Military's Problem of Being Convincing

We continue to discuss "The plan to finish off the AK Party [Justice and Development Party] and [Fethullah] Gülen," published by the Taraf newspaper on June 12.

Following the publication of the plan, the General Staff immediately "instructed" the Military Prosecutor's Office to launch an investigation, and it made its first statement concerning the matter on June 15, i.e., four days later, subsequent to the military prosecutor's statement.

Referring to the statement from the Military Prosecutor's Office, the General Staff's statement said, in its sixth paragraph, which relates to the essence of the matter: "As stated today by the General Staff's Military Prosecutor's Office, having assessed all of the evidence obtained so far during the investigation, we haven't reached the conclusion that the alleged action document was prepared by any department of the General Staff. At the end of the criminal examination, the Military Prosecutor's Office will be able to express a final conclusion about whether the document is authentic or fake. The important thing is for whether the alleged document is authentic or fake to be verified as soon as possible by the military judiciary. We have the utmost belief that if the document is found to be authentic, then the people who are responsible will be penalized by the judicial authorities. The Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] will closely monitor the progress in this matter."

In addition, its seventh paragraph reads: "If the document is fake, the TSK will see to it that who prepared it and for what purpose will be found," and this implies that they believe that the document is fake.

But those people, particularly in the media, who are plus royaliste que le roi, tended to take this problematic yet considerably reserved statement as the military's assertion that the document published by Taraf is fake, so they opted to base their publications on this assumption. In the following days, they engaged in busy activity advertising that the document is fake. The new but "bold" newspaper of the Turkish media, Habertürk, which chose to turn a blind eye to Taraf's shocking news for days, ran a headline and front-page stories that can be seen as the peak point of this zealousness, while the Hürriyet newspaper and its affiliated papers were trying to make this assumption take root by publishing news stories and comments to this end.

On the other hand, the statements by the Military Prosecutor's Office and the General Staff that cannot assert that the document is "fake" alone represented a sort of legal oddity. At this point, I must note that it is scandalous in legal terms that the "heinous document" prepared at the heart of the General Staff is being investigated by the Military Prosecutor's Office, acting upon instruction by the General Staff, thereby being part of the military chain of command. This is because it is hard to think of a judicial mechanism that acts within the framework of a chain of command as independent.

Moreover, even if we assume that the military judiciary is independent, a prosecutor whose duty is to collect information and documents during an investigation into a matter and to submit those claims to the court cannot act as a judge or a lawyer. However, in the current case, the military prosecutor forgot his primary duty and, instead, reached and announced a conclusion as if he were the lawyer of the accused or a judge. How can a prosecutor be allowed to declare his conclusion or use discretion like a court? Or is this how the military judiciary functions? Is it that the military prosecutor is authorized to act as a lawyer or a judge in addition to being a prosecutor? Many more questions and suspicions can be raised.

To tell you the truth, these efforts by the military prosecutor, who expressed a conclusion before the document in question, which is at the heart of the debate, was sent to him, deserve to be appreciated more as a sort of oracular inference than as an outcome of a legal investigation.

The manner by which the military judiciary is conducting the current investigation is alone sufficient to explain why the military does not inspire the general public with confidence. Yet, recalling the cases of the strange actions undertaken by the General Staff and the military judiciary in the past, one is further convinced that neither the investigation conducted by the military or by the military judiciary nor the outcome of such an investigation can be relied upon. As you might remember, none of the illegal activities within the military, which are offenses under the Constitution and which were leaked to the press and hotly debated for several weeks, managed to attract the attention of the Military Prosecutor's Office, and the investigations that were launched upon pressure from the general public failed to be productive.

The general stance adopted by the military judiciary and the General Staff against similar cases in the past was to spread the matter over time, obscure, cover it and cause it to be forgotten. For instance, has anyone heard that the military prosecutor launched a probe into the coup diaries by Adm. Özden Örnek, who described in detail plots made for overthrowing the government between 2003 and 2004, or reached a conclusion about it, despite the fact that the general public was shocked to learn about those diaries? Again, can you find a single person who finds the results of the investigations concerning the attacks on the Aktütün and Dağlica military outposts that killed tens of soldiers convincing and satisfactory?

Or is there anyone who knows what investigation was launched and what results were obtained about the document titled "Lahika 1," which was disclosed by Taraf last year and which was an action plan aiming to label distinguished people and discredit nongovernmental organizations, reporters and intellectuals? While there was no outcome in the investigation concerning "Lahika 1," which could not be denied or asserted to be fake, Col. Dursun Çiçek, who had prepared that document, has now drafted the "heinous document" disclosed several days ago by Taraf. It follows that "Lahika 1" was not regarded by the General Staff as a problem -- although the general public was shocked by it -- and the General Staff thought it OK for the military officer who prepared it to continue drafting similar documents. Which democratic country governed by the rule of law allows its military to engage in such scandals? Are we still justified in calling such a country democratic or saying it is governed by the rule of law?

Nevertheless, some people are quick to accuse the people who voice these criticisms as "enemies of the military " or "traitors." Aren't those who discredit the military or who betray this nation or this country obvious?