Ergenekon’s organic structure

1) Some of top-tank military members who were granted the irregular war authority by the National Security Council, or MGK, in the past and established the Gendarmarie Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism Organization, or JİTEM, then, recklessly exploited this semi-legal authority through murders by unknown perpetrators, were apparently carried away after retirement.

2) Some of the active officers cooperating with these retired military officers and police men in active duty. (Possible examples for such cooperation: The Susurluk incident, Hrant Dink murder, Malatya massacre).

3) Retired generals who attempted military coups against the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, but turned down by the Chief of General Staff of the time. After retirement, they lead the way for social uprise in order to turn the society against the government. (Example: The Republic meetings)

4) Civilians and leaders of some political parties who cooperated with the retired generals against the government.

5) Academics, journalists and researchers who make anti-government statements.

6) Those who attempt direct military coups (Example: Figures behind the Feb. 28 process)

7) Neither fish nor fowl witnesses (Example: Tuncay Güney)

Prime evidence obtained so far in the case:

1) Computer records owned by the accused. 2) Phone tapping records. 3) Unearthed weapons.

P.S.: The most concrete evidence is the unearthed weapons; however, the link between these weapons and the accused must be established.

The "Coup Diaries" may become evidence but they are not included in the case yet. There are questions to the figures I listed above.

1) If this case has connections with JİTEM, what will happen to the MGK members of the time and others who worked for JİTEM and who issued the directive "hit!"

2) If the case is linked to the Feb. 28 process, then why have some committers not been touched yet?

3) If this case is linked to the Susurluk incident, then why have the individuals who organized the ties that were exposed in the Susurluk not been reached yet?

4) If the Ergenekon case is a counter-case against the military coups, then why has anyone not made an attempt to abolish the political immunity bestowed upon the coup-makers in a Constitutional article?

5) Apparently, the accused generals, who looked for the approval of the chief of General Staff of the time, gave in and said "Yes, Sir!" when they were refuted by the top military commander. Is this the way for making a coup d’etat? Why did these people who accused former Chief of the General Staff Hilmi Özkök of collaboration with religious backwardness and by-passing him not complete the coup attempt?

6) What are the suspects being accused of personally? What are the crimes that they committed personally?

Could the approach of the Star daily’s Mehmet Altan and the Sabah daily’s Emre Aköz like, "I don’t care about personal accusations or daily incidents. I don’t care about the essence. But I do care about the general meaning" be legal, rational and conscientious?

7) Could the conscience be mend by the logic of the Zaman daily’s Mümtazer Türköne who says, "If the former secretary general of the MGK is under arrest, then the Prosecutor definitely knows something?"

Turkey has caught an excellent opportunity for cleanse out. But the rule of law can only be achievable by a case in accordance with the rule of law. I ask respect for the legal rights of a general shamelessly wire-tapping me?