The Washington Times
March 10, 2006 Friday

Q&A: Terrorism and tenure;
Author warns of communists, jihadists and other ‘dangerous’
professors

By Robert Stacy McCain, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

They are Marxists, anti-Semites, terrorists, purveyors of crackpot
conspiracy theories – and they hold positions of lifetime tenure at
some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. These are some of
the campus figures profiled in David Horowitz’s new book, “The
Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.”

Himself a former radical in the 1960s’ “New Left,” Mr. Horowitz is
the president of the California-based Center for the Study of Popular
Culture and the founder of the Web site The
following are excerpts of an e-mail interview with Mr. Horowitz:

Question: What inspired you to write this book?

Answer: Twenty years in the trenches, speaking at universities and
seeing what the left had done to them. As my book shows, radicals
have colonized whole departments and fields at universities that are
both public and private, large and small, secular and religious and
turned into indoctrination and recruitment centers for the
anti-American left. My book features full professors who are
followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, members of the Central Committee
of the [U.S.] Communist Party, active and unrepentant terrorists,
anti-white racists and anti-Semites.

Q: Do most parents of college students – or most taxpayers, in the
case of state universities – know what they’re paying for at these
schools?

A: A friend of mine was the chairman of the board of trustees of a
major state university for 15 years. He said to me, “In all those
years I never knew what was going on in the classrooms at my
university.” I think he is typical. Even I didn’t realize quite how
bad it was until I wrote this book. I hope it will open people’s
eyes.

Q: I was surprised to find that Stanford University professor Paul
Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” was still teaching. Hasn’t
he been thoroughly discredited?

A: In the university in the social sciences and humanities, there is
no bottom line for bad ideas. In the real world, a Marxist would be
regarded as a flat-Earthist, yet in the university they occupy
positions as professors of history, political science and even (at
the University of Massachusetts) economists.

Q: Another mind-boggling example: Bernardine Dohrn, a former leader
of the violent Weather Underground. How can she be a law professor at
Northwestern University?

A: How can her husband and fellow-terrorist [Bill Ayers] be a
“Distinguished Professor of Early Childhood Education” at the
University of Illinois? The answer to both questions: Sympathizers
with their terrorist political agendas control the search and hiring
and tenure committees. There is really no other explanation.

Q: What are some of the other examples from the book that you found
particularly surprising?

A: Nothing surprises me after the research I did on this book. Hamid
Algar is a professor of Islamic studies at the University of
California at Berkeley. He is an ardent follower of the Ayatollah
Khomeini. Before 9/11 he gave a speech in Tehran at a memorial for
Khomeini in which he called for armed jihad against the West and for
the disappearing of Israel from the face of the Earth. He also told
Armenian students they deserved to be massacred. No administrative
action was taken against him.

Many professors profiled in my book express genocidal views towards
Israel, and one professor of ethnic studies at the University of
Texas has expressed the “scholarly” view that “we have got to
eliminate the gringo … we have got to kill him.”

Q: This is bound to be a very controversial book. What are some of
the criticisms you’ve had so far?

A: The academic leftists are really in an indefensible position, as
these quotations should make clear. So they have an incoherent
defense. Their first tack is to accuse the book of being a McCarthy
list, but in the next breath they are proclaiming how proud they are
to be on it. I happen to be the son of communist parents who were
blacklisted in the 1950s. I can tell you that they did not want to be
on any list.

These tenured radicals are in a very secure position and they know
it. Ward Churchill is still a $120,000-a-year professor at the
University of Colorado, while his president was forced to resign over
the scandal he created. What these people fear is not being fired;
it’s being embarrassed. And I hope their fears prove justified.

Q: Does the fact that people like Angela Davis and Ward Churchill can
become tenured professors argue in favor of the academic freedom
legislation you’ve supported in Colorado, Pennsylvania and other
states?

A: My academic freedom legislation is the beginning of a solution to
this problem. We need to take politics out of our classrooms at both
the university and the K-12 level. Before I go, I’d like to let your
readers know that I’ve created a Web site at
where they can follow the fun.

Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
March 10 2006

STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING

MARCH 10, 2006

SPEAKER: TOM CASEY,
STATE DEPARTMENT ACTING SPOKESMAN

[parts omitted]

QUESTION: Is the U.S. ambassador to Armenia having his time there cut
short, maybe his career?

QUESTION: A couple of congressmen have asked Secretary Rice about it;
apparently not got an answer.

He’s supposed to have suggested that the Armenians were the victims
of genocide, which doesn’t happen to be Bush administration policy.

CASEY: I think Sean addressed this a couple of days ago.

QUESTION: I think it’s been brought further up to date, if you
could…

CASEY: I don’t have anything beyond what he said on it. I’ll look
into it for you and see if there’s any change in the situation.

QUESTION: He said ambassadors serve at the privilege of the
president, or something.

CASEY: Yes, and as far as I know, he’s still at post and still
ambassador. I’m not aware that anything has changed that situation.

QUESTION: You can’t — well, all right, if you don’t have anything
further.

CASEY: I think I’ll look into it for you. I haven’t gotten an update
on it, but I’ll try and see if there’s something and we’ll post an
answer for you later.

QUESTION: And also, somebody ghosted an answer from the secretary to
Mr. Schiff and the other congressman.

CASEY: OK. I’ll let you know.

[the rest omitted]

Congressional Quarterly
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 9, 2006 Thursday

CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

HOUSE JUDICIARY

SUBCOMMITTEE: COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

NOTARIZATION AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE

BILL-NO:
H.R. 1458

TESTIMONY-BY: DEAN M. GOOGASIAN, PRACTICING ATTORNEY

AFFILIATION: THE GOOGASIAN FIRM

BODY:
Statement of Dean M. Googasian Practicing Attorney, The Googasian
Firm

Committee on House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and
Intellectual Properties

March 9, 2006

I am pleased to appear and provide the following testimony before the
subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual property in
support ofH.R.1458 which would provide enhanced recognition of
affidavits and other notarized documents. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today in support of legislation which would
require recognition of notarized documents from state to state
because, from my perspective and experience as a practicing attorney,
this is an important issue that needs attention. My law practice is
located in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, which is a suburb of Detroit.
I have had the pleasure during my career to practice in several
different legal areas, from clerking on the Michigan Supreme Court,
to serving as Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice, to
practicing commercial and other litigation. My current practice at
The Googasian Finn is entirely in litigation, and I represent
corporations and individuals in civil lawsuits. I am not a notary
public, but Ideal with and rely on notarized documents in my
practice. In fact, notarized documents, and the recognition of
notarized documents in courts in my state, are an integral part of my
practice. Legislation requiring recognition of affidavits from other
states is needed badly, and I am pleased the panel is considering
this legislation.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION ENHANCING INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF
NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS

Many documents require notarization, including the affidavits that I
and countless other lawyers rely on for a myriad of reasons in our
daily practice. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an affidavit as “[a]
voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the
declarant before an officer authorized to 1 administer oaths, such as
a notary public.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8’h Ed, 2004. An affidavit
becomes notarized when the notary public before whom the affidavit is
sworn confirms on the face of the affidavit that the person signing
the affidavit is actually the person identified byname in the
affidavit. Affidavits and other notarized documents are used for
numerous purposes in everyday business transactions, personal and
real estate transactions, and in court proceedings as well. In court
cases, affidavits are used at every stage of litigation as a means of
putting sworn testimony before a court without the necessity of
calling witnesses physically to appear and testify. Affidavits are
required to support certain types of claims and defenses, as well as
to support and oppose motions for summary judgment seeking to dismiss
cases. Id. Affidavits are an efficient and expedient way to provide
the factual testimony needed in many court proceedings and serve to
reduce the cost of litigation and use of court time. The legislation
under consideration by the committee would modernize and streamline
the use of affidavits in state and federal courts.

