ANCA-GW Calls for Investigation into Anti-Armenian Threat
BETHESDA, Md.—The Armenian National Committee of America – Greater Washington (ANCA-GW) today called upon police and postal authorities to fully investigate and prosecute an anti-Armenian threat against an elderly Rockville couple of Armenian heritage.
An envelope addressed to A. Sahagian included a news clipping (see attached image) about the recent Boston Marathon bombing, with the handwritten message: “Another Armenian Bastard,” pointing to a discredited link between this act of terrorism and what the news story incorrectly referenced as “an Armenian man named ‘Misha.'”
“We call upon federal and local authorities to immediately investigate and fully prosecute those responsible for this hate crime,” said ANCA-Greater Washington spokesperson Sevan Kolejian. “This hateful act of intolerance and intimidation also serves to remind the media of the human price innocent citizens are paying for their flagrant and repeated misreporting of the ‘Misha’ story.”
Ara and Salpee Sahagian are both long-time residents of Maryland, having served in the lay leadership of Bethesda’s Soorp Khatch Armenian Apostolic Church, and as active members in a range of community and civic organizations. A U.S. Army veteran, Ara worked for four decades as an engineer for the Department of the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. His wife, Salpee, worked at the Library of Congress and later served as an aide to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.
In the days following the Boston Marathon bombing, Armenian Americans protested news outlets that repeated the unsubstantiated, and now fully discredited, allegation by the uncle of the two suspects, Ruslan Tsarni, that they were somehow inspired to commit these crimes by an ethnic Armenian convert to Islam. News reports later identified ‘Misha’ as Mikhail Allakhverdov, an Armenian-Ukrainian from Azerbaijan, whose family fled anti-Armenian persecution in the early 1990’s.
The ANCA-Greater Washington, DC has reached out to local churches and community groups to collect information regarding any other reported instances of anti-Armenian hatred, and calls upon all Armenian Americans to report documented cases of anti-Armenian hate crime to report-hate-crime@anca.org.
Guest Contributor
No doubt an offensive act as much as an offensive assertion, but which part of that conduct constitutes as “hate-crime”; be it anti-Armenian or otherwise?
Nomad…Calling someone an idiot or Fresh off the boat is offensive…But sending a letter and stating Another Bastard Armenian linking to one of the most horrible terrorist chapter in recent times IS NOT JUST OFFENSIVE dude or dudette.. it is considered “hate-crime”
ANCA Great Deal
God Bless you ALL
The enigma of “Armenian Misha” affair was strange enough as the mass-media blew it out proportion by basically taking the word of the family of terrorists – a clear attempt to divert attention. Now, that Misha is identified, the affair become outright bizarre, since it completely died out. As if the notion that an Armenian from Azerbaijan, who escaped Muslim Azeri pogroms would adopt Islam in America was not strange enough. Add the fact that uncle Tsarni, the “Misha Affairs” whistle-blower, was employed by the Azeri State Oil Company. Questions, questions… What about Misha? Does this Armenian exist? Is there a photo? Why does his father, supposedly Armenian with Ukrainian wife have Alahverdov-Amatuni name – probably one of the strangest combinations of names, a Turkish root name with historically Royal Armenian name? Questions abound. Until you connect the “Misha Affair” to one factor: over the last 20 years thousands of Azeris, Mountain Tut Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, etc from Azerbaijan claimed, in the US, to be Armenians, to exploit US refugee and asylum visa program. There are law firms in NYC which specialize in turning any ethnicity with Azeri passports to “Armenians” to secure US residency. It seems the “Misha Affair” was dropped by the the media not to “point fingers” at some sensitive directions. Meanwhile, Armenians did not manage to get the closure on this bizarre “Misha Affair”.
Gayane,
Please cite a state or federal statute and or caselaw to back up your claim. I am unaware of any law that would criminalize such offensive, derogatory or bigoted speech. Such speech is constitutionally protected even though it is hateful speech but; speech alone is not what anti hate-crime statutes aim to control, it is the actions undertaken which manifest in some crime which is labeled as hate crime and punishable with a much higher sentences than your regular, garden variety crime.
