There is no middle ground... You are either with us or you are the enemy!..

Just 10 days ago, Erdoğan slammed the “judiciary of the old Turkey” with accusations of “granting privileges to certain segments” and “being divided into ideological camps,” stating: “This tradition, mentality, and habit, which never suits our democracy, is now a thing of the past. With God's permission, there will be no return to those days.”

He then criticized the recent increase in investigations and arrests, as well as the reactions to them, as follows:

“The well-known circles trying to interfere with judicial processes today are dreaming of this old Turkey and are trying to protect the privileges that the old Turkey provided them. They want to engage in politics, practice journalism, and run wild in this privileged space created outside the law... They do not hesitate to intrude into people's privacy, usurp their personal rights, or reach out to their property, assets, and honor. They think the principle of the rule of law does not bind them... But day by day, they are facing the reality that they are not outside the scope of the judiciary, and they are forced to accept this. The arrogance of 'I can do whatever I want, I can threaten whoever I want. No one can touch me' will eventually collide with the hard wall of truth.”

And once again, he emphasized that no one in Turkey is “above the law.”

The facts?

There was no need for anyone to answer; AKP founder and former Minister of National Education Hüseyin Çelik said:

“We talk about the independence of the judiciary. We are just writing it on paper and deceiving ourselves... Unfortunately, we have created our own militant judiciary. Independent judiciary and such now sound like a fairy tale to me. Unfortunately, there is no such thing.”

HALK TV OPERATION

Let us examine the events of the last few weeks, starting from Erdoğan's statement that “no one in Turkey is above the law.”

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu disclosed the name of a person who acted as an expert witness in a case involving him. Halk TV interviewed this expert, recorded their words, and broadcast them. Because of this, an operation was carried out against Halk TV, and 4 journalists were detained. Ultimately, Editor-in-Chief Suat Toktaş was arrested.

The person you call an expert is not a MIT (National Intelligence Organization) officer or someone targeted by terrorist organizations. As for the unauthorized recording and broadcasting of their statements; an investigation was opened and an operation was conducted even though the person themselves had not yet filed any complaint.

Let us look at the grounds for Suat Toktaş's arrest. There was allegedly a suspicion of “fleeing, hiding, destroying, concealing or altering evidence, or exerting pressure on witnesses, victims, or others.” It was also understood that he “attempted to influence the expert by creating public pressure.”

Everyone knows that Suat Toktaş will not flee or hide. The “evidence” mentioned is an audio recording; there is no possibility of obtaining or altering it, nor is there any possibility of “exerting pressure on witnesses, victims, or others.” If there were an “attempt to influence the expert through public pressure,” the expert had already submitted their reports to the court. But Suat Toktaş is still in prison.

CHANGING DIAPERS FOR GENERALS IN PRISON

Another incident.

An AKP Youth Branch President, who reacted to the lieutenants expelled from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) for crossing swords among themselves after the graduation ceremony at the Military Academy and saying “We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal,” made the following post that would hurt consciences:

“Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had the diapers of your most powerful generals changed in prison; who are you to stand up to him.”

If the diapers of 70-80-year-old generals were changed in prison, how did that Youth Branch President obtain this “personal data”?

Let us leave aside the prosecution and move on to Ümit Özdağ, assuming that the person in question, who did not even receive a reaction from his own party, was just making such a delusion based on a guess.

IS THERE A TUNNEL IN ÖZDAĞ'S CELL?

Zafer Party Chairman Prof. Ümit Özdağ, who was detained and arrested in a strange manner with strange accusations, experienced the following in prison:

Upon the insufficient lighting in the single-person cell where he was staying, he wrote a petition to the prison administration requesting a work lamp, first from the canteen if available, or from outside if not.

This petition of Özdağ was published in the pro-government media the same afternoon, with the newspaper's logo stamped on it.

This was clearly the seizure of his “personal data.” Naturally, Ümit Özdağ called the Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors to duty.