Streamlining the use of affidavits and other notarized documents from
state to state is important because we live in an age of national and
global competition where speed is increasingly essential to success
in business and litigation. The difference between accomplishing a
goal or failing, closing a deal or letting it slip away, winning a
customer or client or losing it to the competition, or prevailing in
litigation is often determined by speed and efficiency. The advanced
technology we enjoy and use in our professions, including our
wireless phones, the internet, our pda’s and other mobile handheld
devices and laptop computers, is in large measure a result of this
relentless demand for speed and efficiency.

We live in an electronic age and many of the transactions that we
engage in on a daily basis are completed electronically. Today, the
business, organization or government office without a website seems
the exception, rather than the rule. Consumers every year make an
ever increasing portion of their annual purchases with their credit
cards over the internet. The U. S. Census Bureau has reported that
e-commerce for the fourth quarter of2005 was $22.9 billion, an
increase of23 % from the same period the year before.

Total e-commerce sales for 2005 were estimated to be more than $86
billion, an increase of more than 24% from the year before. Id.

No longer satisfied with dial-up internet access, which struck
manyusers with awe and wonder when it first appeared, more and more
Americans and others from around the world are now insisting on, and
paying for, broadband high speed internet access. The Federal
Communications Commission reported in December 2004 that the number
of high speed internet lines was increasing at a rate of ‘3 8% per
year.

Speed and efficiency are the hallmark of effective business in 2006.
In his book, Business @The

Speed of Thought, author Bill Gates wrote:

If the 1980s were about quality and the 1990s were about
reengineering, then the 2000s will be about velocity. About how
quickly the nature of business will change. About how quickly
business itselfwill be transacted. About how information access will
alter the lifestyle of consumers and their expectations of business.
Quality improvements and business process improvements will occur far
faster.

The ease and speed of technology in general and the internet in
particular in this electronic age permeate every aspect of the
government as well as the private sector. Twenty years ago if a
constituent wanted to find a particular government document she would
write her representative and request it and a copy might be sent by
mail or she might be able to obtain it by traveling to her local
library. Today, that same constituent can obtain the document
instantly and inexpensively, as I did in preparation for my testimony
today, by simply accessing it through a high-speed internet
connection.

In addition to its efforts to provide information electronically, our
federal government has also put e-commerce to work in its own
transactions. Effective October 10, 2000, federal legislation
instructs that “[t]he head of each executive agency shall establish,
maintain, and use, to the maximum extent that is practicable and
cost-effective, procedures and processes that employ electronic
commerce in the conduct and administration of its procurement
system.” 41 U.S.C. 426.

Just as legislation exists that requires the heads of executive
agencies to use e-commerce, many other laws on the federal and state
level have been changed to keep up with velocity of electronic
transactions. Congress has taken steps to ensure that advances in the
speed of business aren’t hindered by outdated laws. The Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, located at 15 U.S.C.
7001, for example, sets forth certain principles to “promote the
acceptance and … use of electronic signatures.” 15 U.S.C. 7031. The
first principle is to “remove paper-based obstacles to electronic
transactions,” to “[p]ermit parties to a transaction to have the
opportunity to prove in court or other proceedings that their
authentication approaches and their transactions are valid.” In
short, the act instructs that the secretary of commerce shall promote
the ability to engage in electronic transactions and to have those
transactions recognized and enforced in a court of law. Id.

The act also provides that a “a signature, contractor other record
relating to [any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce] may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability
solely because it is in electronic form.” 15 U.S.C. 7001. My home
state of Michigan, along with approximately 40 other states, has
adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. This important
legislation provides, among other things, that an electronic
signature is as good as a written signature, and that a record or
signature shall not be denied legal effect simply because it is in
electronic form.

Consistent with Mr. Gates’ writings, state and federal courts have
heeded the need for modernization and the efficiency offered by the
digital age. Electronic filing is now in place in federal courts
across the country. In the Eastern District of Michigan, where my
practice is located, the federal court now accepts electronic
filings, only, with limited exception. Michigan’s state courts are
rolling out electronic filing as well.

But with all the recognition and encouragement of commerce and the
willingness of business, consumer, courts, and government alike to
recognize and accept the validity of electronic transactions, and
despite all of these technological advances and the changes in
federal and state laws that have become necessary in order not to
hamper business in the 215 Century, there is at least one area where
we are still stuck in the 19″ century. It is in the area of
recognition of out of state notaries where some states are, sadly,
140 or 150 years behind the times.

Michigan is a prime example of why legislation that enhances the
recognition of affidavits from other states is essential. In
Michigan, a law written in 1879 governs the recognition of affidavits
from other states. This post-civil war law has been held to provide
that an affidavit notarized outside the state of Michigan cannot be
considered by a judge or admitted into evidence unless it has been ”
certified by the clerk ofany court of record in the county where such
affidavit shall be taken, under seal of said court.”

Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2102. The “certification” required consists of
an examination of an affidavit or other notarized document by a
government official and confirmation by that official that the notary
is a licensed, qualified notary and that the signature on the
document is, in fact, that of a notary. In order to obtain
certification, an affidavit must be taken or sent to the certifying
official who must review it and make the certification, and the
certified document returned. Depending on the identity of the
government official, the backlog of documents awaiting certification,
and the location of the government official, certifying an affidavit
can take days or weeks to complete, making it very inefficient by
today’s technologically advanced standards.

Over the years organizations like the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (“NCCUSL”) and the National
Notary Association have recognized the need for modernizing and
unifying state laws governing the recognition of affidavits and other
notarized documents from other states.

These groups have urged states to unify their laws to provide for the
recognition of documents notarized outside the state without special
certification or authentication of the type required by Michigan’s
1879 statute. One of those efforts was the Uniform Recognition of
Acknowledgments Act (“URAA”), which was proposed during the 1960’s.
In its prefatory note to the URAA, the NCCUSL explained the need for
uniform legislation on recognition of notarial acts performed outside
a particular state:

Need for Uniformity. The major need for uniformity is the need of
notaries and persons outside the enacting state who have been asked
to notarize a document for use in the enacting state… [a] major use
outside the enacting state is by personnel of the Armed

Forces of the United States who are asked by persons connected with
the Armed Forces installation to perform a notarial act for use
elsewhere.

