Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • GagruleLive
  • Armenia profile

Artsakh President receives a group of famous astronauts

September 17, 2012 By administrator

On September 16, President of Artsakh Republic Bako Sahakyan received a group of the participants of a conference titled “Man and the Space,” professor of the Institute of Astrophysics of Canary Islands and European Northern Observatory, Gagik Israelyan, famous astronauts Charles Duke (USA) and Claude Nicollier (Switzerland).

President Bako Sahakyan expressed his gratitude to the famous scientists and astronauts for coming to Artsakh and participating in such an important event, which will contribute greatly to the development of science in the country.

In return, the guests expressed satisfaction over the fact that the first conference in memory of world-famous astronaut Neil Armstrong was held in Artsakh.

Issues related to the development of exact sciences and organizing various international scientific events in Artsakh were discussed as well.

NKR Acting Minister of Education and Science, Vladik Khachatryan, other officials were present at the meeting, presidential press service reported.

 

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: famous astronauts

Armeno-Kurdish Relations: Love Fest or Divorce Settlement Meetings?

September 15, 2012 By administrator

Posted by Dr. Henry Astarjian on August 19, 2012

Like a first date with a potential lover or a last meeting to settle divorce property with an ex, Armenian and Kurdish individuals are in a fest, both knowing full well that negative feelings hover over the canopy under which they are sipping champagne. Both sides, dealing from a position of weakness, manage to create a façade of joviality and happiness for the created opportunity. And both sides realize that in order to settle their differences, they have to accept difficult compromises, and yield serious overdue concessions to the other side. Such are Armeno-Kurdish relations today.

Individuals from both sides, meeting individually in various places and on various occasions, are set to rediscover each other. Recently boy-meets-girl and getting-to-know-you opportunities were created. I am mindful of the visit of Armenian dance troops to Dersim (Tunceli), Armenian Diasporan participations in Newruz celebrations, and in celebrations for renovation of a church in Diyarbekir.

As part of their public relations strategy, the Kurds are desperately trying to makeover their look by attempting to erase the image of savagery, which they perpetrated during the Armenian Genocide. Their first official act came from the Kurdish Parliament in Exile in Brussels through their communiqué #1, in which they apologized to the Armenian nation for all the ills they have committed against us.

Another such sweet event was the celebration in Diyarbekir during the consecration of Surp Giragos Church, when the city hosted Armenian clergy and lay people with signs and flags welcoming their guests “Home”—an uplifting gesture indeed that goes beyond the usual mea culpa! No Armenian, to my knowledge, packed his bag to go “Home,” and none is expected to do so anytime soon.

Armenians, in turn, are making a half-hearted effort to forgive, but not to forget, the Kurdish atrocities perpetrated before, during, and after the genocide. These are very difficult tasks for both.

Kurds, some 30 million of them, have been battling for a century to gain notoriety in their own land. Their major shortcoming has been, and to some degree still is, tribalism. This socio-political structure was a major obstacle in gaining statehood when the pie was being divided at Sevres. This Treaty of Peace, which sealed a lot of deals in dividing the defeated Ottoman Empire, provided in its article 64 a rare opportunity for Kurdish independence:

“If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence from Turkey and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas.”

The mandated year passed, and now over 90 years later, the Kurdish society remains disunited in purpose. This fact does not need much to verify; one look at the societal and political make-up of Turkish Kurdistan or the Kurdish Parliament in Exile based in Brussels would convince one of its authenticity.

Further evidence comes from the recent Buyuk Millet Meclisi (Turkish Parliament) elections where the Kurdish vote was split and their goals shattered as a result.

The most recent disunity and story of betrayal comes from skeptics and conspiracy theorists who believe that Abdullah Ocalan was betrayed by his Kurdish adversaries, or I should say enemies, which led to his kidnapping from Kenya by Turkish special agents.

Kurdish political thought and institutions are so dangerously diverse and divided, that a section of them prefer their status quo within Turkey; others inebriated by religious fervor work for the return of the Islamic Caliphate of yesteryear; and yet others yearn for total independence and statehood.

