Sibel Edmonds Vindicated? FBI Reveals Investigation Continues

SIBEL EDMONDS VINDICATED? FBI REVEALS INVESTIGATION CONTINUES
By John Stanton – Online Journal Contributing Writer
Online Journal, Florida
Oct 25 2006
On October 10, FBI spokesman Bill Carter confirmed that matters raised
by Sibel Edmonds and shielded form public view by the invocation of
the US States Secret privilege were still under internal investigation
by the bureau.
“Due to the fact that the allegations of Sibel Edmonds reflect internal
administrative and investigative matters it would not be appropriate
to respond to your inquiry. I will point out that the DOJ Office of
the Inspector General has reviewed this matter and released a public
report. I would refer this report to you for your review.
The Inspector General’s report concluded that the FBI did not
adequately investigate allegations Ms. Edmonds made regarding
a co-worker. After the OIG’s initial classified report, the FBI
conducted further investigation into Ms. Edmonds’ allegations. That
investigation is continuing.”*
Back in March of 2002, Edmonds was released from the FBI over her
discovery of an array of espionage activities. Looking back, and
with the benefit of new information from the FBI and elsewhere, it
appears that the government of Turkey was spectacularly successfully
in compromising FBI, CIA, DEA, DIA and DOS operations, and was also
able to mount other espionage programs that allowed Turkish interests
to obtain assorted military and WMD technology know-how, and garner US
and Israeli military support for its bloody internal struggle against
its significant and much maligned Kurdish population/opposition.
The Turks: Masters of Espionage
The Turks would not have been successful in staging what may be
recorded as one of history’s finest intelligence coups had it not been
for many sympathetic US military personnel, bureaucrats and politicians
who, whatever their egotistical reasons, believed themselves to be
acting in the USA’s best interests. Certainly, no one can accuse them
of not effectively representing their powerful Turkish clients whether
in defeating US congressional action recognizing the Armenian Genocide
or ensuring that US corporations close lucrative deals in Turkey.
The sympathizers names are now overly familiar: Douglas Feith,
Brent Scowcroft, William Cohen, Richard Perle, Michael Leeden,
Bob Livingston, Marc Grossman, Paul Wolfowitz, Eric Edelman,
Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, et
al. Rather than rehash their affiliations and track records here,
visit rightweb.irc-online.org to find out more about their linkages
to each other and Turkey (Israel, too).
The Turks knew it would take lots of cash to pull off such a scheme and
sustain it. The illicit drug trade provided an endless source of funds
to pay for WMD components, US defense technology, politicians, money
laundering schemes, counterterrorist operations, safe interrogation
houses, and dozens of front companies. Given Turkey’s solid reputation
as a key refining point/middleman for opium coming out of Afghanistan
(it is ultimately transported into the Balkans and on to Europe
and the USA), it is no surprise that the Turkish government always
seems to have a steady supply of cash to spread around. Perhaps it
is just coincidence, but under the watchful eyes of the Pentagon and
US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, opium crop production
in Afghanistan has increased over the last decade. The profits from
refining and distribution of the product have flooded the black
market — the playground for intelligence operatives and assorted
criminal enterprises.
Joltin’ Joe Ralston
Desmond Fernandes, has recently published an extraordinary piece,
titled “Turkey’s US Backed War on Terror: A Cause for Concern?”. The
information provided in this publication shows the lengths to which the
US and Turkey (and Israel) will go to keep some very nasty activities
quiet. One of the more interesting bits of news in the report is that,
at the invitation of the Turkish government, US and Israeli forces
are assisting the Turkish government in military operations against
the Kurdistan Workers Party (PPK) and the Kurdish people and their
culture. The US is ostensibly engaged in counter-narcotics operations
with the Turks.
Joseph Ralston, former USAF general and now Lockheed Martin
employee and American Turkish Council principal, is the special
envoy/coordinator for US-Turkey anti-Kurdish operations. In October
2006, the US Congress approved the sale of 30 of F-16 combat aircraft
worth $2.9 billion to Turkey.
The world has seen the effects of similar alliances on persecuted
people, most notably the tragic one between the US and Israel. That
template will now be applied in Turkey to manage the Kurds. It’s
their turn to be abused and pushed from their homelands by the
same methods and equipment used against the Palestinians (and now
the Iraqis). American leaders sanctioned the elimination of the
Palestinian leaders and their people, even groups freely elected like
Hamas. With eager US approval, Israeli military operations continue
unabated in Gaza and the West Bank into late 2006. US support for
Israel’s destruction of the Shia population in Lebanon during the
Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006, along with decades of unswerving
support in the United Nations and the US Congress is notoriously
legendary. All this bodes ill for the Kurds.
And so it begins. According to kurdmedia.com, “the PKK — the most
prominent Kurdish freedom movement — declared a unilateral ceasefire
that went into effect on Sunday, 1 October. It still remains unilateral
– the entire Turkish establishment, from top general, Yasar Buyukanit,
to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has rejected it, clearly
stating their determination to continue the war . . .
Joseph Ralston spoke for the US government when he indicated that
“a ceasefire sort of implies an act that is taken between two states,
two actors, to do that. And I don’t want to confer that kind of status
on the PKK by saying a ceasefire . . .”
According to Fernandes, “General Joseph W. Ralston, the US government’s
Special Envoy who is responsible for countering the terrorist PKK and
coordinating actions and eliminationist strategies with the Turkish
and Iraqi states . . . [He] . . . just so happens to be a member
