The Armenian Reporter
P.O. Box 129
Paramus, NJ 07652
Tel: (201) 226-1995
Fax: (201) 226-1660
E-mail: armenianreporter@msn.com
Web:

January 13, 2007
_______________________

* THE AKCAM CASE: PRIMARY DOCUMENTS *

PARAMUS, NJ — The Armenian Reporter has obtained several primary
documents pertaining to the case of Taner Akcam, the Turkish
intellectual and professor at the University of Minnesota who was the
subject of a formal complainit this week under Turkey’s Penal Code
Article 301, for having recognized the Armenian Genocide in a
newspaper column last October.

Five primary documents appear below.

First is the text of an "Open Letter" Mr. Akcam circulated on Jauary
7, 2007, in which he describes the circumstances of the charges
against him, and his actions thus far.

Second is a transcript of the official complaint against Mr. Akcam,
submitted by Recep Akkus (an associate of ultra-nationalist attorney
Kemal Kerinçsiz) to the Office of the State Head Prosecutor at
Sisli. This is an English translation of a Turkish original.

Third is a transcript of the deposition Mr. Akcam gave to the State
Prosecutor at Sisli. This is an English translation of a Turkish
original.

Fourth is an English translation of Mr. Akcam’s Oct. 6, 2006 column in
Agos, wherein he reacted to the complaint against Agos editor Hrant
Dink, and himself affirmed the Armenian Genocide as such. It was on
the basis of this column that Turkish prosecutors this week launched
the investigation into Akcam on the charge of "insulting Turkishness."
This authorized translation of the Turkish original marks the first
time the column has appeared in English.

Fifth (and finally) is the letter issued by the University of
Minnesota upholding the academic freedom of Taner Akçam.

Mr. Akcam has approved the release of these documents, which will
shortly be posted on the websites of the University of Minnesota
Dept. of History and of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide
Studies. The Reporter refers readers to and
for further information.

* * *

1 — TANER AKCAM’S OPEN LETTER

January 7, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to advise you that a criminal complaint has been filed
against me in Turkey. I have already informed Radikal newspaper and
expect coverage to appear any day now. Agos managing editor Hrant Dink
is informing the Turkish press.

Last Thursday, January 4, while I was visiting the Agos newspaper
offices in Istanbul, Dink informed me that a summons had been issued
regarding my column of October 6, 2006.

In this column, "Hrant Dink, 301, and a criminal complaint" (Hrant
Dink, 301 ve bir suç duyurusu), I had criticized the prosecution
against Dink for his use of the term "genocide" (soyk?r?m), declared
that I myself had been using that term, called upon other Turkish
intellectuals to join me in support of Dink, and challenged the
authorities to accept my column as evidence of the same "offense" that
Dink had committed. On October 12, Recep Akkus, a Turkish citizen
filed a criminal complaint against me at the Eyüp district of
Istanbul. The Eyüp public prosecutor referred the complaint to the
Sisli district, where my publisher, Agos is located.

Because I do not maintain a legal address in Turkey, Agos publisher
Serkis Seropyan and editor- in-chief Arat Dink (Hrant’s son), were to
be held liable for my column. It was alleged that my column had
violated Articles 301/1 (insulting "Turkishness"), 214 (instigation to
commit a crime), 215 (praise of a crime and a criminal–note that
H. Dink had not even been tried yet), and 216 (instigation of group
hatred and animosity).

Not wishing Agos to face prosecution on my account, I visited the
Sisli prosecutor’s office on Friday, January 5, accompanied by two
attorneys for the newspaper, to file my response.

As soon as we arrived, the prosecutor dismissed the complaint against
Seropian and A. Dink. "Mr. Akcam is here," he told the secretary, "so
we don’t need any testimony from the other two." He then left the
office for a doctor’s appointment. Another official took my statement.

I confirmed that I was the author of the column and that the text had
not been altered. I declared that the policy of the Committee of Union
and Progress against the Armenians in 1915 could be described as a
genocide according to the United Nations definition of 1948. The
column represented the free expression of my opinion. I had not
written it at the behest of any organization or association. I was a
professor of history and had published scholarly works on the
topic. The column reflected my conviction as a scholar, based on my 15
to 20 years of research. I had expressed this conviction on numerous
occasions in articles for Agos and other newspapers in Turkey. My
scholarly works had been published in Turkish as well as in other
languages. My intention was neither to insult, nor to further the
agenda of, any racial or ethnic group, but rather to express my
convictions the product of my scholarly research, according to my
right of free speech. If I came across documented evidence against my
point of view, then as a scholar, I could modify my position. My
column was an expression of scholarly objectivity and freedom of
speech. In writing it, I had not committed any crime.