This being the situational climate, Kurds can offer us only love and good will, which they are attempting to do, and we accept all that with gratitude—but that is not enough! The price of reconciliation is far greater than that. Granted they cannot give us what they don’t have, but sooner or later 30 million or so of them will have to have some kind of self-rule—be it autonomy, federation, or confederation—with Turkey, taking our legitimate rights to Western Armenia with them. This is not acceptable!

To achieve their goals, the Kurds need to forge alliances. Among their most natural allies, aside from the mountains, are the Armenians who spread the span of the globe and can exercise their ideological and political clout to bolster the cause. This can happen if and when our love fest is consummated in concrete terms.

We have the same past, the same political and armed struggle, the same national aspirations, the same future, the same destiny, and the reciprocity of goodwill. Furthermore, regardless of all circumstances, we are locked in and destined to live together. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Kurdish Prince Badrkhan forged an alliance with the Armenians, put together some 40,000-strong armies consisting of both parties, and waged a war against the central Turkish government. At the beginning they gave Turks hell only to live in one when Badrkhan’s brother, who was commanding the forces on the right flank of the attack, betrayed them in lieu of money and perks offered him by the Turks.

When all is said and done, Armenians have their own problems and shortcomings. Physically they are scattered almost everywhere and in most places they are comfortable. The genocide and post-genocide psychological and physical translocations have created a reality of apathy in the nation. In the diaspora, people, especially the political parties, are interested in rehashing failed policies because it justifies projecting guilt on the perpetrators of the genocide, thereby avoiding a commitment to the new, necessary, risky, and difficult issue of Western Armenia.

Poverty of thought prevails in the nation; the intellectual class of yesteryear was either beheaded on the eve of the genocide, assassinated like Hrant Dink, or died a natural death. No! There are no replacements! There is a void, a political thought and action vacuum, which the church is trying to fill affirming the millet mentality and reality. History tells us how disastrous that could be!

The Third Republic is corrupt to the core and sitting on its hands while tens of thousands leave the country, creating an unprecedented brain drain.

The diaspora, neglecting the real issue of regaining our rights in Western Armenia, is busy like the hounds chasing the plastic rabbit dangled in front of us. A church here, a church there, or a monument renovated and returned to us, generates psychological but deceptive comfort. It does not address the real issue of Western Armenia.

Movers and shakers—if there are any in the nation—must have unity of purpose. Bring this issue on the radar screen, and then sip champagne with the Kurds under the canopy of the Sevres Treaty, in a divorce settlement while engaging in love fest.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Armenian Kurdish relation, Dr. Henry Astarjian

Turkish Prim minister Erdoğan tells Turkish journalists: don’t cover conflict with Kurds

September 14, 2012 By administrator

By Özgür Öğret and Nina Ognianova/CPJ Europe and  Central Asia Program Staff

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey  is known to lash out publicly at journalists of whose coverage he disapproves. He  has called on media owners and editors to discipline reporters and columnists critical  of his policies, particularly when it comes to the sensitive Kurdish issue. In  more than a few cases, to avoid trouble, newsroom managers have listened and  dismissed the staffers in question.

But Erdoğan’s most recent televised message to  the media crosses from reprimanding into directly instructing journalists to  stop covering the long-standing conflict between the Turkish Armed Forces and  the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This is unthinkable.

At a live TV debate on August 31, the prime  minister told journalists: “This [news about the conflict] must be ignored;  there is no other way.” He proceeded to claim that U.S., French, and British  media do not cover military action in Afghanistan. (This, of course, is untrue.  A simple Google news search of the keywords “coalition forces in Afghanistan”  returns 21,000 hits.)

Erdoğan brought up the recent kidnapping by the PKK of an opposition member of parliament, who was released two days  later in southeastern Turkey. The prime minister said he believed the  kidnapping had been staged and, by covering the incident, Turkish media served  as a propaganda platform for the PKK. “I really expect the media [to act] as  one hand, one heart,” Erdoğan said. “I want to come to an understanding with  you on this subject. This is a message to all the media. There are soldiers of  all the coalition forces in Afghanistan. There were 158 losses in the last  month, I received the numbers today. However, you cannot see this in either a  British newspaper or in a French one. However, when it is us, print media  covers it all.

“What are they [Turkish media] doing?” the  prime minister said. “The most important target of terrorism is propaganda.  [Terrorism] gets it done for free here. On whose side will the media be?”

