The Grounds for Dismissal of 3 Lieutenants Labeled as “Cultists”: “Their Loyalty to Atatürk’s Principles and the Republic Is Questionable”

Müyesser Yıldız has written about the grounds for the dismissal of the 3 lieutenants labeled as “cultists” at the Tuzla Infantry School. Yıldız's report is as follows:

The grounds for the dismissal from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) of the lieutenant who did not wear an Atatürk photograph on his lapel during the November 10 Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony at the Tuzla Infantry School, along with the two lieutenants who supported him, have emerged. In the decision of the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board, it was stated that these lieutenants' “loyalty to Atatürk’s Principles and the Republic was found to be questionable,” and it was emphasized that “it is both an obligation and a duty for every soldier to show loyal adherence to Atatürk’s Principles and Reforms and the Republic.”

Remarkable findings were included in the reasoned decision regarding the three lieutenants labeled as “cultists” who were decided to be dismissed from the TSK, along with 4 other lieutenants who reportedly reacted to the failure to wear Atatürk photographs during the events that took place on November 10 and 13 at the Tuzla Infantry School.

In the section of the decision regarding the investigation process, the following was recounted about M.F.Ş., who allegedly removed and crumpled the Atatürk photographs that had been pasted on the door and inside the dormitory where the three lieutenants labeled as “cultists” were staying, as a reaction following the ceremony on November 10:

“Upon the question of 'Who removed them?' from the lieutenants who came to the dormitory to object to the removal of the photographs, M.F.Ş. initially remained silent; when asked persistently, he said, 'I took them down. I will keep them as a souvenir,' and took out and showed the photographs he had folded/crumpled and put in his pocket, and those who entered the room took these photographs back... Infantry Lieutenant R.A. asked, 'What is this state of the photograph? Do you have no respect for your Ata?' M.F.Ş. replied, 'Is it bothering you because I don't idolize and worship him like you do?' Those in the room said, 'We don't idolize or worship anyone, but you have to respect the founder of this country.' M.F.Ş. replied, 'I can respect the Atatürk before 1923, but I do not respect the Atatürk after 1923. I do not accept some of the things he did.' When asked what he did not accept, he said, 'He fought the War of Independence very well, but after 1923, he corrupted the religion and changed the language of the religion, which was Arabic, to Turkish. It was wrong to write the meaning of the Quran in Turkish.' These words further strained the atmosphere, a scuffle broke out between S.Ç. and A.A., and during this time, R.A. tore the Turkish flag from the sleeve of M.F.Ş.'s camouflage uniform, saying, 'You don't deserve to wear this.'...”

The decision continued by stating that the disciplinary investigation conducted by the appointed committee concluded that “M.F.Ş.’s words and behaviors toward Atatürk and the Republic raised strong doubts about his loyalty to the Republic and Constitutional principles, that he provoked his friends in this way, and that he was significantly responsible for the occurrence of the events subject to the investigation.” It was also reported that the indictment prepared by the Istanbul Anatolian Chief Public Prosecutor's Office included the assessment that “M.F.Ş.’s folding of the Atatürk picture hung on the dormitory door and putting it in his pocket, and the words he uttered when asked for the reason, constituted the crime of publicly insulting the memory of Atatürk.”

STATEMENTS OF THAT LIEUTENANT

The statements of Lieutenant M.F.Ş. were also included in the 25-page decision. M.F.Ş. summarized the following in his statement during the disciplinary investigation phase:

“I have no knowledge of what happened in the ceremony area on November 10. When we went to the dormitory, A.A. told us what happened. My personal opinion about A.A. is that he is impulsive and stubborn. 8-10 people entered our dormitory without permission. Trainee Lieutenant S.Ç. looked at A.A. and said, 'One day you will all prostrate before Atatürk.' A.A. said, 'I do not prostrate before anyone but Allah.' Lieutenant U.T. said, 'If you don't wear it willingly, you will wear it by force.' Others also used abusive language. I said to those who came, 'We already talked to A.A. before you came, and we stated that what he did was wrong.' We wanted to calm the group down in this way. Then they left the dormitory without physical contact. We did not inform our superiors or file a complaint about this issue until November 13. Starting on the same day, until November 12, when I was removed from the group, many posts containing insults and threats against lieutenants K.A., F.A., A.A., and myself were made in the WhatsApp group. On the evening of November 10, while we were in the dormitory, T.E.E. came and targeted A.A. and me, saying, 'Who are you loyal to, who do you take orders from, which cult are you affiliated with, which community are you from?' I said that I was not affiliated with anywhere, that I only read the Risale-i Nur, and that it was not forbidden to pray in a congregation. Upon this, T.E.E. said, 'For me, the February 28 decisions are valid.' We were all shocked. Then he left the dormitory. When I went to the dormitory during rest around 13:00 on November 13, I saw 3 Atatürk photographs pasted on the door. There was a rumor that a photograph would be pasted on our door. Since I knew this and was angry, I removed the photographs from their place, folded them, and put them in the right side pocket of my camouflage pants. When I went inside, I saw a photograph on the inside of the door as well; I folded it the same way and put it in my pocket. Then F.A. and A.A. came to the dormitory. I explained the situation to them. Around 13:30, about 30-40 people gathered in front of our dormitory door. 6 of them entered the dormitory. As soon as they entered, they asked, 'Who took them out?' I said, 'I took them out.' They said, 'Why did you take them out; were you uncomfortable, don't you like him?' I said, 'The photographs have no place in the dormitory order. Why did you hang them? Did you get permission from the commander? If hanging a photograph on the door is love for Atatürk, why didn't you hang it on your own door?' R.A. asked, 'Did you throw the photographs in the trash?' Upon my saying 'No,' he asked for them from me. I said I would give the photographs to the commander, but they insisted. I gave all of them except one of the photographs I had folded to fit in my pocket. I am keeping that one photograph to present to the court as evidence; I do not want to give it to your committee. R.A. pasted one of the photographs I gave back on the door. After saying, 'This will stay here,' he tore the Velcro Turkish Flag on the left sleeve of my uniform and said, 'You don't deserve to wear this.' I did not retaliate. A scuffle broke out between S.Ç. and A.A. After that, G.E. asked, 'Which community are you from, which cult are you from?' G.E. and F.Y., with one of the Atatürk photographs in their hands, said, 'Do you love Atatürk or not? If you love him, then kiss him.' They asked me, 'Do you accept Atatürk?' I replied, 'I accept his military personality before 1923, but I do not accept everything after that.' ”

“THE CAUSE OF THE EVENTS IS NOT THE ATATÜRK PHOTOGRAPH BUT ENMITY TOWARD RELIGION”

In his defense after being referred to the High Disciplinary Board with a request for dismissal from the TSK, Lieutenant M.F.Ş. said, “The sentences I am alleged to have said consist only of the statements of some of the trainees who came to the dormitory. I definitely did not utter such sentences.” He also noted the following:

“Those who first came to our dormitory said, 'The current administration might be behind you, but this will change.' These are the sentences that both clearly state that they do not accept the current order and trample on religious values, ignoring the Constitution and the laws. The reason for the tension and anger is not the issue of whether the photograph is worn or not. As can be seen in the WhatsApp conversations we submitted to the court and shared with the committee, the reaction, hatred, and animosity shown by the mentioned individuals are against religion, Islam, and the spiritual values, laws, statutes, and constitutional order of this nation. For example, one shared the execution photograph of a person named Sheikh Said and wrote underneath, 'Your end will be like this,' and another wrote, 'You will also be hanged like the enemies of the Republic imams.' From whom do these people get the authority to hang someone? Are these expressions the prologues of an uprising or a coup attempt? Also, there are many insults made by many people against religion, faith, and Islam in the WhatsApp conversations. When all these are considered together, how can it be concluded that the people who came to our dormitory without our permission to hold us accountable for an event that had already been recorded and for which administrative action had been initiated, came only to react to this event? One of the photographs I removed from the door is with me, intact, to the point where even the fold mark is barely visible, let alone being torn or crumpled. I will present this to the court as evidence to dismiss the accusations made against me such as 'He tore the photograph and crumpled it and threw it away.' Hanging Atatürk's picture in such a public place, at any time and in any way one wishes, is an ugly act that means outright disrespect to Atatürk's spiritual memory. Of course, someone who encounters such a scene will remove the photographs on their door to eliminate that ugliness. If there is a crime or disrespect to a memory, I think it is the actions of the attackers who do not recognize any rules in this way. They have tried to implement a very low-level scenario and have been chasing the creation of a negative perception. The attacking group has been trying to distort the event in the public eye and produce unreal news with the media elements they have been in contact with from the beginning. I was the one who was attacked, who was wanted to be beaten, who was beaten, who was subjected to all kinds of insults and abuse, whose personal rights were violated, and whose professional honor and dignity were trampled upon with reckless actions. I am the real victim of the event. Some of the perpetrators of the attack that victimized me have not even been questioned. No temporary suspension decision has been given for those who belittle and insult the President in their messages.”