of the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin, the same corporation
whose deal for the sale of 30 F-16s [to Turkey] sits in the venerable
halls of Congress at this very moment.” F-16s it must be remembered,
were needed during Turkey’s genocidal War on Terror during the 1990s
because of their usefulness in obliterating Kurdish settlements,
killing civilians and terrifying Kurdish civilians.
It is widely known that the Turkish military used Lockheed Martin
F-16s to assist with the destruction of Kurdish villages in North
Kurdistan during the 1990s Dirty War, with the facts well documented
by human rights groups. In 1995, Human Rights Watch documented arms
sales to Turkey, along with related violations of the laws of war by
that state . . .”[It] included the many gross abuses that Turkey . .
. perpetrated against the Kurdish people [with] the F-16 fighter
jet figure[ing] prominently . . . In a report ordered by the [US]
Congress, the State Department admitted that the abuses included
the use of US Cobra helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and
F-16 fighter bombers. In some instances, critics say, entire Kurdish
villages were obliterated from the air.
“This proposed [new multi-billion dollar] sale in 2006, the
[Pentagon] has claimed, will enhance the Turkish Air Force’s ability
to defend Turkey, no doubt against its internal Kurdish threat in
[the Kurdish] colony in the southeast, and its external one in
southern Kurdistan/Northern Iraq . . . [The aircraft will be used to
patrol the] nation’s extensive coastline and borders against future
threats and to contribute to the Global War on Terrorism and NATO
operations . . . With this in mind, you should ask yourself what,
exactly, General Ralston is coordinating. We all know the real deal,
don’t we? We all know who have been the targets of those F-16s . . .”
Lt. Col. Dickerson: Human Hot Potato . . . Plame & Wilson: Spies
Like Us
On Monday, October 2, Captain Warren Comer (USAF, 374AW/PA, Yakota
Japan) indicated that the USAF could provide no further information
about Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Dickerson, a central figure in the
Edmonds’ matter. “Looking at your request, the only information that
I can confirm to you is what is written in the Fuji Flyer newspaper
that you read. For any other questions on this subject, please refer
to the FBI or the US State Department.”***
Taking Captain Comer’s advice, the US State Department was contacted.
On Tuesday, October 3, Ms Nancy L. Beck (US DOS, PACE) indicated that
“Responding to your inquiry, this is not a matter for the US Department
of State. Recommend you direct your question to the FBI or Department
of Justice.”
Dickerson was recently deployed to the Iraqi theater of operations
where he heads up logistics matters for an element of the USAF. His
handlers in the intelligence community apparently are happy about that
and so must be the public affairs personnel who don’t want anything
to do with him.
In 2002, Dickerson and his spouse, Melek Can, left the country for
Belgium and a quiet post with NATO after Edmonds exposed them as
Turkish operatives or, perhaps, US counterintelligence operatives.
Dickerson and his wife’s activities remain a mystery. According to
various reports, they were once stationed in Ankara, Turkey, in the
1990s, and had contact with Douglas Feith and Marc Grossman. Another
report indicated that in 1995, while in Turkey, Dickerson was the
subject of investigation for accepting money from foreign agents,
whereupon he was abruptly transferred to Germany. In 1999, Major
Douglas Dickerson returned to the United States. His wife, Melek Can
Dickerson, started to work for the American Turkish Council (atc.org)
and related Turkish American business groups.
In 2001, Dickerson was apparently given a position in the weapons
systems acquisition arena with the Pentagon and US Department
of State. Dickerson’s areas of responsibility supposedly included
Turkey, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. He also
had dealings with Eric Edelman, formerly US Ambassador to Turkey and
now with the Pentagon’s Policy Organization. Dickerson was also active
with ATC and Scowcroft. He and his wife associated with several Turkish
and American individuals from the Turkish Embassy and the ATC. Many
of these folks were targeted by FBI counterintelligence for criminal
activity. But thanks to the Turkish government’s penetration of the
highest echelons of the US political / military / intelligence /
corporate apparatus, the Pentagon and US State Department forced the
FBI to back off any criminal investigations that may expose criminal
activity, and untidy and covert operations.
Finally, there’s the perplexing case of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
According to dozens of media reports, Valerie Plame was introduced to
Joe Wilson by Brent Scowcroft at an ATC function. Shortly thereafter,
the pair was invited to a Turkish Embassy function. Quickly after that,
Plame’s CIA WMD operation (Brewster Jennings) was exposed by then
Under Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Coincidently, Dickerson
was in close proximity to Plame and Wilson in the 1999-2002 timeframe
and the Pentagon and US State Department. It seems likely that only a
Turkish operative located somewhere in the US government/intelligence
community would have uncovered that information and disclosed it to
the Turks and their US sympathizers.
Was it Wilson? Dickerson? Armitage?
More fallout is to come from the Edmonds’ matter and the word in the
Washington, DC-Metro is that it will involve some individuals named
in this piece.
References
* Email to FBI PA Bill Carter from John Stanton. Thanks
to Mir Carter and the FBI, plus the reference to
usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/index.htm. The CIA, DOD-IG, DEA and Turkish
Intelligence did respond.
** From the October 2006 electronic edition of Variant: Cross Currents
in Culture, No. 27, Winter 2006 variant.randomstate.org and from
Chapter 5 of the book by Desmond Fernandes and Iskender Ozden (2006)
US, UK, German and NATO ‘Inspired’ Psychological Warfare Operations
Against The Kurdish ‘Communist’ Threat in Turkey and Northern Iraq
(Apec Press, Stockholm)
*** 8.pdf
John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national
security and political matters. Reach him at [email protected]
an/publish/article_1355.shtml