Propaganda of terrorism is an umbrella term in  Turkey, where the legal system provides authorities with ample opportunity to  prosecute and imprison journalists, publishers, academics, activists, and  demonstrators on the vaguely defined charge. Dozens of journalists are in  prison in Turkey for their work, the vast majority of them on PKK and  terrorism-related charges.

The prime minister has publicly claimed a  commitment to freedom of the press and freedom of expression as pillars of a  democratic society, including in last week’s exclusive interview  with CNN journalist and CPJ board member Christiane Amanpour. But when he  equates media coverage with abetting terrorism, he sends a message to Turkey’s  judiciary and prosecutors to keep going after members of the press who cover  the sensitive Kurdish story.

In his August 31 statements, Erdoğan  specifically told the media to stop reporting on fallen Turkish soldiers, who  are officially recognized as “martyrs” by the Turkish state. When a journalist  pointed out that readers demand coverage of the issue, the prime minister was  straightforward: “Here, I believe that covering it even in small ways should be  put aside. It should not be covered at all.”

It’s of little surprise, then, that  pro-Kurdish local television station Gün TV is banned from broadcasting its  evening news programs for a week starting tomorrow. The program’s hosts were  also banned from appearing on air–not only on Gün TV but on any station–for the  same period. An astronomy documentary series will be aired instead of news,  local reports said. The ban was ordered by the High Board of Radio and  Television (RTÜK)–the state media regulator–on a complaint made by Mustafa  Toprak, the governor of Diyarbakir province, on request of local police. The  complaint reportedly said that Gün TV was involved in terrorist propaganda by  praising the PKK and its leaders, according to the local press.

Meanwhile, the  trial of more than 40 Kurdish journalists, charged with supporting  terrorism, continued for a third consecutive day in Istanbul today. The  accusations stem from media coverage of PKK activities.

Özgür Öğret is a Turkish freelance journalist and CPJ’s Istanbul correspondent.

Nina Ognianova is coordinator of CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia Program. A native of Bulgaria, Ognianova has led CPJ advocacy missions to Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Turkish Prim minister Erdoğan

Kurdish historian on 1915 Armenian Genocide

September 14, 2012 By administrator

September 14, 2012 | 00:04

ANKARA. – Turkish Taraf newspaper correspondent took an interview from a Kurdish famous historian and writer Naci Kutlay. Armenian News-NEWS.am presents an extract from the interview, where Kutlay speaks of Kurds and their role in the Armenian Genocide.

Slaughters of the Armenians were perpetrated during the nationalist boom?

We should know one thing – the Armenians established their party in 1889 and moved into the phase of bourgeoisie, while the Kurds were not even aware of the developed feudal system. In this period all started to be cautious of the Armenians. And the Young Turks started to scare the Kurds by the Armenians.

Did the Kurds play a role in perpetrating Armenian slaughters?

They did play a great role, as majority of the Armenians were slaughtered by the Kurds.

Following those events almost no Armenian was left in Anatolia, while those who stayed hid their identity. Why the Kurds are still afraid of the Armenians?

I am afraid but the issue is still up to date. The Young Turks have told the Kurds if they will not cooperate with Young Turks in their liberation struggle, Armenians will come back and establish their country. It sounded like a verdict for the Kurds.

Is it possible that continuous silence of Turks and Kurds about the Armenian slaughters is related to the robbery of the Armenians’ property?

It is a very huge factor. If you ever happen to be a guest in any home in Diyarbakir, you will be served exclusively with Armenian plates.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: 1. The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity, Naci Kutlay Kurdish historian

Turkey supports Assad toppling to increase regional influence – expert

September 12, 2012 By administrator

September 12, 2012 – 16:35 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net –  From the very onset, Turkey supported toppling of Syria’s Assad regime as a means of boosting its regional influence, a Turkologist believes.

As Hakob Chakryan told a September 12 news conference, “With Turkey having a hand in toppling of Assad, as pro-Turkish forces become included in the new government, Ankara’s regional influence is sure to soar.”

Arab studies expert Hayk Kocharyan, in turn, shared his views on reaching a settlement in Syria crisis.

“First solution would be a Libyan scenario, with a protracted war. The second one is a Somalia scenario, where the country is divided between a number of armed groups, with anarchy reigning.

