Lawyer for lieutenant dismissed from Tuzla Infantry School: They used naive profanities

A lawyer for one of the lieutenants dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) following the events at the Tuzla Infantry School during the November 10 Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony—which occurred after a lieutenant failed to wear an Atatürk photograph—stated in his defense before the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board, “They used naive profanities. In my opinion, they deserve much harsher ones.”

The grounds for the dismissal decisions, which were unanimously adopted by the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board on January 18 and approved by Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler on February 8, were communicated to the lieutenants as of yesterday.

Lieutenant B.Y., who was not involved in the arguments on November 10 and 13 and was not named in the administrative investigation report, was later included in the file without an additional decision and dismissed. He was accused of using profanity against three lieutenants alleged to be “cultists” in an audio recording he posted in a WhatsApp group after the events.

According to an exclusive report by 12punto columnist Müyesser Yıldız, Lieutenant B.Y. provided the following defense during the disciplinary investigation stage, according to details in the grounds for his dismissal:

“Although I do not remember the exact date, I shared an audio recording of approximately 1 minute addressed to the group on the night of November 13 or 14 after the incident. Referring to lieutenants A.A., M.F.Ş., and F.A., whom I believed were being disrespectful to Atatürk and the principles of the Republic, I used some negative words that I now regret. My intention was not to target them. Since I was not afraid of anyone, I stated my name at the beginning of the speech. I do not remember exactly what I said now. I did not see the need to delete this post later. Whoever recorded it, recorded it anyway. I am very sorry for what I did; if it were today, I would not do it.”

In his subsequent written defense, B.Y. stated that he did not accept the accusations against him, saying, “Since the documents forming the basis of the defense were not provided to me and my lawyers, it is not possible for me to make an actual defense. I will make my oral and written defense before the High Disciplinary Board.”

PROFANITY AGAINST INSULTS TO ATATÜRK PROTECTS THE REPUTATION OF THE TSK

B.Y.'s lawyers also used remarkable expressions in their defense before the High Disciplinary Board.

Noting first that the method by which the audio recording—the basis of the accusation—was obtained was not specified in the investigation report and was not obtained in accordance with a court order for the interception of communications, the lawyers warned that using it as evidence would be unlawful.

While emphasizing that the fact that the events were reflected in the public eye affected the amount and nature of the proposed penalties, the lawyers stated:

“It is understood that the reflection of the events in the public eye began with going to the police station to give a statement. When the statements of the three lieutenants are examined, it is seen that they did not want the events to remain within the unit boundaries under the assumption that the injustices they felt were done to them could be covered up, and that they had the desire and tendency to carry the matter to the civilian sphere even though they were warned about this. Using profanity as a reaction against someone who insults Atatürk, crumples and throws away Atatürk's photograph, and disparages his revolutions does not damage the reputation of the TSK; on the contrary, it protects the reputation of the TSK. A decision should be made in accordance with the principle of proportionality, taking into account issues such as commitment to the values of the Republic and protecting Atatürk and the values of the Republic. The decision you make will also be debated by the Turkish nation.”

FEVZİ ÇAKMAK'S WORDS

One of Lieutenant B.Y.'s lawyers used the following expressions:

“Fevzi Çakmak says, 'Cults and sects are the forward outposts of the crusaders.' In my opinion, the lieutenants who struggle against the crusader forward outposts acted naively in their profanities; they deserve much harsher ones. The greatest danger awaiting the Turkish Army is the disruption of unity and solidarity. It would have been grave if the lieutenants had not reacted to such a formation. They used naive profanities. People working in stressful work environments and those serving under difficult conditions have resorted to such methods. When people are angry, they use certain profanities. Soldiers use them too. It is very important that the reputation of the Armed Forces is not damaged. It is known who the Yeni Şafak newspaper, which broke the first news on this subject, serves. It is clear that the lieutenants are not at fault. As lawyers, we decided not to provide any information to the press. Not the slightest bit of information was given. When a decision is made outside the law, both the TSK and the individual will be harmed.”

Another lawyer defended, “Those who crumpled the Atatürk photograph and attacked the principle of secularism have shaken the reputation of the TSK. We experienced July 15. The perpetrators of July 15 are lieutenants like these. The lieutenants who reacted to them deserve this uniform.”