The oligarchic ruling bureaucracy and their cohorts took their usual places on the stage immediately after the shooting and performed their parts in an orchestrated effort to blame Muslims and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) for the attack. They claimed the culprit had attacked the court in protest of an anti-headscarf ruling it had made, that the regime was threatened by “reactionaryism” and that this was “Turkey’s Sept. 11.”Then something they had not foreseen happened: The hit man, Alparslan Arslan, was captured and sentenced to life in prison. The judicial bureaucracy expedited the case as if the assault had been motivated by an ultranationalist fanatic’s personal indignation at the same court’s decision to retain a ban on wearing a headscarf at public institutions and universities. Later developments showed something quite different: Various pieces of evidence demonstrated Arslan’s links to the Ergenekon terrorist organization and that the attack was part of a systematic plan to foment chaos in society to pave the way for a coup.
In September 2009 the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court announced that the investigation into the shooting would start again from scratch. The case was merged with the Ergenekon trial because the court in Ankara that had sentenced Arslan had not investigated the illegal formation behind the shooting, had not investigated the footage from the court’s security cameras and nearby buildings, and had not requested the assailant’s phone records before and after the date of the attack. Interestingly, at the time of the shooting, the court building was being guarded by OYAK Security Company. OYAK is the Turkish Armed Forces Assistance Center, and its security company is made up of retired army officers who have served in the Special Forces Command and allegedly have close relations with gangs, other illegal groups and some suspects in the Ergenekon case.
In the first investigation it was claimed that the security cameras in the building were out of order at the time of the attack. However, when the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court asked the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) to examine the security cameras, no technical problems were discovered with the hard disks, and TÜBİTAK suggested that footage from the security cameras at the Council of State had been deliberately destroyed. Although TÜBİTAK recovered some of the footage, 41 files were missing, and the unrecoverable parts include the day of the assault and the previous day. It became clear that the OYAK Security Company had reformatted the cameras’ hard disks and replaced some of them. The security cameras run by the same company at the Sıhhiye Orduevi (a dining facility for military staff), which had the Council of State building in view, were also not working on the day of the attack.
The later developments and especially the latest report by TÜBİTAK indicate that the shooting was not the work of a single man but an organization. Most people now believe that the absence and destruction of camera records of the Council of State shooting cannot be a “coincidence.” Yet, the victims and the members of the Council of State who were there during the assault are silent. The media cohorts have fallen silent. As to OYAK, no one is available to answer questions.
The Turkish Penal Code (TCK) makes it illegal to tamper with or destroy evidence. In this case it seems likely that further investigations will implicate many people, organizations and some in the higher ranks of the military and judiciary. If continuing probes are not stalled or weakened, they will reveal the hands and heinous intentions of people and organizations behind this and similar attacks, shedding light on other deep-state and Ergenekon crimes in Turkey, such as the killings of thousands of Turkish citizens and members of different ethnic and religious communities.
So, ethical officials of civil and state authorities cannot afford to ignore this and similar cases. As well as the more fundamental inquiries, technical issues concerning the proliferation of security devices, cameras, their maintenance and protection of footage require further regulation. Neither of these issues can be left to interest groups.
Responsible citizens now need to contribute to and support the reform package, a new constitution, justice and the rule of law. We must continue to peacefully oppose the tutelage of the oligarchic military and judicial bureaucracy that diverts and paralyzes the Turkish people’s constructive and progressive energy. We no longer want to be condemned at the international level by the European Court of Human Rights or other such organizations. Turkish people deserve better administration and are doing nothing wrong in demanding and working peacefully for that goal.
