Why were the names of those who dismissed the lieutenants hidden?

On this past November 10th, at the Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony at the Tuzla Infantry School, following the incidents that occurred after a lieutenant did not pin an Atatürk photograph to his lapel, the lieutenants who were decided to be dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have begun applying to the Administrative Court for the cancellation of said decision. In the application, it was emphasized that the reason cited for the dismissal, “damaging the military atmosphere,” does not exist in any law, and it was also pointed out that the names of the members of the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board, who decided on the dismissal by unanimous vote, were hidden.

In addition to the lieutenant who did not pin an Atatürk photograph to his lapel at the November 10th Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony and was alleged to be “sectarian,” as well as the two lieutenants who supported him, four lieutenants who reacted to them The decision of the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board (YDK), with the approval of Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler, resulted in their dismissal from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).

Following the notification of the decision to the parties, 11 lawyers representing Ö.S., one of the four lieutenants, applied to the Istanbul Administrative Court for a stay of execution and the cancellation of the dismissal.

“THE PERCEPTION THAT SECTS ARE TOLERATED IN THE TSK HAS EMERGED”

In the application, which makes frequent references to the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the ECHR, the Council of State, and the Military High Administrative Court regarding similar administrative investigations, the following main points were emphasized:

- The documents and evidence prepared within the scope of the disciplinary investigation were not provided before the YDK meeting; it was stated that we could only examine the file. Thus, our access to evidence was blocked, and our right to oral and written defense at the YDK meeting was restricted.

- The person who ordered the disciplinary investigation EDOK Commander Lieutenant General Zorlu Topaloğlu and the Land Forces Commander, expressed their opinion by agreeing with the proposal to impose the penalty of 'dismissal from the TSK' (Turkish Armed Forces), thereby prejudging the case. Once the Land Forces Commander has joined the proposal for punishment, it is impossible within the military hierarchy for the initial disciplinary superiors to make a decision based on an independent, impartial, and objective assessment. In fact, the Gendarmerie General Command, whose cases have been consistently overturned in administrative courts due to similar practices, has opted not to include a 'commander's opinion' section in its disciplinary investigation reports. 'commander's opinion' section.

- The penalty imposed failed to specify which act of the client hindered which military service (training, sports, maintenance, intelligence, ceremonies, etc.), and relied on a concept that has no basis in any law: 'damaging the military atmosphere' a term such as this was used.

- The dismissal of the client from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) by placing them in the same category as three lieutenants who undoubtedly opposed the current constitutional order and were not committed to Atatürk's principles and revolutions has been met with great public outcry, led to the perception that cult structures within the TSK are being tolerated, and caused great disappointment among TSK personnel.

- The client, who was determined not to have been involved in the incidents, was only due to a WhatsApp post, included in the file without a decision for additional investigation, and a decision was made for their dismissal. The WhatsApp correspondence was also obtained without a court order and constitutes evidence obtained unlawfully.

“THEY COMMITTED A CRIME, SO THEY WERE EXPELLED FROM THE MILITARY”

In the application, “it is a legal necessity that the dismissal decision, which will result in irreparable consequences such as depriving a person of their primary source of livelihood, be based on concrete evidence rather than abstract reasoning and assumptions” while it was noted, the following assessments were made:

“The client, who is preparing for marriage, has incurred many debts for the wedding but has become unable to pay them due to not receiving a salary. Furthermore, the problem of explaining this situation to his family and relatives has made his life unbearable. Because people around him do not know the details of the incident, they treat him like a criminal, and he witnesses conversations such as, ‘He must have committed a crime to be kicked out of the military.’ Additionally, if a stay of execution is not granted, even if the dismissal is canceled at the end of the lawsuit, the client will lose the course and start duty one year later than his peers. This will lead to consequences that undermine the chain of command in the military profession, where rank and seniority are of great importance.”

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT WITHOUT NAMES OR SIGNATURES

Let us come to the most interesting part of the application made to the Administrative Court.

It was underlined that the names and signatures of the President and members were absent from the High Disciplinary Board (YDK) decision notified to the lieutenants and their lawyers, and the following findings were made:

“According to the provisions of the Regulation on Procedures and Principles to be Applied in Official Correspondence, an official document must contain the names and signatures of those who prepare and approve it. There is no debate that the YDK decision is an official document. The absence of names and signatures also prevents the audit of the authority element of the process.”

Then, regarding the situations in which names on official documents may not be written, in the laws on Anti-Smuggling, Anti-Terrorism, Witness Protection, and the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) explaining the special regulations made, "The manner in which the identities of which public officials can be concealed is regulated by law itself. There is no legal basis or legitimate purpose for blacking out the identities of the High Disciplinary Board chair and its members." it was stated, and a request was made for a signed copy of the High Disciplinary Board's decision, including the names, to be obtained from the Turkish Armed Forces.

THE CHARACTERISTIC OF TWO MEMBERS

Indeed, what could be the reason for hiding the names of those who made the decision? Could it be that they were afraid of potential reactions?

Let us recall here an article we wrote after the dismissal of the lieutenants. We stated that the part that surprised us the most when we learned the decision was taken unanimously was this:

"There are two names on the board who were subjected to the Balyoz conspiracy and spent years in prison. They should be the ones who know best what kind of danger cult and sect structures pose within the Turkish Armed Forces, right? They surely must know. Wouldn't it be expected, at the very least, for them to dissent from this dismissal decision? It seems the 'order' came from above!.."

Yes, the ball is now in the court's hands in the lieutenants' case. Let's see what we will witness during this process!..