www.yokota.af.mil/BaseNews/FujiFlyer/2006/Sept%200

Will Serge Sargsyan Cheat The Republicans?

WILL SERGE SARGSYAN CHEAT THE REPUBLICANS?
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 20 2006
When during the dramatic July 22 conference the Republican Party
elected chair of its Council, the chair of this council announced
that they started a process which would produce its first fruits in
three of four months. The new chair of the Council even stated that
everyone would see these fruits. On October 24 this statement, which
was made by Serge Sargsyan, is three months and two days old. Since
one of the Republican leaders was hosted by the Hayeli Club today,
namely the leader of the Republican faction Gagik Melikyan, we tried to
inquire from him whether the Republicans have already seen the fruits,
as the chair of the Council had promised. And we asked Gagik Melikyan
to tell us about some if them if they have already seen them.
Gagik Melikyan turned down our request but do not think that because
he was unwilling. Simply there are no fruits. Moreover, Gagik Melikyan
was unaware of the statement made by the chair of the Council of his
party, either because he is indifferent towards Serge Sargsyan or he
was mad with joy about his election.
Gagik Melikyan announced that in case of effective work of three or
four months there will be the first fruits, and people will see them.
However, we made it clear for him that Serge Sargsyan had made this
statement three months ago and he had meant three or four months from
July 22 and not three or four months from October 24.
Gagik Melikyan answered with a question, “What does “first fruits”
mean?” We are sorry to tell the respectable member of parliament
that he should ask this question to the person who spoke about these
fruits and not us. And we note especially for Gagik Melikyan that this
person was Serge Sargsyan, the chair of the council Gagik Melikyan
is a member too. And it is necessary to find this out as quickly
as possible because the date of the “first fruits” is expiring,
and if the Republicans fail to find out from Serge Sargsyan what
“first fruits” means, after the deadline the defense minister can
offer whatever he wants as first fruits, and in three or four months
offer to the Republicans the apricots which rotted in Verin Lars.

BAKU: Karabakh Talks Kick Off In Paris – Azeri Agency

KARABAKH TALKS KICK OFF IN PARIS – AZERI AGENCY
Turan News Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 24 2006
Baku, 24 October: A meeting between Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov and Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan started in
Paris at 0900 local time (1200 Baku time) [0700 gmt].
The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group on the Karabakh settlement
are taking part in the talks as well.

Armenia Opens Door To Large Markets – Russia, East, Asia

ARMENIA OPENS DOOR TO LARGE MARKETS – RUSSIA, EAST, ASIA
PanARMENIAN.Net
24.10.2006 17:20 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ French Ambassador to Armenia is content with the
volume of French investments into the economy of Armenia and the number
of French enterprises functioning in Armenia, French Ambassador to
Armenia Henry Cuny stated in the course of a farewell news conference
owing to ending his tenure in the country. In his words, Armenia by
itself is not a large market, taking into account demographic factors
and the paying capacity of the population. However, taking into account
the geographic location of the republic, Armenia is a promising door
to large markets – Russia, East, Asia. At that the French diplomat
cited the example of Pernod Ricard company, which exports 95% of its
produce from Armenia. Of course the situation would be different, if
speaking of open borders of Armenia was possible, Henry Cuny said. At
that he noted that wide prospects for fields not demanding transport
expenses are opening in Armenia – information and high technologies.

