CHP leader Deniz Baykal defended this move with a speech that surprised even those who had written about the absurd reasons the CHP presented to defend its move. Baykal's basic argument suggests that there is no military tutelage in Turkey. I wrote the title of this piece thinking that Baykal, who repeated the question, “What have the soldiers interfered in?” over and over again, must not just live outside Turkey, but on another planet. For no matter where they live, inhabitants of planet Earth know that names like Ayışığı and Sarıkız are not the titles of romance novels or songs. Baykal is probably the only one who doesn't know that the April 27 sheet on tear-off calendars is different from the others. His questions: “Didn't he make his brother Abdullah president? Did the soldiers interfere in this?” must be a product of this “ignorance.” There is a benefit to be found in remembering that the person who said with a cynical expression on their face ahead of last week's National Security Council (MGK) meeting that, “In an hour, Gül will also understand that the legislation change is wrong,” is the same person who speaks today.While attempting a comment on the tardiness of their response to the change, the CHP leader uses the term “rediscovery.” Baykal said, “In the morning, everyone was suddenly in a state of having to rediscover what had been done.” What was it that warned the CHP so that it felt the need for such a discovery? Speaking to the Aksiyon newsweekly Justice and Development Party (AK Party) group deputy chairman Mustafa Elitaş explained his surprise at the CHP's change in stance with the words, “The CHP may be over alert.” Or, questions such as, “Is the military, unable to attain tutelage in the face of political power, accomplishing its desires through the opposition?” may begin to overflow the agenda. It could even happen that people such as Taraf's Ahmet Altan may go so far as to call the CHP “the military's mole in politics.”
Among the more important part of his words is his statement that stating a coup d'etat is a crime. Here's what Baykal said: “In the Turkish Penal Code [TCK], there are provisions that stipulate that those who stage coups be tried by civilian courts. There is no obstacle to trying attempted coups in front of civilian courts; a coup d'etat is a crime, not a military crime. Civilian courts prevent coups d'etat.” In this case, I want to ask, what is it that we are discussing here for God's sake? The articles that were amended clarify that plots to assassinate the president, or overthrow the government or destroy Parliament, and crimes such as trafficking in narcotics and formation of mafia-like gangs fall under the scope of the civilian judiciary. The changes foresee the prevention of such perpetrators hiding behind the military or a military title. If Baykal and the CHP also see this as a crime, then what is it they're asking of the Constitutional Court? The request submitted to the court answers this question and refutes Baykal. The request lists the exact opposite of Baykal's utterances during the press conference.
Speaking to the press after submitting the CHP's request to the court, group deputy chairman Kemal Anadol brought the Talat Aydemir coup and execution decisions to the agenda. Setting the topics on the subject that have to do with Haluk Özdalga's father aside, this must be discussed: The Aydemir incident includes tips with regard to “a wholly independent military judiciary.” Aydemir, who could not be tried for the coup while he was on active duty, was tried after he retired -- that is to say, as a civilian -- for his second coup attempt. Why? The president in that day and CHP head İsmet İnönü made an agreement with Aydemir during the first attempt, guaranteeing that no trial would take place. What other crimes are open to bargaining in a state of law? Can such different treatment be dealt for the same person guilty of the same crime? Who determines the criteria for so doing? The CHP, which proposed changing the Constitution to pave the way for trials over Kenan Evren and Sept. 12, 1980 want to cancel the legislation that would block any new coup attempts. Does Baykal see himself as İnönü's heir, the specialist in determining which coups d'état are to be punished?
