In 1982, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in USA discovered, through intercepted telephone calls, that Viken Hovsepian and Viken Yacoubian were planning to bomb the offices of the Honorary Turkish Consul General in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They were associated with the Justice Commandoes of the Armenian Genocide (“JCAG”), an organisation who is also responsible of the assassination of Turkish Consul General in Sydey Mr Sarik Ariyak and Security attaché Mr Engin Sever on December 17th 1980. They had arranged for a coconspirator to transport the bomb on a commercial airliner from Los Angeles to Boston. Although the coconspirator managed to board a plane at Los Angeles International Airport, carrying the bomb in his checked baggage, the FBI arrested him and seized the bomb once the plane landed. The FBI later estimated that the bomb, if detonated, likely would have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 people. On January 25, 1985, the district court sentenced Hovsepian. Because Hovsepian was younger than 26 when he committed the offences, the district court had the option of sentencing him under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (“FYCA”). However, both Hovsepian and the district judge agreed that he would not benefit from a sentence under FYCA. Accordingly, the court sentenced him as an adult to one five-year and two six-year terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently. In conjunction with the sentence INS also filed to deport Viken Hosvepian for his convictions from USA.

 sebster wrote:


Also, putting sham in capitals makes me think you're trying to sell SHAMWOW.

 motyak wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Also, putting sham in capitals makes me think you're trying to sell SHAMWOW.

You mean he isn't? Had my card out and everything...

And I think he's saying the hypocrisy is that a Muslim bloke from Iraq who had been done for the same thing wouldn't be allowed into our country on a visa. While I'd normally say 'well if you can't prove that someone like that hasn't got to come in, then it's baseless', well, considering the topic...it's a point. I mean the war on terror sham thing is just a pet project that this user has, but he does have a point that it is a bit hypocritical to let one guy with a terrorist conviction in, when it's almost a sure thing (pending someone actually coming in with a terrorist conviction and of the islamic faith) that others with the same conviction and a different back story wouldn't be able to.

 sebster wrote:
I don't get the charge of hypocrisy. I mean, I get how people with the mindset of 'someone who committed criminal acts must be forever branded' might be annoyed at this, and I can kind of get the idea that it's a bit weird that some plans to blow up people will get you forever branded a terrorist while others aren't, but the law is laid out clear for everyone to see, there's no hypocrisy.

People of concern are those who may meet one or more of the following criteria:
the holding of extremist views such as belief in the use of violence as a 'legitimate' means of political expression

likelihood of the Australian community or part of the Australian community being vilified or defamed

having a record of causing law and order problems, such as when addressing public rallies

acting in a way likely to be insensitive in a multicultural society, including advocating within particular ethnic groups

the adoption of political, social or religious values well outside those acceptable to Australian society

being active in political movements directed towards the non-peaceful overthrow of their own or other governments
having planned, participated in, or been active in promoting politically-motivated violence or criminal violence and/or being likely to propagate or encourage such action in Australia

being liable to provoke an incident in Australia because of the conjunction of their activities and proposed timing of their visit, and the activities and timing of a visit by another person who may hold opposing views

being a war criminal, or a person suspected or accused of war crimes or any association with a person or group involved in war crimes

being known to be, or suspected of being, involved in organised crime

posing some threat or harm to the Australian community or part of it

likelihood of the person’s presence in Australia being contrary to Australia's foreign policy interests
claiming to represent a foreign State or government which is not recognised by Australia
any other credible material which may be relevant to Public Interest Criteria 4001 or 4003 of the Regulations.

 motyak wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Also, putting sham in capitals makes me think you're trying to sell SHAMWOW.

You mean he isn't? Had my card out and everything...

The men, who have been out of prison since the early 1990s, now have doctorates, have renounced violence and volunteer many hours a week in the Los Angeles Armenian- American community, said Mathew Millen, an attorney who helped handle the immigration portion of their case.
Federal law currently forbids convicted terrorists from becoming citizens. But anyone convicted of an aggravated felony before November 1990 can be granted citizenship if they have been "of good moral character" for five years prior to their application, Millen said.
"They both renounced violence as a means of achieving any kind of political end," Millen said by phone. "They both have Ph.D.s, and they had a lot of witnesses who talked about their activity in the community" at their immigration hearing.

 d-usa wrote:
Have you done any research at all into this guy or are you just pissed because the story fits your pet peeve?

Tibbsy wrote:
A convicted criminal going to Australia?


Sounds about right...