ERHAN AFYONCU WENT TO THE SCHOOL FIRST

Interesting details were also included in the written defense sent by the three lieutenants' lawyer to the High Disciplinary Board.

As will be remembered, in our article dated January 5 titled “Who Went to Tuzla Infantry School First Upon the Failure to Wear an Atatürk Photograph?”, we provided the information that when the events on November 10 were heard, National Defense University Rector Prof. Erhan Afyoncu went to the school and reacted to A.A., who did not wear an Atatürk photograph, and his two friends.

Here, the lieutenants' lawyer also stated in his defense that “Erhan Afyoncu came to the school before the events, although he was not authorized or on duty, and summoned the 3 lieutenants who were victims and beaten, scolded them with the accusation that they caused the events by removing the photographs on the door, and said that they had committed the crime of disobedience to orders.”

“IT IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPH REACTION BUT AN UPRISING DRILL”

While the lawyer accused CHP Deputy Özgür Ceylan and some newspaper, television, and social media elements, whom he claimed were in contact with other lieutenants, of spreading the events in a false and distorted manner that could cause public outrage, he also claimed, “The event is not a simple reaction, it is a mass uprising and rebellion-like uprising drill, the likes of which have not been seen in the TSK except for the days of revolution and coups,” and noted the following:

“If it is thought that the image of the TSK in society has been tarnished and damaged after the event, the biggest culprit of this is the aggressive officers and their actions, who have acted collectively and organized from the beginning and are in communication with all media and social media.”

The lawyer explained Lieutenant M.F.Ş.'s possession of Kadir Mısırlıoğlu's book as follows:

“My client purchased the book titled The Palestine Drama by the late historian and author Kadir Mısırlıoğlu during his time at the Military Academy. During a search at the school, this book was confiscated by the company commander as a banned book, and was returned later when it was understood that this was not the case. Using this event as an excuse, from that date on, my client's name was branded and announced in groups as 'a disciple of Sheikh Kadir, Kadir's p..., a cultist, a community member, an enemy of Atatürk'.”

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE MILITARY ACADEMIES LAW WERE REMINDED

In the conclusion section of the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board's decision, the following were primarily reminded:

“That the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey were determined in line with the nationalism understanding of the immortal leader and peerless hero Atatürk and his reforms and principles; that in Article 2 of the Constitution, loyalty to Atatürk's nationalism and secularism are counted among the fundamental characteristics of the Republic of Turkey; that in Article 58, titled Protection of Youth, the State is obliged to raise and develop youth in line with Atatürk's Principles and Reforms, and that officers graduating from Military Academies, which have no doubt that they provide education in line with this obligation, must also be loyal to Atatürk's Principles and Reforms; that professional officers loyal to Atatürk's principles and possessing military values are raised in Military Academies, and that officers graduating from Military Academies must be loyal to Atatürk's principles and the Republic; that like every soldier who joins the TSK, officers graduating from Military Academies also take an oath that they will remain loyal to the Republic; that within the framework of these provisions, every soldier is not only obliged to show loyal adherence to Atatürk's Principles and Reforms and the Republic, but this is also a duty that contains a necessity within the framework of the laws related to this...”

Following this, the assessment made was: “It was concluded that M.F.Ş.'s statements constituted a violation of the secularism and republicanism principles of the Constitution; that the words he uttered, especially by emphasizing the year 1923 when the Republic was proclaimed, raised strong doubts about his loyalty to Atatürk's Principles and Reforms and the Republic and Constitutional order; that he provoked his friends with words against Atatürk's Principles and Reforms, the Republic, and the Constitutional order and was significantly responsible for the occurrence of the events, and furthermore, by trying to group together in unity of thought and action with some of his friends, he disrupted the spirit of unity and solidarity and military hierarchy,” and it was reported that his dismissal from the TSK was decided unanimously.