The FBI finds that its success in fighting what amounts to a shadowy network is limited.

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: The failure of American intelligence in preventing 9/11 when certain signs were in place has been well documented. After the event, obsession with an unseen enemy got so out of hand, the news reports would latch on to the tiniest clue with which to frighten the American public, that a new attack would be forthcoming.

PARALLEL WITH "1915": Ohanus Appressian described the frustrated Ottomans' efforts in dealing with homegrown terrorism well:

"Within a few years, following the beginning of the movement, an invisible government of Armenians by Armenians had been established in Turkish Armenia in armed opposition to the Turkish Government. This secret government had its own courts and laws and an army of assassins called “Mauserists” (professional killers) to enforce its decrees.

Ramifications of the organization took root everywhere throughout Turkey and to a lesser extent in Russian Armenia. Its strongholds were the American, German and French schools and colleges in Turkey. In perhaps every one of these, chapters or branches existed, usually under the guise of literary societies. It was from among the students of the schools and from the Armenian members of the faculties that the leaders were recruited.

The Dashnacks were in continual open rebellion against the Turkish Government. The Turks took severe measures to stamp out this society but without achieving any great success because they had nothing tangible against which to direct their rage. It was as though they were battling with the air."

To accentuate this latter point, Listen here as to how FBI Agent Hub from THE SIEGE worded it.

 

Even though Hub has a social conscience, the cop (he is also a lawyer) in him emotionally gives orders for his agents to leave no stone unturned, making sure to even go after those who said a bad word against the country. (Listen here)

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: The "get tough" mode of the police, at least in New York City, was plain to see.

PARALLEL WITH "1915": When Armenians were investigated, they were portrayed as being "persecuted." For example, here are Dr. Gwynne Dyer's reflections on Abraham Hartunian's "Neither to Laugh nor to Weep: a Memoir of the Armenian Genocide" (1968): "He ... had to destroy some of his private papers hurriedly when Ottoman soldiers came to search his house in this period. He wrings much irony from the fact that among the papers he had to destroy because the Turks might have found them to be 'just' causes for suspicion were a photograph showing the leaders of the Armenian resistance at Zeytun in military garb and a long printed poem he had written extolling their victories over the Turks. I must say that they seem to me just cause for suspicion in a country at war."

 

Will the hero stab the suspect with a lit cigarette?

It's not long before Muslim-Americans are targeted for harassment. Although the film has an American tell us 'They love this country as much as we do,' (unaware of the irony in the "they'' and "we,'' as Roger Ebert wrote in his insightful review; see below for excerpts), it's hard to tell friend apart from foe. Arabs are dragged in and the line between normal questioning and torture becomes fuzzy, even before martial law gets declared. The picture above is between our hero, Hub, and an Arab suspect.

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: Racial profiling was an uncomfortable fact in the hysterical aftermath of 9/11. Even Turkish-Americans [that is, those representing America's "ally"] were rounded up (and subsequently highlighted by some TV shows as being regular Osama bin Ladens). Several groups added were to an ultimate list of18 (later 17 — keep reading) mostly Muslim nations, declared to be under suspicion as potential terrorists, and the nationals of these groups were required to go through the humiliating process of fingerprinting and registration. Only one group had the financial power and loud, shrill voice to get their "terrorist" status quickly overturned... the nation that enlists terrorism as its primary export, the Dashnak Armenians. (The Justice Department was at a loss to explain why... but readers of this site shouldn't have trouble figuring it out.)

PARALLEL WITH "1915": Whereas American Muslims mostly want to loyally mingle into the American Melting Pot, by 1915, the bulk of the Armenian community was openly hostile to their Ottoman nation, where they had prospered for centuries. (Leon Surmelian made this attitude crystal clear in his 1945 book.) This was despite the fact that the "silent majority" knew they had it pretty good, but the Armenians' fanatical terroristic leaders twisted every Armenian's arm. As Oppressian noted above, "This secret government had its own courts and laws and an army of assassins called 'Mauserists' (professional killers) to enforce its decrees." It was "You are either with us or against us" (eerily echoing Attorney General John Ashcroft's words in bulldozing rights-curtailing decrees through a cowed Congress — such as the "Patriot Act" — in the post 9/11 USA), and even the loyal Armenians soon learned to either comply or die. The "secret government" was so powerful that every Armenian over 13, based on confessions by Armenians, were forced to enroll in Armenian committees as functionaries or soldiers throughout most major Ottoman cities. In their series of articles on propagandistic-poster boy Vahan Cardashian, Armenian Review (Sum. 1957, p. 58) clearly spelled out Armenian-on-Armenian intimidation tactics that go on more than ever to this day: "There can be no more serious charge thrown at a person of Armenian extraction than that of 'pro-Turk' or 'Turk-lover.' Years before Cardashian's era, an earlier Armenian American intellectual, Cachadour Oscanyan, had been practically fored and quartered by his Armenian companions for having taken over an advisory position with the Turkish Embassy." And Oscanyan's period was circa 1870, before the establishment of the more lethal Armenian committees. Conclusion: Most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were truly "belligerents de facto" to their nation, or traitors working for the dissolution of the nation. What would any nation have done with such traitors, especially when friend could not be separated from foe during a desperate life-or-death war?