ANCA Announces Congressional Endorsements

Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
October 24, 2006
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
ANCA ANNOUNCES CONGRESSIONAL ENDORSEMENTS
— Throws Community’s Support Behind 16 U.S. Senate
and 196 House Pro-Armenian American Candidates
WASHINGTON, DC – With just two weeks to go before the most hotly
contested Congressional election in more than a decade, the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) today released its
2006 endorsements, throwing the political and electoral strength of
the Armenian American community behind supportive candidates for
the Senate and House of Representatives from forty U.S. States.
“We are pleased to offer our Congressional endorsements as a
resource to help Armenian American voters make informed decisions
at the ballot box on November 7th,” said ANCA Executive Director
Aram Hamparian. “With so many races being closely contested, we
encourage all Armenian Americans to go to the polls and support
each of our friends, starting in New Jersey with Senator Bob
Menendez – ANCA’s top electoral priority for 2006.”
To the acclaim of Armenian Americans from the Garden State and
throughout the nation, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), last month,
placed a hold on the confirmation of Richard Hoagland, the
President’s highly controversial nominee for U.S. Ambassador to
Armenia, due to his statements denying the Armenian Genocide. The
ANC of New Jersey has mobilized volunteers, donors, and voters
across the state to support the Senator’s campaign.
The ANCA endorsements are based primarily on the ANCA Congressional
Report Card, a detailed review of each incumbent’s record across a
broad range of Armenian American issues. These Report Cards,
prepared in consultation with local ANCA chapters across the
country, cover issues ranging from securing a just resolution of
the Armenian Genocide and the strengthening U.S.-Armenia relations
to defending Nagorno Karabagh’s independence and increasing U.S.
aid and trade levels.
Among the specific criteria measured were membership in the
Armenian Caucus and willingness to advance pro-Armenian American
legislation, including the Armenian Genocide resolutions, the
Railroad bill, measures against Turkey and Azerbaijan’s illegal
blockades, as well as legislative initiatives to end the genocide
that is taking place today in Darfur. Also considered was the
level of support for Congressional initiatives demanding the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide, calling for increased aid to
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, supporting the Republic of Nagorno
Karabagh’s independence, protesting PBS’s decision to provide a
platform for Armenian Genocide deniers, and standing up against the
unjustified firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, and
protesting the President’s unacceptable nominee to replace him in
Yerevan.
Complete information about grading criteria as well as individual
ANCA Report Cards will be posted on the ANCA Website on Friday,
October 27th.
A complete list of ANCA Congressional endorsements is provided
below.
#####
ANCA 2006 Congressional Endorsements
Arizona:
District #4: Ed Pastor (D)
District #7: Raul Grijalva (D)
Arkansas:
District #1: Marion Berry (D)
District #4: Mike Ross (D)
California:
Senate: Dianne Feinstein (D)
District #1: Mike Thompson (D)
District #3: Dan Lungren (R)
District #4: John Doolittle (R)
District #5: Doris Matsui (D)
District #6: Lynn Woolsey (D)
District #7: George Miller (D)
District #8: Nancy Pelosi (D)
District #9: Barbara Lee (D)
District #10: Ellen Tauscher (D)
District #11: Richard Pombo (R)
District #13: Pete Stark (D)
District #14: Anna Eshoo (D)
District #15: Michael Honda (D)
District #16: Zoe Lofgren (D)
District #17: Sam Farr (D)
District #18: Dennis Cardoza (D)
District #19: George Radanovich (R)
District #20: Jim Costa (D)
District #21: Devin Nunes (R)
District #23: Lois Capps (D)
District #24: Elton Gallegly (R)
District #25: Buck McKeon (R)
District #27: Brad Sherman (D)
District #28: Howard Berman (D)
District #29: Adam Schiff (D)
District #30: Henry Waxman (D)
District #31: Xavier Becerra (D)
District #32: Hilda Solis (D)
District #33: Diane Watson (D)
District #34: Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
District #35: Maxine Waters (D)
District #37: Juanita Millender-McDonald (D)
District #38: Grace Napolitano (D)
District #39: Linda Sanchez (D)
District #40: Edward Royce (R)
District #43: Joe Baca (D)
District #44: Ken Calvert (R)
District #45: Mary Bono (R)
District #46: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
District #47: Loretta Sanchez (D)
District #48: John Campbell (R)
District #49: Darrell Issa (R)
District #51: Bob Filner (D)
District #53: Susan Davis (D)
Colorado:
District #1: Diana DeGette (D)
District #2: Mark Udall (D)
District #4: Marilyn Musgrave (R)
Connecticut:
Senate: Joe Lieberman (I)
District #1: John Larson (D)
District #2: Rob Simmons (R)
District #3: Rosa DeLauro (D)
District #4: Christopher Shays (R)
District #5: Nancy Johnson (R)
District of Columbia:
At Large: Eleanor Holmes Norton (D)
Florida:
District #14: Connie Mack (R)
