Tweet
RULING IN DINK CASE AND THE GOVERNMENT
Today's Zaman
Jan 19 2012
Turkey
When the court sentenced Yasin Hayal, a prime suspect in the killing of
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, for instigating the commission
of a murder while acquitting other suspects in the case of involvement
in any kind of organization behind the 2007 murder of Dink, the late
editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, it wounded the
public's sense of justice, resulting in harsh criticism.
Turkish columnists also expressed how upset the ruling made them and
sought answers as to whether it is right to criticize the government
for the court ruling.
Milliyet columnist Derya Sazak says that by saying, "There is no
organization behind the murder; it is just a murder committed by some
youngsters who felt like killing an Armenian," the court actually
proves that there is an organization behind the murder and even
behind the ruling. Otherwise, the reason behind such a ruling must
be that the court ignored evidence that indicates the existence of
a relationship between Ergenekon -- a clandestine gang accused of
plotting to overthrow the government -- and the Dink murder. Sazak
underlines the inconsistency of the judiciary by saying: "We are
even trying journalist Nedim Å~^ener, who worked hard to find the
perpetrators of the Dink murder, for aiding and abetting the Ergenekon
terror network and sending a former chief of General Staff [Ä°lker
BaÅ~_bug] to jail for establishing an anti-government organization;
but, we acquit Erhan Tuncel, the instigator of Dink's murder. It is
as absurd as giving him an award for the murder," adding that all of
this shows that the government has done badly with this incident.
"Considering the independence of the judiciary, why do we direct our
criticism at the government," Sabah's Nazlı Ilıcak asks. First,
the government should have questioned why the records requested from
the Telecommunications Directorate (TÄ°B) were sent so late. Though
some of the officers in the gendarmerie and police department were
investigated for negligence, they have not been investigated for
committing an "intentional act." The government was also blamed
for promoting Muammer Guler -- then-Ä°stanbul governor against whom
the Dink family submitted a criminal complaint claiming that Guler
neglected his duty and ignored National Intelligence Organization
(MÄ°T) officials who threatened Dink -- to Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) deputy. Ilıcak believes Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's is sincere in his hope to provide full clarification with
regard to the murder, but she also thinks that sufficient efforts to
discover the plot behind the murder were not taken. On the other hand,
Hurriyet's Taha Akyol says we should criticize the judiciary over its
ruling in the Dink murder. However, we should also question the justice
of the statement: "Dink's murderer is the state." What has been done
to Dink is brutal and despicable and our frustration is right and even
necessary. Yet, when we say "the state made a massacre like the one in
1915," it means that we have finished talking about law and are having
a political debate over Dink. This will bring nothing good and just,
says Akyol.
Today's Zaman
Jan 19 2012
Turkey
When the court sentenced Yasin Hayal, a prime suspect in the killing of
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, for instigating the commission
of a murder while acquitting other suspects in the case of involvement
in any kind of organization behind the 2007 murder of Dink, the late
editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, it wounded the
public's sense of justice, resulting in harsh criticism.
Turkish columnists also expressed how upset the ruling made them and
sought answers as to whether it is right to criticize the government
for the court ruling.
Milliyet columnist Derya Sazak says that by saying, "There is no
organization behind the murder; it is just a murder committed by some
youngsters who felt like killing an Armenian," the court actually
proves that there is an organization behind the murder and even
behind the ruling. Otherwise, the reason behind such a ruling must
be that the court ignored evidence that indicates the existence of
a relationship between Ergenekon -- a clandestine gang accused of
plotting to overthrow the government -- and the Dink murder. Sazak
underlines the inconsistency of the judiciary by saying: "We are
even trying journalist Nedim Å~^ener, who worked hard to find the
perpetrators of the Dink murder, for aiding and abetting the Ergenekon
terror network and sending a former chief of General Staff [Ä°lker
BaÅ~_bug] to jail for establishing an anti-government organization;
but, we acquit Erhan Tuncel, the instigator of Dink's murder. It is
as absurd as giving him an award for the murder," adding that all of
this shows that the government has done badly with this incident.
"Considering the independence of the judiciary, why do we direct our
criticism at the government," Sabah's Nazlı Ilıcak asks. First,
the government should have questioned why the records requested from
the Telecommunications Directorate (TÄ°B) were sent so late. Though
some of the officers in the gendarmerie and police department were
investigated for negligence, they have not been investigated for
committing an "intentional act." The government was also blamed
for promoting Muammer Guler -- then-Ä°stanbul governor against whom
the Dink family submitted a criminal complaint claiming that Guler
neglected his duty and ignored National Intelligence Organization
(MÄ°T) officials who threatened Dink -- to Justice and Development
Party (AK Party) deputy. Ilıcak believes Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's is sincere in his hope to provide full clarification with
regard to the murder, but she also thinks that sufficient efforts to
discover the plot behind the murder were not taken. On the other hand,
Hurriyet's Taha Akyol says we should criticize the judiciary over its
ruling in the Dink murder. However, we should also question the justice
of the statement: "Dink's murderer is the state." What has been done
to Dink is brutal and despicable and our frustration is right and even
necessary. Yet, when we say "the state made a massacre like the one in
1915," it means that we have finished talking about law and are having
a political debate over Dink. This will bring nothing good and just,
says Akyol.