A uniform act on the subject of recognition of acknowledgments is
becoming increasingly more imperative as more and more citizens of
the United States are employed by the federal government and American
industry away from their state of origin or property management.
[Uniform legislation] would substantially help … citizens and
residents conduct affairs having significance in [one] state at
places wherever they happen to be at the time the notarial act is
performed.

The need for uniformity today is significantly greater than it was 40
years ago when the URAA was proposed because today, more o four
citizens choose to locate or do business away from their home states
and business is increasingly conducted outside state lines.

In 1969, Michigan adopted the URAA which provided that an affidavit
notarized outside Michigan is valid and is to be recognized without
further proof of the notary’s authority if it was properly notarized
in the state in which it was signed. MCL 565.262-263. Until recently,
it was widely believed that the URAA had done away with any
requirement that affidavits from other states required any
authentication before they could be admitted into a Michigan court.
In June of last year, however, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled,
despite the URAA, that Michigan’s 1879 law controlled and that
Michigan courts would not recognize affidavits from other states that
have not been authenticated by the clerk of the court of the county
in which the affidavit was notarized.’

Copies of the opinions from Michigan Court of Appeals are attached as
Exhibits 1 and 2. Numerous groups submitted legal briefs urging that
these decisions were erroneous. The witness briefed this issue on
behalf ofthe State Bar of Michigan as well as the National Notary
Association, urging the Court to rule that the affidavits were valid
under the URAA.

Michigan’s refusal to recognize affidavits from other states without
certification creates both inefficiency and injustice. Certification
is inefficient because it adds delay and expense to everyday
transactions. Instead of being able to submit an affidavit directly,
the affidavit must be sent to the certifying official. This entails
first detaining the identity of the certifying official which can be
a difficult task in and ofitself Next, delay is caused while the
document is sent to the official and certification is completed.
Certification can be costly, particularly where delay is unacceptable
and there is a need to expedite the certification process. And
certification serves little, if any purpose.

But outdated state laws that refuse to accept affidavits and other
notarized documents from other states may cause injustice as well.
The literal language of Michigan’s statute, for example, requires not
just certification, but certification by a particular government
official -the clerk of the court of the county in which the affidavit
was notarized-from whom certification may not be available. This law
was enacted in the late 19th century when, apparently, the clerks
oflocal courts actually provided certification. In many states today,
the clerk of the county court no longer authenticates affidavits.
Today, authentication is in some states performed by the Secretary of
State and in others is performed at the local level, but not by the
clerk of a court. As a result, Michigan may refuse to recognize valid
affidavits from many sister states.’

‘In 1981, the United States joined the Hague Convention and agreed,
among other things, to recognize affidavits from other Hague
Convention countries. Those countries joining the Hague Convention
agreed to do away with the old system of requiring “legalization” of
documents, and instead, to accept documents that had been
authenticated by a certain public official and bear the “apostille.”
There are those who would argue that under current Michigan law even
authentication from the highest levels of another states government-
an apostille-may not be admissible in Michigan. This creates the
potential and illogical situation that an affidavit from Florida that
must be recognized by the governments of such far-flung countries as
Armenia, Botswana, Figi, Serbia and Montenegro, Malta, and Tonga may
be refused recognition in the state of Michigan. See
wwvv.state.gov/m/a/autli/c1267.htm and

A review of the U.S. Notary Reference Manual, published by the
National Notary Association, reveals that in seven of the thirteen
states whose representatives appear on this subcommittee, including
California, Florida, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Utah, Tennessee and
New York, certification by the clerk of the local court is not
available. As a result, Michigan may refuse to recognize valid
affidavits from these states .

The refusal of a state to recognize documents notarized out of state
creates real world problems for lawyers, businesses, and individuals
as well as the very real threat of injustice. A few examples maybe
helpful to illuminate just what problems may be caused:

Example #1: A troubling situation confronts creditors. Each year,
retail creditors including large department stores, home centers,
auto companies, and credit card companies are required to file
thousands of lawsuits to collect millions owed to them. These
businesses have extended credit to Michigan’s consumers and need to
enforce their accounts. The individual accounts are relatively small,
but the total amount owed by these individual debtors to out ofstate
creditors collectively is large. Lawyers for these creditors use
Michigan’s streamlined statutory scheme for collections by creditors
which requires the submission of an affidavit verifying the debt
owed. Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2145. This affidavit must be filed within
10 days of its signing in order to create a statutory presumption
that permits the entry of a default judgment. Id. Many creditors,
including auto companies located in Michigan, have their credit
operations in other states, and the employees who possess the
knowledge necessary to sign the affidavit verifying the debt are
located outside Michigan. Creditors now face the difficult,
expensive, and inefficient task of obtaining authentication for each
and every affidavit submitted to collect on a debt. The delay caused
by obtaining authentication- which usually involves receiving the
affidavit by mail, forwarding the affidavit by mail to the
appropriate authenticating official, waiting for the official to
receive and process the affidavit, then waiting for the affidavit to
return by mail before it can be filed -may result in the affidavits
being filed more than 10 days after their signing. This, in turn, may
make Michigan’s streamlined debt collection process unavailable to
creditors and subject them to costly and inefficient litigation.

Example #2: A corporation located in California issued in a Michigan
state court based upon a belief that the corporation is the parent
corporation of a local business with a similar name. The California
corporation has no connection with the local business being sued and
seeks to file a motion for some judgment, supported by an affidavit
from its CEO that there is no relation between the two corporations.
Certification is not available from the court clerk in California,
and the CEO maybe forced to fly to Michigan (or another state where
certification can be obtained from the court clerk) in order to
execute an affidavit admissible in a Michigan court.

Example #3: A world renowned forensic expert is located within the
state of New York, and a local county prosecutor in Michigan wants to
retain that expert to provide an opinion on the validity of an audio
recording. By statute in New York, authentication is no longer
performed by the clerk of the local court, but instead by the
Secretary of State, and the expert may therefore be unable to submit
in a Michigan court an affidavit notarized in New York. The
prosecutor may face the choice of either incurring the expense of
having the expert travel to Michigan to execute an affidavit or
simply foregoing the use of the expert.

Example #4: A mother relocates to Florida with her children following
a divorce. She and her ex-husband become involved in a custody
dispute and the ex-husband files a motion in the Michigan court that
granted the divorce seeking a change in custody. By Florida statute,
authentication can only be performed by the Florida Secretary of
State and the clerk of the court is no longer permitted to certify
affidavits. Fla. Stat. Ann. 117.103. The mother needs to provide
evidence to the Court in order to preserve her parental rights, but
the Michigan court may not recognize the affidavit she wishes to
submit because she cannot obtain court-clerk authentication of her
Florida affidavit.

