Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 22 2011
Hrant and Sledgehammer
ERGUN BABAHAN
The masterminds of the Sledgehammer case had set out to finish what
members of the Committee of Union and Progress started. An order to
kill Hrant Dink was issued within this scope, and if plans stayed on
track they were going to kill other important figures in Turkey such
as Etyen Mahçupyan and Sevan NiÅ?anyan.
Documents seized from the Gölcük Naval Command in a search conducted
during Sledgehammer investigations shed light on all suspicious events
that have occurred in Turkey in the recent past, including the
Sept.12, 1980 coup d'état. The documents show us once again that coup
leaders are not saviors but murderers.
But a section of the media persist in ignoring these developments.
These same people also try to downgrade and reject the Ergenekon case.
This is in fact an indication that there is an unusual relationship
between coup planners and the media. This is understandable to a
certain extent because they owe their existence, power and wealth to
the military. But when we look at the Dink murder, it's hard to
understand the government's attitude.
It's apparent that Dink was not murdered by just a couple of young
lackeys but that the the police and gendarmerie were involved as well.
For some reason the government and the Interior Ministry did not or
could not go after those who were really responsible for the killing
and did not allow the investigation to expand after a certain point.
This in return leads to the suspicion that the decision to kill Dink
was made by people that the government is reluctant to expose.
Turkey is a country that still has not confronted the events of 1915.
For years, Turkey kept that part of history concealed, and any time it
was brought up it hid behind the argument that `they killed people too
and so did we.' What we have before us is the murder case of an fellow
citizen of Armenian origin. This is clearly a `state murder.' I have
said this before and I will say it again: A state that can not shed
light on a critical murder like this one, which happened not too long
ago, has no right to say anything about the past.
The decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dated Sept.
14, 2010 is a badge of shame we have to wear. The court unanimously
agreed that Turkey failed to take sufficient measures to protect
Dink's right to life, stressing that security forces did not take
precautionary measures even though they knew Dink's life was in
danger.
During a speech at the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's
Association (TÃ`SÄ°AD), Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an boasted
about how the suspects were caught within 36 hours of the incident and
shifted the responsibility to the judiciary. But the government is
responsible for security and intelligence forces. An explanation as to
why the government has not launched a thorough investigation of that
part of the case is necessary.
The Dink case is the mother of all cases because it will give Turkey
the opportunity to confront everything from its recent to distant
past.
From: A. Papazian
Jan 22 2011
Hrant and Sledgehammer
ERGUN BABAHAN
The masterminds of the Sledgehammer case had set out to finish what
members of the Committee of Union and Progress started. An order to
kill Hrant Dink was issued within this scope, and if plans stayed on
track they were going to kill other important figures in Turkey such
as Etyen Mahçupyan and Sevan NiÅ?anyan.
Documents seized from the Gölcük Naval Command in a search conducted
during Sledgehammer investigations shed light on all suspicious events
that have occurred in Turkey in the recent past, including the
Sept.12, 1980 coup d'état. The documents show us once again that coup
leaders are not saviors but murderers.
But a section of the media persist in ignoring these developments.
These same people also try to downgrade and reject the Ergenekon case.
This is in fact an indication that there is an unusual relationship
between coup planners and the media. This is understandable to a
certain extent because they owe their existence, power and wealth to
the military. But when we look at the Dink murder, it's hard to
understand the government's attitude.
It's apparent that Dink was not murdered by just a couple of young
lackeys but that the the police and gendarmerie were involved as well.
For some reason the government and the Interior Ministry did not or
could not go after those who were really responsible for the killing
and did not allow the investigation to expand after a certain point.
This in return leads to the suspicion that the decision to kill Dink
was made by people that the government is reluctant to expose.
Turkey is a country that still has not confronted the events of 1915.
For years, Turkey kept that part of history concealed, and any time it
was brought up it hid behind the argument that `they killed people too
and so did we.' What we have before us is the murder case of an fellow
citizen of Armenian origin. This is clearly a `state murder.' I have
said this before and I will say it again: A state that can not shed
light on a critical murder like this one, which happened not too long
ago, has no right to say anything about the past.
The decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dated Sept.
14, 2010 is a badge of shame we have to wear. The court unanimously
agreed that Turkey failed to take sufficient measures to protect
Dink's right to life, stressing that security forces did not take
precautionary measures even though they knew Dink's life was in
danger.
During a speech at the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's
Association (TÃ`SÄ°AD), Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an boasted
about how the suspects were caught within 36 hours of the incident and
shifted the responsibility to the judiciary. But the government is
responsible for security and intelligence forces. An explanation as to
why the government has not launched a thorough investigation of that
part of the case is necessary.
The Dink case is the mother of all cases because it will give Turkey
the opportunity to confront everything from its recent to distant
past.
From: A. Papazian