The cauldron of the witch hunt: Being 'affiliated'!

The root of the word "iltisak" (affiliation) comes from the Arabic word for "sticking" or "adhering." In this derived form, it is used to mean "adjacent," "attached," or "related." In the conceptual world of the security-oriented mindset, it resonates as "not directly involved in the crime, but linked to the perpetrators of the crime." We will address this issue. But first, let us touch upon a few points.

CONCEPTS ARE DANGEROUS

Playing with concepts is dangerous. What is expected of a concept is that it has a defined scope—a definition that is "comprehensive of its members and exclusive of others"—so that it can encompass all objects within this area and not be applied to those outside it. For example, according to the modern understanding of law, the concept of a criminal should encompass individuals who have been proven through a fair trial to have committed a crime defined by law.

Modern legal understanding considers a person innocent until their guilt is proven. Furthermore, it mandates the principle of a fair trial in proving guilt. There are, of course, many different reflections of this principle. For instance, evidence must be collected in accordance with the law. In other words, based on the principle that the fruit of the poisonous tree is also poisonous, the prevailing understanding is that evidence collected unlawfully will not lead the proceedings to a sound conclusion. Another example is the principle of equality of arms. Due to the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings, the state has a great responsibility to ensure that the parties have equal opportunities to collect evidence.

THE PRICE OF ESCAPING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: THE DANGER OF BEING DEEMED 'AFFILIATED'

As you can see, the modern understanding of law has placed the prosecution in a very difficult position. The prosecutor must also collect evidence in favor of the suspect or defendant, must not rely on evidence collected unlawfully, and must strive to reach a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt. In criminal proceedings, the judge must also examine all suspicious circumstances in favor of the defendant before reaching a verdict. In colloquial terms, "don't die, my donkey, don't die!" It is exhausting, isn't it? There is a terrible burden of proof, isn't there?

We wanted to relieve criminal proceedings and law enforcement of this burden. We have introduced a brand-new concept into criminal law. The crimes listed in the law were not enough for us. Stretching the definition of crime also put us in a difficult spot, especially at the ECHR. So, what is the solution? One cannot openly trample on the modern understanding of law.

Especially as a result of the modern legal understanding putting states in a difficult position in the fight against terrorism, leaning on this act of "being affiliated" has seemed profitable. Look... Thanks to today's technology, the state's intelligence-gathering capability has increased incredibly. However, evidence obtained through intelligence activities is prohibited in criminal proceedings according to the modern understanding of law. Even though the state's eyes and ears know the facts, because the judiciary, like the Goddess Themis, keeps its eyes closed, "these facts" cannot enter the proceedings. In the hope of escaping this impasse, the opportunity was created to prosecute individuals who did not commit acts defined as crimes but who were in contact to one degree or another with people who did, on the grounds that they were "affiliated" with the perpetrators of these acts.

IN SOME CRIMES: TIME, PLACE, AND 'ACQUAINTANCES' ARE EVERYTHING

Being affiliated is a dangerous attribute. What are the limits of being affiliated with terrorism? How will we draw these boundaries? A historical limitation? For example, are there other states of being affiliated that would cancel out being affiliated with terrorism? If those who are 3 units affiliated with terrorist organizations are also 3 units affiliated with the state, will these cancel each other out? While trying to cheat against the modern understanding of law, there is no law left. Now, many people are affiliated with each other... If you are affiliated with a sufficiently powerful person, you are free. If you are affiliated with the wrong people, you are certainly affiliated. Especially if you were affiliated at the wrong time, woe to you. Sit where you are. Do not leave the house. Perhaps you will be free without being affiliated.