District #17: Kendrick Meek (D)
District #18: Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R)
District #21: Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R)
District #22: E. Clay Shaw (R)
Georgia:
District #3: James Marshall (D)
District #5: John Lewis (D)
District #12: John Barrow (D)
District #13: David Scott (D)
Hawaii:
Senate: Daniel Akaka (D)
District #1: Neil Abercrombie (D)
Illinois:
District #1: Bobby Rush (D)
District #2: Jesse Jackson (D)
District #3: Daniel Lipinski (D)
District #4: Luis Gutierrez (D)
District #7: Danny Davis (D)
District #8: Melissa Bean (D)
District #9: Janice Schakowsky (D)
District #10: Mark Kirk (R)
District #11: Gerald Weller (R)
District #12: Jerry Costello (D)
District #19: John Shimkus (R)
Indiana:
District #1: Peter Visclosky (D)
District #3: Mark Souder (R)
District #6: Mike Pence (R)
Iowa:
District #2: Jim Leach (R)
Kansas
District #1: Jerry Moran (R)
District #3: Dennis Moore (D)
Kentucky:
District #6: Ben Chandler (D)
Louisiana:
District #3: Charlie Melancon (D)
Maine:
Senate: Olympia Snowe (R)
District #1: Tom Allen (D)
District #2: Michael Michaud (D)
Maryland:
Senate: Ben Cardin (D) – OPEN SEAT
District #4: Albert Wynn (D)
District #5: Steny Hoyer (D)
District #8: Christopher Van Hollen (D)
Massachusetts:
Senate: Edward Kennedy (D)
District #1: John Olver (D)
District #2: Richard Neal (D)
District #3: James McGovern (D)
District #4: Barney Frank (D)
District #5: Martin Meehan (D)
District #6: John Tierney (D)
District #7: Edward Markey (D)
District #8: Michael Capuano (D)
District #9: Stephen Lynch (D)
District #10: William Delahunt (D)
Michigan:
Senate: Debbie Stabenow (D)
District #4: Dave Camp (R)
District #5: Dale Kildee (D)
District #8: Mike Rogers (R)
District #9: Joe Knollenberg (R)
District #10: Candice Miller (R)
District #11: Thaddeus McCotter (R)
District #12: Sander Levin (D)
District #13: Carolyn Kilpatrick (D)
District #14: John Conyers (D)
District #15: John Dingell (D)
Minnesota:
District #4: Betty McCollum (D)
District #7: Collin Peterson (D)
Mississippi:
District #2: Bennie Thompson (D)
Missouri:
District #1: William Clay (D)
District #3: Russ Carnahan (D)
District #5: Emanuel Cleaver (D)
Nevada:
Senate: John Ensign (R)
District #1: Shelley Berkley (D)
District #3: Jon Porter (R)
New Hampshire:
District #1: Jeb Bradley (R)
District #2: Charles Bass (R)
New Jersey:
Senate: Robert Menendez (D)
District #1: Robert Andrews (D)
District #2: Frank LoBiondo (R)
District #3: H. James Saxton (R)
District #4: Christopher Smith (R)
District #5: Scott Garrett (R)
District #6: Frank Pallone (D)
District #7: Mike Ferguson (R)
District #9: Steven Rothman (D)
District #10: Donald Payne (D)
District #11: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)
District #12: Rush Holt (D)
New York:
Senate: Hillary Clinton (D)
District #1: Tim Bishop (D)
District #2: Steve Israel (D)
District #4: Carolyn McCarthy (D)
District #5: Gary Ackerman (D)
District #6: Gregory Meeks (D)
District #7: Joseph Crowley (D)
District #8: Jerrold Nadler (D)
District #9: Anthony Weiner (D)
District #10: Edolphus Towns (D)
District #12: Nydia Velazquez (D)
District #14: Carolyn Maloney (D)
District #15: Charles Rangel (D)
District #17: Eliot Engel (D)
District #18: Nita Lowey (D)
District #19: Sue Kelly (R)
District #20: John Sweeney (R)
District #21: Michael McNulty (D)
District #22: Maurice Hinchey (D)
District #23: John McHugh (R)
District #29: John Randy Kuhl (R)
North Carolina:
District #7: Mike McIntyre (D)
Ohio:
Senate: Sherrod Brown (D) – CHALLENGER
District #1: Steve Chabot (R)
District #2: Victoria Wulisin (D) – CHALLENGER
District #9: Marcy Kaptur (D)
District #10: Dennis Kucinich (D)
District #11: Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D)
District #17: Tim Ryan (D)
Oklahoma:
District #2: Dan Boren (D)
Oregon:
District #3: Earl Blumenauer (D)
District #4: Peter DeFazio (D)
Pennsylvania:
Senate: Richard Santorum (R)
District #2: Chaka Fattah (D)
District #3: Phil English (R)
District #6: Jim Gerlach (R)
District #7: Curt Weldon (R)
District #8: Mike Fitzpatrick (R)
District #13: Allyson Schwartz (D)
District #14: Mike Doyle (D)
District #15: Charles Dent (R)
District #17: Tim Holden (D)
Rhode Island:
District #1: Patrick Kennedy (D)
District #2: James Langevin (D)
South Carolina:
District #2: Joe Wilson (R)
South Dakota:
At Large#: Stephanie Herseth (D)
Tennessee:
District #3: Zach Wamp (R)
District #4: Lincoln Davis (D)
Texas:
District #9: Al Green (D)
District #18: Sheila Jackson Lee (D)
District #20: Charlie Gonzalez (D)
District #22: Nick Lampson (D) – OPEN SEAT
District #25: Lloyd Doggett (D)
District #29: Gene Green (D)
Utah:
District #2: Jim Matheson (D)
Vermont:
Senate: Bernie Sanders (I) – OPEN SEAT
Virginia:
Senate: George Allen (R)
District #1: Jo Ann Davis (R)
District #7: Eric Cantor (R)
District #8: James Moran (D)
District #10: Frank Wolf (R)
Washington:
Senate: Maria Cantwell (D)
District #3: Brian Baird (D)
District #5: Cathy McMorris (R)
District #7: Jim McDermott (D)
Wisconsin:
Senate: Herb Kohl (D)
District #1: Paul Ryan (R)
District #2: Tammy Baldwin (D)
District #3: Ron Kind (D)
District #4: Gwen Moore (D)
District #5: F. James Sensenbrenner (R)

