×
Military to be called to account in Ergenekon
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Ergenekon, until recently, was a case that confused everybody and its direction was unclear. The prosecutors’ aim was unclear. And because they could not articulate what they wanted to do, the case was pulled in a political direction.
According to some parts of society, prosecutors acting on Justice and Development (AKP) orders took civilian opponents into custody in order to scare them off. Those who were taken into custody because they were accused of "causing chaos in the country to overthrow the government by military coup or other means" raised questions. I too was at first among those who were suspicious. I could not see how many of those taken into custody were really acting on behalf of an organization and how many only because they were opponents. Suspicion grew even more as prosecutors did not take seriously the public’s cynical interpretations.
One reason for being suspicious was that there were some people among those taken into custody that we could not deem likely. The other reason was that Ergenekon information was systematically leaked to the pro-AKP press. We got the impression that "probably a planned campaign was being pursued." It was a weird situation.
The first Ergenekon indictment stated that some civilians and retired military personnel were in the process of preparing a coup and puts forth some evidence, but no one talked about the "coup diaries" published in Nokta magazine and believed by the public to be true. It was perceived as if the prosecutors were afraid to touch the military and thus did not want to go further. People thought that they took a few retired military personnel under custody to delude them and close the case. In summary, evidence based neither on content nor on logic nor on allegations was sufficient. As I said before, neither the direction nor the information flow and evidence were credible for some parts of society.
The second indictment
The second indictment changed this course to an important extent. It is hard to make a definite decision because we don’t know the content for sure, but the general course of this case is put on the right track. What paved the way for this development was the inclusion of the "coup diaries" in 2004-2005, which talk about preparations of military interference, allegedly belonging to former Chief of Navy Admiral Özden Örnek. Now the direction and content of this case is different. In public the Ergenekon case has become serious. Of course, one still needs to speak of it with caution. It is still not certain what will be done with these diaries. Despite everything, the perception is spreading that this case is not a show and that it will last as long as it takes. We don’t know what kind of scenery will result from the conclusion of the Ergenekon case, but an important judicial opinion will form in Turkish political life. It will become clear where the line will be drawn between the acceptance of political or civil movements as "opposition" or as "causing chaos and disturbing legal order."
I also signed the solidarity movement conducted by the daily Cumhuriyet after Mustafa Balbay was taken into custody. I received many letters showing reaction. I responded to each letter as follows: "As long as Balbay is proven guilty, he is innocent in my conscience. I don’t know what evidence is on hand against him. Until a verdict is handed down, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him."
I was curious why military personnel taken into custody did not receive support from the institution that educated them or the hundreds of associations of military origin. My colleague Melih Aşık has drawn attention to the same point. This means the professional associations are either unsure about what is going on or insensitive to it. No matter what anyone says, the Ergenekon dispute publicly spreads the impression that retired military personnel are attempting to disrupt the democratic order/regime, no matter what the truth is. It is not sure where the end is for Ergenekon, which stands for a conspiracy according to some or the punishment of retired military personnel for illegal activity according to others. The General Staff disappoints some of us by only confining itself to watching the developments. It does not go beyond some symbolic visits and announcements.
In my opinion, it does the right thing. A legal period has started. Should the General Staff say: "You can take civilians under custody but not military personnel. Let’s take a look at your evidence. If we believe they are guilty, we will allow you to take them into custody"? As you see, a new period has started in the relationship between civilians and the military.
One reason for being suspicious was that there were some people among those taken into custody that we could not deem likely. The other reason was that Ergenekon information was systematically leaked to the pro-AKP press. We got the impression that "probably a planned campaign was being pursued." It was a weird situation.
The first Ergenekon indictment stated that some civilians and retired military personnel were in the process of preparing a coup and puts forth some evidence, but no one talked about the "coup diaries" published in Nokta magazine and believed by the public to be true. It was perceived as if the prosecutors were afraid to touch the military and thus did not want to go further. People thought that they took a few retired military personnel under custody to delude them and close the case. In summary, evidence based neither on content nor on logic nor on allegations was sufficient. As I said before, neither the direction nor the information flow and evidence were credible for some parts of society.
The second indictment
The second indictment changed this course to an important extent. It is hard to make a definite decision because we don’t know the content for sure, but the general course of this case is put on the right track. What paved the way for this development was the inclusion of the "coup diaries" in 2004-2005, which talk about preparations of military interference, allegedly belonging to former Chief of Navy Admiral Özden Örnek. Now the direction and content of this case is different. In public the Ergenekon case has become serious. Of course, one still needs to speak of it with caution. It is still not certain what will be done with these diaries. Despite everything, the perception is spreading that this case is not a show and that it will last as long as it takes. We don’t know what kind of scenery will result from the conclusion of the Ergenekon case, but an important judicial opinion will form in Turkish political life. It will become clear where the line will be drawn between the acceptance of political or civil movements as "opposition" or as "causing chaos and disturbing legal order."
I also signed the solidarity movement conducted by the daily Cumhuriyet after Mustafa Balbay was taken into custody. I received many letters showing reaction. I responded to each letter as follows: "As long as Balbay is proven guilty, he is innocent in my conscience. I don’t know what evidence is on hand against him. Until a verdict is handed down, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him."
I was curious why military personnel taken into custody did not receive support from the institution that educated them or the hundreds of associations of military origin. My colleague Melih Aşık has drawn attention to the same point. This means the professional associations are either unsure about what is going on or insensitive to it. No matter what anyone says, the Ergenekon dispute publicly spreads the impression that retired military personnel are attempting to disrupt the democratic order/regime, no matter what the truth is. It is not sure where the end is for Ergenekon, which stands for a conspiracy according to some or the punishment of retired military personnel for illegal activity according to others. The General Staff disappoints some of us by only confining itself to watching the developments. It does not go beyond some symbolic visits and announcements.
In my opinion, it does the right thing. A legal period has started. Should the General Staff say: "You can take civilians under custody but not military personnel. Let’s take a look at your evidence. If we believe they are guilty, we will allow you to take them into custody"? As you see, a new period has started in the relationship between civilians and the military.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
