Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Sufferings Of Resident Aliens In The United States:
Cases Of Krittika Biswas And Vikram Buddhi

By B.K. Subbarao. Ph.D.

04 June, 2011
Countercurrents.org

A historic fact witnessed during the formation and subsequent expansion of the United States of America is the killing and pushing to the reservations of native Indians by the settlers in the continent. A nation thus formed has built up its military muscle by amassing the natural resources of the continent. The same nation, in order to retain its military superiority invents many reasons to invade other countries to grab the natural resources of those countries. That is the way the United States of America had worked and is working.

Another fact which got well entrenched after the event of 9/11 in 2001 is, ‘rule of law' professed and practiced by the Government of the United States is synonymous to the rule that what the Americans say or do is the law.

Under this ‘rule of law', at present the resident aliens in the United States suffer as much as the native Indians in the past. The law enforcing agencies in the United States violate with complete impunity the legal rights and Constitutional rights of resident aliens in the United States . In many cases even the Courts fail to secure prompt justice to the innocent victims.

When a Graduate Student from India pursuing PhD studies at Purdue University in the United States has become victim of the arbitrary ways of the law enforcing agencies in the United States, for allegedly sending Internet Messages to Yahoo space calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war, the Indian Government turned ‘Nelson's eye' to all the representations made on behalf of the Indian Graduate Student.

However, the Indian Government woke up to the reality when Krittika Biswas, an 18-year-old student of John Bowne High School and daughter of Debashish Biswas, vice consul (administration) at the Indian Consulate General in New York, was arrested, handcuffed and locked up for more than 24 hours on February 8, 2011, in an alleged case of obscene emails sent to two teachers in her school.

After the arrest with handcuffs on her, Krittika was compelled to confess and a police officer told her if she did not confess she would have to spend time in prison with prostitutes and persons with HIV

Krittika was suspended from school for allegedly sending those obscene emails to two teachers in her school. Full investigation in February 2011 revealed that it was not the Indian student Krittika but another Chinese student of the school had sent those obscene emails. T he school did not suspend or arrest the Chinese student who actually sent the e-mails. “I don't know why he wasn't arrested... the principal pushed for my arrest.” said Krittika.

When the real culprit was found out, Krittika was taken back by the school. Krittka is suing New York City 's government for $1.5 million over a wrongful arrest on suspicion of sending obscene e-mails to her teacher in the school.

Look at the pace at which Indian Officials worked to get the release of a diplomat's daughter Krittika. "When she was apprehended, we worked through the night as we got the information in the night. We woke up the US officials in the night and got her released the next day," said India 's Ambassador to US Meera Shankar.

"It is a case which the embassy has taken up very seriously with the US government," Ambassador Meera Shankar told reporters at New Delhi , after a meeting with India 's Home Minister P Chidambaram.

But neither India 's Ambassador nor any Minister of the Indian Government showed any concern, when illegal federal prosecution was launched against Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi, in April 2006 and he was jailed.

Krittika would not have faced such a traumatic treatment in February 2011 at the hands of US law enforcing agencies, and the occasion for the Indian Government to express serious concern over Krittika episode would not have arisen, if only the Indian Government paid sufficient attention to the illegal federal case mounted in April 2006 on Vikram Buddhi and if only the Indian Government made it clear to the US Government that Indian citizens should not be subjected to illegal prosecutions in the United States.

Indian Government failed to notice the writing on the wall, “What has happened to Vikram Buddhi can happen to any other Indian Citizen in the US and it makes his case a serious matter of concern for all Indians.”. Krittika had to pay the price for the indifference of Indian Government towards Vikram Buddhi's case.

To deserve help from Indian Government, an Indian facing illegal prosecution in the United States has to be either from an influential clan or from among the kith and kin of Indian diplomatic core in the United States .

Illegal Case Against Vikram Buddhi

In mid December 2005 and first week of January 2006, some Internet Messages appeared on Yahoo space calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to kill US President G.W.Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others for the killing of 312,769 Iraqi women and children.

More specifically, in those Internet Messages the call to the people of Iraq includes the following:

“OPPORTUNIST AMERICANS INVADED IRAQ TO KILL IRAQIS
AND GRAB YOUR LAND USING DELIBERATE FALSE PRETEXTS
THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER OF CIVILIANS BY

AMERICANS AND WORSE THAN TERRORISM.

SO IRAQIS, FIGHT BACK . . . .