@nomad, the only thing in your comment and reply to I can give you credit for is your nickname. What an appropriate reply to go along with an appropriate nickname. Your lack of understanding of hate crimes, whether it can or can not be legally prosecuted, is a true reflection of your “nomadic” mentality. The phrase “Another Armenian Bastard” is no different from and synonymous with the phrase “All Armenians are Bastards” and if you don’t consider this a hate crime then you are either biased, ignorant, hypocrite or all of the above. Give me your address and I will send you a letter with the phrase “Another Kafir Turkish Terrorist Bastard” causing so much pain on the city of Boston killing and maiming innocent civilians whose only crime was to participate in an annual marathon. Then you can tell me how you feel about my letter.
If its not against the law….. Doesnt that mean its not a crime? Nahhhhh, that makes too much sense.
Sending an offensive letter to someone is protected by the First Amendment of the United States and is not a crime. Unless there is a clear threat, which in this case does not exist.
.
Our organizations (in this case ANCA) should definitely voice an outrage when there is a hate speech against us. But they should also avoid making ignorant statement such as “the letter is a crime, so FBI should investigate.” That does not make us look credible and does not help our cause.
.
There are many open-minded and educated individuals in our community who know the American laws, such as the Armenian Bar Association. ANCA should consult with them before making rush steps. While I appreciate the lobbying work by ANCA and ARF, their bellicose tactics sometimes are counterproductive. As I have stated elsewhere, it was the pro-Armenian British historian Christopher Walker who described ANCA (or “ACIA”, as it was called after WWI) as “bellicose and chauvinistic”
http://armenia-survival.50megs.com/Survival_Ch_8.htm
“Sending an offensive letter to someone is protected by the First Amendment of the United States”.
Yes, a-ha, and the Constitution of the United States (Article 1 Section 8) affirms that the Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. However, the Federal Reserve, a private institution, performs these vital functions.
correction: @nomad, the only thing in your comment and reply to gayane…I included gayane’s name in brackets and the whole thing was dropped for some reason.
Any Muslim Armenian was probably brainwashed himself by a Turk at some point. So blame the Turks, if you’re going to follow that logic.
Ararat jan,
Please keep the discourse civil because so far that has been the tone of my commentary here. Refrain from ad hominem attacks against me for the obvious reason that you have no idea who I am, my educational background or philosophical positions as well as that it does nothing but distract us from the issue that I raised which others in this thread are interested in discussing. My pseudonym and address has nothing to do with what I put forth, that offensive speech in and of itself is not considered hate crime no matter how much you or others want it to be. Absent any conduct to follow it or immediate threat of conduct which could possibly be construed as a crime is NOT a hate crime.
I am no constitutional scholar but I am well versed in the laws of this country. My take on the issue so far has not be refuted thus far; again, please provide some authority to go with the claim asserted by ANCA’s call for FBI to investigate and prosecute what ANCA labels as hate crime. Vahagn seems to hit the nail on the head.
So please, let’s narrow on this issue and provide explanations why you think ANCA’s characterization of someone sending a racist mail is or should be considered a hate crime. Any tangential discussions including personal attacks on commentators is not only offensive in its own right, or should I too say that it is a “hate-crime”, but more so, it is counterproductive and thus irrelevant!
Hate crime or not, to see to whom the allegiances of the “justice” system belong, imagine if this was an elderly Jewish couple and you would see the full force of the ADL come down on this and cries of anti-semitism would be heard all over.
Exactly Hye jan…
We are not in a courtroom: what is a hate ‘crime’ or isn’t is irrelevant in the infopolitical arena.
The purpose is to affect and shape the political discourse and perceptions. To raise awareness.
To that end, what ANCA did was correct: you ‘overcharge’, and let the courts sort it out, as it were.
