|
A well-respected
Kurdish immigrant defends his past against a
Homeland Security Department bent on repatriating
him to Turkey, where he argues he would face
repercussions for having advocated Kurdish rights.
Detroit , Dec 12 - "Why would you go into a
war zone?" asked Homeland Security Department lawyer
Mark Jebson, examining Ibrahim Parlak.
"Because my people were there. They were suffering
and I wanted to be with them," answered Parlak,
leaning forward in the witness seat at his
immigration hearing in a Detroit courtroom December
7. "What’s wrong with that?"
Jebson was apparently insinuating that Parlak, a
member of Turkey’s repressed Kurdish minority who
gained political asylum in the US in 1992, would not
have attempted to cross illegally into Southeastern
Turkey in May 1988 unless he was "a terrorist," in
Jebson’s words; a member of the PKK Kurdish
separatist group that was designated a terrorist
organization by the US State Department in 1997,
many years after Parlak’s last association with it.
*In his closing statements Jebson called Parlak “the
complete terrorist package.”
Parlak, whose story The NewStandard first reported
in August, maintains that as a long-time advocate of
Kurdish political and cultural rights, the only way
to enter the disputed area of the country he had
fled years earlier would be secretly, at night, with
arms for self-defense. The small group Parlak was
traveling with unexpectedly encountered Turkish
border guards after they had cut a fence along the
Syrian border, and a shootout ensued in which two
Turkish soldiers were killed. Parlak was arrested
later and served about eighteen months in prison on
charges of advocating Kurdish separatism and being a
PKK member.
Designated Terrorist
The US government is now trying to deport Parlak on
the grounds that his involvement in the shootout
constituted an aggravated felony, which would make
him ineligible for permanent residency in the United
States. Officials also say Parlak lied on his asylum
and immigration forms by not disclosing that he had
been arrested previously; that he was a "terrorist"
member of the PKK; and that he gave material support
to terrorism through his membership in the ERNK, the
political wing of the armed PKK.
The ERNK’s actual role is highly disputed, though at
least some of its activities appear to have provided
recruitment and financial support for the PKK, which
was not widely considered a terrorist group at the
time Parlak was involved with the ERNK.
*His friends are horrified that he may be returned
to Turkey, where Parlak says he is sure he would be
in grave danger of torture, killing or other
persecution.
But an expert witness for the defense testified that
designation as a terrorist entity by the United
States does not necessarily mean a group is involved
in terrorism. Michael Gunter, a professor at
Tennessee Tech University and author of various
books on Kurds who testified as the defense’s expert
witness at Parlak’s hearing, told the court under
cross-examination that political interests of the US
government sometimes trump assessment of dissident
groups’ actual activities when determining which to
label as terrorists.
Jebson acknowledged this ambiguity himself in court,
saying, "One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s
terrorist." Nevertheless, in his closing statements
Jebson called Parlak "the complete terrorist
package."
*Parlak’s defenders say that characterizing his
membership in the ERNK as constituting material
support for terrorism is also highly dubious
The supporters and friends of Parlak who filled the
courtroom during both days of his hearing have a far
different view of the man they have come to know in
the United States. They describe Parlak, who owns
and runs a Middle Eastern restaurant called Café
Gulistan in Southeastern Michigan, as a community
and business leader; as a dedicated father to his
7-year-old daughter, Livia, herself an American
citizen; as a light-hearted and devoted friend.
A local humor columnist wrote a front-page story in
the Muskegon Tribune describing how he met his wife
at Café Gulistan and how they celebrated their
engagement and anniversary there, drinking wine with
Parlak late into the night.
His friends are horrified that he may be returned to
Turkey, where Parlak says he is sure he would be in
grave danger of torture, killing or other
persecution.
Parlak originally gained asylum because he was
tortured for several weeks during his imprisonment
in Turkey. His lawyers say that if he is returned to
Turkey, his rights under the Convention Against
Torture and other international agreements are sure
to be violated. Torture and other atrocities are
still known to be commonplace in Turkey, even though
the country has been pushed to clean up its human
rights record in hopes of obtaining European Union
membership -- pressure that included forcing Turkey
to disband the very court that convicted Parlak.
At the hearing, the government argued that Parlak
would not be in danger upon repatriation, since
Turkey is diplomatically bound to protect him.
Gunter challenged that assumption, testifying that
"there is theoretical reality and there is real
reality" in Turkey today, and even though torture,
kidnapping and the like are banned, they continue.
"The death penalty is illegal in Turkey, but they
have extra-judicial executions where the government
sees to it that its perceived enemies are killed,"
said Gunter.
Amnesty International, in its January 2004 report on
Turkey, noted that while Turkey has made some
strides in the area of human rights, torture,
"unofficial detentions," and summary executions
still take place there.
Larger Implications
Meanwhile, Parlak’s case also shows the potentially
broad possibility for interpreting material support
of terrorism, as well as for denying asylum based
retroactively on convictions in other countries.
"Under the charges the government is arguing, Nelson
Mandela is a terrorist who should be arrested the
next time he comes to the US," said Parlak’s
attorney, Noel Salah. "[Mandela] was convicted in a
legitimate court in South Africa, he served time in
prison and he supported groups that the [government]
called ‘terrorist’."
Additionally, there are numerous individuals living
legally in the US today who are known to have
committed violent acts against civilians for
political aims. Just one example is Orlando Bosch, a
right wing Cuban exile reportedly living in Miami,
where the city has a special day named after him,
even though FBI and State Department records show he
was responsible for multiple terrorist acts around
the world including a plane bombing that killed 73
people.
Parlak’s defenders say that characterizing his
membership in the ERNK as constituting material
support for terrorism is also highly dubious, since
aside from its affiliation with the PKK, the group
is and was the primary popular outlet for Kurdish
cultural expression and rights. Gunter said there
are about 25,000 to 50,000 active members of the
group, plus at least 300,000 supporters who attend
ERNK activities.
"Their goals were fundraising, holding cultural
events and dances, popular demonstrations," said
Gunter. "A whole panoply of things that would
largely be called nonviolent. Many Kurds who would
want to pursue their cause nonviolently would find
this to be their avenue."
Parlak’s defenders ask how the members of a largely
nonviolent group with hundreds of thousands of
supporters in their country and significant support
abroad can be validly accused of supporting
terrorism.
Some also question the designation of the militant
PKK as a terrorist organization in the first place,
asking why a group thousands of members strong
struggling in the name of a fifth of the country’s
population is not classified as a party in a civil
war.
They also point out that the PKK was not officially
classified a terrorist organization until 1997, a
decade after Parlak’s contact with the organization.
Jebson, the Homeland Security lawyer, noted that in
the mid-1980s the PKK carried out several attacks on
villages in which Kurdish forces killed numerous
civilians.
Parlak and Gunter appeared frustrated throughout the
proceedings at the government attorney’s seeming
lack of understanding with regard to the reality of
the conflict in Turkey. Until recently, Parlak’s
people were not allowed to speak their own language
or otherwise express their culture, under threat
from a government fearful of their collective
aspirations for an independent Kurdistan in part of
what is now Turkey.
Major points used by the government to argue their
case were that Parlak took photos of villages,
supposedly in order to facilitate attacks on them;
that he used a code name; that he attended a PKK
training camp in Lebanon; and that he met PKK
founder Abdullah Ocalan.
Parlak’s attorneys argued in turn that there is
nothing illegal about taking photos or using code
names -- they pointed out the government’s expert
witness, FBI agent Robert Miranda, used a false name
during his undercover work for the Air Force. They
said Parlak attended the camp in order to plan for
his border crossing, and that since he was a
well-known advocate of Kurdish rights it would not
have been unusual for him to have met Ocalan.
A decision on Parlak’s case from immigration judge
Elizabeth Hacker is expected in about a month. His
lawyers said they are guardedly optimistic about his
prospects. Several times during the hearing, Parlak
pleaded to be allowed to stay.
"This has become my country, it will continue to be
my country, everything I have is here," he said.
"The government in Turkey couldn’t protect me even
if they wanted to. Any family I stayed with there
would be in danger. I’d have to go to living in
holes."
© 2004 The NewStandard.
http://www.newstandardnews.net
Top |
®