This can't be done With the Military Judiciary; Parliament Should Step in

If we delve deeper into the plan about which the Taraf newspaper on June 12 ran the headline "The plan to finish the AK Party [Justice and Development Party] and [Fethullah] Gülen," we realize that the heinous plan in question, which was prepared by Senior Staff Col. Dursun Çiçek at the General Staff Operations Department 3rd Support Branch Directorate ― formerly known as the Psychological Warfare Department ― gives a major role to the military judiciary.

We are talking about the military judiciary to which the military prosecutor's office is attached, which is responsible for the investigation into the authenticity of the plan and which stated on Monday: "Having assessed all of the initial evidence gathered so far, we have reached the conclusion that the alleged action plan was not prepared by any department of the General Staff."

Please pay careful attention to the following paragraph in the disclosed criminal plan: "During raids on houses to be conducted under the military penal code, weapons, ammunition, plans and other materials will be arranged to be seized so that the Fethullah Gülen group is described as a armed terrorist organization, or Pro-Fethullah Terrorist Organization (FTÖ), and the investigations concerning it will be conducted under military jurisdiction."

Now appeal to your conscience and think once again whether the military judiciary, which is employed to a great extent in the plan, is capable of attaining a fair and legally acceptable result from its investigation into the authenticity of the plan. Consider how sound the results of an investigation by the military judiciary into this iniquitous plan can be while there is the possibility of it being involved.

Speaking to the Hürriyet newspaper, Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ said: "No one should have concerns. The military judiciary is considerably independent. This was proven in many cases in the past." But it seems impossible for us to agree with Mr. Başbuğ and be coolheaded. Indeed, there are strong reasons for our concerns. In the first place, the General Staff itself does not inspire confidence. We know that the General Staff played no part in disclosing any of the open and clear cases of offenses with respect to the rule of law, the Constitution and a democratic regime in the information and documents obtained under the scope of the ongoing Ergenekon terrorist organization trial or leaked them to the press, and we also know that the General Staff did not launch an investigation into any of them after they were disclosed.

For instance, we have not heard about any General Staff investigation into retired Gen. Veli Küçük, who is under arrest as a defendant in the Ergenekon case and who is claimed to have engaged in mafia-like relations and illegal activities and connected to terrorist organizations and other criminal organizations since 1996. Here we are talking about a General Staff which does not or cannot discover or detect any of the pro-coup groupings or illegal activities inside the army, which does not put itself to any trouble in investigating or trying those who have been discovered and about a military judiciary which is connected to such a General Staff.

The outcome of an investigation conducted by the military judiciary which, according to strong evidence, seems to act in compliance with the requirements of the chain of command in a way unique to our country will naturally be far from being convincing or reliable. As Mehmet Altan wrote on Monday: "The military court decides not by law, but by the whims of pashas. Why? Because the commanders are the superordinates of the military officers who are members of the military court..."

As an example, Altan recalls that on March 12, 1971, when Remzi Şirin, the senior judge of the İstanbul 1st Martial Law Court, favored "rule of law," his court was quickly abolished. "Knowing what might happen to them if they choose to act against the wishes of their commanders, the members of the court tend to act cautiously and opt for abiding by the demands of their superordinates instead of the requirements of a universal democracy," says Altan, adding: "I can give tens of examples... For example, weren't the ‘good guys' who were sentenced by a civilian court in the Şemdinli case released immediately by the military court? Wasn't Gültekim Sütçü, a former member of the Special Operations Department who was charged with murder arrested by a civilian court only to be released by a military court?"

For this reason, it is impossible for the investigation conducted by the military judiciary and the military prosecutor's office concerning the heinous plan that shocked Turkey deeply to produce a sound outcome. Therefore, it is inevitable for us to swiftly mobilize the independent civilian judiciary in the country. It is encouraging to see the prosecutors to showing an interest in the issue; however, prosecutors should not lose time in acting in line with the complaints made and should launch a comprehensive investigation into the issue.

Will this be sufficient? Of course not. There are great responsibilities that fall on Parliament. Parliament must immediately establish a commission to probe the matter, and the results of the probe must be transparent and publicly announced. Whoever is involved in this shocking plan must be tried and punished. While conducting its auditing responsibilities, Parliament should also review the position of the military within the system and pass legislation to restructure, reorganize and introduce civilian audits and revise the curricula of the military schools.

Turkey cannot bear to lose even a second with military coups or conspiracies. Parliament has a historic role to play for the establishment of a modern army that is open to transparent and civilian audit. What we need at this point is that Parliament realizes its duties and responsibilities and shows some democratic courage.