 

Annette Benning is Elise

One of the tactics used by FBI agent Hub to intimidate suspects is to threaten them with deportation. Listen here; in this example, he is actually threatening CIA agent Elise, with an Arab informer she has cultivated a relationship with.

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: Due process soon became a memory as the rights of many became trampled upon. An Arab-American in 2001, for example, was held indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States. (This case was settled — with the U.S. Constitution held intact — three years later, with "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.") Even with citizens of other countries, the USA behaved poorly. For example, the United States actually deported an Arab-Canadian to Syria, knowing full well that he would undergo torture in his native country, and the victim spent a year of hell. The country to have deported him into should have been, of course, Canada.

PARALLEL WITH "1915": Once the Armenians rebelled as soon as Russia declared war, the Ottomans endured half a year of significant Armenian treachery in all corners. Here is only a brief rundown of the many acts of disturbances leading to the fateful May 2 telegram where first notions of resettlement were raised. In this telegram, Enver Pasha preferred to truly deport the treacherous Armenian community into Russia, just as the heartless Russians were doing with hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, forever, from their ancient lands. Yet, the tolerant Turks still preferred to spend huge quantities of money and resources that could have easily been put to better use elsewhere so that the Armenians could be moved around the country, and not out of the country.

 

"The Armenians of Deurt-yol [Dortyol-Mersin] are now well armed with modern rifles, every male adult having one in his possession."

Consul Fontana to the English government, Oct. 21, 1913, FO, 371/1773, No. 52128

"One of the leaders.., Boghos Nubar Pasha, has represented to me that the Armenian population of Cilicia would be ready to enroll themselves as volunteers in support of a possible disemberkation at Alexandretta, Mersina, or Adana on the part of the allied forces...."

Mr. Chetham to Sir Edward Grey, Nov. 12, 1914, FO, 371/2146, No. 70404

 

Not without my daught... that is, son!

A shut-down on civil liberties, one step removed from a right-wing police state. House to house searches are conducted, and a large portion of the Islamic community is placed within secured camps in a football stadium. One of the arrested is Frank's own 13-year-old son. Frank goes bananas, furious the authorities could break in, knock down his wife and otherwise violate such a loyal American family. He throws his badge at his partner, proclaiming that he belongs with his kind now and that he will no longer be one of the U.S. government's "sand-niggers." (Listen here) Later, Hub tries to do what he can to get Frank Jr. released, but Devereaux can't be swayed.

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: There were many examples of abuses and many more that weren't publicized. An IMDb commentator gives one example, from 2002: "Just this week, I heard of cases in Colorado where the FBI has jailed foreign Arab college students for not meeting the minimum standard for a full load of credit hours, typically 13 hours. In one case, the student had received permission from the school to drop a class, which put him below the level. This is unprecedented. Are we to assume that some individual is acting in a shady manner just because he/she doesn't take enough classes one semester? It follows precisely what Colonel Devereaux's troops were doing by rounding up all Arabs between 14 and 40. Take them all and we'll eventually find one who's got a hidden motive." Another sums it up: "The rounding up of citizens, as depicted in the film, and the declarations of martial law, are not that far away from the provisions of the Patriot Act, which violates First Amendment rights, the right to privacy, and the right to due process."

PARALLEL WITH "1915": With 9/11 and particularly the more intense scenario of THE SIEGE, the many had to suffer for the actions of a handful. With "1915," the many had to suffer for the actions of too many. Among them were many innocents, of course, and who wouldn't be bitter over such terrible treatment when one really hasn't "done" anything... even though the majority of the ones who weren't activists still had their hearts and minds with the "cause." But what needs to be remembered boils down to this: "The struggle begun decades ago against the Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia. This was the terrible fact!" (Hovhannes Katchaznouni, first Prime Minister of Armenia, 1923. Let's keep in mind even when Armenians... especially of Katchaznouni's stature... try to be honest, they still can't let go of the "extermination" idea.) With 9/11 and THE SIEGE, despite terrorist attacks' spinning out of control and thus threatening America's way of life, the situation in the Ottoman Empire was a matter of life or death, with superpowers threatening every gate. Such a desperate situation calls for desperate measures and most countries in the same boat probably wouldn't have bothered with a "deportation."

 

Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we were at war, and suppose that we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted to the enemy but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country.

The Turkish Government ordered the Armenians deported from the districts they menaced That they did not have railways and other means of transportation was not their fault, and the deportation had to be carried out on foot. That this was not done in the most humane manner possible is undoubtedly a fact, and the Turkish Government has condemned the unnecessary cruelties that occurred; but I feel confident that if America had been put in the hypothetical situation above referred to, it would have stopped that insurrection if it had had to kill every negro in the South, and would not have gone to the tedious and laborious defensive act of deportation, in spite of our extensive means of transportation.