GO IRAQIS! SEEK REVENGE FOR AMERICANS KILLING 312,769

IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN IRAQ

IT IS YOUR LAND AND YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LAND

AGAINST AMERICAN AGGRESSION. DO UNTO THEM WHAT

THEY DO UNTO YOU.

IRAQIS! GIVE . . . THE TIT REACTION FOR THE TAT ACTION .”

On a query from US Secret Service, the Yahoo authorities informed that the Internet Messages travelled from the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of Purdue University , West Lafayette , Indiana State.

In the middle of January 2006, the US Secret Service interrogated members of faculty and students of Purdue University , including an Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi who was doing PhD in mathematics and had received two times best teaching award from the Department of Mathematics of Purdue. US Secret Service did not arrest anybody after the interrogation. It is well known, Purdue University Computer Network was hacked several times in the past.

On February 3, 2006 , the US Secret Service rendered a formal report on their investigation into the Internet Messages clearing everyone interrogated by the Secret Service. Their finding and conclusion in the Report on Vikram Buddhi reads, “Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or any US Secret Service Protectees.”. This Report has subsequently become Exhibit-B1 in the record of US District Court (Trial Court) at Hammond , Indiana .

With no new developments after the US Secret Service investigation in January 2006 and formal Report in February 2006, for some mysterious reasons, the US Secret Service arrested Vikram Buddhi on April 14, 2006 and launched federal prosecution. It appears, the then Bush administration decided to make an example to deter the youth from criticizing the Iraq war and the random choice fell on Vikram Buddhi. Indian Government did not foresee that in the days to come, some other Indians in the United States could become easy targets like Vikram, as it happened with Krittika in February 2011.

Invalid Indictment

Bush administration persuaded the Grand Jury to pass Indictment (Charge) against Vikram Buddhi on April 19, 2006 . But the Indictment failed to state which act or omission of Vikram Buddhi constituted a federal offence.

On April 14, 2006, when Vikram Buddhi was arrested by the US Secret Service, the whole world was informed through the media that the federal prosecution against Indian Graduate Student Vikram Buddhi was because of the Internet Messages he had allegedly posted in December 2005 and January 2006, on Yahoo space calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and to kill President Bush and others. But in the Indictment passed on April 19, 2006 , there is not even a whisper about the Internet Messages in any of the eleven counts of Charge made in the Indictment. So what did Vikram Buddhi do to invite the federal charges? If one goes by the Indictment, it is not known, what act or omission of Vikram Buddhi constituted criminal offences under the US laws.

The Indictment containing eleven counts of charge merely reproduces Title 18 United States Code 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 Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) and 844(e) (threat to installations in the United States). To know all the eleven counts of charge, 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 wilfully 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 bomb”.

It is pertinent to mention that the US Secret Service in their Report in February 2006 clearly recorded, “Vikram Buddhi is not a threat to US President or any US Secret Service Protectees.”, but the Indictment in April 2006 indicts that he “threatened” to kill US President and others.

None of the counts in the Indictment (Charge) mentions in what way the threat is given, whether it is in writing or orally or in any other manner. The Indictment does not state by what act or omission Vikram Buddhi committed the offences levelled against him.

US Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7 ( c ) ( 1 ) provides and makes it mandatory, “The indictment or information must be a plain , concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offence charged.

US Supreme Court ruled,

“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 (1962).

Since the essential facts of the offence charged are missing in the Indictment, the Indictment against Vikram Buddhi is invalid .

Without a valid indictment, there cannot be a criminal trial. But Vikram Buddhi was made to face jury trial without a valid Indictment and thus he was discriminated.

Jury Trial Arbitrary, Unfair and Unjust .

Jury trial of Vikram Buddhi became arbitrary, unfair and unjust on four counts explained below:

(i) Since there is not even a whisper in the Indictment about the Internet Messages, the law established by the US Supreme Court forbids the US Government to bring to the jury trial the Internet Messages to cure the defective Indictment passed against Vikram Buddhi.

US Supreme Court ruled;

“The Indictment must stand or fall on its own. Neither a bill of particulars nor any discovery provided by the government can cure a defective indictment . ” Russell v. United States , 369 U.S. 749, 770 (1962).

This ruling of the US Supreme Court was ignored and neglected by the US District Judge (Trial Judge) James T. Moody.

