General Staff 'Roof' Case... A surprise name also watched the hearing: A message to Akar from a critical figure of July 15! 'You know what I did for your child'

Müyesser Yıldız - 12punto.com.tr

In the General Staff 'Roof' Case, which is being retried at the Ankara 17th High Criminal Court at the Sincan Prison Complex following the Supreme Court of Appeals' partial reversal decision, Mehmet Dişli completed the defense he began the previous day.

First of all, let me state this; since I went to visit my journalist brother Alican Uludağ, who is in Silivri Prison, I could not watch Dişli's defense yesterday, but I obtained his defense statement later.

WHO WERE THE CIVILIANS AND ARMED INDIVIDUALS AT THE HEADQUARTERS?

At the beginning of his defense, Mehmet Dişli explained that when he went to the command floor to present the "TSK-2033 Project" to Erdoğan, he was taken hostage by civilians with long-barreled weapons, asked to convey certain issues to Akar that were dictated to him by force, and was forced into Akar's office at gunpoint, but that prosecutors never investigated this part of the incident. He said, "However, if our requests for expanding the investigation and conducting on-site inspections had been accepted, many dark points in the background of this heinous event could have been clarified while the trail was still hot. It is not fully known who was on the command floor before, during, and after those hours. It is unclear whether they were from the protection teams, the Special Forces, the police, or another unit."

Stating that the statements Akar claimed he made were not true, that he only "gave a report" in military terms regarding the issues "dictated by armed individuals," that he definitely did not make any proposals to Akar, and that the claim that the handcuffs on Akar's wrists were cut with his approval does not reflect the truth, Dişli spoke as follows:

"Hulusi Akar does not even approve a document that all generals at the General Staff Headquarters have agreed upon, which bears the signatures of the Second Chief and seven heads of departments, and the initials of 30 department heads, in 2-3 months. Would he be convinced to join a coup attempt based on an off-the-cuff proposal? This claim is contrary to the nature of military service and Mr. Hulusi Akar himself."

Dişli also rejected the accusation that Akar was taken to Akıncı under his supervision and emphasized the following:

"The footage is clear. The Chief of General Staff was not under my supervision; on the contrary, it appears that I was the one evacuated under his supervision. The moment we went to the helicopter; I was walking behind the commander to his left, looking at the ground in a sad and distracted manner. At this moment, Hulusi Akar himself saved me at the last second from hitting the tail rotor of the helicopter, which I had approached dangerously without realizing it. Who was evacuated under whose supervision? If it weren't for Mr. Akar's valuable supervision, I wouldn't be here right now anyway."

Dişli also pointed out that those who prepared the General Staff Administrative Investigation Report, which formed the basis of the indictment and the prosecutor's opinion, were "FETÖ/PDY suspects," and that almost half of the members were later arrested or dismissed from the TSK, while claiming that this report and the statements taken were constructed to support Akar's statements.

AKAR CALLED AKIN ÖZTÜRK

In the continuation of his defense, Dişli emphasized that he performed secretarial duties for Akar when they went to the Çankaya Mansion the next day, just as he did at Akıncı, and that 42 of the 58 call records in the HTS report belonged to their 8 hours of work at the crisis desk, but that these calls, which are the most important indicators of his location on July 15, were not mentioned, and noted the following:

"Of course, I am not Akın Öztürk's lawyer. I don't know with what motive he came there either. However, what I heard with my own ears, saw with my own eyes, and witnessed is that Akın Öztürk was called there by Hulusi Akar."

"I AM ALSO AKAR'S CLOSEST WITNESS"

Dişli began the section of his defense titled "My defense against Hulusi Akar's accusations (slander)" as follows:

"While I was a 'hero of the event' in Çankaya the next day, for a reason I don't know and still haven't found, I was turned into a 'suspect' at the last minute. The statement given by Hulusi Akar, which does not coincide with what actually happened, became the starting point, or even the sole reason, for my being tried in this case. One of the most disgraceful events in the country's history has occurred. While the importance of a statement given while the trail is hot is clear, the most important eyewitness to the event began giving his statement 3 days later, and after 50 minutes, he brought the subject to Mehmet Dişli and a one-day break was given. Clearly; there is a plan regarding Mehmet Dişli, a setup will be made. Special work needs to be done. They did it in their own way, but it still didn't work; he gave a total of 5 pages of statements, and later they had to make 20 updates. The only way to resolve the contradictions in his statement, to refute the slanders he made against me, ignoring what happened that night and even my 16 years of loyal service to him, was for him to answer the questions we would ask him regarding these unbelievable statements in the presence of the Court. In this context, I had 93 questions to ask him regarding almost every sentence, every word... But he did not come, citing his 'busy schedule' as an excuse. If he stood behind his slanders, he would have shown the courage to come to court and say these things to our faces, and answer our few questions. He didn't come, he couldn't come, he cannot come... As time passes and some truths emerge, the number of questions to be asked naturally increases. For example, as of today, the number of questions I will ask him has exceeded 200. However, the witness was practically hidden from the defendant. But my grievance is with my commander himself. I started working under Hulusi Akar's command in 2000, starting from my duty at the NATO headquarters in Italy. At that time, I was a two-year Major, and he was a two-year Brigadier General. After this date, I was always close to him, personally appointed by him. Just like on July 15, I was always by his side during very critical time periods. It turns out 'loyalty' was just the name of a district for Mr. Akar. He neither came to court nor testified in my favor. We had looked each other in the face for so many years; he could have at least not harbored ill thoughts, not slandered me. Shame on him. But I would also like to remind you that I am his sole and closest witness."

"HIS THROAT WAS NOT SQUEEZED... HE IS LYING"

Reminding that Akar first claimed his "throat was squeezed," then updated this by saying "someone wrapped their arm around his throat and a rope-like object rubbed against his throat," and that he did not mention this at all in the response he sent to Parliament, Dişli said, "I was always by his side from the first moments of this heinous event to the last minute, and I did not witness such an event. But the truth is, I know very well how that mark on his throat was formed."

Dişli also claimed that Akar gave the impression that they did not even let him call his wife when they went to Akıncı, whereas as soon as he entered the headquarters, he asked him to call his adjutant and give his wife the message, "Don't worry, work is continuing," and continued as follows:

"He probably tried to create such an impression as an excuse for not calling anyone that night. Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Akar gave such a statement because he was provoked by Mete Yarar or Abdülkadir Selvi. It is also not true that he told me, 'You stay,' while going to Çankaya. He couldn't have said that, because he wasn't sure what kind of reaction he would face in Çankaya when he left Akıncı that morning. Just an hour ago, we had learned that Ümit Dündar had been appointed in his place. He was anxious, he was quite uneasy about this appointment. When we entered Tuğrul Türkeş's room in Çankaya, he introduced me to those there himself. He was the one who said that I was the brother of Şaban Dişli, who was in the party administration at that time. My brother was not there yet when we arrived, and I will skip what he said about me to him when he arrived. My brother has not told these things anywhere to this day; our state discipline does not allow this. The rest will remain with me, but Mr. Akar is being shameful. I wish he had followed my suggestion and 'told what we experienced' in his statement, then he wouldn't have fallen into this situation. I don't want to use this word for a person who has served as Chief of General Staff, but what he did has only one equivalent in Turkish. I say it with shame, Mr. Akar is officially lying."

"I KNOW AKAR'S INNERMOST THOUGHTS... HE IS NOT ALZHEIMER'S"

Dişli, while arguing that Hulusi Akar confirmed what he had been saying from the first day by mentioning issues he had never brought up before in an interview he gave to Kübra Par on July 16, 2023, which was broadcast live, explained the following:

"For example, the issue of praying in his office before going to Akıncı; Akar never mentioned this in any of his statements, but he said it 7 years later. In quotation marks, I only state this: Akar is not 'Alzheimer's'... In the same program, he said, 'The door was knocked, Mehmet Dişli entered; they are coming, sir, will you take charge of us?' Ms. Kübra, of course, had examined his previous statements; she is surprised when she hears this for the first time and asks. Trying to brush it off, he says, 'It is in our prosecutor's statement.' This slander of yours is not in the prosecutor's statement, Mr. Akar. Because your heart hadn't darkened that much in those days. No such luck. You cannot make every slander that comes to your mind. He also says that I cursed at him. What kind of style, discourse, level, and rudeness is this? We have moved past positions and ranks; does it befit a person over 70? Have some decency. What is it to say that he cursed in every other sentence to a female announcer in front of millions of viewers? What can we say, everyone displays the requirements of their character, does what their nature requires, but I wonder; we have been inside for 10 years, what has changed in this country? When did swearing become a method of credibility or persuasion? Is swearing evidence? Well, who is the person he says he 'cursed at'? The person he has looked in the face for so many years, whom he has met with as a family, whose house he has visited. Has Şule (Akar) Hanım heard this? Actually, if it were someone else, I would say, 'Same to you' and move on... What is distressing is; look at the words he used for someone who has served him loyally for years, who would give his life if asked. For someone who has protected his honor and dignity in every environment and condition. He understands very well what I mean. Shame on him! I also invite Ms. Kübra; let her come to Kandıra Prison, let her listen to that night from me, or even let her interview me this year on July 15. Or let's do an interview when I get out of here; let her call Mr. Akar and me, let's tell the story of that night together. Let's see who the nation finds credible. It's easy to talk when you find an empty environment. Let him repeat these curses to my face and let's see. The fact that Akar tries to highlight his religious identity by emphasizing the 'praying' issue on one hand, while saying he constantly curses on the other, is another contradiction. This situation points to a troubled personality structure. Of course, I am not a fortune teller, but I know Hulusi Akar well; in colloquial terms, I know his innermost thoughts."