Arthur Tremaine Chester, Angora and the Turks, 1923

 In one scene, as Hub's FBI is working on a bust, Devereaux's troops bombard the location, and Hub barely escapes alive with his prisoner... outlining the fact that different government units can have a mind of their own. Just as a presidential advisor tells Hub in private (after each asks the other whether they are wearing a wire, exhibiting their paranoia): Do you think the government acts as one coherent entity? (Listen here)

PARALLEL WITH 9/11: Indeed, some U.S. government agencies have acted as though they were in competition with one another.

PARALLEL WITH "1915": If some revengeful or corrupt government personnel took it upon themselves to abuse Armenians when the official government orders decreed the safekeeping of the Armenians... how could anyone responsibly conclude it was the government giving such orders, especially if no evidence exists?

 

In the Armenians' case, there was no room for "discussion"; the fanatical leaders had made up their minds to break away into a new state, and the populace [that is, aside from the many who didn't need convincing] stepped in line because the hard-liners had squashed the moderate Armenians' voices. [In the following typically fanatical Armenian manner: "You don't agree? We KILL you!"]

  One more example from the film; but let us apply it to the Turks

 

Voice-overs from the film ask, what if this were to happen to other ethnic groups, like the Italians? The point made was that the Arabs are a powerless segment of the population. (Listen here)

When an ethnic group is powerful, we know how easily they manage to manipulate political decisions. As we sampled from above, the Armenians got out of being designated as potential terrorists so fast, it made the Justice Department's heads spin, and we all know how Armenians have been successful at manipulating world politicians to get meaningless genocide resolutions approved.

But when an ethnic group is not vocal (in fact, if their culture teaches them to absorb their tragedies instead of advertising them) and have the maturity to look ahead in life rather than dwell on century-old tragedies, then it's going to be easy to push such an ethnic group around. The ethnic group we're referring to here are the Turks, taking the example of the Arabs... which are too often blended together by ignorant westerners.

Roger Ebert puts his finger on the issue within his film review:

"OK, what if they were black or Italian? What if the movie was a fantasy about the Army running rampant over the civil liberties of American Irish, Poles, Koreans? Wouldn't that be the same thing as rounding up the Arab-Americans? Not really, because the same feelings are not at stake... Many Americans do not draw those distinctions and could not check off on a list those Arab countries we consider hostile, neutral or friendly. There is a tendency to lump together "towelheads'' (a term used in the movie). Arab-Americans feel vulnerable right now to the kinds of things that happen in this movie, and that's why it's not the same thing as targeting other ethnic groups. (By way of illustration, it is unlikely, even unimaginable, after recent history, that a fantasy like "The Siege'' would be made about the internment of Japanese or Jewish Americans.) Oh, the movie tries to temper its material... I'm not arguing that 'The Siege' is a deliberately offensive movie. It's not that brainy. In its clumsy way, it throws in comments now and then to show it knows the difference between Arab terrorists and American citizens. But the prejudicial attitudes embodied in the film are insidious, like the anti-Semitism that infected fiction and journalism in the 1930s — not just in Germany, but in Britain and America.

The round-up

... By the movie's end, the filmmakers can truthfully say they tried to balance out the villains. But most audiences won't give it that much thought. They'll leave the theater thinking of Arabs (who are handled as an anonymous group), not of dangers to the Constitution... Most people will not be watching a political movie, but a popcorn movie... They'll be comfortable with the Arab villains because that's what they've been taught on the news. True, at the present moment most of America's enemies in the world are Arab. But at one time or another, this country has been at war with the home nations of most of the major ethnic groups in America. And it was 'we' who were at war — all of us. Japanese-Americans who fought in U.S. uniform in World War II (or were in U.S. internment camps) will not have to have the buried message of 'The Siege' explained to them."

While Arabs were never perceived in the Christian West as "fully human," they have only acquired their "serious villain" status in the past sixty years or so, mainly because of Israel, and to a lesser extent, petrol politics. However, because the Ottoman Turks represented a genuine threat since their heyday centuries ago, the Turks have always been the acceptably monstrous "Other." It hasn't mattered how Westernized and democratized and secularized Turkey has become, and how many times Turkey has bent over backwards to show what a faithful ally it can be (or, as Andrew Wheatcroft put it, "The West remained preoccupied with the entrenched images from the past. ‘Civilization’ did not bring acceptance, merely a greater fear of the alien qualities of the Turk.")... this "enemy" status is still alive and well. Combined with the Turks' incapability for public relations and the hatred some ethnic groups harbor as a substitute for religion, "open season" on Turks has still had no let up within this prejudiced world. This is precisely why the historic facts have not mattered to pro-Armenians and their genocide scholar allies. These forces operate from a vantage of immorality, not truth. We can see from a movie such as THE SIEGE and (to a lesser extent) its real-life "9/11" counterpart when any other nation exercises its right to defense, such a nation is subjected to a different set of rules. When the Turks do it, the aforementioned evil forces will always find a way to make the events appear to be a massacre, or even a genocide.