“If I hadn’t resisted, we wouldn’t have survived.” That is how Ani Avetisyan rightly justified her decision to defend her children and herself against Nasimi Musayev, an armed Azerbaijani soldier who had illegally crossed Armenia’s border. He held her children at gunpoint in their home in Shaki — a village in Armenia’s southeastern Syunik Province, roughly twelve miles from Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan. Avetisyan was at a hotel in the nearby town of Sisian when one of her children called to say someone had broken into their home. Avetisyan immediately phoned the police and drove to the village. In an interview with Azatutyun, the Armenian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Avetisyan said she estimated the soldier held the children for about fifteen minutes before she arrived. While the children were left alone with Musayev, he spoke in a language completely foreign to them and took their phones right out of their hands. Avetisyan said that when she walked in, the soldier raised his rifle and fired at her, but missed his shot. As she moved closer, Musayev turned the weapon toward her son. Without hesitation, she grabbed hold of the rifle. The second shot cost her the thumb of her left hand and seriously damaged her other fingers. Musayev then threw Avetisyan onto a bed and began beating her. Despite her horrible injuries, she relentlessly fought back — at some point getting hold of a kitchen knife and striking him with it — as her teenage son hit the soldier from the side. Amid all this, she found her voice and instructed her daughter to open the gate. She tried to get her son out of the house as well, but he refused to leave her side. Avetisyan’s sister, Arpi Avetisyan, told Azatutyun in an interview that her nephew’s wrist was broken in the struggle. While instructing her daughter to leave, the soldier aimed the rifle at Avetisyan’s chest. Wounded as she was, she forced the barrel down with all the strength she had left, redirecting the third shot to her leg instead. Avetisyan explains that the bullet completely destroyed her knee. While Avetisyan was already on the ground when Musayev tried to shoot her again, instead, he found the rifle empty and tried to reload. The soldier ultimately fled and was caught shortly afterward, exhausted from blood loss, according to the village chief. When asked what she thought when she first learned someone was in her home, Avetisyan said there was nothing in her mind but her children. She had no idea the man was Azerbaijani — he never uttered a word to her. Avetisyan emphasized that it would have made little difference if she had known; all she cared about was her children’s safety. The police had every advantage in reaching her children first. Sisian’s police station, Avetisyan points out, is closer to Shaki than the hotel she drove from. Yet she reached the house before the officers, who arrived after the soldier had fled. Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, faulted Avetisyan for not waiting for the police. His remarks implied that waiting would have resulted in a better outcome. He conceded that “maternal instinct is strong,” but told parliament that once officers are called, you wait for them to act. Armenia’s National Security Service said Azerbaijan sent a warning to Armenia on September 29 that a soldier had left his unit and might have crossed the border; both countries began searching for him. Given the warning, authorities should have treated the emergency call from Shaki with particular urgency. Knowing an innocent family could be in a life-threatening situation, they should have counted every second. The mere possibility should have been more than enough; the risk should have been impossible to overlook. Instead, the authorities failed at what they quite literally exist to do: protect. When even Armenia’s own defense minister acknowledged shortcomings in how the soldier’s crossing was handled, it’s hard to argue that Avetisyan should have trusted the system to arrive in time. Had she waited for them, as Pashinyan suggests, who would have stood between the soldier and the children? Who would have arrived in time to keep the children out of harm’s way? Earlier in the interview, Avetisyan put it plainly: if she hadn’t made up her mind at that exact moment, neither she nor her children would be here today. When she was asked about the prime minister’s remark, she said she could not have waited, as she had already called the police. Every second counted in that situation, and she made sure that none of it went to waste. The lives of Ani Avetisyan’s children were secured by acts that arose from the maternal instinct Pashinyan talked past. She took hold of a rifle that was aimed at her son, sent her daughter to open the gate, tried to get her son out of the house, and forced a rifle barrel away from her chest — all while being beaten. To treat that instinct as something to simply set aside overlooks a major reason they are alive today. Avetisyan’s determination to protect her children not only got her home before the authorities, but kept her fighting an armed soldier until he fled — with no rifle of her own. All she had was a severely wounded hand, a kitchen knife, and her teenage son at her side. Ani Avetisyan protected her children. Pashinyan faulted her for not waiting, as if relying on the police — who, as she highlights, failed at the simple task of arriving in time — was a plausible option. If Pashinyan places that much responsibility on the authorities, why couldn’t they carry out their duty properly? Why weren’t residents notified of such a great threat? Why was it so easy for the soldier to remain undetected? Why did Avetisyan have to take matters into her own hands — one mother with nothing but a kitchen knife, fighting an armed soldier? The answers all lead to the
By Maya Balmanukyan
“My Body, My Choice” is a popular slogan among Democrats at pro-abortion rallies, arguing that decisions concerning their health should be left up to themselves and individual doctors, not governments. But when the issue of vaccine mandates is brought up, the issue of personal liberties is thrown out by the majority of Democrats. Similarly, the left has long championed anti-discrimination laws to prevent the firing of employees for their race or sexual orientation, while now supporting businesses tying employment to vaccination status. As long as the Democratic Party continues on this path, it can no longer claim a legacy of fighting discrimination and standing up for the working class.
By Edward Kim
As of Oct. 5, the Justice Department had filed 40 denaturalization cases in federal courts, where judges will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to revoke the individuals’ citizenship. Those born U.S. citizens generally cannot be denaturalized because they did not obtain citizenship through naturalization. Although the 40 individuals have been convicted of various crimes – including sexual offenses against minors and voluntary manslaughter – the denaturalization proceedings are separate civil lawsuits according to Attorney General Todd Blanche. According to federal law under 8 U.S.C. § 1451, citizenship can be revoked if it was obtained illegally or through the willful concealment of material facts or willful misrepresentation during the naturalization process. However, the government cannot simply take away someone’s citizenship because they have committed a crime. It must establish legally sufficient grounds for denaturalization rather than rely solely on a criminal conviction. This is important because citizenship is a serious legal status, and the government must follow the law when seeking to revoke it. According to the Justice Department’s announcement on Oct. 5, the Justice Department filed 40 denaturalization cases against naturalized U.S. citizens in multiple federal courts between Aug. 21 and Oct. 2. The department described this as the largest number of denaturalization complaints filed during a single period under the Trump administration. However, the department also acknowledged that the allegations in these proceedings have not yet been resolved by the courts. I believe that people who knowingly break the law should be held accountable for their actions. Criminal conviction and the loss of citizenship are two separate matters, and one does not automatically mean the other will happen. The U.S government has to respect the legal process and see that every case is backed by evidence. Ultimately, these cases will depend on the evidence presented in court and whether the government can meet its legal burden. The goal should be to hold people accountable when the law has been violated while also protecting the rights of individuals who have legally obtained their citizenship. As these cases move forward, the court decisions could help clarify how denaturalization laws are applied in future proceedings. Judges must evaluate the legal grounds and evidence in each case individually to determine whether the Justice Department has provided sufficient evidence to justify revoking a person’s citizenship. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Felipe Cisternas
Follow Us