The two attorneys from Agos formally requested that charges not be
brought against me. They pointed out that similar cases had resulted
in acquittal. They also argued that a discriminatory double standard
was being enforced against Agos but not against other Turkish
newspapers which had published similar statements.

I will be circulating English versions of my Oct. 6 column, the
criminal complaint, my response, and the attorneys’ arguments. I see
two alternatives: either the Sisli prosecutor will bring charges
against me or, based on the precedent of Elif Shafak’s acquittal, the
complaint will be dismissed and no charges will be brought. The
attorneys and H. Dink see the hand of the Deep State in this matter
and anticipate that because this same Sisli prosecutor has been
responsible for the cases against Orhan Pamuk, Shafak, and H. Dink, I
too am likely to face prosecution.

With thanks and best regards,

Taner

Taner Akçam
Visiting Associate Professor
Department of History
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
University of Minnesota

* * *

2 — TRANSCRIPT OF COMPLAINT AGAINST TANER AKCAM (Trans. from Turkish)

>From the Office of the State Head Prosecutor at Eyüp
To the Office of the State Head Prosecutor at Sisli

Complainant: Recep AKKUS …

Suspect: Taner AKÇAM …

Offense: TCK [Turkish Criminal Code] 301/1, 214, 215 and 216
[insulting Turkishness, inciting the commission of a crime, praising a
crime and a criminal, inciting hatred, and enmity amongst the populace
or crimes of degradation]

Investigation [faint stamp]
18-10-06 [faint stamped date] …

DATE OF OFFENSE: Oct. 6, 2006.

SUBJECT: In the October 6, 2006, edition of AGOS Newspaper, page two,
appearing in the corner column titled `Arada S?rada’ (From Time to
Time) in his article titled `Hrant Dink, 301 and a Criminal
Complaint,’ [the suspect] having made it obvious that he was defending
the existence of an Armenian genocide, it is demanded that prosecution
be initiated against the suspect, that his statements be evaluated in
whole, and that this submission is based upon the acts having
comprised the crimes of insulting Turkishness, TCK [Turkish Criminal
Code] Article 301/1; inciting the commission of a crime, TCK Article
214; praising a crime and a criminal, TCK Article 215; inciting hatred
and enmity amongst the populace, TCK Article 216; and therefore an
indictment against the suspect and sentencing of punishment after
prosecution is hereby demanded.

EXPLANATIONS:

(1) In the October 6, 2006, edition of AGOS Newspaper, page two,
appearing in the corner column titled `Arada S?rada’ (From Time to
Time) in his article titled `Hrant Dink, 301 and a Criminal
Complaint,’ the suspect wrote:

* `I am a person who often uses the word GENOCIDE in my weekly
articles for AGOS, not out of any special attention or interest, but
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE EVENTS OF 1915 TO 1917 MUST BE VIEWED THAT
WAY.’

* `If someone who often uses this word isn’t prosecuted, but someone
else is – a person who responds once, during an interview, to a
question like `Is it or isn’t it?’ — then you have to see that there
is a real miscarriage of justice.’

* `If only to minimize the injustice being done here, we have to join
in the crime that Hrant Dink is said to have committed. I request that
the prosecutor accept my article as an admission of guilt.’

* `I believe that what occurred between 1915 and 1917 was genocide and
I say so at every opportunity that presents itself; I have written
books, articles and weekly columns on this topic. If it’s a crime to
refer to what happened between 1915 and 1917 as genocide, then I
commit this crime pretty much on a weekly basis.’

* `I invite everyone reading this article to participate in the crime
that Hrant Dink is accused of. We have to demand that we be
prosecuted right along with Hrant.’

In making these statements, [the suspect] committed the following
crimes:

(a) By claiming in his article that Turks are perpetrators of
genocide, and of massacres, [the suspect] has committed the crime of
insulting Turkishness, TCK 301/1. That the suspect is emphatic in his
description of Turks as perpetrators of genocide, that he expresses
[this claim] frequently in his articles, and [that he] uses the word
[genocide] regularly, clearly establish that he is conscious of his
actions and commits the crime with the requisite knowing intent.

(b) In the writing, the suspect invites everyone reading the article
to participate in the crime that Hrant Dink is claimed to have
committed and calls upon all readers to join in a complicit mutual
crime. Therewith, the suspect has committed the crime of inciting the
commission of a crime as defined in TCK Article 214.