Ignoring the binding decision of the Supreme Court, the District Judge permitted the Prosecution to turn to Internet Messages in their attempt to establish the offence charged in the Indictment. It is judicial misconduct on the part of the US District Judge to ignore and neglect the binding judgment of the US Supreme Court and to allow the Prosecution to bring the Internet Messages to the jury trial, knowing fully well that there is not even a whisper in the Indictment about the Internet Messages. That becomes the first count to show the jury trial is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. It also shows, Vikram Buddhi has been discriminated.

(ii) Having illegally permitted the Government to bring to the jury trial the Internet Messages with an attempt to cure the incurable defective Indictment, the US District Judge James T. Moody committed further illegality in not following the law established by US Supreme Court in respect of Internet Messages.

US Supreme Court recognised the Internet Messages as a form of speech, Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union , 521 U.S. 844, (1997) . Hence, when the Prosecution was allowed (illegally of course) to bring before the Jury the Internet Messages as offence element against Vikram Buddhi, the case became a speech threat case.

Thus in 1997 in Reno, US Supreme Court has recognised Internet Messages as a form of speech and earlier in 1969 US Supreme Court in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) has already ruled that when speech is made criminal it must be subjected to the commands of the First Amendment to know if it is protected speech and if the threat is a true threat.

Since in Vikram Buddhi's case, the Internet Messages are allowed to be brought to the jury trial to establish the offence stated in the Indictment and since the Internet Messages merely called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and as ‘tit for tat' to kill US President G W Bush and others for killing thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children, the question for consideration of the Jury is “ Whether in the facts and circumstances of Iraq war, calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war could constitute a criminal offence under the law of the United States and whether such advocacy of violence with no imminent danger would be protected speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution ?”

Having allowed the Prosecution to bring the Internet Messages to the jury trial to establish the offence stated in the Indictment, the Trial Judge, like all other Trial Judges in speech threat cases in the United States , is duty bound to instruct the jury on the law governing the First Amendment. But the Trial Judge James T. Moody declared in the open Court that the First Amendment has no role to play in Vikram Buddhi's case. Thus the District Judge gave a ruling contradicting the ruling of the US Supreme Court in speech threat cases. It is judicial misconduct on the part of the US District Judge, James T. Moody to go against the binding judgments of US Supreme Court and it has caused miscarriage of justice.

District Judge, James T. Moody also declared his resolve not to instruct the members of the jury on the First Amendment and he did not instruct the jury on the law in respect of the First Amendment. Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007 , pages 2 & 3. Thus, the US District Judge (Trial Judge) ignored and neglected the law laid down by the US Supreme Court in speech threat cases and devised an arbitrary and unjust procedure for the jury trial ignoring completely the First Amendment law in a speech threat case. That becomes the second count to show the jury trial is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. It clearly shows, Vikram Buddhi was discriminated.

(iii) During the closed door deliberations, the Jury sent a Written Note to the Judge pointing out a contradiction in Judge's Instructions to the Jury noticed by the members of Jury. With the said Written Note, the members of the Jury requested the Judge for full and proper instructions on law. Even then the US District Judge James T. Moody avoided instructing the Jury on the First Amendment Law and with a his Written Reply to the Jury commanded the Jury stating that there was no contradiction and the Jury should continue its deliberations. Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007 , pages 91, 111, 115, 116.

In such facts and circumstances, the ill informed and insufficiently informed, and helpless Jury delivered GUILTY verdict on June 28, 2007 .

That becomes the third count to show the jury trial is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. It clearly shows, Vikram Buddhi was discriminated.

(iv) When the Defence Attorney tried to link the evidence on record with the law governing the First Amendment, the Trial Judge prevented the Defence Attorney and warned him that he (Judge) would embarrass the Defence Attorney if the Defence Attorney tried to link the evidence on record with the First Amendment Law. Trial Transcript Volume IV, June 28, 2007 , pages 4-6. It shows, the Defence Attorney was prevented from defending Vikram Buddhi fully and properly. That becomes the fourth count to show the jury trial is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. It clearly shows, Vikram Buddhi was discriminated.

Rule of Law Not Followed

Thus it is apparent on the face of the record that neither at the stage of framing the Indictment (Charge) nor at the jury trial, the rule of law has been followed. Vikram Buddhi has been targeted only to create an example to deter all the young people in the United States from criticizing Iraq war.

Though there was no mention of Internet Messages in the Indictment, the US Government violated the established law (established by US Supreme Court) and brought the Internet Messages to the jury trial and argued that Vikram Buddhi was the author of those Internet Messages calling upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war.

Having illegally brought the Internet Messages to the jury trial, the US Government misguided and misdirected the US District Judge, presiding over the jury trial, to banish from the jury trial the law governing the Internet Messages, i.e., the First Amendment law.