www.anca.org

Experts At Council Of Europe To Help Armenia Complete Elaboration Of

EXPERTS AT COUNCIL OF EUROPE TO HELP ARMENIA COMPLETE ELABORATION OF LAW ON TELEVISION AND RADIO
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 20 2006
YEREVAN, October 20. /ARKA/. Experts at Council of Europe will help
Armenia complete elaboration of the law on television and radio,
the CE Secretary General Special Envoy Bojana Urumova said Friday in
Yerevan, at a seminar focused on freedom of speech.
Urumova said that the Council of Europe has helped Armenia elaborate
the law on freedom of information in conformity with European
standards.
Armenian Ombudsman Armen Harutyunyan, in his turn, said Armenia
is a country of transition period and democracy here is still
underdeveloped, and the same goes with the freedom of speech.
Armenian lawmakers voted down bill on radio and television and
National Radio and Television Commission regulations at the first
reading last month.
Under the amendments, the commission will be made up of eight members,
half of which will be elected by the parliament for a six-year term.
Other four members will be appointed by the country president.
The bill also lifts restrictions for Public television and Radio to
advertise by removing the provision restricting commercials duration
to 5% of total duration of programs from the law.

Armenian and Iranian Armenian Architects Have Goal To Exchange Exper

ARMENIAN AND IRANIAN ARMENIAN ARCHITECTS HAVE GOAL TO EXCHANGE EXPERIENCE
TEHRAN, OCTOBER 20, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The “Alik” daily
received on October 18 Chairman of Architects’ Union of Armenia
Mkrtich Minasian and the architect of the Genocide victims memorial
complex in Armenia Sashur Kalashian accompanied by Abraham Ayvazian,
the Chairman of the Union of Armenian Architects and Engineers in
Iran. According to the “Alik” daily, architects arrived in Armenia
visited Iran by the invitation of the Union of Armenian Architects and
Engineers. Mkrtich Minasian mentioned during the meeting that the goal
of the visit is to bring closer the character of the sides’ works,
to pass what happens in Armenia in the sphere of urban development,
what achievements the Armenian architects have in Iran as well as to
direct works in one direction and to closely cooperate.

