|
The Dink case: An autopsy…

The Hrant Dink case is once again the center of focus. An unsolved murder. Those responsible for it freely roaming the streets. A new investigation. New accusations.


How can sense be made of all this?


It is possible to follow the case on the basis of three cities.


The first city is Trabzon, where the murder was planned. The second is Istanbul, where the murder was carried out, and the third is Ankara, where all the warnings regarding this murder were sent.


Within the scope of where the responsibility lies and who is responsible for the murder, these three locations contain three layers.


The first layer consists of the perpetrators and those directly involved in the murder, many of whom are the already identified hit-men and are under arrest.


The second layer consists of officials who might possibly be involved in a chain of intentional negligence both prior to and after the murder. In this regard, the list is long: The Trabzon Police Department, which learned of the plans for this murder and had an informer involved in the issue; the Intelligence Branch of the Ankara Police Department, which was informed of preparations being made to carry out this murder; the office of the Chief of General Staff, which wanted Dink to be warned right at the outset when the plans for this murder came to light; the MIT (National Intelligence Organization) Undersecretariat, which took on the task of warning Dink; the regional head of MIT in Istanbul and the Istanbul Governor’s Office, who carried out this task of warning Dink; the Istanbul Police Department, where a significant amount of information went “missing” during the stage of collecting evidence and passing on information with regard to preparations for the murder. 


Add those who joined in acts of flag-waving in the company of the murderer in Samsun; and one literally has a state system with all these actors…


The third layer consists of the unknown and the invisible. There are tens of questions and many unknown details, ranging from the possibility of state institutions and their officials being actively involved in the murder and directing proceedings; to whether Ogün Samast was alone during the murder; to how deep the planning of this murder goes and who was involved in the planning…


It is very unfortunate that the first and principal case concerning the murder, which has lasted five years, focused just on the first layer from the very beginning. There were signs that the case would be closed and not go any further than Samast, Yasin Hayal and Erhan Tuncel. The court refused to consider the links between this layer and the other ones. Furthermore, it impeded efforts to combine all the files by leaving the requests in this regard unanswered.


In the eyes of many people, the court itself was easily placed in the second layer as a result of this situation. The case has been reopened after a decision by the Court of Appeals.


We read news articles regarding the questioning of those who bear responsibility for the murder every day now. These include Ali Fuat Yılmazer, head of the relevant section in the Intelligence Branch of the Ankara Police Department, Ergun Güngör, deputy governor of Istanbul at the time and who along with MIT officials “warned” Dink, and Celalettin Cerrah, the then chief of the Istanbul Police Department…


Will this lead somewhere?


Will the prosecutor questioning the deputy governor be able to question the deputy undersecretary of MIT and the deputy chief of General Staff at the time? Will the cases involving those who bear this responsibility be combined with the principal case? And will it be possible to delve into the third layer?


Actually, all this is very possible…


All this can be realized if the judiciary operates within the scope of the principles of law and is not involved in any political wrangling. It can all be realized if a policy is implemented where the methods employed are compatible with ethical, administrative and legal responsibilities.


There is a lot more that can be said on this matter.


The Dink case is the only one that could become the means toward exposing the infected fabric of the judicial structure at every level; toward separating the polluted from the clean; and toward causing a shakeup in Turkey’s divided, polluted and politicized judicial structure.


This case has struck fear into everybody’s hearts thus far.


It is in this context that the political leadership avoided involvement with this case. The judiciary used it and reduced the scope of the case. Every single moment of this case has caused concern among the bureaucracy of the security setup.


Even worse, the case was exploited for political battles. Opposing sides blamed each other and accused the other side of being responsible for the murder. They continue to accuse each other and point fingers. The community (the Fethullah Gülen-led community), which controlled cases reopened on appeal, pointed the finger at nationalists until recently. The finger is now being pointed at community members, given the prevailing climate.


The latest statements by Samast provide a clear example of this situation.


This is not the way to proceed.


The way to proceed is described in the law.  

#Hrant Dink murder case
#autopsy
#Ogün Samast
9 years ago
The Dink case: An autopsy…
Can Daesh save Israel?
Is World War III about to break out?
Demographic shift in Türkiye...
The real war is being waged on social media platforms...
A call to the wealthy...