—-
Federal prosecutors routinely overcharge suspects. Some of the charges are outlandish: Feds are not stupid and know the law.
Overcharging is done for a reason.
For example, one of the charges against the Boston bombers is ‘use of Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Yes: a homemade pressure cooker bomb is given the same classification as a nuclear bomb. (the only real WMD, btw).
And what used to be simple threats before, are now called “making terrorist threats”.
Attach the label “terrorist” liberally to ordinary crimes in order to contaminate and induce bias in the minds of the jurors: no red-blooded American juror will let a “terrorist” go free after 9/11. So, everybody is involved in the game: the FBI, Federal Prosecutors, politicians, news media. Everybody.
Yet some people who are supposedly Armenian or friends of Armenians advise Armenian organizations, such as ANCA, to stand down: fat chance. Go ANCA.
—–
To chide ANCA for supposedly not knowing the law and overreacting is either naïve or has subtle Anti-Armenian agenda.
They have very smart, educated, knowledgeable people at the helm.
ANCA is not a Law firm anymore than ADL is. They are an advocacy grassroots organization.
When you are at the vanguard, you necessarily push the envelope. Comes with the job.
—–
And all you First Amendment experts: please review the story below, and explain to us yokels who have not heard about the 1st why the FBI would get involved.
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21006868769243/fbi-bso-investigate-hate-messages-at-restaurant/
None of the hate messages reported are threats. Certainly the suspicious gas leak would warrant investigation by the local cops for sure, but that’s it.
So why did the FBI get involved ?
Let me paste the relevant parts below:
{‘hate messages’}
‘{The kosher Jewish restaurant has reportedly received hate mail’}
{‘left anti-Semitic messages’}
{‘The hate messages have intensified. One read, “Take the long way home,” and another read, “Go [expletive] yourself.” Some of the notes even contain the Star of David.’.
NOTE: read carefully and evaluate what exactly is being classified as ‘intensification’ (!) and compare with the message sent to the Armenian couple.
And there is not a word in the article about any threats being made.
Again, why would the FBI get involved ?
I have a pretty good idea why (which I support, btw): see if you First Amendment experts can figure it out.
——
One final example:
Look up what was done to one Brandon Raub, a former US Marine.
He posted some stuff on Facebook.
He had made no threats against anyone. None against anyone specific.
Here is one paragraph:
{Though his defenders claim he is a patriot meaning no harm, the former Marine directly encouraged a popular revolution against tyrannical and un-constitutional government, claiming he would “kickstart” resistance. No direct threats were posted, and posts of this darker nature were a mixture of statements authorities construed as incitements to violence and song lyrics from heavy rock music.}
—-
NO Direct Threats were posted.
But authorities construed some statements – don’t you love that word ‘construed’ – to be threats.
—-
So what happened after they so ‘construed’ ?
{WASHINGTON, August 22, 2012 — Brandon J. Raub, a 26-year-old pro-liberty activist, former U.S. Marine, and Virginia resident, was arrested after authorities deemed his Facebook posts threatening. Citing an obscure statute allowing the involuntary detainment of a citizen for psychiatric evaluation, the FBI, Secret Service, and local authorities swarmed Raub’s property to question and then seize him.}
{Without a warrant or recitation of his Miranda rights, Raub was handcuffed and taken into custody. After a quick hearing, government officials confirmed that Raub’s Facebook posts necessitated his detention, refusing to acknowledge legal objections that the words were wrongly interpreted. The former Marine will undergo 30 days of evaluation at Salem VA Medical Center.}
—-
The point being that if the Feds want you, they will find an obscure law amongst 10s of thousands of statutes on the books to get you, First Amendment or not – to make an example of you.
—–
So don’t give us any baloney lectures about the First Amendment: you are not the only ones who have heard about the US Constitution and know about law.