No investigation was launched into either the prison administration or the newspaper. Only, it was understood that a crime had been committed, as the newspaper removed that logo-stamped petition of Özdağ from the news!..

REPORTING ON THE VISIT

Yesterday's event was the detention of BirGün Newspaper Publication Coordinators Berkant Gültekin and Uğur Koç, and Responsible Manager Yaşar Gökdemir.

While Berkant Gültekin, who was accused of “targeting persons who have served in the fight against terrorism,” was released, a judicial control decision was issued for Yaşar Gökdemir and Uğur Koç.

The reason for the operation?

Sabah Newspaper's News Coordinator Abdurrahman Şimşek visited Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek, as well as Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor Can Tuncay and Justice Commission President Sait Özdemir, and presented them with plaques.

The visits in question were published as news in Sabah Newspaper and on a website, accompanied by images. It was also shared from the Sabah reporter's Instagram account.

That news from Sabah was also reported in BirGün Newspaper. Along with it, the controversies regarding the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor and the expressions used by the opposition about him were recalled.

Upon this, Sabah wrote that BirGün was “targeting Chief Prosecutor Gürlek to terrorist organizations again and insulting him.” The same news also included the following statements by News Coordinator Abdurrahman Şimşek, who carried out the visits:

“Our visit to Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor Akın Gürlek, who has recently come to the agenda with his heavy blows to terrorism, has apparently disturbed BirGün Newspaper very much. They called our Chief Prosecutor a guillotine. We will file a criminal complaint against all those responsible, including the Editor-in-Chief, on Monday... You are targeting a successful chief prosecutor who is involved in the fight against terrorism... As part of my duty, I constantly report on terrorist organizations. BirGün Newspaper has directly targeted the PKK, DHKP-C, MLKP, FETÖ, and DEAŞ terrorist organizations mentioned in the news. My life safety is at risk. If a terrorist attack is carried out against me, the managers of BirGün Newspaper are responsible. Since terrorist organizations were mentioned in the news, they therefore targeted both Chief Prosecutor Gürlek and me to terrorist organizations.”

Immediately after that news—even before Şimşek filed a criminal complaint on Monday—the BirGün managers were detained from their homes.

How can one not be surprised by this speed?!

ACCUSATION OF PERJURY

On this occasion, let us draw attention to another issue regarding Abdurrahman Şimşek, especially in terms of being “above the law.”

It will be remembered; Şimşek was heard as a witness in the Necip Hablemitoğlu assassination case. However, it emerged that he gave contradictory statements during this testimony regarding the interview he conducted with one of the defendants of the case, Nuri Gökhan Bozkır, in Ukraine.

Upon this, Ali Soykan, the lawyer for retired Colonel Levent Göktaş, one of the defendants, submitted the recording of the interview and the transcript of the testimony in court to both the court and the prosecutor's office, and filed a criminal complaint against Şimşek on the allegation of “perjury and attempting to influence a fair trial.”

While the court decided in the October hearing to “evaluate the criminal complaint together with the reasoned decision,” the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, after a 4.5-month interval, decided “no grounds for prosecution” without even taking the statements of the complainant and the suspect, with the following justifications:

“That there is no other evidence other than the abstract complaint petition regarding the suspect having committed the alleged crime of perjury, that in this state it could not be determined whether the court's decision relied on the statements of the witness complained about, and therefore it could not be determined whether the witness statements were contrary to the truth... That for the crime of attempting to influence a fair trial to occur, it is necessary for a public verbal or written statement to be made with the intent to unlawfully influence a judicial officer, expert, or witness to give an unlawful decision or perform an act or make a statement contrary to the truth in a pending case or an ongoing investigation, and that it is understood within the scope of all investigation documents that the alleged crime did not occur in terms of its elements...”

To get to the point;

Since the day he entered prison, Prof. Ümit Özdağ has been explaining the “enemy criminal law,” which was also frequently emphasized during the Ergenekon-Balyoz conspiracy processes, and crying out, “Different laws are applied to government supporters and opponents.”

Is he wrong?!

Müyesser YILDIZ

February 10, 2025