Other examples of the problems caused by the refusal of states to
recognize notarizations from other states are as innumerable as the
situations where those documents are required.

CONCLUSION

Legislation like H.R. 1458 and the alternative that has been offered
would greatly increase the efficiency of our courts and aid
businesses and individuals alike. As a practicing lawyer, I encourage
the subcommittee to further this legislation and strongly support its
passage. I would again like to thank the committee for its attention
today.

NBC4.TV, CA
March 10 2006

LA, Anaheim Raids Net 28 Alleged Gang Members
Most Of The Suspects Are Expected To Be Deported

POSTED: 12:57 pm PST March 10, 2006

LOS ANGELES — Raids in Los Angeles and Orange counties netted 28
suspected foreign-born gang members, most of whom will be deported,
authorities announced Friday.

The federal and local operation rounded up nine suspects in Los
Angeles and 19 in Anaheim, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officials.

Among those arrested in the Los Angeles area was a 40-year-old member
of the Armenian Power street gang, whose criminal record includes
past convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and elder abuse,
ICE reported.

Those arrested in Anaheim included a 20-year-old gang member
convicted of kidnapping for ranson and extortion. All 19 of the
Anaheim suspects are Mexican nationals.

Four of the gang members arrested during the Anaheim operation will
be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for re-entering the
United States after a deportation, a felony punishable by up to 20
years in prison.

Most of the suspects are expected to be deported, officials said.

“For years, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in conjunction with ICE, has
worked to take dangerous criminal aliens off the streets,” said U.S.
Attorney Debra Wong Yang. “Those who routinely flout American laws by
sneaking into the country and then committing crimes that often
impact members of their own ethnic group deserve to be punished.”

In San Diego County, Operation Community Shield rounded up 41
suspects, who also are to be deported.

The two-month enforcement effort that concluded yesterday was part of
Operation Community Shield, a joint operation involving ICE agents
and local law enforcement officers.

Operation Community Shield was launched nationwide in February 2005
after ICE officials targeted MS-13, one of the largest and most
violent street gangs in the country, and found that most of the gang
members were in the country illegally.

In May 2005, ICE expanded the operation to include all criminal
street gangs and prison gangs with foreign-born members, ICE
officials said.

The nationwide operation so far has netted 2,388 suspected street
gang members and associates, and the seizure of about 117 guns, the
federal agency reported.

Daily Star – Lebanon,
March 11 2006

Alternating the top political jobs around the three main confessions
every four years can reinforces the sense of national identity in the
Lebanese

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Since Syria’s “sanctities” collapsed along with its project in
Lebanon, is it time for Lebanese safeguards to establish true civil
peace that protects this country-message from booby-trapped, poisoned
and imported rhetoric?

By Lebanese safeguards I mean the constitutional guarantees that
preserve confessional diversity and balance between institutions
without failing to promote national identity in every Lebanese,
regardless of confession, tribe or place of birth.

It is true that the Taif Accord saw Lebanon’s Civil War end. However,
the inherent faults and constitutional defects that endangered the
institutions’ work were demonstrated on the one hand through
practice, and on the other by being partial, selective and
temperamental implementation in a manner that distorted its content
and shook its consensual foundations.

Consequently, if the Lebanese are serious about coexisting on the
basis of equality and regaining their sense of national belonging,
they have to prove that by forming a committee of high-ranking
lawmakers that would address the Taif’s defects without tampering
with its substance. This committee would also have to present these
amendments to the first House freely elected on the basis of a fair
and modern law.

One of the major issues that should be disregarded is the
reconsideration of the jurisdiction of the three powers – not to
limit it but rather to facilitate a stable and equal rule, allowing
confessions to alternate between these powers after the creation of
the Council of Ministers stipulated in Article 22 of the Lebanese
Constitution.

The presidency

Reducing the term of the president from six years (Article 49 of the
Constitution) to four nonrenewable and nonextendible years is
imperative to implementing the principle of alternation of the
presidency between the confessions. This ensures that no single
confession monopolizes a specific presidency for too long. The
four-year mandate has become sufficient to implement the program of a
specific presidency, giving the people the opportunity to decide
whether to maintain this program of not. By reducing the mandate to
four years, the parliamentary elections would coincide with the
presidential elections; they should be even held before the
presidential elections so the people can have the opportunity to
change the parliamentary majority should they wish to.

The legislative power

Parliament’s ordinary session:

Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution set the legal dates to hold a
parliamentary session; other dates are considered void and in
violation of the law. The House’s two ordinary periods stretch from
the Tuesday following March 15 until the end of May and from the
Tuesday following October 15 until the end of the year, provided
texamining and voting on the take precedence over anythign else.

Consequently, the meeting of MPs to legislate and vote on a budget
does not exceed 180 days a year if no extraordinary sessions were
called for.

First, regarding the increasing need to legislate and emphasize the
quality of the laws, it is not acceptable to limit Parliament’s
legislative work only to the mid-year. There are draft laws and law
proposals lying in the drawers not for political reasons but for the
financial impossibility of examining and voting on them.

Second, limiting Parliament sessions to a relatively short period of
time, and giving the president, with the premier’s consent, the
authority to call for extraordinary House sessions by virtue of a
decree setting the opening and closing date as well as the agenda
(Article 33 of the Constitution), means limiting the jurisdiction of
the House to serve as an executive power and comes in violation of
paragraph (c) of the Constitution’s preamble which clearly stipulates
that “Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic.”

This is why we suggest the amendment of Article 32 of the
Constitution and the adoption of one ordinary session for the House,
stretching from mid-October until mid-June.

Such an amendment would contribute to making Parliament its own
master.

Executive power

Separating Parliament from the Cabinet:

The principle of separating the legislative power from the executive
power stipulated in the Constitution is not effectively implemented.
Article 28 of the Constitution, which authorizes grouping the
Parliament and Cabinet function, contradicts paragraph (e) of the
Constitution’s preamble which stipulates that the regime is based on
the principle of separation, balance and cooperation between the
powers.

So how can the House hold Cabinet to account if ministers are also
MPs? Could it be both the opponent and the arbiter?

Consequently, based on the principle of separation of powers which
guarantees government’s performance, we believe the Cabinet and the
House should be separated and therefore Article 28 of the Lebanese
Constitution should be amended, and a mechanism regulating the
vacancy of the positions of MPs who joined the Cabinet be included in
the electoral law.

About urgent bill:

Article 58 of the Constitution stipulates that: “Every bill the
Cabinet deems urgent and in which this urgency is indicated in the
decree of transmission to the Parliament may be issued by the
president within 40 days following its communication to the House,
after including it on the agenda of a general meeting, reading it
aloud before the House, and after the expiration of the time limit
without the House acting on it.”

Linking the 40-day deadline granted to the president to pass an
urgent bill by Cabinet to the proviso of including this bill in the
agenda of the general House meeting and reading it aloud before the
Assembly gives the House speaker the chance to maneuver and the
possibility to hamper the implementation of this article by not
raising the urgent bill in the agenda and consequently postponing the
40-day deadline.