(c) Throughout the article and in his statement that others should
join in complicity with the crime that Hrant Dink is claimed to have
committed, the suspect admits to having committed this crime himself,
to having his article considered by prosecutors to be an admission of
guilt, and to having committed the crime on a weekly basis in his
writings, thereby constituting the act of praising a crime and a
criminal as defined in TCK article 215.

(d) Throughout the article, by inviting the entire Armenian community
and its supporters who live in Turkey to commit the crimes defined in
the TCK, to organize themselves, to inculcate the belief that Turks
committed genocide, the suspect incited Armenians and their supporters
to develop a hatred and enmity towards Turks, thereby committing the
crime of incitement of hatred amongst the populace as defined in TCK
Article 216.

(2) Throughout the article, the suspect openly mocks the organs of
justice, rebels against the Turkish justice system, and, directing his
comments to one part of the population, uses provocative expressions
against Turkish justice. It is impermissible that anyone be allowed to
attack the organization of Turkish justice in this way. To protect the
integrity of society, everyone must act within the framework of the
law. It is essential for the basis of justice that those who act in
violation of it be punished.

I submit that for the foregoing reasons, the suspect should be
investigated and indicted for the crimes ascribed to him.

LEGAL CAUSES: TCK [Turkish Criminal Code], CMK [Criminal Law of
Procedure], and other statutes.

PROOFS: Article appearing in the AGOS newspaper on Oct. 6, 2006,
identification registry, and all other legal evidence.

DEMAND: By revealing his defense of the existence of an Armenian
genocide in the article appearing in the corner column `Arada S?rada’
(From Time to Time) in the Oct. 6, 2006, edition of AGOS newspaper,
page two, [the suspect] asks to be prosecuted for the crime of
insulting Turkishness; accordingly, I respectfully request that upon
evaluation of the statements of the suspect in whole, that the suspect
be indicted, prosecuted and punished for violating TCK Article 301/1,
insulting Turkishness; TCK Article 214, inciting the commission of a
crime; TCK Article 215, praising a crime and a criminal; and TCK
Article 216, inciting hatred and enmity amongst the populace.

Oct. 12, 2006

Complainant

Recep AKKUS
(signature)

* * *

3 — TRANSCRIPT OF TANER AKCAM’S DEPOSITION BEFORE TURKISH PROSECUTOR
(Trans. from Turkish)

T.R. [Republic of Turkey], Sisli
State Head Prosecutor
Investigation No: 2006/49047

Suspect’s Statement Form
PROSECUTOR TAKING STATEMENT: NSHAT ERGÜN …
LOCATION OF STATEMENT: State Prosecutor Room – 6th floor
DATE OF STATEMENT: Jan. 5, 2007
IDENTIFICATION: TANER AKÇAM, born to Dursun and Perihan, in
Ardahan, 1953. Registered in Kars, Ardahan, village of Ölçek …

PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL SITUATION OF PERSON GIVING STATEMENT: FACULTY
MEMBER – America, University of Minnesota, Professor of History.

In accordance with CMK [Criminal Code of Procedure] Article 147,
after the suspect’s identification was confirmed, his rights were
explained to him, and he was reminded of his duty to answer questions
about his identity honestly.
[The suspect] having declared that he wanted help in his defense
and that his attorneys were available, his power of attorney was to be
presented to Erdal Dosan, Esq., and Fethiye Çetin, Esq., of the
Istanbul Bar … [The suspect] having declared that he would grant
formal power of attorney to them later, they were present at his
defense, during the process of taking the statement.

In the presence of his defense attorneys, the suspect’s rights
under CMK [Criminal Code of Procedure] Article 147 were read to him
again.

He was given a statement regarding his legal right to an
explanation of the charges.

He was reminded that he had the right to gather concrete evidence
to lift the accusation against him and that he would have the
opportunity to present affirmative information on his behalf as well
as evidence to remove the suspicion over him.

THE SUSPECT IN HIS OWN DEFENSE: The criminal charges were explained to
him; he declared that he would give a statement in his
defense. QUESTIONED: He declared:

I wrote the article titled `Hrant Dink, 301, ve Bir Suç
Duyurusu’ [Hrant Dink, 301 and a Criminal Complaint], which appeared
in the Newspaper called `Agos,’ published in the borough of Sisli on
Oct. 6, 2006, at the end of the sheet of page two under the heading
`Arada S?rada’ (From Time to Time), with a byline of Taner Akçam,
writer, written in black. The article which you have shown me here is
comprised entirely of my own thoughts.
As I made clear in the article, I believe that the policy towards
the Armenians in 1915, the policy of the Ittihad ve Terakki [Union and
Progress] Party, meets the definition of genocide as set forth in the
1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide. I expressed this opinion
in my article, relying upon the framework provided by freedom of the
press.
I did not write this article to serve any organization or group. I
am a professor of history. I have carried out research on the
subject. The conclusion at which I arrived, as a result of this
research, was reflected in that article. I have come to this
conclusion over the past 15 to 20 years.
I have expressed my thoughts on the subject on a variety of
occasions, not only in `Agos’ but also in other media organs in
Turkey. I have published academic books on the subject in Turkish as
well as in other languages.
I did not write [this article] with the intent to insult a
nationality or to further the interests of a particular race or ethnic
group. I reflected the thoughts which I have developed over time,
based upon research studies, in my writings, within the framework of
freedom of the press and democratic freedom of thought. This is how I
think on the subject. As new information or documentation could cause
me to change my position on the matter, I may later also express a
different opinion.
I am a social scientist and I act within the principles of
objectivity and freedom of the press. In writing the article, I do not
believe that I committed a crime. I am innocent.

STATEMENT OF THE SUSPECT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: ERDAL DOSAN … He stated:

In addition to agreeing to the foregoing statement, the issues
which were identified by the individual who petitioned for a criminal
summons against my client, called forth as the suspect, namely, the
crimes of insulting Turkishness, inciting to commit a crime, praising
a crime and a criminal, and inciting hatred or enmity amongst the
populace, were not committed by my client; moreover, the aforesaid
newspaper article reflects conclusions based on studies which he has
defended for many years.
Defining something as genocide is not a crime; neither can it be
considered as the object of a criminal statute such as `praising a
criminal.’ Such opinions are entirely the result of research and
study and come within freedom of thought. There is no support under
CMK [Criminal Code of Procedure] Article 170/4-5 for either an
abstract or concrete source of crime to justify an indictment being
issued here.
Regarding the investigation in question, I demand that a decision
to dismiss be issued in accordance with CMK Article 172/1. If an
indictment is issued and prosecution sought in spite of this request,
then we believe that it will disturb societal peace and security
because the aforementioned opinions are thoughts which have been
voiced by a variety of people and historians for many years.
If in fact a decision is made to indict and prosecute, then its
illegality and the baseless nature of the charges will be even more
evident in the presence of those who will be called as complainants to
the trial. The individuals who are behind the criminal complaint are
[illegible] people. I am of the opinion that this [matter] will have
to be evaluated in this way.

STATEMENT OF THE SUSPECT’S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: FETHIYE ÇETIN
… The case was explained to her and she was questioned. She stated:

I concur with the statements of my client and my colleague. The
writing in question is obviously both abstract and objective. As such,
it does not have the qualities of a crime. Use of the word `genocide’
has never been defined as a crime in any part of our criminal code. In
similar cases that have been brought, the defendants have been
acquitted. For example, the decisions in favor of writers like Elif
Shafak have set a clear and definite [precedent].
Various individuals [have expressed similar opinions] in the press
and media organs. The opening of a case solely against `Agos’
newspaper and this writer, for use of this word, could be regarded as
a case of arbitrariness. For this reason, I demand that a decision to
dismiss be issued.

In accordance with the requirements of CMK Article 147, the
contents of this transcript were read to the suspect and the
signatures affixed at the bottom of the transcript.

Jan. 5, 2007

* * *

4 — AKCAM’S COLUMN FROM THE OCT. 6, 2006 EDITION OF "AGOS"
(Trans. from Turkish)

Hrant Dink, 301 and a Criminal Complaint

By Taner Akçam

With the ink not yet dry on Elif Shafak’s case, we’re faced with yet
another article 301 matter. Hrant Dink will appear before a judge for
having used the word `genocide’ during an interview.

If Elif’s case was in the realm of comedy, Hrant’s is downright
tragic. It’s said that over 60 cases have been tried under Article
301. I don’t know if any of them involved anyone using the word
`genocide,’ but I have a hard time understanding why Hrant, of all
people, is being prosecuted.

Just look at his writings, look at his talks. You won’t find one
single instance of the word `genocide,’ because he never used
it. Anytime he was asked if a genocide took place or not, he’d crack a
smile. He didn’t place a whole lot of importance on which word was
necessary to describe what happened. `You call it what you want,’ he
would say. `I know what happened to my people.’

I don’t recall that Hrant ever took an interest in the legal label for
the events of 1915. That side of the issue didn’t concern him; the
human side did. From what I can remember, he even wrote on the
subject. `A nation which once lived here is no more. It was pulled out
by its roots, like a tree. Their lives here were ended. I can’t put
into words this human tragedy, this ending of a life.’ It was words
like this that came out of him.

