Credibility on trial in Ergenekon case
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Nisan 15, 2009 00:00
As we have said many times before, the allegations made as part of the sweeping "Ergenekon" investigation are serious ones. From insinuations of Cold War-era "stay behind networks" linked to the CIA, to charges of extra judicial killings in the Southeast to the more abstract allegations of a recent cell within the military plotting to overthrow the government, all are grave business.
Accordingly, we support the appropriate and authorized organs within the judiciary in their legally constituted efforts to investigate legitimate suspects. If and when, within the rule of law, charges against these suspects can be proven, they should face justice. Should they be found not guilty, their exoneration should not be delayed; if their rights have been injured in any way, this too should be addressed. Turkey must come to terms with the realities proven in the conclusion of the case and we have no doubt it will do so.
But just as Turkey must "come clean" with any misdeeds to be proven by the Ergenekon investigation, increasingly we are of a mind that the Ergenekon investigation must "come clean" about its mission, its targets and its intentions.
At stake is not only public trust and the credibility of the justice system but also the international credibility of Turkey as a country fully respectful of the rule of law. When hand grenades are discovered in a residence linked to a nationalist retired general, detentions and indictments strike most people as reasonable. When the same occurs in the case of a journalist with pro-military leanings, the credibility of the case is strained, but again, many reasonable people are inclined to give the investigation the benefit of doubt. But with each expanding concentric circle of investigation and detention, the strains of credibility grow.
As of yesterday, reasonable people might well ask, where is the line between an investigation of anti-state, anti-democratic activities and that of legitimate and democratic protest of a sitting government? That some indicted suspects in the investigation are alleged to have supported electoral rallies against the government of the ruling party in the run-up to the 2007 general election does not set in place a judicial logic that makes all attendees of such rallies potentially complicit.
The latest round-up included names known for criticism of the government, including that of Türkan Saylan, head of a foundation that has provided thousands of scholarships for impoverished children.
This raises deep concerns the direction of Ergenekon. That it also rounded up an executive of our own company, Tijen Mergen, who oversees a philanthropic endeavor to encourage female literacy, strains credibility toward the breaking point. Truth must the result of this investigation. Transparency and credibility must be its foundation.
But just as Turkey must "come clean" with any misdeeds to be proven by the Ergenekon investigation, increasingly we are of a mind that the Ergenekon investigation must "come clean" about its mission, its targets and its intentions.
At stake is not only public trust and the credibility of the justice system but also the international credibility of Turkey as a country fully respectful of the rule of law. When hand grenades are discovered in a residence linked to a nationalist retired general, detentions and indictments strike most people as reasonable. When the same occurs in the case of a journalist with pro-military leanings, the credibility of the case is strained, but again, many reasonable people are inclined to give the investigation the benefit of doubt. But with each expanding concentric circle of investigation and detention, the strains of credibility grow.
As of yesterday, reasonable people might well ask, where is the line between an investigation of anti-state, anti-democratic activities and that of legitimate and democratic protest of a sitting government? That some indicted suspects in the investigation are alleged to have supported electoral rallies against the government of the ruling party in the run-up to the 2007 general election does not set in place a judicial logic that makes all attendees of such rallies potentially complicit.
The latest round-up included names known for criticism of the government, including that of Türkan Saylan, head of a foundation that has provided thousands of scholarships for impoverished children.
This raises deep concerns the direction of Ergenekon. That it also rounded up an executive of our own company, Tijen Mergen, who oversees a philanthropic endeavor to encourage female literacy, strains credibility toward the breaking point. Truth must the result of this investigation. Transparency and credibility must be its foundation.