Based on the principle of equal and separated powers, the House
speaker should not be given this authority to hamper the Cabinet’s
work. But, if we adopt the one-session principle for the House, which
stretches from mid-October to mid-June every year, then the general
meetings become weekly throughout the year and including an urgent
bill as soon as possible in the agenda becomes inevitable.

The governmental solidarity

The National Accord document entrusted the executive power with the
Cabinet (Article 65 of the Constitution) and Article 66 of the
Constitution made the ministers responsible in general of
Parliament’s general ministerial policy and made them responsible of
their personal actions.

The practice gave the ministers the freedom to revolt against the
ministerial decisions and the Cabinet’s general policy, which
destabilized the governmental solidarity and weakened the position of
the prime minister, who coordinates with the ministers and gives
general instructions to guarantee the well-functioning of public
institutions and administrations (Article 64 of the Constitution).

In order to avoid any embarrassment and to guarantee the governmental
solidarity, which incarnates a unified political will and a coherent
vision of the Cabinet’s direction, the opposition ministers should
voice their rejection from inside the Cabinet.

Any minister, who rejects the Cabinet’s general policy by publicly
criticizing its directions and objecting its practices, should resign
or should be forced to resign.

The Cabinet cannot stay in power if it is divided and cannot be an
arena for the loyalists and the opposition at the same time. It is
true that Lebanon is based on a consensual democracy but this does
not allow the executive power to turn into a forum for exchanging
accusations between its members, because such a thing would hamper
democracy.

Keeping the opposition ministers away from the government strengthens
executive power and enhances both the opposition and the loyalists.

Setting a deadline for the prime minister to issue decrees

Article 56 of the Constitution set a time limit for the president to
issue the laws and decrees to prevent him from stalling and hampering
the work of the constitutional institutions. Article 64 of the
Constitution did not set any deadline for the prime minister to issue
these decrees, which encouraged the adoption of the boycott and the
refusal to signing the decrees for political reasons concerning the
premier, effectively hampering the work of the government and
destabilizing the relations between the president and Parliament.

Consequently, in order to restore balance between the three top
politicians and guarantee the smooth running of the government,
Article 64 of the Constitution should be amended by adding deadlines
on the prime minister similar to the president’s deadlines to issue
decrees.

Prosecuting the ministers

The Lebanese Constitution neither includes a document that defines
“high treason,” the “violation of the Constitution,” or “failing to
assume the duties,” nor does it impose compliance with the Penal
Code; knowing that the Law of Procedures before the Higher Council To
Try (the Three Top Posts) and Ministers compelled this council to
abide by the principle of the legality of the crimes and the legality
of punishments stipulated by articles one and six of the Penal Code.

Consequently, in order to abide by Article 70 of the Constitution, it
is necessary to include in the Law of Procedures before the Higher
Council a text explaining the meaning of the minister’s failure to
assume his/her duties so that the minister does not remain above the
law.

The Constitutional Council

The Constitutional Council should be granted a mandate to review the
constitutionality of the laws, according to a request of one of the
legal parties before the State Council or the Cassation Court. This
mandate should be preceded by a two-year period, during which
Parliament accounts for the laws that might be unconstitutional. It
is obvious to include in the constitutional council the mandate to
review the constitutionality of the constitutional amendments and to
preserve the higher principles in the Constitution, which cannot be
altered even in a constitutional amendment, like coexistence or
consensual democracy, and these principles are called
“supra-constitutional” in the constitutional law.

An interpretation of the Constitution by Parliament cannot produce
mandatory results unless this interpretation takes place through a
legal text that respects the constitutional procedures stipulated by
articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution.

Consequently, it is necessary to reconsider allowing the
Constitutional Council to interpret the Constitution, since this
mission does not conflict with the concept of sovereignty, especially
as the theory of monitoring the constitutionality of laws is now
adopted in most countries of the world.

The independence of the judiciary

The Constitution provides only Article 20, which organizes the
executive power and stipulates that: “The executive power is handled
by all the courts, regardless of their competence and levels, within
a system that is stipulated by the law and provides the legal parties
with the necessary guarantees. The conditions of the judicial
guarantee and its limits are set by the law. The judges are
independent in performing their job while the decrees and decisions
are issued by all the courts and implemented in the name of the
Lebanese people.”

While the Constitution stresses the independence of the judges, it
does not mention any mechanism that guarantees this independence.

The National Accord document noted this gap and tried to fill the
void in paragraph (b) pertaining to the courts, and said: “In order
to enhance the independence of the judiciary: the judicial body
elects a certain number of the members of the Higher Judicial
Council.”

However, the paragraph has not been put into effect yet. Criticism
cannot stop as long as the judicial power remains dependent on the
executive power.

Consequently, we call for the implementation of the part of the Taif
Accord pertaining to the independence of the judiciary and we also
propose that the Higher Judicial Council be granted the mandate to
make the judicial appointments without referring to the executive
power, which would give the public prosecutors and the judicial body
total independence, absolving them of all suspicions. We also call
for promoting the judges’ social situation, which would encourage
skilled individuals to join the judicial body and empower them
against bribery.

The Senate

Article 22 of the Lebanese Constitution says: “With the election of
the first Parliament on a national basis and not on a confessional
basis, a new Caabinet should be created, in which all the spiritual
families are represented and whose mandate is limited to critical
issues.”

Consequently, this article linked the creation of a Senate to the
election of the first Parliament on a national, nonconfessional
basis. This link is illogical, because the creation of a Parliament
on national basis could take dozens of years and is related to the
prior presence of the Senate, which represents the guarantee of
moving from a confessional Parliament to a national one.

The creation of a Senate would also resolve the issue of the
representation of the Druze, Catholic and Orthodox confessions in the
Lebanese pyramid, which will be formed of four powers: the president,
the premier, the speaker and the Senate president.

The jurisdictions of the Senate are summarized as follows:

l The authority to veto every law that contradicts the principle of
consensual democracy or co-existence and rights of the confessions.

l Proposing laws, especially those related to the confessional
structure in Lebanon.

l A second reading of the laws whereby the Senate has the right to
return to Parliament provided that a two-thirds majority of its
members (16 members as we will see later) vote for it. In this case,
the House should adopt the law by its majority. If the president of
the Republic requests to reconsider this law in accordance with
Article 57 of the Constitution, then the House should adopt with its
two-thirds majority (after amending Article 57 of the Constitution).
The Senate is composed of 22 members after the number of MPs in the
House is reduced from 128 to 108 as was mentioned in paragraph six of
the item on political reforms in the National Accord document.

The Senate members are distributed as follows:

Three Sunni representatives, three Shiite representatives, three
Druze representatives and one Alawite representative (10 Muslims).
Three Maronite representatives, two Catholic representatives, and two
Greek Orthodox representatives, one Armenian Catholic representative,
One Armenian Orthodox representative, and one representative for the
Christian minorities (10 Christians). One representative for the Jews
and one representative for the nonconfessional (22 altogether). Each
sect elects Senate members who represent them and each voter has one
vote (one man, one vote). Lebanon follows one electoral district and
those who secure the largest number of votes possible from the voters
within their sect for the seats allocated to this sect are considered
successful.

Alternations in presidency and in positions among confessions

What has offended the Lebanese structure the most was the domination
of one confession of a certain post for a permanent period. This made
other confessions feel they were treated unfairly even though they
were competent enough to assume a certain position. But their
confessional belonging hindered their chances of assuming a position.
This is one of the reasons that weakened national identity and pushed
the Lebanese people to take refuge behind their confessional
identities. It is difficult to change this reality especially after
the country witnessed 15 years of war in the name of the weak and 15
years of struggle in the name of the marginalized people. The answer
to to resolving this confessional reality lies in giving it
guarantees so that it doesn’t turn to foreign countries, requesting
protection from abroad, or to bloody internal fighting or division.

Confessions in Lebanon are a fact that we have to acknowledge if we
are to find a solution to the problems that the country has been
suffering from ever since these confessions existed. Therefore,
terminating political sectarianism in Lebanon can’t be acommplished
following the French approach that has begun to suffer from its
shortcomings and restrictions.

Terminating political sectarianism in Lebanon definitely passes
through alternations in presidencies and posts between the major
confessions (Maronites, Shiites and Sunnis) and the others (Druze,
Catholics and Orthodox) to pave the way for other confessions to be
active and play their roles in order to achieve actual equality
between the Lebanese people and to reinforce their national identity
in lieu of pure confessional belonging.

These alternations should be made every four years (duration of the
mandate of the president and House speaker) according to the way
defined in the attached table (the table is an example, which is why
it does not tackle all posts in all ministries and administrations).

The philosophy of alternations, which should coincide with adopting
the broad-based administrative decentralization stipulated in the
Taif Accord, is to pave the way for all confessions to actually
participate in the essence of governance without any one sect being
dominated by another or making the other confessions feel they are
marginalized. In this way, national identity is strengthened through
the confessional guarantees whereby each party feels that banking on
foreign countries will not be more profitable than banking on
Lebanon. During each governance session, alternation and change in
posts, confessions get used to dealing with each other on the basis
of equality and complementarity and it becomes a motivation for peace
without risk. From here, each confession should feel it is
represented by a person who holds a leadership position in the four
authorities and there is no default in that. As much as alternation
secures national balance and equality among the Lebanese on “the
Lebanese way” (that is much better than what is used today), the
election of each confession for its representative in the post of the
presidency of the Republic or the ministry or public prosecution or
Senate secures political stability that Lebanon has lacked since its
independence.

There is no shame in having each confession elect its “leader” at a
certain stage as long as it has the option after four years of
re-electing this leader, but allow the succeeding presidency to have
a different position and competence but which still cooperates and
interacts with the other presidencies.

This system limits these confessions from turning to other countries.
At the same time it limits the instinct that leans toward division
because, by maintaining the unity of the country, each confession is
given its right in the authority, and the right to participate and
express its specificities within the general structure. This doesn’t
stop the candidates of a certain confession wishing to assume one of
these presidential posts from cooperating with other candidates of
other confessions. Each one strives to win the confidence of his
voters on the basis of a unified governance program where it is up to
the people to decide an integrated ruling team on the basis of
political and economic choices and not on the basis of instincts.

Confessional strife under such a system can’t be justified especially
after adopting a modern and fair law for parliamentary elections on
the basis of proportionality and large historic muhafazat that
safeguards the rights of “nonconfessional individuals.”

With reference to the table on the alternation of posts between the
confessions every four years, the establishment of a Senate gives a
fourth confession the opportunity to assume a post in the authority.

This post was allocated to the Druze, but it is possible that even on
this level, there would be an alternation every four years between
the Druze, the Orthodox, the Catholics whereby each confession takes
part in determining Lebanon’s fate on all levels.

In a quick reading of the typical table of the alternation of posts
between the confessions, we can see for example when the president of
the Republic belongs to a certain confession, Maronite or Sunni, the
same confession is given the finance portfolio since it is the main
ministry. That is done in order to compensate the modest powers of
the president of the Republic compared with the other presidencies.
Furthermore, the posts of defense minister and director general of
the Surete Generale are given to a person from his confession
(Maronite, Sunni or Shiite) or from another confession (Druze,
Catholic or Orthodox) if the president was a Druze, Orthodox or
Catholic.

When the prime minister is a Druze or Shiite for example, his
confession can’t be given a major portfolio except for the Justice
Ministry to maintain the balance with the other confessions due to
the broad jurisdiction the premier enjoys although the Cabinet rules
like an assembled commission. In this context, the post of public
works and transport minister (the largest service provider ministry)
can’t be given to someone who is from a different confession than the
premier. The same is applicable to the post of the president of the
Council of Development and Reconstruction. As for the post of the
Internal Security Forces Commander, it is given to a person who is
from the same confession as the premier is so that this confession
secures an advanced position among leaders of security apparatuses.

For example, when the Speaker of the House is a Sunni or Catholic,
the foreign minister, education minister, army commander, president
of the Council of Development and Reconstruction are from his
confession. In this way, this confession secures a position for
foreign affairs, and other social, security and developmental
positions.

The Senate, with the jurisdiction it has to legislate regarding
issues such as co-existence, consensual democracy, and rights of
confessions, is like a guarantee for a confession whose leader
presides the Interior Ministry, the Lebanese University, and the
Constitutional Council. These jurisdictions safeguard for this
confession the Public Works and Transport portfolio as a development
guarantee.

If we apply the principle of alternation, with its defaults, in the
presidential posts between the confessions, we would allow the major
confessions (Maronites, Shiites, and Sunnis) to alternate the four
presidencies between them in a complete cycle every 16 years with a
different presidency for each of them every four years. This would
also allow the confessions (Druze, Catholics, and Orthodox) to take
their turns in assuming these presidencies even for a longer period
(once every eight years, meaning that every confession needs 32 years
to alternate one complete session).

Isn’t this equation, with its defaults, much fairer than the equation
that is currently adopted, wherey the Maronite confession dominates
the post of the president of the Republic, and the Shiite sect
dominates the post of the speaker of the House and the Sunni sect
dominates the post of the prime minister and then they all quarrel
over the jurisdictions and denying the other confessions their rights
in shaping the history and future of Lebanon until they give up in
frustration?

It is true that this system is not being fair to all the confessions
in Lebanon starting with the Armenians and the Christian minorities
to the Alawites. But it is a bold step on the way to eradicate
political sectarianism stipulated in Article 95 of the Constitution.

When the largest number possible of confessions take part in running
this country, then their sense of national identity is reinforced,
mutual distrust disappears and fears and concerns vanish.