The real question for Hrant, his primary concern, was never about what
happened. It was about how to construct a positive future after all
the negativity we’ve seen. I know from our private conversations that
he preferred to stay away from the word `genocide’ because of the
tension it created and because it didn’t do very much to resolve the
problem.

Why do I bother to bring all this up? If saying `genocide’ is a crime
and we need to prosecute everyone who uses the word, then Hrant’s name
should not be on the list. It makes no sense to say that this crime
has been committed by someone like Hrant.

For that matter, there’s even a comic side to the issue — a personal
offense, if I may say so. Look, there is a serious `injustice’ going
on here. I am a person who often uses the word `genocide’ in my weekly
articles for AGOS, not out of any special attention or interest, but
because I believe that the events of 1915 to 1917 must be viewed that
way. If someone who often uses this word isn’t prosecuted, but someone
else is — a person who responds once, during an interview, to a
question like `Is it or isn’t it?’ — then you have to see that there
is a real miscarriage of justice.

In all seriousness, though, it’s no coincidence that Hrant is facing
charges — just as it’s no coincidence that the laws on foundations
have not been reformed as they apply to minorities. I believe that
these two issues arise from the same systemic problem. Turkey is
unable to relate to the groups defined as minorities according to its
laws, either on an individual or an institutional basis.

In one of his statements Hrant declared that he’d been especially
targeted. This is true. He’s been targeted mainly because he’s an
ethnic Armenian. The only conclusion you can draw is that for someone
of Turkish descent, using the word `genocide’ doesn’t present a
problem, but for an Armenian, it does.

If only to minimize the injustice being done here, we have to join in
the crime that Hrant Dink is said to have committed. I request that
the prosecutor accept my article as an admission of guilt: `I believe
that what occurred between 1915 and 1917 was genocide and I say so at
every opportunity that presents itself; I have written books, articles
and weekly columns on this topic.’ If it’s a crime to refer to what
happened between 1915 and 1917 as genocide, then I commit this crime
pretty much on a weekly basis.

I invite everyone reading this article to participate in the crime
that Hrant Dink is accused of. We have to demand that we be prosecuted
right along with Hrant.

It’s especially important for people who don’t say `genocide,’ who
actually have a problem with the word, to show their support for
Hrant. Those who don’t use it need to speak out in defense of those
who do, to show that their usage cannot be considered criminal.

Is it a crime to say `genocide’? If anyone needs to defend themselves,
it shouldn’t be us. It should be those who make it a crime to talk
about history. Turkey is about to face a serious test.

* * *

5 — UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA’S LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR TANER AKCAM

University of Minnesota
Twin Cities Campus
Department of History
College of Liberal Arts

January 12, 2007

Statement in support of Taner Akçam

Dr. Taner Akçam, a visiting professor of history at the
University of Minnesota since 2002, is subject to criminal investigation
in Turkey for asserting that the Armenian deportations of 1915-17
constituted a genocide. Charges are pending under Turkey’s notorious
Articles 301.1 (`insulting Turkishness’), 214 (`instigation to commit a
crime’), 215 (`praise of a crime and a criminal’), and 216 (`instigating
public animosity and hatred’). We are gravely concerned about this threat
to freedom of expression and academic freedom.

Professor Akçam was invited to the University of Minnesota by the
Department of History and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies,
with support from colleagues in the Law School and the College of Liberal
Arts. There was and is great interest in his work on late Ottoman history
and the Armenian Genocide, the legal aspects of the Genocide, and the
relation of these events to issues of democratization in Turkey and the
region. Akçam’s scholarship has been lauded by scholars and intellectuals
across the globe, including in Turkey despite the longstanding official
policy to deny the Armenian Genocide.

The University of Minnesota’s Department of History and Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies consider Akçam to be one of the
foremost historians of the late Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Genocide.
Professor Akçam, in addition to researching the subject, seeks
reconciliation between Armenians and Turks so that both peoples can
develop a normal and productive relationship in the 21st century.

Professor Akçam, the first Turkish intellectual to recognize the
Armenian Genocide as such, is the latest to be investigated
for `insulting Turkishness.’ Other high-profile targets include, in
recent months, Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk, novelist and professor Elif
Shafak of the University of Arizona, and Istanbul Armenian journalist
Hrant Dink.

We support Taner Akçam’s right to academic freedom and freedom of
expression. We utterly reject the efforts by official Turkish sources to
stifle his speech and publications.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eric D. Weitz
Professor and Chair of History, Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in
the College of Liberal Arts

Dr. Stephen Feinstein
Director, Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies