New York Times Article: Mr. Kamm's Third Way

Class: You may be interested in reading the article that Mr. Kamm mentioned that was featured in the NY Times. It is titled,
John Kamm's Third Way".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E0D81F3EF930A35750C0A9649C8B63

Rotation Summary; H Block (10/5-10/12)

The H block class had two guest speakers during this rotation; Mr. Kamm, founder of The Dui Hua Foundation, and Naomi Roht-Arriaza, a law professor at UC Hastings Law school. We also learned through film by watching part of Ararat, a 2002 film that tells a fictional story about the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. Kamm spoke about the advantages of improving human rights in China from a business standpoint. The Dui Hua Foundation researches the names of Chinese prisoners and asks about them, which is proven to improve their conditions while in prison and increase their chances of being let out early.

Professor Roht-Arriaza talked about the legal definition of genocide as well as the definitions of "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," and "aggression." She also talked about the legal difficulty of proving that a massacre is in fact genocide because it requires proof that the intent was to annihilate a specific racial, ethnic, religious or national group. She is currently working on a case to prove that the massacres in Guatemala of the Mayan people was a genocide. She also explained how the International Criminal Court (ICC) works, and how a case can be brought to trial under the ICC, as well as its effectiveness. (The United States refuses to become a party of the ICC.)

The film, Ararat, set in the present, depicts an Armenian family that decides to help out an Armenian director, Edward Saroyan, to make a Hollywood-style film about the genocide, from the fictionalised point of view of a genuine historical figure, Archile Gorky. Though we only got to watch the first half of the film, it was very interesting to see the effects of the genocide on a family almost 100 years later.

Click Here to Save Darfur

Any of you with profiles on Facebook or other social networking websites are probably familiar with groups that support stopping genocide. The largest I found is “For Every 1,000 People That Join This Group I Will Donate $1 to Darfur,” with nearly 430,000 members. According to its founder, he has indeed donated money. He says his goals are to “1) Raise Awareness/Get Darfur Some Attention 2) Raise some money 3) Inspire people to donate on their own to charitable organizations."

The benefits of these kinds of groups are that it is a great way to reach a vast audience, since millions of people are members of social networking websites. Someone who stumbles across one of these groups may be the type of person that doesn’t usually watch the news, and therefore will not have known before about a genocide and inspire them to do something.

What makes me worry about this phenomenon is that I feel like it can make someone feel like they’re being an upstander without making any significant changes to their life or making any difference. The majority of Facebook groups I’m I’ve never really thought after. If people feel like they have changed the world by simply clicking their mouse, will they ever do anything else? I also feel that possibly, since people generally come on Facebook to talk to friends or look at pictures, it may create resentment or fatigue. When people just want to be carefree for a half an hour on Facebook, they are instead reminded of tragic world events. I think this may cause some people to not want to think about genocide at all.

Some other questions to consider

1) What are other benefits and drawbacks to groups that aim to raise awareness about genocide?

2) Do you believe these groups make a difference for people who join them, aid organizations, and victims of genocide?

3) Does widespread use of Facebook make stopping genocide seem less important? Tha is to say, does seeing a group about stopping genocide in between a group about Fergie and a group about the Disney "D" make it seem like a less worthy cause?

Please add anything else I haven’t thought of also.

wow

Hey everybody!
Sorry, I don't really know how to post links so I'll just give you guys the address...
this is a mp3 file of Dan Robinson reporting on the a measure to acknowledge the Armenian genocide that is going to be put before the House for a vote.

http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2007_10/Audio/Mp3/LCR%20Robinson%20Congress%20Turkey%20Armenia%202342956%20101107%20tw.Mp3

and this is the link for the article

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-11-voa71.cfm

Turkey has temorarily revoked its ambassador to the US, and is very upset with this measure, so some US poiticians would like to back off this issue due to the Iraq war.
Do you think this measure will pass? Do you think that this vote will put our troops in danger? Do you think that Turkey will stop allying itself with the US? Do you believe that this vote is long overdue?

China, the Olympics, and Dui Hua

Building on the posts about Dui Hua and China's upcoming Olympics, here is a link to Mr. Kamm's organization, Dui Hua, and its role in Chinese policy governing executions and political prisoners and the effect of the Olympics on all of this. The article appeared in Time magazine on June 11, 2007:

An Olympic Reprieve for China's Convicts

A previous post by Aaron Hui from early september (Sudan, China, and the 2008 Olympics) investigated the connection between China, the Olympics, and the genocide in Darfur. This article draws another connection, but this time between China, the Olympics, and human rights within China. Obviously, the Olympics is playing a big role in China's foreign relations.

Read the article, and say what you think!
Some questions to get the brain juices flowing:
1) Do you think that once the Olympics are over and the spotlight is off China, the execution numbers will rise again?
2) Mr. Kamm mentioned that his organization is using the Olympics, not morality, to convince the Chinese government to release prisoners and execute fewer people, but what can they use once the Olympics are over? In the meantime, using the Olympics as insentive is saving lives, but will all their work be for nothing once the Olympics are over (see question 1)?
3) Why is it that governments tend not to listen to reasons based on morality and common humanity, and instead respond to reasons based on economics, the Olympics, and foreign relations? Is this inevitable or a fault of the fundamental idea of government? Is it a fault at all - is it a good thing?

The Power of Cooperation

Sorry for all of those not in the H block class, but this post pertains to today guest speaker, Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza. She talked about the legal work behind declaring, proving and defining genocide and crimes against humanity. More importantly to my post, she explained the formation and structure of the International Criminal Court, and went over the pros and cons of it's existance and the courts limitations.
According to Professor Roht-Arriaza, there are 4 cases currently in session - political leaders in Uganda, Darfur, The Central African Republic, and The Democratic Republic of Congo. Of these 4 cases, only one of the offenders has been apprehended and jailed during the trial. Therefore most of the people on trial for these humanitarian crimes are still free and for the most part aren't fleeing/ hiding. This is because the court doesn't possess the power or have the physical ability to actually arrest the perpetrators and the court's memeber nations can't reasonably go into Darfur and "kidnap" a political figure. There in lies the problem, The ICC and UN along with most other multinational organizations lack the ability to enforce rulings, decisions and policies. If the UN were to attempt an invasion of Darfur to stop the genocide, whose troops would be sent in? America's? We probabaly wouldn't concent. China? No. The same response would occur for all UN member nations.
So my question is do you believe that these multinational organizations will ever be effective without a military and what do you propose these organizations should/can do about there lack of enforcement? Can the UN or ICC ever have a police/militant force?

Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

Since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism, the capture and prosecution of terrorists has been a focal US goal. To nobody’s surprise, most of the apprehended suspects have been reluctant to tell US military officials any information they may know regarding the locations of other enemies of state or of possible future terror attacks. To get these men to talk, the CIA and US military have used practices branded as “torture”, by definitions in the Geneva Conference and in the US Congress’s interrogation guideline. The Bush administration first issued to military officials that any policy that may end up saving American lives can be used, except for those that directly caused “organ failure or death.” In 2004, the White House retracted these statements and declared that it will and only has approved interrogation methods that have obliged to Congresses’ strict and clear guideline to legal interrogation. However, last week, the New York Times uncovered two secret memos, sent by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to US military officials and CIA leaders, designed to fudge their way around Congress's clear guidelines against torture. The memos approved the use of illegal techniques and said no CIA practices would violate the restrictions. The White House has dismissed allegations that it has supported the use of torture, even in light of the newly found documents.

My question to you guys is:
Is the use of torture against suspected terrorists EVER acceptable?

If you believe no, would you still say no even if there is a highly probable chance that the suspect has some sort of knowledge of an impending terrorist attack that could potentially kill hundreds or thousands of people?

If you believe yes, then wouldn’t this direct undermining of international torture regulations expose US soldiers to risk of torture if they are captured? Isn’t this a question of morals too?



http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/our-view-on-pri.html#more

White House Condemns Resolution Labeling Armenian Genocide

President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke against a House resolution that would officially call the killings of Armenians as "genocide".

In their comments they said that, "passage of the resolution would hurt relations with an important U.S. ally" and that "good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by the U.S. forces in Iraq flies through Turkey."

Condoleezza Rice said, "We recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago...But the passage of this resolution at this time would, indeed, be very problematic for everything that we're trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts."

Representative Adam Schiff spoke out against the White House's response saying, "The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives. But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well. How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here US economic interests conflict with perhaps our moral obligations. If we pass the resolution, we could hurt our relationship with Turkey. But if the US sides with Turkish denial of the genocide, aren't we just "continuing genocide" as one of our guest speakers said?
-What should the United States do?
-What is more important, our economic interests or moral obligations?
-Does the fact that Iraq is involved in the situation affect how you think about it? Should it?
-Do you think the US is being selfish in refusing to call it genocide?
-Do you agree with Schiff, that this sets the tone for how the US deals with genocide and especially the current situation in Darfur?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/us.turkey.armenians/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902347.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Save one life, save the world

Today in class we had Mr. Kamm come speak to H block about his work with the Dui Hua Foundation, of which he is the founder. Very simply put, the purpose of this non-governmental organisation (NGO) is to find names of political prisoners in China in open sources (newspapers, public government documents, government reports, etc.) and request that they be released. In the best cases, the prisoner is released, at the very least they are usually given better treatment. So far they have found 5,000 names and helped around 500 prisoners lessen their prison time. At first glance these numbers seem large, and they are, but compared to the huge numbers of political prisoners in China, they barely scratch the surface. So then the question comes up, is it worth it? Dui Hua isn't stopping China from arresting people, it is only helping individuals whose names it finds.

There is a Jewish quote (variations of which appear in many other religions) that Mr. Kamm mentioned in support of his work: "If you save one life, you save the world entire."

Some questions to connect this back to our genocide theme:
1) Do you agree with this quote?
2) Should one focus on saving individuals at the risk of a genocide continuing indefinitely or on stopping a genocide at the risk of individuals perishing in the meantime? While neither option is a 'good' one, is there a lesser evil to the two?

Partick Desbois

Hey everyone!
so I just read an article that was in the NY Times on Saturday entitled "One Story at a Time, a Priest Reveals Ukrainian Jews' Fate".
It's about a French priest who has gone to the Ukraine and other parts of formally Soviet Union. He has interviewed Ukrainians who were forced to work for the Nazi's during Nazi occupation to hear their stories, and has uncovered mass graves that have been largely ignored or covered up over the past 60 years.
Over 1.5 million Jews were murdered in the Ukraine, but until now there it was not publicized to the same extent as in Germany or Poland.
"Over four years, Father Desbois has videotaped more than700 interviews with witnesses and bystanders and has identified more than 600 common graves of Jews, most of them previously unknown."
Why were these landmarks covered up and ignored by the country after other countries revealed their graves and gas chambers? Why didn't these witnesses tell their stories or reveal the graves before now? Would you qualify these people as bystanders? Are they as bad as David Cash? Would you qualify Father Desbois as an upstander (I would)?

Happy Columbus Day!

Because today is Columbus Day, I thought this would be a good time for discussion about Columbus and what we've learned about him in history thus far.

In elementary school (and, perhaps, middle school), as many of you probably know, Columbus is taught in a heroic sense... that is, he is viewed in a relatively good light. He discovered America, made a mistake and thought it was India, and basically is considered a hero because he was the "first one" to discover the "New World."

Then we get to the later grades (ie... world history sophomore year and US history junior year) and we start to learn about the details of Columbus' arrival. He brought over disease that killed the Native Americans, he cheated them, he killed them. Columbus is suddenly shown in a very different light.

My question is: from what we've learned about Columbus, can his actions here in America be considered "genocide?"

Also, consider this: President Andrew Jackson slaughtered many Native Americans (intentionally) during the War of 1812. Is this a genocide?

And... both Jackson and his successor, Martin Van Buren, forced many Native Americans out of their homes (Trail of Tears), causing the deaths of thousands. Is this genocide?

If these are considered genocide, can the US Government be held accountable today? How is this different from the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish Government?

Anyway, just some food for thought... Happy Columbus Day!

-coe

"Is your mutual fund funding genocide?" - Save Darfur Coalition Ad

In today's Chronicle on the front page of the Business section, there is an article called, "When Business and Politics Bang Heads: Save Darfur Coalition takes on Franklin Templeton."

Franklin Templeton is a huge, San Mateo based mutual fund company that is an affiliate of China National Petroleum Corp., the affiliate infamous for being the main source of revenue which enables the Sudanese government to continue the slaughtering and displacement of civilians in the Darfur region.

While the spokeswoman for the Save Darfur Coalition is quoted saying, "we tried to engage all of these companies privately [Franklin Templeton, JPMorgan, Fidelity Investments, Capital Group, Vanguard], " the Coalition has recently become more aggressive in their campaign to persuade divestment of the blood-stained stock. In response to these efforts, Franklin Templeton issued a statement saying that while they can appreciate the calls for divestment, they assert that "fostering economic and business development through investment in troubled regions can often help in achieving reform."

This disregard towards their participation in the killings prompted Save Darfur Coalition to release various billboards, internet/television ads to put a not-so-flattering spotlight on the investment firms.


What do you think of the ad?
Do you think these divestment campaigns are worth the time, effort, and resources of Darfur activists?
If you had stock in PetroChina, do you think it would be worth the divestment?

Obama refuses to wear an American Flag pin

Just in the news today, Obama, a front-runner candidate for the Democratic Party, voiced that the would not wear the American flag pin (that many politicians do) on the outside of his coat. Many politicians wear this because it shows their dedication to our country and their partriotic beliefs. However, Obama claims that this pin demonstrates "fake patriotism" that isn't "from the heart." He states: “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe, what will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

A link to the full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05obama.html

There has been much debate as to whether he is being unpatriotic or whether his views are unrealistic.
Do you agree or disagree with him?
Do you think that this will affect any future decisions made by voters during this election? How can something so minor like this affect something SO HUGE (the election)?

I think that Obama should just wear the pin to appease those who oppose him; it is such a simple thing to do. What is there to lose in wearing it?

Summary of Classes 9/28 to 10/4 (H block)

Much of this summary is identical as the other block which Melanie summarized. However, I’ll still give a small summary just for the H blockers as well as some notes I took down from the discussions that we had in class.

9/28: Students were asked to bring in their selected book for the book project. In the beginning of class, Ms Finn briefly told us about the dictatorship in Myanmar. One class member then went on (a small tangent) to discuss the word “dictator” and what it meant to him compared to what it meant to his parents. The term “American exceptionalism” then came up, which is used to describe the idea of Americans seeing themselves as different than everyone else. After the small discussion, we dispersed and reviewed several New York Times primary source articles, which were all about the Armenian Genocide. Something that was interesting to me was that the articles all seemed to be written as if it were in a very distant land that didn’t really pertain or connect with the American readers. Also, often the articles were a small column on the page, and were never accompanied with photographs. Lastly, we divided back into groups and each person shared what they had learned from the articles about “denial” from the websites we viewed a couple of classes previously.

10/2: Similarly to the other block, the first half of class was spent discusses the decision to remove the video clip from the blog. Many opinions were shared, and a common trend between everyone’s comments was that we were often torn between the “freedom of speech” concept as well as preserving the validity and respect of the class blog for outside viewers. The general consensus was that the decision to remove the video clip from the class blog was valid, however, what was more important was the discussions and comments from the students. The concepts of “intention” and whether our class and the class blog is always looking at all perspectives or not, or do we always have a biased slant on everything. Connections were made to whether postings of HATE.com clips, or a humor clip about 9/11 would be allowed to be on the blog or not. The largest gray zone in this discussion was finding the line between humor and “making fun” of such events as the Holocaust or 9/11, and in what circumstances is it appropriate? The last half of class was spent reading the “Never Again” reading, outside in the sunshine!

10/4: Today, we had a speaker named Naira, who was a descendant of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide. Her grandfather had barely escaped, since he had dressed up as a worker, and escaped in a stowaway cart. Her grandmother’s story was a bit different since she was a Protestant Iranian, and so when the soldiers came knocking at her door, she was sparred since she wasn’t a Catholic Christian. Naira grew up in an Armenian school in San Francisco, and described her experiences of singing songs about rebelling against the Young Turks. She also showed us a portion of a documentary film that she made using the interview transcripts of her grandfather when he was interviewed many years ago. Afterwards, she gave us a brief summary of the Armenian Genocide and background of the Armenians as a people, from 6th c. B.C. to April 24th, 1915, the national memorial day of the genocide, since it was the day when the Turks rounded up the most intelligent and influential leaders and artists, and killed them one by one all in one day. Since some of this information was review for us, the more interesting aspect of her presentation was her own personal additions from her grandfather’s story, to how the genocide has effected her and her entire family and culture. It was great to be able to have a more personal account to be able to see the effects of genocide in a more tangible light.

We are now continuing to read our selected books and prepare for the reading log due next Wednesday, Oct. 10th.

Good luck everyone and have a fabulous weekend!

10 Peacekeepers in Killed in DARFUR

If you can all click on this link...
http://action.savedarfur.org/campaign/savedarfur_auattacks/ixwg87u91eie8de?


...it will take you to a website where, if you look on the right hand side, you'll see a section called "Take Action on this Issue."

Then, after you fill in your name and stuff and click "Send This Message," which means you've basically signed an ePetition urging Bush and the UN-Secretary General Ban to get more peacekeepers in Darfur before any more killings occur.

*Also: In the top right corner, there's a box where you can sign up for updates. That way, you'll receive notice whenever there are new petitions to sign or other ways to get involved.

Thanks guys!

Rwandan Genocide and the Definition of Genocide

Hello,
Recently, the Rwandan genocide has been in the news again as Desire Munyaneza is being tried in Canada for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. On Tuesday, (October 2nd) Senator Romeo Dallaire, who was a UN general in charge of the efforts to aid Rwanda, testified against Munyaneza, who was a leader in the Interahamwe militia. He was in charge of a series of roadblocks in Butare where killings occurred. The article can be found here.
The article states that one of the reasons for Dallaire's testimony is that "prosecutors must establish Munyaneza took part in a 'widespread or systematic attack' directed at a particular ethnic group to prove genocide and crimes against humanity, according to the untested 2000 Canadian war crimes law." Given the videos we have watched with Allan Ryan and Samantha Power on defining genocide, comment on this definition. How would a court establish "widespread," not necessarily in this case but in gneral? Also, should people be convicted of different crimes according to their level of inolvement in a genocide, or should genocide remain one crime that is quantified by counts of genocide? Or, as we talked about in regards to Lemkin's efforts, should intent be of more value than any other quantiying factor?

The Last Rotation in Summary

This past Rotation we covered issues of denial, media coverage of genocide, and we began to prepare for our debate.

9/28: We looked at newspaper articles from The New York TImes that covered the Armenian genocide and noted trends in the articles. We then split into groups to discuss the areas of denial that we covered and to read our letters to the editor about Ahmadinejad. Some class members also participated in petitioning for media coverage of Darfur in the San Francisco Chronicle.

10/2: Prior to this class meeting, Ms. Finn had removed the youtube video of "modern-day Hitler" rapping. We discussed issues of censorship and of appropriate material for our blog, keeping in mind that others besides our class see the blog, including speakers that come to our class who may be descendants of genocide victims. Some also expressed opinions and concerns, asserting that this blog is run by us and we should be able to control what is posted and removed.
We also read "Never Again?" to get background for our upcoming debate and to get more information about the Genocide Convention. Then we watched two short clips - one of Allan Ryan and one of Samantha Powers - and discussed the definition of genocide according to numbers.

10/4: Today we went over citation formatting. Afterwards, we discussed Senate committees and the process required to get a bill passed to be voted on by the House. Then we met in our separate option groups to prepare for our debate.

LINGERING QUESTIONS
1) How can genocide be detected in war time? How can war be used to cover genocide?
2) What is appropriate for the blog? When do we cross the line (such as in the Hitler video)?
3) Is humor ever appropriate when it comes to genocide?
3) When can we violate other countries' sovereignty? Does this put us in danger of having our sovereignty violated?
4) Should the definition of genocide be based on numbers?

Genocide and Evil?

Hey classmates,

As a result of our end-of-semester book project, I have started to look at the theoretical relation between genocide and evil, as well as the debate over whether evil actually exists or not. In researching this topic, I've found that there seems to be similar opinions about the existence and connection of evil in modern times.

A common thread that seems to link various writings about evil (from those who believe in it's existence) is that "evil", while it can't be defined, can be felt, and that something can be classified as being evil. In other words, no one can say what evil is, but everyone knows it when they see it. And one of the events that is thought to be most obviously evil is genocide.

However, a conflicting aspect in the debate on evil is the various persepectives that determine, to individual groups, whether an event is in fact evil or not. To different cultures, what may be seen as an abominable act by an outsider from a different culture, might be the norm in another. Furthermore, what may be considered an evil act by one civilization may be considered an act of survival by another nation. Or the element of memory might come into play as well: a nation's or people's aggression towards another nation or people might be considered a retaliatory act, a "getting-even-of", for an act that was committed against them long ago.

For further ideas on evil and it's defintion, as well as it's relation to society, you can go to the website http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/moral8.htm, or if you feel like reading, I recommend "Evil: An Investigation" by Lance Morrow. (It's a little heavy, but well written and thought provoking.)

Some questions I have for everyone are:
1)Do you believe that evil exists? If so, in what sense? (A religious sense, a moral sense, etc.)
2)What makes a person evil? Are they born that way, or is it a case of nature vs. nurture?
3)Can any one event be unanimously labeled evil by the global community, or do cultural differences create boundaries that forever divide opinions?

Questions for Speakers

Ms. Finn also announced last class the upcoming speakers that will be appearing in the next couple of classes. For the H blockers, we can get prepared for:
1. A speaker who is a descendant of a victim and a survivor of the Armenian Genocide and
2. Mr. Kamm (Rene Kamm’s dad) about foreign policy roughly (?) in relation to what we are learning and responsibility during genocides. [Rene, please correct me or add on if I am wrong]

Since there is much to look forward to in listening to our speakers, I thought it would be good to do a little prep before the speakers come.

Let this post be an open area for questions that we want to ask or things that we want to know more about. Then, when it comes the class when the speakers come, we will already have thought a little about what we’re trying to learn from the speaker, in addition to being a good listener.

Feel free to also add the biographies of either speakers.

Power of Photography

Hey class,
In studying the Armenian Genocide further in class, we came across an interesting idea in our last class (H block). Because the Turkish government had done such a good job at keeping all borders and ears closed about what they were doing during the years of, prior and after the genocide, it made it extremely difficult for any outside source or nation to get any knowledge about the situation. Therefore, journalists couldn’t report about the horrific stories, and governments couldn’t act towards aid. Nevertheless, this doesn’t justify anyone for not acting or doing anything.



Then there was a photographer named Armin T. Wegner, who very discretely took several photographs of the Armenian genocide, in particular, the chilling images of dead children who had starved to death. Today, this is some of the only photographic evidence that we still have of the genocide. In term, this eventually helped Armenia eventually become its own state.

It is partly because of these mere pixels on a page that give the rest of the world the blatant proof that was needed. It speaks a lot about the power that images and the media in general can have over history and in present society as well.

What if there were no photographs at all from the Armenian genocide? Would the term “Armenian genocide” still be recognized as a valid crime by some, or would there by less certainty and support?

In class, we also talked about the power of films about events such as the Holocaust and 911, and the type of power, negative or positive, that they can have on an individual, on a nation, and to the rest of the world. What other examples or thoughts do you have about the influence of the media on our perception of history, and how it affects the worldviews of yourself and an entire society?

The above two photographs are both copyrighted by Armin T. Wegner. Some of Wegner’s photographs can also be found on the Armeniapedia by Wikipedia: http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Photos&printable=yes

Please take a look and give some responses.