The approval of Hanefi Avcı’s sentence can be interpreted as a challenge or the Gülen-led group’s show of strength. We encountered the same situation in the Balyoz case. The Ninth Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, who had pushed aside matters like the quality, validity and falsity of evidence with a general interpretation, had made the decision of approval.
The problem is continuing as a judicial issue.
Especially two fields are symbolizing this judicial issue. The Ninth Criminal Division of the Supreme Court is the final judicial authority for all the critical cases and for the decisions of the specially authorized courts and the First Department (appointment) and third Department (auditing) of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK).
After the alteration in HSYK, the Gülen-led group’s monopoly over this institution had been broken.
As for the Supreme Court, it had once again proved that it’s still an issue. Actually, this new judicial reform package intends to resolve this issue and save the specially authorized court decisions from the Ninth Division. However, first, it’s necessary to choose new members of the Supreme Court. Following that, the Supreme Court’s Presidency Council will be distributing labor between the departments, and the decision related with this will be published in the official gazette. If we keep in mind that the Ninth Division had acted “surreptitiously” in the Avcı case, right before the alteration, then, the existence of the “challenge” will also be revealed.
What do you think will be the answer of the mentality to; operations being carried out against the Gülen-led group’s police and judicial extensions, some legislations which had been made for cleaning up and time to time forces the rules of the state of law, some prosecutions directed at the press of the Gülen-led group; that regards all these as the political rulership’s absolute authoritarianism intention?
There is no doubt that, disregarding political rulership’s some authoritative behaviors and implementations or the corruption files is a crucial problem in the sense of democracy and democratic mentality.
However, disregarding the Gülen-led group’s siege plan and the condition of the judiciary and police, and beyond that, rendering this “mafia-like structure” as the representative of democracy and the opposition is another crucial problem.
The “Gülen-led group and the political rulership had worked together” view, which appears a little milder, is not getting rid of the problem we are experiencing. On top of that, this type of retreating to an “observer position” (other than some exceptions from the ones that makes this emphasis), is not equalizing the political rulership’s political responsibility in lawlessness and the Gülen-led group’s operational responsibility.
This necessitates a correct political reading and political attitude and understanding the distance between those two.
I don’t know whether the oppositions, proponents or neutrals watched Ruşen Çakır’s 4-hour-long interview with Hanefi Avcı.
“Wiretap, find an opening; if not, set up a trap and gather information, or either stock up or write a letter of advice and open a case, liquidate, punish, blackmail… The objective is to place oneself in the system completely and administer the country from the background…”
This is the outline.
The ways of dealing with this is not that simple.
I’d like to repeat what I’ve said yesterday:
“All the parties, which have a group in the Parliament, should urgently bring the democratic course of action against this “organization” into the agenda. If needed, legislation should be made to re-handle these sinister cases. The merit essentials should be reinforced in the assignments of the judges. The writers, intellectuals of this country should stop introducing every move against this organization as a wave of authoritarianism.”
