The lieutenants' swords, the regime of laws

It is easy to see the weapon over the blood, and the swords on the battlefield as well. But what about the laws that shed blood, tear countries apart, and open wounds that will not heal for centuries? When it is called a law, it sounds pleasant; we end up legitimizing massacres and coups in the name of the law. In the trials that began after Hitler's fascism, one of the defendants said, "I only did the duty assigned to me, I followed the laws." This is how a process leading from the banality of evil to the zombification of the masses ended. If a law was to be established for concentration camps, it was established first, and then everything would be in accordance with the laws. The equation was that simple.

How often we encountered this in the Ergenekon trials: Whenever the government was asked questions about the aforementioned case, they would refer to "independent courts" and point to the rule of law. Yet, there were neither independent courts nor a legal order, however flawed. Later, they too confessed to what had happened: they claimed they were "deceived" and washed their hands of it. But in this process, the army was transformed, the police were transformed, and the regime was almost transformed—not by swords or weapons, but by laws and the judiciary. Even though the background remains murky, we know this from the jets flying in the sky on July 15. We know it from the judicial murders committed "by mistake," from the Silivri dungeons that turned into concentration camps, from Kuddusi Okkır, and from Ali Tatar.

Today, those who harp on about the oath of the lieutenants at the Military Academy graduation ceremony and try to gain political leverage from it did not say a single word about the regime that was transformed back then, the gang activities of the cult, or the many grievances experienced; on the contrary, they supported this process. Moreover, the role of the Ergenekon prosecutor was embraced at the highest level. Praises were being heaped upon gang members disguised as jurists in those days. And it was precisely in those days that the country's regime was being changed not by soldiers and swords, but by civilians and laws.

The change in the regime was not limited to those days. Immediately after the days that were seen as a "gift from God" by those in power, the country woke up to another darkness. From teachers to civil servants, from university professors to public sector employees, everyone received their share of the pain from this transformation. Yes, blood was dripping from everywhere, but neither a gun nor a sword was used as the murder weapon. They said, "Everything is in accordance with the law," and that included the changing of the regime. So much so that even people's ability to defend themselves was destroyed by those laws; laborers were stripped of their jobs and livelihoods by decrees issued in the middle of the night, and their legal rights were taken away by laws. But those who talk about the lieutenants never spoke of these; if they had concerns about the transformation of the regime, why did they never speak up? It was not the packaging boxes that were transformed; it was the soul of the country, the ancient values of the homeland, its memory, and its humanity. They never spoke up once; we are witnesses.

Not only in this recent past, but in general, we do not know who took what kind of oath and with what feelings they implemented these transformations during regime changes carried out by civilians and laws. However, what we do know is that some oaths are taken behind closed doors and some promises are made without anyone hearing them. But here, just like the "look at the juggler, look at the juggler" trick, while they make us argue about the lieutenants, they are doing what they intend to do with laws. Yet, it is precisely those laws that should be discussed. Because with those laws, Gezi defendants are still in dungeons; they convicted people of Gezi, which we embraced in the squares as our honor, using those laws. Forget about oaths and soldiers; if we are going to talk about the transformation of the country, let us look at the civilians.

Let us move on and finally add this: did those who talk about this oath ever speak a single word about the "Nass" (religious decree) rhetoric that brought the economy to this state and forced people to live in deprivation and poverty? Did they ever criticize these words, which paralyzed the country's economic structure by hiding behind "sacred" values? Ultimately, a terrible transformation took place in the economy, and we were introduced to a problem called dispossession and housing shortages. Of course, they never talked about this process either, because their concern was not the transformation of the homeland or the change of the regime. If it were, we would have seen sincere, genuine faces in the history we left behind and witnessed their principled stance.

In wars, not only weapons are used, and not only bullets, missiles, and bombs are stockpiled in arsenals; this entire process is primarily carried out by convincing the public of the wars. When we look not at what is shown to us but at what is actually happening, and when we build our belief from there, only then will we see what is essentially being transformed and changed. Yes, we are witnesses to this.