Such events, which have rich sentimental content and symbolic associations, tend to be discussed for a long time. Sometimes they are used to simplify extremely complicated events. This visit is one such event. During the term of former Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt, significant developments were seen. The e-memorandum posted on the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) Web site at midnight on April 27, 2007, is one of these developments. Yet Büyükanıt is more likely to be remembered by one specific statement, which is, “I know them; they are good guys.” When the Şemdinli case first emerged, Büyükanıt had extended his protection of the defendant soldiers by making this statement. A highly dubious prosecutorial process followed, and concerns were raised about the fairness and impartiality of the process. All the events that happened during the controversial trial process were recorded in the pages of history along with this “good guys” rhetoric. These words came to be seen as an intervention by the chief of general staff into the trial process and as his patronage of illegality.
Institutional visit
The military sees a different purpose to this visit. Kocaeli Garrison Commander Lt. Gen. Galip Mendi’s visit to two retired generals being held in Kandıra Prison is at first glance not an incident that may have profound or far-reaching meanings, even if the visit was completed on behalf of the TSK. The first thing that comes to mind about this visit is the military’s intention to show some kind of professional solidarity. Several news stories had claimed that arrest of the retired generals was being harshly debated among military circles and several complaints were raised about it. It is possible that the fact that two retired generals are being held in prison has lead several generals on active duty to question the prestige of their profession. We may assume that the new top commanders have taken this uneasiness into consideration and planned this visit in order to boost morale among commanders.
This visit, which may seem innocent for the military, is a major disaster for the rule of law. First of all, these two generals are under arrest for an ordinary offense. They are being held in prison as defendants in a court case where the Ergenekon terrorist organization is being tried for assuming offices within the state and conducting illegal acts, including murder. An indictment has not been prepared about these two generals. A supplementary indictment will be prepared for them, and thus they will be made part of the Ergenekon case. It is expected that they will be charged primarily with illegal acts centered around “attempted coups.”
For this reason, it is hard to see this visit as simply an innocent case of professional solidarity. The military should see that this visit and its implications have two aspects: one related to inner military workings and the other to external affairs.
The military should have accepted that the TSK’s institutional prestige precedes professional solidarity and even the prestige of their profession. When these two generals were arrested and sent to prison, we saw that even top-ranking soldiers would not receive institutional protection if they were accused of some crime. Therefore the equal treatment afforded to two generals before the law, just like ordinary citizens, reinforced the TSK’s prestige in the eyes of the public. This showed that the army is not using its institutional power to grant privilege or immunity to its members. However this visit is now ruining this perception. The emphasis that “this visit was conducted on behalf of the TSK” in the statement issued by the General Staff is a dangerous one that puts the institutional support of the TSK behind these two suspects. This phrase shows that this visit was conducted within the hierarchical structure of the TSK and it was undertaken upon an institutional “order.”
Thus the army is extending its protection to cover the former generals who had plotted coups. By doing so, they are not protecting the prestige of their profession, but the army’s meddling with politics.
Intervention with trial
The second aspect, the external one, is much more important as this aspect relates to judicial independence. The sentence, “The TSK has complete respect and trust in the judiciary,” in the statement will not prevent this visit from being perceived as an intervention with the ongoing trial. Let us give two examples for the sake of comparison. First, suppose that a retired police chief was visited, upon the order of the head of the police department by a police chief of the city where he was held. The second example is from the field of health. Let us suppose that a former health director was visited upon the order of the health minister by a health director of the city where the prison is located. If these two visits were made in connection with ongoing trials, what course would the debate take?
Armed public servants have heavier responsibility in complying with the law than unarmed ones. If a bureaucratic institution gives the impression that it is using the license to bear arms given to them so that they can protect the country in order to secure for their members, how can you protect its prestige?
The indictment and supplementary evidence in the Ergenekon case clearly indicate that there is very strong illegal organization nested within the state. The primary nest of this illegal organization is the TSK. This case put on trial the gangs consisting of those who use the powers and authorities, tools, provided and skills acquired within the military for their personal interests. A soldier develops relations using his position and powers during his office as a member of the army. He undertakes several illegal activities during his office. He uses the tools and resources provided by the state in these illegal activities. He then makes a criminal organization out of his relations. Afterwards, the military extends protection to the generals who are accused of these offenses and are being held in prison.
When the Ergenekon case was launched, a big burden had been lifted from the TSK’s shoulders. The arrest of two retired generals has been perceived as the extension of the military’s support of purging gangs. What, now, should the trial’s judges make of this visit conducted as ordered by the chief of staff?
I don’t think this visit will serve as a form of pressure on the judges. The start of the Ergenekon case was the opening of Pandora’s box. The bullet has already left the barrel. The information and the documents included in the case file can no longer be considered nonexistent. No one will believe anyone attempting to portray the situation as such.
The visit by a lieutenant general to two retired generals under arrest as ordered by the chief of general staff will pose a problem not only for the military but also for the newly appointed chief of general staff. As the former is remembered for his “good guys” statement, the new one will be remembered for this institutional visit. This will have no consequence other than increased public attention to the Ergenekon case.
Benzer Haberler 