However, Syria’s system of values makes the 1st scenario unlikely,” the expert said.

Commenting on Turkey’s remarks, suggesting Ankara’s readiness to welcome Syrian Armenians, the expert noted, “Turkey is interested in the collapse of Armenian communities as inheritors of Genocide legacy.”

“I’m confident, however, that Syrian Armenians would never agree to live in Turkey,” he concluded

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: the Young Turks' Crime against Humanity

Owen, Cemal and 1915

September 11, 2012 By administrator

By: Orhan-Kemal-Cengiz

The article was quite interesting for a number of reasons. The first was obvious: A country known as a bastion of democracy is being invited to face its past. And from this article we understood that “facing history is still a hot debate,” even in a place like the UK.Owen started his article with a few quotes from British Foreign Secretary William Hague: “We have to get out of this post-colonial guilt. … Be confident in ourselves.” Jones’s article is a challenge to the “lets forget everything and reach eternal peace” mentality. Hague’s way of relating to the past is quite popular in Turkey, as you probably know. Interestingly, Owen was criticizing Hague’s approach to history by making a comparison with British expectations of Turkey. Owen said, “A foreign country such as Turkey can rightly be berated for failing to come to terms with an atrocity like the Armenian Genocide, but the darkest moments of our own history are intentionally forgotten.”

After reading Owen’s piece in The Independent, I came across a few interviews with Hasan Cemal in different newspapers, all of which were about his new book titled “1915: Armenian Genocide.” The book has not yet been published, but it is already quite famous in Turkey. Some criticize Cemal while some praise him for his soon-to-be-published book.

Cemal is quite a well-known figure in Turkey. He is a journalist and writer, writing a regular column for the Milliyet daily. He is the grandson of Cemal Paşa, one of the three leaders of İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee of Union and Progress [CUP]), which organized the massacres of the Armenians in 1915.

I think his book is quite timely and meaningful. So far I have only seen the cover of the book and read a few sentences from its preface. On the cover, Cemal’s photo appears; in it, he lays flowers at the site of the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan. Obviously, the book will spark quite an intense debate in the coming days, and the discussion has already begun.

Like Owen, Cemal emphasized the importance of facing the past in the interviews he gave. He said: “We cannot move forward without confronting and taking into consideration the events of the past. We cannot keep an eye on the anguish of the past. Moreover, the pain of 1915 is not a story, it is a current day issue.”

I want to conclude this piece with some words I underlined in the preface to Cemal’s new book:

“I cannot forget that Yerevan morning in September 2008. In the first sunlight of the morning, the peak of Mount Ağrı [Ararat] would emerge and then vanish in the fog. ‘The hand of history,’ I had written that morning, ‘will show the way for those who wish to see.’ In 1919, the colonial army of England had opened fire on people in India, committing a crime against humanity by bloodying its hands with the Amritsar Massacre. In 1997, Queen of England Elizabeth II, while apologizing to the people of India, had said that what happened in Amritsar was a tragedy, but ‘history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise.’ Surely we cannot change history; however, facing history is in our hands. Without facing the grim realities of the past, how can we ever move forward? We cannot remain silent in the face of pain! We cannot allow yesterday to take today hostage. … Real peace and democracy can unfortunately only be arrived at by passing through intolerable pain, as in the case of Hrant Dink, through paying a big price. It is evident that some stones in the lives of certain societies don’t happen without the paying of a price, or they don’t sit where they are supposed to.”

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: 1915, armenian genocide, Orhan-Kemal-Cengiz

Cemal Pasha Grandson publishes a book about Armenian Genocide

September 9, 2012 By administrator

13:15, 7 September, 2012

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 7, ARMENPRESS:   Hasam Cemal, the grandson of one of Armenian Genocide perpetrators Cemal Pasha is publishing a book in coming week entitled ”1915. Armenian genocide”.  As Armenpress reports citing Istanbul based ”Agos” Armenian weekly newspaper, the author stated ”We cannot move forward without confronting and taking into consideration the events of past. We cannot keep an eye on the anguish of the past. Moreover the pain of  1915 is not a story, it is current day issue” .