And in Boston bombing discussions, some people who are supposedly Armenian or “friends” of Armenians advise Armenians to, quote “not overreact, sheesh” to the vague Armenian connection to the bombing reported by the US media. For some reason, I don’t see them in this thread…
Sending an offensive letter may be legal in the US, but the law is not black and white all the time, there could be consequences to your “free speech”. And the fact that acts of terrorism are involved in this situation complicates it even further. For all we know the senior abusing lowlife behind that letter could be a terrorist in training who could bring harm to Americans of Armenian descent in the future, which is why ANCA did the right thing by calling an investigation. At the least it should be found out who it is and noted for security purposes, even if he is not convicted of any crime.
.
Also, since the hate-speech terrorist sending the letter is reacting to acts of terrorism as a pseudo-patriot, if I was this couple I would take this as a threat and fear for my life, since someone knows who I am and where I live but not the reverse. Sending an insult to someone over the internet and a hard copy to their place of residence are two different things. The latter is serious and could easily lead to acts of hate-crimes and/or domestic terrorism.
There is a lot of Gish Gallop here in the comments section so I will try to respond in a general manner but more so on Avery’s comments.
I fail to see how the example with the Federal Reserve has any bearing on the subject matter.
As to ANCA not being a law firm and their statements not to be taken as if it is in a courtroom is a detractor. A straw-man if you will. I have not stated the FBI should not investigate but rather that I do not see how just sending the letter itself is a hate-crime. And to suggest the ANCA should get impunity for characterizing it such under the guise that they should shotgun all concepts to see what sticks, as was stated prosecutors do almost all the time, is ludicrous. Seriously, follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion, should then ANCA misrepresent an act as being a murder, rape and bribery just to intimidate the supposed hate-crime offender or at least sway public opinion in an overtly emotional rather than a rational way? This is absurd. What prosecutors do is a form of intimidation, no different than what cops use daily, such as voice control to psychologically subdue their suspects or at least to get them to comply. These are well studied tactics but to suggest a nonprofit advocacy group to knowingly resort to such behavior specially when they know better, does not sit right with me. Does it sit right with you?… Yes, I understand the law is not black and white and that is why I asked for some evidence(caselaw applying state/federal law and more facts surrounding this case) to show that that particular conduct could be put in the hate-crime category. Furthermore, I already stated that I am not a constitutional scholar so how is it that I am “lecturing” or and “expert’ on matters of free speech and the first amendment is perplexing.
Oh and please, again, can you guys tone down on the ad hominems. No one is here trying to weigh anyone’s Armenianness or their patriotism and sense of nationality. There is no gold standard to compare it to for one thing, and I wouldn’t dare try to psychoanalyze someone in that context as I have no right to do so and neither should anyone else. Criticizing policies, people and organizations is a very healthy and proper endeavor indeed; and threats of not getting in line with the standard narrative in order to silence dissent is elementary and not productive.
{I fail to see how the example with the Federal Reserve has any bearing on the subject matter.} nomad— It has no direct bearing on the subject matter, but the poster ‘Vahagn’ is renowned on these pages bloviating about the impeccable American democracy and the laws of this country that are strictly observed to protect the rights of her citizens. FedReserve discrepancy is just one of many examples in the U.S. Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) that testifies to the opposite. Avery has gone farther to show how Feds can arrest a citizen (a former U.S. Marine) based on obscure law that they dug out from tens of thousands of statutes. As you see, First Amendment didn’t save this American patriot from arrest.
John,
I realize the American justice/legal system is not as perfect as one would like to have it; no legal institution or any type of institution is inherently ideal. Power and money does influence public opinion, affects how laws are enacted and more so, how judges interpret them; however, what the FBI did in some other case, unrelated to this one is irrelevant. At least irrelevant in part to the adjudication of this case if even it ends up in the courts. I have not looked at Avery’s link regarding the US Marine case or the other case because there is no need to. What matters is case precedence when determining what constitutes “hate-crime.” I am not interested in anecdotal evidence but some authoritative opinion with regard to our discussion. Possibly if there are empirical studies that would help as well.