"DID HE CALL ANYONE WHEN HE WENT TO PRAY?"

Mehmet Dişli reacted to Akar calling MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan after the Prime Minister while he was at Akıncı on the morning of July 16 as follows:

"He never said in his first statement that he spoke with the MIT Undersecretary, he declared it in the second. However, Akar's style regarding this meeting is remarkable. Because it is not normal for the Chief of General Staff, who was fourth in the state hierarchy as of that day, to call the MIT Undersecretary after the Prime Minister and, by his own declaration, 'provide information' to the undersecretary. The Undersecretary; in the hierarchy of that date, is at the level of the Headquarters Chiefs with the rank of Lieutenant General in the General Staff. The need for the Chief of General Staff to provide information to the MIT Undersecretary while he had not yet spoken with the President as of that hour is in need of explanation. More importantly; it is contrary to the ordinary flow of military service that he called the MIT Undersecretary without calling any Force or Army Commander, without even attempting to call, and without consulting with the chiefs of his own headquarters."

Then he emphasized the following:

"We do not know who Mr. Akar spoke with that day, or whether he called anyone. I witnessed that he went to the resting area at the back of the room several times under the pretext of performing ablution and praying during the time we were together in the office that night. However, I do not know if he called anyone when he went to the back. He declared that his phone was lost, but the HTS records are still there. On this occasion, I request that Hulusi Akar's HTS records for July 14-15 be brought into the file."

THE ISSUE OF CHILDREN

Stating that it has been said for years that "he protected Hulusi Akar" and that "Look, he became a minister, you became a minister from behind iron bars," Dişli responded to these criticisms as follows:

"Ask him, who is in prison? On one side, there is the suspicious, dubious Hulusi Akar, whose actions or inactions that day are questionable, and on the other side, there is Mehmet Dişli, who was thrown inside by his slanders, but whose every sentence is confirmed by his own words. Which one would you prefer to be? My goal is neither to protect or praise Hulusi Akar, nor to bury him, in colloquial terms. I am not a masochist, nor have I fallen victim to Stockholm Syndrome. I have no other purpose than to defend myself. I told what I experienced, what I saw, what I heard, what I knew. I did not slander anyone. Do you want me to do as he does? Then what difference would there be between us? I could tell a lot about what we talked about when we were alone in the office that night, at Akıncı, and in Çankaya, when I was alone with Mr. Akar. However, there is no evidence, proof, or witness for any of these. Just like Mr. Akar's statements about me. Don't worry, if I ever believe that our words will be valued one day, we will certainly have a few things to say."

Dişli also addressed Akar as follows:

"From now on, my last word to Hulusi Akar is this; my commander, Mr. Akar, I am still in that place under the tree. Where are you? You know what I did for your child, but you did this to my child. Only Hulusi Akar in this country knows what these words of mine mean. I hope he hears them and understands the meaning of what I have said."

At the end of his defense, Mehmet Dişli argued that the coup trials "made the Yassıada trials look merciful," and stating that he should be in the same position as Akar regarding the July 15 incident, he requested that Akar's statements be removed from the file as they have lost their evidentiary value and that he be retried and acquitted.

HIS AKP BROTHER ALSO LISTENED

Let us also convey an important and remarkable detail about the hearing:

Şaban Dişli, the brother mentioned in Mehmet Dişli's defense, is a founder of the AKP. He was elected as a member of parliament for 4 terms and served as an AKP Deputy Chairman. Most recently, he served as Turkey's Ambassador to the Netherlands between 2018-2023.

And Şaban Dişli attended this hearing for the first time to listen to his brother's defense.

News Source: Müyesser Yıldız