ANKARA: Chomsky’s Publishers On Trial

BÝA, Turkey
Oct 20 2006
Chomsky’s Publishers On Trial
Publishers of the translation of Chomsky’s “Role of Mass Media:
Manufacturing of Consent” tell court it shouldn’t be them facing the
bench. Publisher Tas, translator Abadoglu, editor Tosun and Kurhan
face up to six years in jail, if found guilty.
BIA News Center
19/10/2006 Erol ONDEROGLU
BÝA (Istanbul) – Four people have been charged this week for
involvement in the publishing of a Turkish language translation of
American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky ‘s “Role of Mass
Media: Manufacturing of Consent” facing 1.5 to 6 years imprisonment
if found guilty.
Aram Publishing House executive Fatih Tas, the book’s translator
Ender Abadoglu, editor Lutfi Taylan Tosun and Omer Faruk Kurhan, one
of the redactors of the book, turned up for the first hearing of the
case at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance flanked by
their lawyers on Wednesday.
All suspects are accused under articles 216 and 301 of the Turkish
Penal Code for “publicly denigrating Turkishness, the Republic and
the Parliament” and “inciting hatred and enmity among the people”.
The first trial saw presiding judge Sevim Efendiler agreeing with
public prosecutor Kadir Nazmi Yelkenci’s opinion and rejecting
attorney Ozcan Kilic’s request for the case file to be postponed as
“criminal liability” outlined in article 11/4 of the Press Law was
contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human
Rights.
Addressing the court at the start of the hearing, translator Abadoglu
explained, “The opinions in the book are opinions of the author. I
believe the translator cannot be held responsible for these
opinions”.
Abadoglu referred to the recent ordeal of the Armenian genocide bill
in the French Parliament and said that although opinions in favor of
an Armenian genocide having taken place were translated into Turkish
press reports non of the translators had been prosecuted.
“It is wrong to put publishers and translators on trial”
In his statement to the court, Tosun said his function was that of
ensuring the book was properly translated from its original and
expressed in good Turkish.
“As far as I checked it,” he said, “there was no problem in the
translation”. Tosun added “I did not see any factors of offence in
the work”.
Publisher Tas said he saw it inappropriate that he and the
translators were being put on trial for a book whose author was will
arrive and defended that the book itself was an analysis of the media
wit
h international importance.
The last defendant to address the court was Kurhan who said he had
noticed no statement in the book that could be charged under article
216 on “inciting hated and enmity” and argued that the very sole of
controversial article 301 served to protect the immunity of the state
and was open to interpretations and mistakes.
After the defendants made their statements, attorney Inan Yilmaz
referred to author Noam Chomsky saying “If we are putting an author,
linguist and a professor of philosophy with international importance
on trial, we should give these individuals the right to defend
themselves in the courts of the land”.
“My client before you has translated the work of this writer who we
cannot pt on trial. Unfortunately with such cases we are living in
the shadows” he said.
Defendants to give written defense
Stressing that none of the four suspects on trial were being charged
for their own opinions, attorney Ugur Demirci denied the allegations
and informed the court it would be receiving a written defense.
Of the defense lawyers, Ozcan Kilic said the book targeted the United
States and added “US operations, massacres and coups throughout the
world are being explained. The way these reflect in the media are
being revealed. In this context it is a strange situation that four
people are on trial under articles 216 and 301”.
Having heard the initial defense arguments, judge Efendiler agreed to
give time for written statements to be prepared and adjourned the
court to December 20.
John Tirman’s case continues
This week’s case against Aram Publishing House comes in the footsteps
of another trial involving a Turkish translation of an American
author’s work.
In September, the same court heard charges against translators Lutfi
Taylan Tosun and Aysel Yildirim alongside Aram Publishing House owner
Fatih Tas for the Turkish language copy of John Tirman’s book “Spoils
of War: The Human Cost of America’s Arms Trade”.
If found guilty on the charges of “publicly denigrating the armed
forces” and “insulting [modern Turkey’s founder] Ataturk” through
content originally written by Tirman himself, each of those
defendants face up to 6.5 years imprisonment.
Both translators in Tirman’s book case also rejected the accusations
while Tas’s attorney Ozcan Kilic rejected the trial of the publisher
on grounds that the author of the work was known and there was no
reason to put a publisher on trial just because the author lived
abroad.
The investigation into the Turkish language copy of “Spoils of War:
The Human Cost of America’s Arms Trade” started in November 2005. It
covers various excerpts in Tirman’s work that focuses on criticism of
US policy in the Middle East – arguing that dollars earned through
the arms trade led to support of militarization in the region while
holding back essential democratic reforms.
Subject to the Istanbul charges are sections of the book relating to
severe human rights violations allegedly committed by security forces
in the 1990s inclusive of claims of “white genocide”, assimilation,
censorship and denial of cultural rights.
The Tirman case will continue in Istanbul on November 29.
(EO/II/YE/EU)
–Boundary_(ID_AwYwuTD7dEFzluBH nPqxbw)–