The first chapter of the book runs how Hasan comes to know 1915 events. Then the author dwells on how he became to be called ”parricide” after coming forth with his obtained   information and statements  in the course of Hrant Dink assassination  hearings in 2006. The second chapter of the book tells the author’s way of thinking before reveal of  1915 events  and reportedly how  it  changed in the course of the time.The most interesting part of the book is the third chapter entitled ”Pasha Grandfather or Cemal Pasha family”. This chapter tells about  1915 Armenian Genocide  organizer Cemal Pasha and his  family. Hasan Cemal has repeatedly stated he recognizes 1915 events Genocide. He visted Tsitsernakeberd and laid a wreath at the Genocide Memorial in 2008

Filed Under: Articles, Books Tagged With: Cemal Pasha, Hasam Cemal

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? The gagged whistleblower goes on the record. (Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts)

September 3, 2012 By administrator

By Philip Giraldi • November 1, 2009

Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer and The American Conservative’s Deep Background columnist.

Sibel Edmonds has a story to tell. She went to work as a Turkish and Farsi translator for the FBI five days after 9/11. Part of her job was to translate and transcribe recordings of conversations between suspected Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts. She was fired from the FBI in April 2002 after she raised concerns that one of the translators in her section was a member of a Turkish organization that was under investigation for bribing senior government officials and members of Congress, drug trafficking, illegal weapons sales, money laundering, and nuclear proliferation. She appealed her termination, but was more alarmed that no effort was being made to address the corruption that she had been monitoring.

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI.” Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. “60 Minutes” launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

John Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmed Edmonds’s veracity in a backhanded way by twice invoking the dubious State Secrets Privilege so she could not tell what she knows. The ACLU has called her “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America.”

But on Aug. 8, she was finally able to testify under oath in a court case filed in Ohio and agreed to an interview with The American Conservative based on that testimony. What follows is her own account of what some consider the most incredible tale of corruption and influence peddling in recent times. As Sibel herself puts it, “If this were written up as a novel, no one would believe it.”

* * *

PHILIP GIRALDI: We were very interested to learn of your four-hour deposition in the case involving allegations that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accepted money from the Turkish government in return for political favors. You provided many names and details for the first time on the record and swore an oath confirming that the deposition was true.

Basically, you map out a corruption scheme involving U.S. government employees and members of Congress and agents of foreign governments. These agents were able to obtain information that was either used directly by those foreign governments or sold to third parties, with the proceeds often used as bribes to breed further corruption. Let’s start with the first government official you identified, Marc Grossman, then the third highest-ranking official at the State Department.

SIBEL EDMONDS: During my work with the FBI, one of the major operational files that I was transcribing and translating started in late 1996 and continued until 2002, when I left the Bureau. Because the FBI had had no Turkish translators, these files were archived, but were considered to be very important operations. As part of the background, I was briefed about why these operations had been initiated and who the targets were.

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey [1994-97], when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

GIRALDI: So Grossman at this point comes back to the United States. He’s rewarded with the third-highest position at the State Department, and he allegedly uses this position to do favors for “Turkish interests”—both for the Turkish government and for possible criminal interests. Sometimes, the two converge. The FBI is aware of his activities and is listening to his phone calls. When someone who is Turkish calls Grossman, the FBI monitors that individual’s phone calls, and when the Turk calls a friend who is a Pakistani or an Egyptian or a Saudi, they monitor all those contacts, widening the net.

EDMONDS: Correct.

GIRALDI: And Grossman received money as a result. In one case, you said that a State Department colleague went to pick up a bag of money…

EDMONDS: $14,000

GIRALDI: What kind of information was Grossman giving to foreign countries? Did he give assistance to foreign individuals penetrating U.S. government labs and defense installations as has been reported? It’s also been reported that he was the conduit to a group of congressmen who become, in a sense, the targets to be recruited as “agents of influence.”

EDMONDS: Yes, that’s correct. Grossman assisted his Turkish and Israeli contacts directly, and he also facilitated access to members of Congress who might be inclined to help for reasons of their own or could be bribed into cooperation. The top person obtaining classified information was Congressman Tom Lantos. A Lantos associate, Alan Makovsky worked very closely with Dr. Sabri Sayari in Georgetown University, who is widely believed to be a Turkish spy. Lantos would give Makovsky highly classified policy-related documents obtained during defense briefings for passage to Israel because Makovsky was also working for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

GIRALDI: Makovsky is now working for the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, a pro-Israeli think tank.