History will judge harshly the Bush administration for waging Iraq war without a cause and for killing thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq . A war without cause is murder. The future generations worldwide will not forgive the present generation for not insisting to bring President G.W.Bush and his Executive Team to justice for committing crimes against humanity.

History will unfold the true motive of Americans in building their biggest US base in Iraq , and their meditated plans to garner the oil wealth of Iraq .

History will also judge very harshly the Obama administration for not taking necessary steps to bring to justice the members of Bush administration for embarking on Iraq war without a cause. It is true Obama was a lone Senate member to oppose Iraq war. That places added responsibility on President Obama with his civil rights lawyer reputation to notice that a war without cause is murder and by elementary logic G.W.Bush and his Executive Team are murderers. Obama administration will also be judged harshly for not paying sufficient attention to mitigate the injustice done to an Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi against whom a false, frivolous and vexatious federal prosecution was launched in April 2006 by Bush administration only to make an example to all those who venture to criticize Iraq war.

Whether There Is True Threat?

In speech threat cases, the core question is whether the threat is true threat?

To deal with speech threat cases in the United States, there are two landmark cases decided by US Supreme Court - Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) and Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Watts v. United States , 394 U.S. 705. (1969).

At the time of Vietnam war, the young student Mr.Watts, who was drafted to the US Army, opposed his draft. He threatened that if he were to be trained by the Army and given a gun to fight in Vietnam , the first person to come in his gun sight would be the then US President Lyndon B. Johnson. Watts was tried for threatening to kill US President. The matter went up to US Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court laid down some bench marks in speech threat cases.

US Supreme Court considered pure speech and the statute 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (threatening US President, which is also the charge in Vikram Buddhi case), and ruled, in Watts ,

”… a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.” Watts v. United States , 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969).

US Supreme Court in Watts ruled that in speech threat cases, the context must be considered and there should be examination of the speech to see if there is political opposition to the US President and his Executive Team and if the threat is true threat . Watts was acquitted by the Supreme Court by concluding that in the context of Vietnam war, Mr.Watts' speech is political hyperbole expressing political opposition to US President and there is no true threat to US President.

More specifically, while acquitting Watts , US Supreme Court held,

“We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co . v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America , 383 U.S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President." Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.”. Watts v. United States , 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969).

Similarly in the present case of Vikram Buddhi, if the Internet Messages are treated as elements of offences stated in the Indictment, it becomes a speech threat case in the context of Iraq war. Those Internet Messages on moral grounds merely called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the Iraq war which is without a cause. The Messages contain a strong political opposition to the policies of US President G W Bush and his Executive Team and there are a few crude words in them. The ratio of the judgment of US Supreme Court in Watts becomes applicable.

Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

The defendant, Brandenburg , a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, spoke at a Klan rally at which a large wooden cross was burned and some of the other persons present were carrying firearms. His remarks included such statements as: "Bury the niggers," "the niggers should be returned to Africa ," and "send the Jews back to Israel ." In an Ohio state court, he was convicted , under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, both for advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, and for voluntarily assembling with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.

However, US Supreme Court acquitted Brandenburg .

While acquitting Brandenburg , Supreme Court ruled,

“ The constitutional guaranties of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”, Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444, 448 (1969).

The term "Advocacy" is defined as "the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending a cause or course of action” Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995.

Thus it can be seen, US Supreme Court held in Brandenburg that the First Amendment protects advocacy of the use of the force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing “imminent lawless action ” and is likely to incite or produce such action This position in law remains as it has not been changed by any subsequent decision of US Supreme Court.

In Brandenburg , the speech was protected because it was a mere advocacy or abstract teaching of violence, and not the actual preparation for impending violence.

Similarly , in the present case, the Internet Messages , no matter who their author is , only called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war and seek revenge for the killing of 312,769 Iraqi women and children. The author no where stated in those Internet Messages that the author would commit violence.

In Vikram Buddhi case, the Internet Messages on Yahoo space spanning a total of 1180 words including a few vituperative, and abusive words, expressed strong political opposition to Bush administration. The Internet Messages merely called upon the people of Iraq on moral grounds to retaliate against Americans for causing death and destruction in Iraq in a war without cause.

Those Internet Messages contain abstract advocacy of violence and there has been no ‘imminent lawless action,' any where in USA on account of those Internet Messages and there has been no ‘actual preparation for impending violence. ' Brandenburg incited his followers to commit violence and there was only abstract advocacy of violence but with no imminent danger.