This is the moment for Europe to dismantle taboos, not erect them

The Guardian, UK
Oct 19 2006
This is the moment for Europe to dismantle taboos, not erect them
Far from criminalising denial of the Armenian genocide, we should
decriminalise denial of the Holocaust
Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday October 19, 2006
The Guardian
What a magnificent blow for truth, justice and humanity the French
national assembly has struck. Last week it voted for a bill that
would make it a crime to deny that the Turks committed genocide
against the Armenians during the first world war. Bravo! Chapeau bas!
Vive la France! But let this be only a beginning in a brave new
chapter of European history. Let the British parliament now make it a
crime to deny that it was Russians who murdered Polish officers at
Katyn in 1940. Let the Turkish parliament make it a crime to deny
that France used torture against insurgents in Algeria.
Let the German parliament pass a bill making it a crime to deny the
existence of the Soviet gulag. Let the Irish parliament criminalise
denial of the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. Let the Spanish
parliament mandate a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment for anyone who
claims that the Serbs did not attempt genocide against Albanians in
Kosovo. And the European parliament should immediately pass into
European law a bill making it obligatory to describe as genocide the
American colonists’ treatment of Native Americans. The only pity is
that we, in the European Union, can’t impose the death sentence for
these heinous thought crimes. But perhaps, with time, we may change
that too.
Oh brave new Europe! It is entirely beyond me how anyone in their
right mind – apart, of course, from a French-Armenian lobbyist – can
regard this draft bill, which in any case will almost certainly be
voted down in the upper house of the French parliament, as a
progressive and enlightened step. What right has the parliament of
France to prescribe by law the correct historical terminology to
characterise what another nation did to a third nation 90 years ago?
If the French parliament passed a law making it a crime to deny the
complicity of Vichy France in the deportation to the death camps of
French Jews, I would still argue that this was a mistake, but I could
respect the self-critical moral impulse behind it.
This bill, by contrast, has no more moral or historical justification
than any of the other suggestions I have just made. Yes, there are
some half a million French citizens of Armenian origin – including
Charles Aznavour, who was once Varinag Aznavourian – and they have
been pressing for it. There are at least that number of British
citizens of Polish origin, so there would be precisely the same
justification for a British bill on Katyn. Step forward Mr Denis
MacShane, a British MP of Polish origin, to propose it – in a spirit
of satire, of course. Or how about British MPs of Pakistani and
Indian origin proposing rival bills on the history of Kashmir?
In a leading article last Friday, the Guardian averred that
“supporters of the law are doubtless motivated by a sincere desire to
redress a 90-year-old injustice”. I wish that I could be so
confident. Currying favour with French-Armenian voters and putting
another obstacle in the way of Turkey joining the European Union
might be suggested as other motives; but speculation about motives is
a mug’s game.
It will be obvious to every intelligent reader that my argument has
nothing to do with questioning the suffering of the Armenians who
were massacred, expelled or felt impelled to flee in fear of their
lives during and after the first world war. Their fate at the hands
of the Turks was terrible and has been too little recalled in the
mainstream of European memory. Reputable historians and writers have
made a strong case that those events deserve the label of genocide,
as it has been defined since 1945. In fact, Orhan Pamuk – this year’s
winner of the Nobel prize for literature – and other Turkish writers
have been prosecuted under the notorious article 301 of the Turkish
penal code for daring to suggest exactly that. That is significantly
worse than the intended effects of the French bill. But two wrongs
don’t make a right.
No one can legislate historical truth. In so far as historical truth
can be established at all, it must be found by unfettered historical
research, with historians arguing over the evidence and the facts,
testing and disputing each other’s claims without fear of prosecution
or persecution.
In the tense ideological politics of our time, this proposed bill is
a step in exactly the wrong direction. How can we credibly criticise
Turkey, Egypt or other states for curbing free speech, through the
legislated protection of historical, national or religious
shibboleths, if we are doing ever more of it ourselves? This weekend
in Venice I once again heard a distinguished Muslim scholar rail
against our double standards. We ask them to accept insults to Muslim
taboos, he said, but would the Jews accept that someone should be
free to deny the Holocaust?
Far from creating new legally enforced taboos about history, national
identity and religion, we should be dismantling those that still
remain on our statute books. Those European countries that have them
should repeal not only their blasphemy laws but also their laws on
Holocaust denial. Otherwise the charge of double standards is
impossible to refute. What’s sauce for the goose must be sauce for
the gander.
I recently heard the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy going
through some impressive intellectual contortions to explain why he
opposed any laws restricting criticism of religion but supported
those on Holocaust denial. It was one thing, he argued, to question a
religious belief, quite another to deny a historical fact. But this
won’t wash. Historical facts are established precisely by their being
disputed and tested against the evidence. Without that process of
contention – up to and including the revisionist extreme of outright
denial – we would never discover which facts are truly hard.
Such consistency requires painful decisions. For example, I have
nothing but abhorrence for some of David Irving’s recorded views
about Nazi Germany’s attempted extermination of the Jews – but I am
quite certain that he should not be sitting in an Austrian prison as
a result of them. You may riposte that the falsehood of some of his
claims was actually established by a trial in a British court. Yes,
but that was not the British state prosecuting him for Holocaust
denial. It was Irving himself going to court to sue another historian
who suggested he was a Holocaust denier. He was trying to curb free
and fair historical debate; the British court defended it.
Today, if we want to defend free speech in our own countries and to
encourage it in places where it is currently denied, we should be
calling for David Irving to be released from his Austrian prison. The
Austrian law on Holocaust denial is far more historically
understandable and morally respectable than the proposed French one –
at least the Austrians are facing up to their own difficult past,
rather than pointing the finger at somebody else’s – but in the
larger European interest we should encourage the Austrians to repeal
it.
Only when we are prepared to allow our own most sacred cows to be
poked in the eye can we credibly demand that Islamists, Turks and
others do the same. This is a time not for erecting taboos but for
dismantling them. We must practice what we preach.

ANKARA: Amnesty International gives sharp reaction against France

Amnesty International gives sharp reaction against France
Sabah, Turkey
Oct 20 2006
“The legislative proposal which imposes a penalty to those who
deny the Armenian genocide is violating the freedom of speech. The
legislative proposal is against the 10th article of the European
Court of Human Rights.”
Amnesty International has announced that the legislative proposal which
was approved in France last week is “seriously violating the freedom
of speech.” In a statement published by the Amnesty International
it was stated that the organization fears of approval of the bill
in the French Parliament. The statement asked Jacques Chirac to
preclude the proposal to become a law. The statement also indicates
that the proposal violates the 10th article of the European Court of
Human Rights.