The Odatv suspects are being charged in the indictment of the Odatv case by the prosecutor with generating moral support in the media for those who were preparing to stage a coup and laying the ground for a coup. Thirteen people, including Soner Yalçın, owner of Odatv, as well as Yalçın Küçük who is being prosecuted in the Ergenekon investigation, are suspects in the investigation.
The ongoing investigation will reveal whether the charges are true. Independent of the investigation, Odatv attracted hatred and reaction from many circles even before a legal process was initiated. I would not know if Odatv is connected to Ergenekon, but what they have done in the past is out there. They have fabricated many lies and have slandered people, involving many of us personally in their acts. They have pursued character assassination. For this reason, almost nobody objected to the arrest of Yalçın or Küçük. They were so unpopular that even those who tried to undermine the Ergenekon cases did not launch any campaign for their release. However, they have been under arrest for almost a year. What they are doing is journalism, but nobody supports to them.
But this has not been the case with Şık and Şener. Strong reaction has been voiced in Turkey against their arrest. The reaction has expanded to attract attention on the international stage as well. Şık is a popular name in journalism circles. Şener also has a lot of fans. It is not proper to consider them in the category of other members of the Odatv. But for me, Şener is a more questionable person. In her column published in the Sabah daily, Nazlı Ilıcak elaborated on this matter, and I endorse what she wrote.
“At this point, I have to say the reality that many people have put trust in [Şener fighting to solve the Dink case] is not what it looks like. It is generally argued that Nedim Şener tried to resolve the Hrant Dink murder case. However, if you read his books, you will see that he, along with Hanefi Avcı, adopted a position by which he served as a party to an internal row within the police department. Let me explain using an example. Dink's lawyers revealed that the information on Dink's murder was not properly evaluated by the intelligence unit in the İstanbul police department, that no serious work has been done to use this information and that fake documents were issued to show that the information was assessed by the relevant units. It was Ahmet İlhan Güler, İstanbul intelligence chief, who did not properly use the information and did not address the issue. Despite the fact that the İstanbul intelligence unit argued that they had initiated an investigation after receiving information from Trabzon on Feb. 17, 2006, a subsequent inspection revealed that the report was drafted after the murder. It was determined that the persons who signed the document were not present on the Anatolian side of the city on that date and that they were on an assignment for another investigation. The İstanbul intelligence unit also did not conduct any study in regards to the phone calls by Osman Hayal. However, it presented some computer printouts that indicated it had actually done so, but intelligence chief Ramazan Akyürek, based on IT work conducted at the center, noted that there was no log of information indicating that Hayal's phone calls were being intercepted by the İstanbul intelligence unit. In response, the İstanbul intelligence unit argued that the log records were modified.”
Ergenekon, Balyoz, the Internet motion, the Action Plan to fight Reactionarysm, Poyrazköy and the Cage action plan investigations are pretty important legal cases for Turkish democracy. These cases bear importance for the end of the military and oligarchic guardianship in Turkey. For this reason, these cases have been at the center of the struggle between reform coalition and guardianship figures because it is obvious that once the structure of the deep state is identified properly, a huge clandestine organization where the media plays a critical role and is inclusive of leading business circles, bureaucrats and politicians as contributors will to come to an end. The erosion of the legitimacy of these cases is therefore very important for the guardianship coalition.
For this reason, it is extremely important that these cases are handled in accordance with universal legal rules in a fair and just manner because there should be no other choice than siding with human rights in principle. It is not possible for us to favor punishment of the innocent for the sake of greater benefits in terms of justice. These cases have been undermined because of external support and mistakes committed so far, and the extensions of Ergenekon lobby have used this opportunity to undermine the legal process. What needs to be done is to introduce further reforms in the legal system rather than adopting a harsh stance against the efforts of the Ergenekon lobby. Let us recall a recent report released by the European Court of Human Rights in 2011, indicating that Turkey is the most convicted state by the court and that we rank 148th out of 179 countries in terms of press freedom.
Legal errors will do the greatest harm to the Ergenekon trials. It is essential to pay attention to this.