Our apologies to all those who still dream of a day where all
confessional identities disappear in favor of national identity and
then naively try to impose patriotism.

I can’t imagine the orient without religions or a society without
minorities. Lebanon lies in the heart of this eastern part of the
world and the Lebanese community is composed of large minorities of a
confessional nature. So why do we lie to each other? And why do we
ignore each other or challenge each other? No one can eliminate the
other or even live without the other. Our fates are linked to the
fate of the community as a whole. That’s why we have to always
picture modern systems that sponsor co-existence in a fair and modern
manner. These systems should be tailored to Lebanon’s needs, they
should be neither copied from foreign systems nor imposed on us. This
alternation in the presidencies between the confessions is an attempt
to picture solutions to some of the challenges that are somehow
difficult our societies are facing. This solution does not claim to
be comprehensive and does not claim to be the perfect solution that I
look forward to. It is a real attempt that stands in the face of the
cycle of irrationality that is paralyzing our initiatives. Whoever
believes that the “truth” in Lebanon is only to safeguard this
constitutional equation (the charter and Taif Accord) is like a
tourist riding in a taxi that has run out of gas and believes that he
reached his destination!

So, to all those who are convening in the name of the dialogue and
are aiming to reach a settlement for the country, I urge you to not
let this stage of our long national journey pass us by. Gather all
your ideas and initiatives before the country burns down!

Rabieh al-Shaer
Adviser in Public Policies

BÝA, Turkey
March 10 2006

The Zarakolu Price Goes to Info-Turk Editors

The Istanbul IHD has decided to attribute the Ayse Zarakolu Price for
Freedom of Thought (2006) to Info-Turk editors Özgüden and Tugsavul
along with Kisanak, Yilmaz and Karaca. The price award ceremony took
place on the International Women Day.

BIA News Center
10/03/2006
BÝA (Istanbul) – The Istanbul Section of the Human Rights Association
of Turkey (IHD) has decided to attribute the Ayse Zarakolu Price for
Freedom of Thought (2006) to Info-Turk editors Özgüden and Tugsavul
along with Kisanak, Yilmaz and Karaca. The price award ceremony took
place in Istanbul on the International Women Day.

Since Özgüden and Tugsavul cannot enter their country because of
legal proceedings, publisher and human rights defender Ragip Zarakolu
came to Brussels on February 24, 2006, and announced the IHD’s
decision at the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX)
General Meeting held at the International Press Center. Later on, he
presented Özgüden and Tugsavul the price.

IHD’s press release

Ayse Nur Zarakolu, publisher and co-founder of IHD association, was a
determined defender of human rights. She always had a clear and net
standing against militarism and taboos defined as “red points” by the
militarist system. Because of this standing, she was tried,
imprisoned and subjected to various menaces. So, she became one of
the vanguards of the fight for the freedom of thought and expression.

Even at the time when the simple word “Kurd” was banned, she did not
hesitate to publish Sociologist Ismail Besikci’s book entitled
“Kurdistan, an Inter-States Colony.” She published the works
revealing the suffer and problems of the Non-Moslim minorities. She
also started debate on the question of “Armenian Genocide” which
still remains as a taboo in Turkey.

Ayse chose what is difficult, not the easy one. Since her death, as
the Istanbul Section of the Human Rights Association, we attribute
The Price of Freedom of Thought and Expression in the name of Ayse
Nur Zarakolu.

This year we elected five persons who choose what is difficult and
fight for years against militarism.

Today, when one speaks of “freedom of thought”, Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code comes to mind. Adopted in a racist point of view,
this article privileges as a crime only the insult to the Turkish
identity while they are many people belonging to different ethnic
identities. To be tried under this article, it is enough to speak of
“red points.”

Dogan Özgüden and Inci Özgüden-Tugsavul are two journalists who fight
for many years against military coups and militarist policies. With
their review Ant, they always criticized the militarist tendencies in
the name of the left-wing movement of Turkey.

With the Info-Turk Agency that they founded in exile, they put in
question many subjects considered taboos in Turkey. They took a clear
position against anti-semitism and opened debate of the question of
Armenian Genocide. Still there is always an arrest warrant against
Dogan Özgüden under Article 301 for having criticized putschist
generals.

Zülküf Kisanak was sentenced according to the same article because of
his book “Lost Villages – How the Heritage of Thousands Years was
destroyed?”

Seferi Yilmaz, after the sabotage of the counter-guerrila forces
against a bookshop in Semdinli, played the principal role in the
identification of these forces. So, he encouraged all those who fight
for a pacific solution to the Kurdish Question.

As for Emin Karaca, he was arrested at the 1971 military coup. After
his release in 1974, he continued his journalist work. He was
condemned again because of an article that he translated on the
Gladio and the Susurluk Scandal. He keeps a net position on the
subject of Armenian taboo. Recently, he was sentenced under Article
301 for having criticized putschist generals.

As the defenders of human rights, we consider vital the fight against
militarism and the taboos that it invented. The fights in this field
should never be forgotten.

We are sure that if Ayse had heard the names elected for the price in
her name, she would stand up and applaud them by all heart.

The Istanbul Section of the Human Rights Association of Turkey
Dogan Özgüden and Inci Tugsavul

Dogan Özgüden, 70, began journalism career in 1952 in Izmir. After
having worked at the newspapers Ege Günesi, Sabah Postasi, Milliyet
and Öncü in Izmir, Gece Postasi and Sosyal Adalet in Istanbul, he
directed as chief editor and main editorial writer of the most
important left-wing daily Aksam (1964-66).

Inci Tugsavul-Özgüden, 65, began journalism career in 1961 in Ankara
at the daily Hür Vatan and the weekly Kim, later worked at the
dailies Hareket (1962-63) and Aksam (1963-66).

They founded and directed the socialist review Ant and the Ant
Publishing House (1967-71). Both were accused more than 50 times of
having committed “crime of opinion” in the articles that they wrote
or published. Threatened by a total of more than 300-year
imprisonment, they had to leave Turkey after the military coup of
1971.

In Europe they organized the Democratic Resistance of Turkey with
other opponents in exile in order to mobilize European public opinion
against the Junta’s repressive regime.

Since 1974, they edit in Brussels the Info-Turk Agency which informs
the world opinion of the situation of human rights in Turkey
() and lead the Sun Workshops (Ateliers du
Soleil), a multicultural permanent education organization
().

Along with more than 200 other opponents of the regime in exile, they
were deprived of their Turkish nationality in 1982 because of their
criticisms against the military junta. Although this decision was
annulled after ten years, the Foreign Affairs Ministry has declined
to give them a written guarantee that they would not be indicted or
imprisoned for the accusations that the same ministry communicated
earlier to the European Human Rights Commission.

On the contrary, more than 30 years after the military coup, Turkish
Justice indicted Dogan Özgüden for insulting army chiefs because of
his article criticizing putschist generals. The tribunal ordered his
arrest at the checkpoint if he returns to Turkey in order to judge
him.

