Tweet
WHO KILLED DINK ACCORDING TO DDK? THE DEEP STATE, OR...
Hurriyet Daily News
Feb 24 2012
Turkey
One of the most interesting aspects of the State Supervisory Council
(DDK) report on the murder of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant
Dink was that it entered the ongoing public debate on the feature of
the incident.
There are two main views in the media and public opinion about the
Dink murder. One of them is based on the opinion that the murder could
just well be an isolated incident carried out by a group of fanatical
nationalist youth on their own. In sentencing Yasin Hayal last month,
an Istanbul court's verdict statement that there was no presence of an
organization found in the murder strengthens this opinion. However,
this verdict of the 14th Specially Authorized Court drew reaction
from a significant segment of the public.
The second opinion is based on the acceptance that the murder was
an operation directly organized by the "deep state." There are many
opinion leaders who attribute absolute precision to this thesis.
Government spokespeople, on the other hand, say it was them who were
targeted in this murder.
This debate emerges in the DDK report.
'Clumsiness in this murder'
At the end of the "conclusion," the part of the report which was
publicized, DDK head Cemal Boyalı and the other four members of the
board said they found it necessary to "express some points on the
nature and manner of the incident."
The DDK said, after this entry, that "at a first glance, it can be
concluded that the incident is an act as defined at the trial court,"
referring to the first opinion and the verdict of the Istanbul court
announced Jan. 17.
There are three factors supporting this view, according to the DDK:
The first of these is the "long time slot that passed between the
moment the first intelligence was received and the time the murder
was committed." It is true that the date was Feb. 17, 2006, when
Trabzon police informed Istanbul and Ankara that a murder targeting
Dink was being planned. The gendarmerie intelligence learned about the
preparation in July 2006. The murder was committed much later on Jan.
19, 2007.
The second factor is that "the perpetrators were demonstrating clumsy
behavior during the time leading to the murder." When court documents
are reviewed, it can be seen that Yasin Hayal did not hide it from his
circle of friends in Pelitli in Trabzon that he was making preparations
to kill Hrant Dink.
In the third factor, the DDK points out the difficulties the
perpetrators went through while obtaining the weapon.
This is not cited openly but all of this emphasizes the sense that
"this is an amateur job."
Turkey's plentiful experience
Let's move onto the second thesis. After the DDK conveys the first
opinion, right after that it says "However..." and turns the spotlight
on the other side of the coin; in other words, the thesis arguing
that the murder was the product of a structure formed inside the state.
Within this framework, the DDK emphasizes that "Our country's plentiful
[beyond measure] experience in incidents similar to the Hrant Dink
murder, as well as both the responsibility in the inability to
protect Dink's right to life and mistakes in practice, wrongdoings
and deficiencies" should also be taken into consideration.
The board sheds light on what it means by "plentiful experience"
with this listing:
"The Malatya Zirve Publishing House and Priest Santoro murders, the
'Kafes' [Cage] Action Plan, Ergenekon, Revolutionary Headquarters,
OdaTV, 'Balyoz' [Sledgehammer], the Action Plan to Fight
Fundamentalism, Å~^emdinli, the Murder at the Council of State and
cases on unresolved murders..."
According to the DDK, it is not only the existence of these cases,
but also the "actions attributed to public employees in these cases
and, in some cases, the aims, types of actions and methods [used],
as well as signs related to the connection of some defendants with
the process and actions leading to Hrant Dink's murder" should be
taken into account.
In this context, we may give the example that Ergenekon defendants
such as Veli Kucuk and Kemal Kerincsiz appear in campaigns led against
Hrant Dink.
Well, which one is right?
After drawing this framework, the report emphasizes "The murder should
be examined by integrating it with the period starting with making
Hrant Dink a target by otherizing him and the period he was being
threatened." It goes on: "It is a must that negligence and the other
actions of suspected public employees be investigated and [that they
be] tried directly or within the context of the main murder case."
To sum up, the DDK gives the message that "At first sight it looks like
an isolated incident but it is also a high probability that it is an
illegal structure inside the state. In order to reveal this, the main
case and the cases of the faulty public employees should be joined."
We need to wait for the Dink case to be reopened for the truth to
come to light with all its dimensions.
Sedat Ergin is a columnist for daily Hurriyet in which this piece
appeared Feb 23. It was translated into English by the Daily News
staff.
