yahoo space have been treated as threat speech but the safeguards available when the speech is made criminal have been totally denied and the Indian Graduate Student(defendant) has been denied legal rights and Constitutional Rights and discriminated.
Let us keep aside for the time being, as it is, the ramifications of the ill founded guess work of Mr. Scott Ksander of Purdue University, who admittedly (admitted by him in the Court in June 2007) has no in-depth knowledge of the ways in which Computer Networks become victims of attacks from outside sources. As per to the crude guess, the source of the Internet Messages on Yahoo space found posted in December 2005 and January 2006 is alleged to be the computer of the Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi. If at all a charge can be made against Vikram Buddhi it could be only for allegedly posting those Internet Messages on Yahoo space. The act or omission which could be said to be an offense, if at all it is an offense, is the act of posting those Internet Messages. Without making a reference to the act of posting those Internet Messages, no charge can be made against anybody who is allegedly the author of those Internet Messages. But surprisingly in the eleven counts charge (Indictment) against Vikram Buddhi there is not even a whisper of the Internet Messages. By which act or omission, Vikram Buddhi can be said to have committed a federal offense is not mentioned. That makes the charge against Vikram Buddhi defective and false.
This point and such other points can be taken to the Appeal Court only upon sentencing. But the sentencing has not taken place so far, though the adverse jury verdict was made on June 28, 2007. In the meantime, at present, serious attempts are under way to deport me to India so that the possibility of any help from me to my son Vikram Buddhi can be eliminated.
8. Unfair Trial
During the jury trial (June 25 to 28, 2007) the presiding US District Judge James T Moody declared his resolve in the open Court, as the Trial Transcripts would show, that he would not instruct the jury on the law regarding speech threat cases and he did not instruct the jury on the relevant law. District Judge Moody gave a stern warning to the Defense Attorney John E. Martin that he (the Judge) would embarrass the Defense Attorney if the Defense Attorney attempted to link the evidence on record with the applicable law during the closing address of the Defense Attorney to the Jury. Even when the jury, while in deliberations, sent a written note to the Judge pointing out a contradiction in Judge’s Instructions to the jury, the US District Judge commanded the jury with a written reply note saying that there is no contradiction in his Instructions to the jury and the jury must continue its deliberations. Consequently an uninformed jury with all its confusions got vexed and delivered a guilty verdict on June 28, 2007. This shows clearly Vikram Buddhi was discriminated and was denied a fair trial. This is a very serious point which could be taken before the Appeal Court after sentencing takes place. But the sentencing has not taken place so far though the adverse jury verdict was made on June 28, 2007. I have collected a great deal of relevant case law to place before the Appeal Court to plead for acquittal of my son Vikram Buddhi. But right now serious attempts are underway to deport me to India in order to eliminate the possibility of legal help from me to my son.
9. Father Being Harassed and Humiliated
Ignoring and neglecting the rule of law, I am being harassed and humiliated to drain my energy and enthusiasm in my attempts to help my son Vikram Buddhi in his federal prosecution.
With an Emergency Visa valid for one year, I arrived in the United States on June 7, 2006. The jury trial of my son’s case was at that time fixed for June26, 2006. But the trial date was periodically adjourned up to June 25, 2007. Well before the expiry of my Emergency Visa I submitted formal application with all the necessary documents and the prescribed fee of $200 and sought extension of my Visa and Stay to help my son. In an arbitrary manner my application was rejected in July 2007. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am in the United States only to help my son and I desire to return to India at the earliest possible, which desire I even submitted in writing subsequently to the quasi-judicial and judicial forums. My Passport was taken away from me on August 21, 2007 and has not been returned so far.
The matter of extension of Visa and extension of stay traversed from forum to forum and is now before the US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago in the form of an appeal from me. I can only hope that there will be a proper application of judicial mind to the matter and I would have access to the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States as I am entitled to those rights and liberties. I am also hopeful that I will be able to return to India soon without a blemish on me and I will be able to help my son to overcome the miscarriage of justice heaped on him.
I have been formally notified that if I leave the United States before my appeal was decided I will not be allowed to enter the United States for ten years. At the same time I am being compelled to leave the United States on voluntary departure. Even after my written submissions that I cannot leave the United States without my Passport the concerned authorities have not returned my Passport so far. I am continuously being threatened and harassed that I would be deported.
If only my request for extension of Visa and stay has been granted in July 2007 I would have returned to India to attend to my commitments in India and travelled to the United States as required to help my son to secure justice in his federal case. My wife is alone in India staying in our residence in Vashi, Navi Mumbai. She is under considerable stress for three years after I left the shores of India in June 2006.
After my Passport was taken away from me on August 21, 2007, I am deprived of the opportunity to take up some allowed consultancy service based on my Ph.D and experience in technology. It becomes one more way to harass me and to create hardships for me and my family.
Even under the mounting harassment and humiliation, I have focused my attention on my son’s federal case and submitted several detailed letters to the concerned US Authorities explaining the miscarriage of justice in my son’s case. All those letters remained in vain and they include the following:
Letter dated February 9, 2009 to US President Barack Obama.
Letter dated April 20, 2009 to President Obama.
Letter dated April 20, 2009 to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Letter dated October 21, 2008 to US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
Letter dated February 21, 2007 to US Attorney General Alfred Gonzales.
Except the US Postal acknowledgements, I did not receive any reply to any of my letters. For your information, I am placing copies of the above letters as attachments to this e-mail submission.
Recently Roxana Saberi an Iranian-American journalist was jailed in Iran from the decision of an Iranian Court that Saberi was spying for the United States. The reactions of US President Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, calling for the release of Roxana Saberi prompted me to write an article for the countercurrents.org comparing the cases of Roxana Saberi and Vikram Buddhi. The article titled “Roxana Saberi And Vikram Buddhi – Compel A Comparison” can be seen at the link:
http://www.countercurrents.org/kotasubbarao210409.htm
My son Vikram Buddhi and all the members of our family are keen and determined to fight for justice and not to indulge in seeking mercy.
The United States of America which prides itself in the rule of law, should at least display minimum fairness to afford people reasonable opportunity to fight injustice mounted upon them by the arbitrary ways of the US Executive. Hence the reason for submitting the following requests to the Government of India.
10. Requests.
In view of the above mentioned facts I submit to you and to the Government of India, the following requests:
--The Government of India may send a formal communication to the President of the United States Barack Obama bringing to his notice the need to respect the rule of law while dealing with resident Indians in the United States, and to allow reasonable opportunity to fight for justice, if necessary up to the US Supreme Court, where Indians are made to suffer from the arbitrary actions of the US Executive.
--Appropriate action may be taken to get my Passport returned to me. Passport was taken away from me on August 21, 2007. In reality, Passport is the property of the Government of India.
--Urgent appropriate action may be taken to prevent the US Authorities in their attempts to deport me to India as that measure would bar me for ten years to enter the United States and I will be deprived of opportunity to help my son Vikram Buddhi in the federal case he is facing. I have already approached the US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago to establish that I am not a deportable (removable) alien as I entered the United States legally and conducted myself as a law abiding person and if necessary I am to approach the US Supreme Court.
--Appropriate action may be taken to allow multiple entry US Visa for me so that I could attend to my commitments in India and also would be able to help my son in the United States to overcome the miscarriage of justice mounted on him in the federal case he is facing in the United States.
In view of the urgency of the matter, I am making this e-mail submission and I am also placing this letter in MS WORD format as attachment to this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Buddhi Kota Subbarao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)