In any case I have stated before, that the FBI should investigate this incident. Furthermore, I think ANCA would have been on better footing had they concluded a qualifier before the word “hate-crime,” such as saying we call on the FBI to investigate a “possible hate-crime” or something like that. That would have made this discussion a lot different
Here is my take on the Federal Reserve example:
I know very little about the Federal Reserve, but if my memory serves me well, Federal Reserve was created at the time when FDR was in office. I believe it was part of his “New Deal” along witht he social net, to make sure the economic market did not crash as it did in the time of the Great Depression. I stand corrected if I am wrong. If the Federal Reserve is a private entity or even a quasi-public entity, that does not contradict the Constitution. Congress has the power to delegate its power to other institutions, such as the FDA, USDA,EPA… I realize the aforementioned organizations are publicly ran organizations but I don’t see why Congress can not assign part of its duties to a private entity,especially given that it has complete oversight on that entity; as Congress has over the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, the Court has decided in prior case that interpreted the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment (clause that deals with governmental taking of private property for Public Use) to take away private property by eminent domain and give it to a private entity. The Court reasoned that so long as the purpose of the property taken was to serve the public good, then it doesn’t matter who gets the property, the government or a private entity. In that case the property was given to some developers. See the following Kelo case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
The Constitution is not this stagnant, black and white document that is suppose to spell out every aspect of human behavior. It is a sort of a guideline for making interpretations as set forth by the Founding Fathers, all things being equal of course, and not to digress into original meaning and the “living breathing document” discussion. The Constitution is vague, broad and specific at the same time. Yes, it does sound illogical and it sometimes is but pointing to specific portions of the US Constitution and saying, “hey look, it says such and such here”, is I’m afraid, not how jurisprudence works in this country. A specific portion of the US Constitution is almost like and index to a body of law, that law which becomes precedent and is controlling. Just one word of the Constitution can have 100s if not 1000s of cases interpreting it. For example, the first amendment says you have the right to “Freedom of Speech,”; however, I can’t walk into an airport and yell “I have a bomb!” or go into a movie theater and yell “Fire!!” and expect to argue successfully that I have freedom of speech thus I should be allowed to indulge myself in such conduct. That behavior is not protected by the first Amendment, for reasons that I am not going to get into right now, but you see how saying those things would be counterproductive to a healthy society and are outlawed. Thus, I can’t just pick a statement out of the US Constitution and say hey look it says Freedom of Speech so I can say whatever I want, no, no, no; that is not how it works. This is pretty much what the religious right does on a daily basis without understanding how the legal system works.
In any case, even if Federal Reserve is a private institution and thus is somehow in conflict with the US Constitution, wouldn’t we expect someone to challenge it under that very same provision and prevail? I mean by this time someone or some organization would have challenged it, don’t you think? And I don’t know the history of the Federal Reserve, so in all likelihood it has been challenged and the High Court or some lower court has seen no problems there. Given the reality that we live in such a litigious society, on would at the least expect a challenge either by a real plaintiff or some non-profit, such as the ACLU, for Constitution’s sake. The fact that Federal Reserve is still operating for all this time, is evident that either it has not been challenged, or has been challenged and been found to be in compliance with the US Constitution, thus it is a moot argument to have.
Note to the Moderator: If by any chance this is being read by the newspaper’s administration or the web Admins, I think the discussions would be better served if commentators had the options to use Italics, Underline and Bold for better emphasis of their comments. Just a suggestion. Thanks!
Thank you for the suggestion. We now have the options you listed and more.
Admin:
you had Italics and bold about a year or two ago, but you removed it for some reason., it's good you brought it back.
perhaps some day you will also go back to the previous look & feel before the recent major change. don't know how others feel, but the new look & feel (fonts, colors, etc) looks strange. The previous look & feel was really elegant and pleasing to the eye.
One man's opinion.