Hurriyet Daily News
Feb 24 2012
Turkey
One of the most interesting aspects of the State Supervisory Council
(DDK) report on the murder of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant
Dink was that it entered the ongoing public debate on the feature of
the incident.
There are two main views in the media and public opinion about the
Dink murder. One of them is based on the opinion that the murder could
just well be an isolated incident carried out by a group of fanatical
nationalist youth on their own. In sentencing Yasin Hayal last month,
an Istanbul court's verdict statement that there was no presence of an
organization found in the murder strengthens this opinion. However,
this verdict of the 14th Specially Authorized Court drew reaction
from a significant segment of the public.
The second opinion is based on the acceptance that the murder was
an operation directly organized by the "deep state." There are many
opinion leaders who attribute absolute precision to this thesis.
Government spokespeople, on the other hand, say it was them who were
targeted in this murder.
This debate emerges in the DDK report.
'Clumsiness in this murder'
At the end of the "conclusion," the part of the report which was
publicized, DDK head Cemal Boyalı and the other four members of the
board said they found it necessary to "express some points on the
nature and manner of the incident."
The DDK said, after this entry, that "at a first glance, it can be
concluded that the incident is an act as defined at the trial court,"
referring to the first opinion and the verdict of the Istanbul court
announced Jan. 17.
There are three factors supporting this view, according to the DDK:
The first of these is the "long time slot that passed between the
moment the first intelligence was received and the time the murder
was committed." It is true that the date was Feb. 17, 2006, when
Trabzon police informed Istanbul and Ankara that a murder targeting
Dink was being planned. The gendarmerie intelligence learned about the
preparation in July 2006. The murder was committed much later on Jan.
19, 2007.
The second factor is that "the perpetrators were demonstrating clumsy
behavior during the time leading to the murder." When court documents
are reviewed, it can be seen that Yasin Hayal did not hide it from his
circle of friends in Pelitli in Trabzon that he was making preparations
to kill Hrant Dink.
In the third factor, the DDK points out the difficulties the
perpetrators went through while obtaining the weapon.
This is not cited openly but all of this emphasizes the sense that
"this is an amateur job."
Turkey's plentiful experience
Let's move onto the second thesis. After the DDK conveys the first
opinion, right after that it says "However..." and turns the spotlight
on the other side of the coin; in other words, the thesis arguing
that the murder was the product of a structure formed inside the state.
Within this framework, the DDK emphasizes that "Our country's plentiful
[beyond measure] experience in incidents similar to the Hrant Dink
murder, as well as both the responsibility in the inability to
protect Dink's right to life and mistakes in practice, wrongdoings
and deficiencies" should also be taken into consideration.
The board sheds light on what it means by "plentiful experience"
with this listing:
"The Malatya Zirve Publishing House and Priest Santoro murders, the
'Kafes' [Cage] Action Plan, Ergenekon, Revolutionary Headquarters,
OdaTV, 'Balyoz' [Sledgehammer], the Action Plan to Fight
Fundamentalism, Å~^emdinli, the Murder at the Council of State and
cases on unresolved murders..."
According to the DDK, it is not only the existence of these cases,
but also the "actions attributed to public employees in these cases
and, in some cases, the aims, types of actions and methods [used],
as well as signs related to the connection of some defendants with
the process and actions leading to Hrant Dink's murder" should be
taken into account.
In this context, we may give the example that Ergenekon defendants
such as Veli Kucuk and Kemal Kerincsiz appear in campaigns led against
Hrant Dink.
Well, which one is right?
After drawing this framework, the report emphasizes "The murder should
be examined by integrating it with the period starting with making
Hrant Dink a target by otherizing him and the period he was being
threatened." It goes on: "It is a must that negligence and the other
actions of suspected public employees be investigated and [that they
be] tried directly or within the context of the main murder case."
To sum up, the DDK gives the message that "At first sight it looks like
an isolated incident but it is also a high probability that it is an
illegal structure inside the state. In order to reveal this, the main
case and the cases of the faulty public employees should be joined."
We need to wait for the Dink case to be reopened for the truth to
come to light with all its dimensions.
Sedat Ergin is a columnist for daily Hurriyet in which this piece
appeared Feb 23. It was translated into English by the Daily News
staff.