EDMONDS: Yes. Lantos was at the time probably the most outspoken supporter of Israel in Congress. AIPAC would take out the information from Lantos that was relevant to Israel, and they would give the rest of it to their Turkish associates. The Turks would go through the leftovers, take what they wanted, and then try to sell the rest. If there were something relevant to Pakistan, they would contact the ISI officer at the embassy and say, “We’ve got this and this, let’s sit down and talk.” And then they would sell it to the Pakistanis.

GIRALDI: ISI—Pakistani intelligence—has been linked to the Pakistani nuclear proliferation program as well as to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

So the FBI was monitoring these connections going from a congressman to a congressman’s assistant to a foreign individual who is connected with intelligence to other intelligence people who are located at different embassies in Washington. And all of this information is in an FBI file somewhere?

EDMONDS: Two sets of FBI files, but the AIPAC-related files and the Turkish files ended up converging in one. The FBI agents believed that they were looking at the same operation. It didn’t start with AIPAC originally. It started with the Israeli Embassy. The original targets were intelligence officers under diplomatic cover in the Turkish Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. It was those contacts that led to the American Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and then to AIPAC fronting for the Israelis. It moved forward from there.

GIRALDI: So the FBI was monitoring people from the Israeli Embassy and the Turkish Embassy and one, might presume, the Pakistani Embassy as well?

EDMONDS: They were the secondary target. They got leftovers from the Turks and Israelis. The FBI would intercept communications to try to identify who the diplomatic target’s intelligence chief was, but then, in addition to that, there are individuals there, maybe the military attaché, who had their own contacts who were operating independently of others in the embassy.

GIRALDI: So the network starts with a person like Grossman in the State Department providing information that enables Turkish and Israeli intelligence officers to have access to people in Congress, who then provide classified information that winds up in the foreign embassies?

EDMONDS: Absolutely. And we also had Pentagon officials doing the same thing. We were looking at Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. They had a list of individuals in the Pentagon broken down by access to certain types of information. Some of them would be policy related, some of them would be weapons-technology related, some of them would be nuclear-related. Perle and Feith would provide the names of those Americans, officials in the Pentagon, to Grossman, together with highly sensitive personal information: this person is a closet gay; this person has a chronic gambling issue; this person is an alcoholic. The files on the American targets would contain things like the size of their mortgages or whether they were going through divorces. One Air Force major I remember was going through a really nasty divorce and a child custody fight. They detailed all different kinds of vulnerabilities.

GIRALDI: So they had access to their personnel files and also their security files and were illegally accessing this kind of information to give to foreign agents who exploited the vulnerabilities of these people to recruit them as sources of information?

EDMONDS: Yes. Some of those individuals on the list were also working for the RAND Corporation. RAND ended up becoming one of the prime targets for these foreign agents.

GIRALDI: RAND does highly classified research for the U.S. government. So they were setting up these people for recruitment as agents or as agents of influence?

EDMONDS: Yes, and the RAND sources would be paid peanuts compared to what the information was worth when it was sold if it was not immediately useful for Turkey or Israel. They also had sources who were working in some midwestern Air Force bases. The sources would provide the information on CD’s and DVD’s. In one case, for example, a Turkish military attaché got the disc and discovered that it was something really important, so he offered it to the Pakistani ISI person at the embassy, but the price was too high. Then a Turkish contact in Chicago said he knew two Saudi businessmen in Detroit who would be very interested in this information, and they would pay the price. So the Turkish military attaché flew to Detroit with his assistant to make the sale.

GIRALDI: We know Grossman was receiving money for services.

EDMONDS: Yes. Sometimes he would give money to the people who were working with him, identified in phone calls on a first-name basis, whether it’s a John or a Joe. He also took care of some other people, including his contact at the New York Times. Grossman would brag, “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”

GIRALDI: Did Feith and Perle receive any money that you know of?

EDMONDS: No.

GIRALDI: So they were doing favors for other reasons. Both Feith and Perle were lobbyists for Turkey and also were involved with Israel on defense contracts, including some for Northrop Grumman, which Feith represented in Israel.