The legal principles enunciated by US Supreme Court in Watts and Brandenburg remain as benchmarks for all speech threat cases in the United States . Therefore, going by the judgment of US Supreme Court in Brandenburg the Internet Messages in Vikram Buddhi case are protected speech under the First Amendment of US Constitution, whoever might be the author of those Internet Messages on Yahoo space.

The US District Judge (Trial Judge) abused his discretion and erred seriously by ignoring and neglecting the binding judgments of US Supreme Court.

In Watts the defendant young Mr.Watts uttered words in the public to the effect that he himself would kill the then US President L.B . Johnson. Yet Watts was acquitted by US Supreme Court. In Brandenburg the leader of KKK, Brandenburg not only advocated violence to his followers carrying weapons and arms and called upon his followers to bury the African Americans and the Jews, but also marched along with them publicly chanting slogans. Yet Brandenburg was acquitted by US Supreme Court. But Vikram Buddhi has been convicted by US District Court, Hammond, Indiana, on the charge that he posted those Internet Messages which merely called upon the people of Iraq to retaliate the perceived unjust Iraq war.

There is also an unattended relevant issue that the Internet Messages, travelled, in fact, through the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses assigned to the computer of another graduate student of Purdue University by name Anthony Cymasko and there is no conclusive finding as to the origin of those Internet Messages.

The facts regarding the Invalid Indictment and unfair jury trial in the federal case against Vikram Buddhi have been repeatedly brought to the notice of the decision making quarters in the United States and in India with several letters that were written by the father of Vikram Buddhi to US President Barrack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, three successive US Attorney Generals Alfred Gonzales, Michael B. Mukasey and Eric Holder and also to Indian President Smt.Pratibha Patil, Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh  and Indian External Affairs Minister Shri.S.M.Krishna and others, showing the need to allow the law of the United States to prevail in order to meet the ends of justice in Vikram's case, but to no avail so far. Consequently, Vikram Buddhi suffered in body, mind and reputation.

What Can Be Done To Vikram Buddhi Now

Federal prosecution was launched against Vikram Buddhi in April 2006 during Bush administration. In June 2007, in jury trial Vikram was convicted. In December 2009, Vikram Buddhi was sentenced to 58 months imprisonment, during Obama administration. Vikram Buddhi remained in US jail.

Various hurdles were placed to deny opportunity to Vikram Buddhi to file his appeal against his conviction and sentence. Vikram Buddhi has legal right to file appeal before the US Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, Chicago and he is struggling to file his appeal.

With the 58 month prison term completed as per the rules of US Bureau of Prisons, Vikram Buddhi was released on May 6, 2011 ,and at the same time he was picked up by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Vikram continues to remain in US jail under the custody of ICE. The ICE initiated Removal (Deportation) proceedings to deport Vikram Buddhi from USA to India .

Having deprived the life and liberty of Vikram Buddhi without a valid Indictment (charge) and without a fair trial, as explained above, the US Department of Justice should show its commitment to the rule of law, and allow Vikram Buddhi to seek justice from the Appeal Court and if required to approach the Supreme Court of the United States.

The US Attorney General Eric Holder has the power and authority to defer the Removal Proceedings till Vikram Buddhi exhausts all the appeal process up to Supreme Court if need be and to allow bail on personal bond to Vikram Buddhi while he pursues his appeals.

US Attorney General Eric Holder also has the authority to allow multiple entry Visa to Vikram's parents to visit United States to help the son as and when required. Vikram Buddhi has no relatives in the United States .

Government of India and the Ministry of External Affairs should earnestly try to help Indian Graduate Student of Purdue University Vikram Buddhi to secure justice from the Appeal Courts in the United States and also afford an opportunity to Vikram's parents to help Vikram in the United States as and when required.

Last but not the least, it is necessary to recall some facts about Vikram Buddhi who is now in need of help to fight for justice. Vikram was a National Science Talent Scholar during his school 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, Bombay . Thereafter he worked for a year at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay and then joined the mathematics department of Purdue University , 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. His work in pure mathematics is in algebraic geometry and in applied mathematics the work is in the area of non-invasive techniques for cancer detection. At Purdue University Vikram received two times Best Teaching Award from the Department of Mathematics.

Dr. B.K. Subbarao is former Indian Navy Captain with Ph.D from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in nuclear technology. He is an advocate of Supreme Court of India .

E-mail : [email protected]




 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.