One of the former leading members of the Journalists’ Association of
Turkey (TGC), the Journalists’ Trade Union (TGS) and the Ethical
Council of the Press (BSD) in Turkey, Dogan Özgüden is now a member
of the Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium (AGJPB),
the Brussels Center of Intercultural Actions (CBAI), the Human Rights
League of Belgium (LDDH) and the Movement Against Racism and
Xenophobia (MRAX).

He is author of many books and studies, mainly On Fascism (1965,
Istanbul), On Capitalism (1966, Istanbul), File on Turkey (1972,
France), Turkey, Fascism and Resistance (1973, The Netherlands; 2006,
Belgium), Mass media and Turkish Migrants (1983), The Portrait of
Turkish Migration (1984), Black Book on the Militarist “Democracy” in
Turkey (1986), Extreme Right in Turkey (1988).

Former member of the Journalists’ Association of Turkey (TGC) and the
Journalists’ Trade Union (TGS ), Inci Tugsavul-Özgüden is now member
of the International Press Association (API) in Brussels. She is the
author of the Introduction to the Classical Music (1965, Istanbul)
and Turkish Women (1991, Brussels). (YE)

Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:

PRESS RELEASE
March 7, 2006
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN GENOCIDE DENIAL CASE

Washington, DC – On March 8, the Armenian Assembly filed an amicus
curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in the matter of Driscoll
v. Griswold (“The Genocide Denial Case”) arguing that the Assembly of
Turkish American Associations (ATAA) and its co-plaintiffs must be
prevented from injecting genocide denial materials into the
Massachusetts school curriculum.

The brief supports the right of the Massachusetts Department of
Education to teach the facts of the Armenian Genocide to public school
students without including denialist materials.

The brief states in part:

“This lawsuit is an unprecedented attempt by the plaintiffs to utilize
the federal courts as a vehicle for their unconstitutional intrusion
into educational policy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts….It is
not for this Court to decide the appropriate curriculum in
Massachusetts public schools.”

The Massachusetts school curriculum ensures that the lessons of the
Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Irish Famine and other crimes against
humanity are not forgotten and are thus taught in the classrooms.

Additionally, the Assembly argues that the case should be dismissed
because the plaintiffs have not established a basis for challenging
curricular choices based on the First Amendment.

“No court in the country ever has recognized a First Amendment injury
from having curriculum or a curriculum guide advance a particular
viewpoint,” the Assembly brief states.

“The Assembly’s amicus brief forcefully supports the Commonwealth’s
unassailable legal position regarding the Curriculum Guide on the
Armenian Genocide, of which the plaintiffs have no legal case to
object,” said Assembly Board of Trustees Vice President and Counselor
Robert A. Kaloosdian. “The brief reaffirms the incontrovertible fact
of the Armenian Genocide and thus exposes the revisionism and
denialist tactics employed by those who seek to deny the historical
truth.”

To read the amicus curiae brief or other pleadings filed in this case,
visit the “Genocide Denial Case” section on the Assembly’s home page
at

The Armenian Assembly is the largest Washington-based nationwide
organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian
issue. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.

###

NR#2006-021

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESS RELEASE
HOMENETMEN SWEDEN
Hagop Khatcherian
Secretary
Tel: +46707461495
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:

The opening ceremony of Homenetmen Sweden Center in Södertälje.

Sunday 26 Feb. 2006 was the official opening day of Homenetmen Sweden
Center in Södertälje at the presence of about 150 Armenians gathered
in the club along with The Homenetmen Sweden Committee members,
Homenetmen Södertälje Chapter,

Homenetmen Västerås Chapter and Homenetmen Stockholm Chapter, Father
Sarkis Melkonian and other community members.

The opening ceremony started with Father Sarkis blessings and then
after the Homenetmen anthem, Brother Varoujan Kehyayian chairman of
the Södertälje Chapter welcomed the guests with the opening words of
the program which followed by Brother Hagop Khatcherian(Secretary of
Homenetmen Sweden) who congratulated all those brothers and sisters
who gave there outmost energy on creating Homenetmen Sweden Center
inorder to educate the Armenian youth by the correct system where
Homenetmen has in its global program by introducing mutual respect to
our fellow countrymen by teaching our Armenian culture, language and
religion to our youth. Homenetmen can never forget our youth and is
our task to do our outmost in order to educate and prepare a typical
Armenian citizen.

Brother Fedi Tajra representative of Homenetmen Scout section followed
next by giving his Homenetmen scouts duties to our community by
teaching the Armenian scout how to help his fellowman through scouting
and proudly present the Homenetmen flag in sport activities along with
scout parades and other activities. How a scout should be loyal to his
community with a pride by becoming the ambassadors and leaders in
order to create a purified Armenian Community.

The final words were given to Brother Varoujan who proudly presented
the club by naming it Brother Garo Tutunjian (Secretary of Homenetmen
Central committee) as a memory of a Brother who had passed away lately
who had given all his life for Homenetmen.

The public was very much enthusiastic about Homenetmen and promised to
give there full support for the sake of there children.

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Network of America, Washington Region
P. O. Box 100865
Arlington, VA 22210-9998
Email: [email protected]

Washington, DC. The Armenian Network invites you to a presentation on the
pace of economic development in Armenia hosted by the World Bank.

Armenia’s economy has been roaring at breathtaking double digit rates for
the past five years. What explains this pace of growth, and how likely is
it that it will persist over the foreseeable future? Dr. Saumy Mitra,
World Bank Lead Economist (ECSPE), will explain the various factors
underlying the record growth that Armenia has experienced in recent years,
and discuss policy options to ensure the continuation of such growth.

The presentation is scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 6:30-8:30pm. It will
take place at the World Bank Auditorium J1-050, 701 18th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20433. The auditorium is located between Pennsylvania
Avenue and G Street, one block from the White House. Farragut West is the
nearest metro stop on the blue and orange lines.

The Armenian Network of America, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
membership funded organization dedicated to the advancement of the
Armenian American community.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBBER KILLED IN SHOOTOUT

Kathimerini, Greece
March 14 2006

A bank heist in central Athens went awry yesterday as one of the two
armed men involved in the holdup accidentally shot dead his accomplice
in their attempt to get away, police said.

The pair entered a branch of Alpha Bank on Acharnon Street at about
midday and had begun their getaway from the branch with around 15,000
euros in cash.

However, a plumber working at the bank tried to stop the thieves and
wrestled with one of the two armed men.

In a bid to free up his accomplice, the other armed man shot and
injured the plumber in the leg.

However, a second bullet hit and killed his partner.

The man then escaped the bank on foot but was later arrested as a
police manhunt was immediately launched by an off-duty law enforcement
officer in the area.

Police identified the suspect killed as Constantinos Komesides,
an Armenian national, and the second man as Nikiforos Soilemetzides
from Kazakhstan.

They are both believed to have been involved in a number of bank
robberies in the past.