EDMONDS: They had arrangements with various companies, some of them members of the American Turkish Council. They had arrangements with Kissinger’s group, with Northrop Grumman, with former secretary of state James Baker’s group, and also with former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

The monitoring of the Turks picked up contacts with Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle in the summer of 2001, four months before 9/11. They were discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the U.S. would invade Iraq and divide the country. The UK would take the south, the rest would go to the U.S. They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil. The Turks were very supportive, but wanted a three-part division of Iraq to include their own occupation of the Kurdish region. The three Defense Department officials said that would be more than they could agree to, but they continued daily communications to the ambassador and his defense attaché in an attempt to convince them to help.

Meanwhile Scowcroft, who was also the chairman of the American Turkish Council, Baker, Richard Armitage, and Grossman began negotiating separately for a possible Turkish protectorate. Nothing was decided, and then 9/11 took place.

Scowcroft was all for invading Iraq in 2001 and even wrote a paper for the Pentagon explaining why the Turkish northern front would be essential. I know Scowcroft came off as a hero to some for saying he was against the war, but he was very much for it until his client’s conditions were not met by the Bush administration.

GIRALDI: Armitage was deputy secretary of state at the time Scowcroft and Baker were running their own consulting firms that were doing business with Turkey. Grossman had just become undersecretary, third in the State hierarchy behind Armitage.

You’ve previouly alluded to efforts by Grossman, as well as high-ranking officials at the Pentagon, to place Ph.D. students. Can you describe that in more detail?

EDMONDS: The seeding operation started before Marc Grossman arrived at the State Department. The Turkish agents had a network of Turkish professors in various universities with access to government information. Their top source was a Turkish-born professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was useful because MIT would place a bunch of Ph.D. or graduate-level students in various nuclear facilities like Sandia or Los Alamos, and some of them were able to work for the Air Force. He would provide the list of Ph.D. students who should get these positions. In some cases, the Turkish military attaché would ask that certain students be placed in important positions. And they were not necessarily all Turkish, but the ones they selected had struck deals with the Turkish agents to provide information in return for money. If for some reason they had difficulty getting a secuity clearance, Grossman would ensure that the State Department would arrange to clear them.

In exchange for the information that these students would provide, they would be paid $4,000 or $5,000. And the information that was sold to the two Saudis in Detroit went for something like $350,000 or $400,000.

GIRALDI: This corruption wasn’t confined to the State Department and the Pentagon—it infected Congress as well. You’ve named people like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, now a registered agent of the Turkish government. In your deposition, you describe the process of breaking foreign-originated contributions into small units, $200 or less, so that the source didn’t have to be reported. Was this the primary means of influencing congressmen, or did foreign agents exploit vulnerabilities to get what they wanted using something like blackmail?

EDMONDS: In early 1997, because of the information that the FBI was getting on the Turkish diplomatic community, the Justice Department had already started to investigate several Republican congressmen. The number-one congressman involved with the Turkish community, both in terms of providing information and doing favors, was Bob Livingston. Number-two after him was Dan Burton, and then he became number-one until Hastert became the speaker of the House. Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, was briefed on the investigations, and since they were Republicans, she authorized that they be continued.

Well, as the FBI developed more information, Tom Lantos was added to this list, and then they got a lot on Douglas Feith and Richard Perle and Marc Grossman. At this point, the Justice Department said they wanted the FBI to only focus on Congress, leaving the executive branch people out of it. But the FBI agents involved wanted to continue pursuing Perle and Feith because the Israeli Embassy was also connected. Then the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, and everything was placed on the back burner.

But some of the agents continued to investigate the congressional connection. In 1999, they wiretapped the congressmen directly. (Prior to that point they were getting all their information secondhand through FISA, as their primary targets were foreigners.) The questionably legal wiretap gave the perfect excuse to the Justice Department. As soon as they found out, they refused permission to monitor the congressmen and Grossman as primary targets. But the inquiry was kept alive in Chicago because the FBI office there was pursuing its own investigation. The epicenter of a lot of the foreign espionage activity was Chicago.

GIRALDI: So the investigation stopped in Washington, but continued in Chicago?

