Is the 'Interview' of O.K., who prevented the July 15 coup by going to the MIT, missing?

The July 15 coup attempt changed not only the fate of the country but also its regime. However, no one is interested in what is happening in the coup trials that were opened.

I have been in one of these trials for two days. The subject of the case, which was opened 5 years after July 15, is the attempt to kidnap MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan that night and the damage caused to the MIT campus during this time. 12 defendants are accused of "depriving Fidan of his liberty and damaging public property."

No, I am not going to talk about the hearing, but about the stage the judiciary has reached and how I have aged another year because of it. Let me summarize for those who have not been following:

In the session the day before yesterday, the Presiding Judge suddenly said the following:

"We see that the organization's media outlets, such as Aktif Haber and Samanyolu, are publishing our court records before they are even released. That is why the camera recordings are also being examined."

What was understood from these statements was that someone was practically serving information to "FETÖ members." Naturally, the court staff, in particular, were under suspicion.

Indeed, in yesterday's session, one of the defendants, Özcan Karacan, reminded the Presiding Judge of those words and said, "Who are you suspicious of? Your own clerks, us, the lawyers, the police, or the soldiers? This is a major accusation; you need to clarify it. Your own office is also under suspicion."

The Judge, who immediately responds to almost every word, for some reason chose to answer this question after the hearing ended. First, he asked, "Is Müyesser Yıldız here?" Upon my saying "I am here," he gave me the following journalism lesson (!):

"We saw that you wrote down the statements verbatim before the records were even released. It is a sensitive case; things subject to confidentiality are being discussed. It would be better if you wrote with general expressions instead of verbatim, taking into account the presumption of innocence of the defendants. We are already examining the cameras to determine whether recordings are being made."

Thus, I learned that a journalist should show up at the hearing but wait for the court records to be released to write the news... And if they have to write, they should gloss over it with general expressions instead of writing it exactly as it is!..

Of course, this was not the first time I had encountered such discomfort, so I was not very surprised; but it could not be left unanswered. I stood up, showed my mobile phone, and gave the following response:

"Mr. Presiding Judge, there is the principle of the openness of hearings. I am writing down whatever is being said. There is nothing secret or hidden. If you are uncomfortable, you can issue a confidentiality order, and I will not watch. Furthermore, my phone is primitive; it has no capability to record. Everyone knows how I watch all the hearings and report them as they are. You cannot put me under suspicion. My writings are open to everyone. If FETÖ members are taking them, there is nothing I can do. You cannot hold me responsible for this and accuse me."

Despite this, the Judge did not neglect to say, "I have warned and reminded you."!..

WHO WAS BOTHERED AND WHY?

It is unknown whether only the Presiding Judge or others were also bothered; but I can more or less guess what caused the discomfort.

It is understood that what the then-President of Religious Affairs, Mehmet Görmez, who met with MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan at the MIT with Muaz El Hatip, one of the leaders of the Syrian opposition, on the night of July 15, and who was heard as a witness in the hearing on April 29, told about that night has caused quite a bit of trouble!..

NOTHING IS EVER LOST IN THE STATE, IS IT?

Perhaps this will also cause discomfort; but let us write down another important detail about the case.

What we know is that all our authorities in Ankara were informed about the coup attempt thanks to a major pilot who went to the MIT on the afternoon of July 15 and explained the operation to be carried out that night. This person was O.K. from the Army Aviation Command.

In the case regarding the attempt to kidnap MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, which began to be heard 5 years after July 15, the defendants requested that O.K. also be heard as a witness, in addition to Fidan, who is the only complainant in the case.

While the court rejected the request for Fidan to be heard or for his statement to be taken on the grounds that "he was still the MIT President at the time the case was opened, did not know the defendants, and it could not be determined within the scope of the file whether he had knowledge based on observation," it decided in the hearing on March 15, 2023, to write a writ to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office to send "a copy of any statements taken, if any, in the capacity of witness, statement provider, and similar regarding the incident," by writing O.K.'s name clearly.

The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office sent a statement. But it was understood that this belonged to a different O.K., not Major O.K., and the file was returned.

Upon this, the writ was repeated, and it was requested that O.K.'s statement records, if any, and the Decision of Non-Prosecution be sent from the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. This time, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office sent only three Decisions of Non-Prosecution issued in 2018 and 2021 regarding the accusation of "being a member of an armed terrorist organization" against O.K.

Let us return to yesterday's hearing.

One of the defendants, İlkay Ateş, asked the Presiding Judge, "Is there a statement from O.K.?" When the Judge answered, "No," he said the following:

"This man makes a lot of allegations, his name is mentioned everywhere. He formed the framework of the coup case with a single statement. His statement even reflected in the press; but there is no one calling him, no one sending his statement. What kind of law, what kind of justice system is this? You build everything on this, then you say, 'There is no statement.' There is not even a 1-page statement. Shame on you. The MIT has filed a complaint against us; but it has not filed a complaint against Deniz Aldemir and O.K., who planned the operation to the MIT. Why?"

THE STORY OF THAT INTERVIEW

It is the anniversary of July 15 in about a month. On this occasion, let us remind you whether O.K.'s statement was taken or not.

Journalist Alican Uludağ revealed it. It turns out that after July 15, on August 11, 2016, the then-Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor, now a member of the Court of Cassation, Harun Kodalak, and a Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor had an unofficial "interview" with O.K., who was first dismissed from the TSK by decree and then appointed to the MIT during that process. Because it was unofficial, O.K.'s name and signature were not placed under this statement.

So what did O.K. tell them?

He said that he met the "FETÖ/PDY organization" during his student years, that he was taken to Fethullah Gülen in Istanbul in 1996, who the older brothers in the organization were, that he used the code name "Tarık," that he got married within the community, that the organization named his children, and that he began to distance himself from 2014 onwards after realizing that Gülen was at a schizophrenic level and was committing treason during the Balyoz and Ergenekon processes, etc.

The most striking and controversial part of that interview was as follows:

"We arrived at the MIT by taxi around 14.20. I told the officer at the gate, 'I came to provide information about the parallelists within the TSK to the MIT.' Around 15.00, two people came. I explained. They became uneasy. They asked me what could happen. I said that there could be a major activity, even 'a coup activity.' They asked, 'What is meant by taking Hakan Fidan?' I told them that since they said 'a lot of blood will flow,' this activity was not a well-intentioned activity. I remember very well using the words 'There could be a coup.'"

The reason for the debate over these words was that until that day, both the General Staff and the MIT had said that O.K. did not mention a coup, but only provided information that "an attack would be made on the MIT Undersecretary."

With that interview, allegations such as "the MIT did not allow this meeting, but when the matter was conveyed to Erdoğan, the meeting with O.K. took place, and afterwards the MIT was very uncomfortable with this" came to the agenda. Moreover, it was claimed that the "state crisis" experienced because of this was effective in the dismissal of Chief Public Prosecutor Harun Kodalak and his team.

Even if all these have been forgotten in the past 8 years and no one is interested anymore, we will come to this; it is said that O.K.'s interview is in the records of the relevant state institutions in written form, even if it was not officially processed.

In short; even if it is not sent to the courts for now, nothing is ever lost in the state, right?.. At least that is what we know!..

Müyesser YILDIZ

June 14, 2024