EDMONDS: Yes, and in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

GIRALDI: So we have a pattern of corruption starting with government officials providing information to foreigners and helping them make contact with other Americans who had valuable information. Some of these officials, like Marc Grossman, were receiving money directly. Others were receiving business favors: Pentagon associates like Doug Feith and Richard Perle had interests in Israel and Turkey. The stolen information was being sold, and the money that was being generated was used to corrupt certain congressmen to influence policy and provide still more information—in many cases information related to nuclear technology.

EDMONDS: As well as weapons technology, conventional weapons technology, and Pentagon policy-related information.

GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…

EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.

GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.

EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?

GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.

EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.

GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?

EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium with NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.

GIRALDI: And, of course, none of this has been investigated. What do you think the chances are that the Obama administration will try to end this criminal activity?

EDMONDS: Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Philip Giraldi, Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator, Turkish intelligence agents and their American contacts

State Departments seeks details from Hungary on Safarov transfer decision

September 2, 2012 By administrator

02:56, 1 September, 2012

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: The United States is extremely troubled by the news that the President of Azerbaijan pardoned Azerbaijani army officer Ramil Safarov, who returned to Baku today following his transfer from Hungary. As Armenpress reports citing the official website of US State Department, the acting deputy spokesperson of the State Department Patrick Ventrell made a statement on Safarov case.

“Mr. Safarov had been serving a life sentence in a Hungarian jail for murdering Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan during a 2004 NATO training event in Budapest.

We are expressing our deep concern to Azerbaijan regarding this action and seeking an explanation. We are also seeking further details from Hungary regarding the decision to transfer Mr. Safarov to Azerbaijan. We condemn any action that fuels regional tensions.”

Filed Under: Articles

Hungarian opposition demands the resignation of Justice Minister

September 2, 2012 By administrator

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: Hungarian opposition “Democratic coalition” party demands the resignation of Vice-Prime Minister of Hungary, minister of Justice Tibor Navracsics. In response to the question of Armenpress from opposition, left wing party mentioned that Hungarian Government did not act neutrally towards Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. “The Government of Victor Orban by extraditing Ramil Safarov shows that human life is not estimated in Hungary as a blood-mad who murdered a man with an axe has been released” informed from the party.

The party demands to call an out of turn session of Hungarian Parliament.

The Democratic Coalition abbreviated to DK, is a centre-left political party in Hungary led by former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcs. Founded in 2010 as a group within the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), the party split from the MSZP on 22 October 2011 and became a separate party. It has ten MPs in the National Assembly.

On February 19 of 2004 in Budapest Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov slayed with an ax Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan when the latter was sleeping. The two officers were taking part in English language courses in framework of NATO program in Budapest. Hungarian court sentenced Ramil Safarov to life imprisonment, without a right to be pardoned during the first 30 years in jail. On August 31 of 2012 Hungarian authorites made a decision to extradite Safarov to Azerbaijan.

Filed Under: Articles

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 2064
  • 2065
  • 2066
  • 2067
  • 2068
  • Next Page »

Support Gagrule.net

Subscribe Free News & Update

Search

GagruleLive with Harut Sassounian

Can activist run a Government?

Wally Sarkeesian Interview Onnik Dinkjian and son

https://youtu.be/BiI8_TJzHEM

Khachic Moradian

https://youtu.be/-NkIYpCAIII
https://youtu.be/9_Xi7FA3tGQ
https://youtu.be/Arg8gAhcIb0
https://youtu.be/zzh-WpjGltY





gagrulenet Twitter-Timeline

Tweets by @gagrulenet

Archives

Books

Recent Posts

  • An Armenian Story Reaches the British Royal Family
  • Pashinyan & Company, greedy, evil, all-hating & all-powerful people clinging to their chairs…
  • Why Diaspora Armenian Must Begin Discussing a Government in Exile?
  • Israel recognized Armenian Genocide, Pashinyan in Panic
  • Pashinyan Toys: Some of the weapons on display turned out not to be weapons at all

Recent Comments

  • Tina on Anna Hakobyan prepared a heartbreaking text about the deprivations “Hraparak”
  • Baron Kisheranotz on Pashinyan’s Betrayal Dressed as Peace
  • Baron Kisheranotz on Trusting Turks or Azerbaijanis is itself a betrayal of the Armenian nation.
  • Stepan on A Nation in Peril: Anything Armenian pashinyan Dismantling
  • Stepan on Draft Letter to Armenian Legal Scholars / Armenian Bar Association

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in