The very “rule of law” is in detention

Figen Yüksekdağ is still in detention. As to the indictment under which she will be tried, it is an “oddity” that will leave the many indictments of the recent period in the shade. The indictment against Yüksekdağ, who was a member of parliament, i.e. had constitutional immunity, but, despite this, had her immunity lifted in a deceitful ruse and was detained, is a “catchall indictment”.
Do not immediately say, “What is a catchall indictment? There is no such thing.” There is such a “thing” in the AKP’s Turkey.
The prosecutor has detected elements of crime in various speeches that the HDP co-chair made in Diyarbakır, Ankara, Şanlıurfa, Mersin, Ağrı and Van. This is a prosecutor. If they seek, what will they not find? But, the prosecutor(s) were indifferent to the basic rule of immunity that the restating before the public of what was stated from the parliamentary rostrum will not constitute a crime.
The eight separate crime reports that were compiled were tossed in. It was assigned to Ankara Serious Crime Court No 13 by a decision of the Court of Cassation.
Today, the second hearing of the trial will be held. If my experience of many years does not deceive me, the continued detention of Figen Yüksekdağ and of the “rule of law” will be ruled.
Did you think there was an error of logic in the last sentence and one or two words may perhaps have slipped in by mistake?
No, there is no mistake. Along with Figen Yüksekdağ, the detention of the “rule of law” will continue. That is, of the “rule of law” contained in the constitution.
Did you say, “Hello, newspaper man, can the rule of law possibly be detained?”
Don’t. Can there be more excellent proof than this?
It has been no less than detained.
 
***
Today is September 18.
In Istanbul, Zaman newspaper’s columnists will appear before a judge for the first time in 13 months and 22 days. There is a thick list of “defendants”. I do not know most of them. I know some of them from their articles, but have never run into them anywhere. There are some whom I know.
Let me list the colleagues I am acquainted with: Şahin Alpay, Ahmet Turan Alkan, Mümtaz’er Türköne, Ali Bulaç, Lale Sarıibrahimoğlu (Kemal), Nuriye Akman (Ural), Orhan Kemal Cengiz, İhsan Dağı...
I have read the long, long indictment at length. On reaching such a sentence, I thought, “Perhaps I should give up reading from here.” Then I gritted my teeth and continued.
This sentence was as follows:
“... Even in articles in which on the face of it the element of a crime was not detected, they used statements in excess of the bounds of the freedom of press and expression that constituted violations of the rights of state officials and institutions or composed articles that constituted initial preparation ...”
My goodness!
In the Turkey of 2017, the AKP judiciary has placed “articles in which on the face of it the element of a crime was not detected” in an indictment and is seeking triple life and fifteen-year sentences for these colleagues. Having huffed and puffed my way through the indictment, I also began to read the draft of Şahin Alpay’s defence that was passed on to me.
Listen, reader. You may not agree with the views of these colleagues who wrote on the Gulenists’ flagship, Zaman newspaper. You may not agree at all. There may even be those among us who hate them. But, can their incarceration in Silivri for 14 months with triple life and fifteen-year sentences sought for them purely on account of their writing be considered just and compliant with the law, conscience and justice?
Is it possible to draft a sentence beginning, “Even in articles in which on the face of it the element of a crime was not detected” without pointing to a single line through which they participated in, fomented or supported a coup, which means the use of violence in politics at its highest degree?
The answer to this question will be given, not by my colleagues who are attempting to defend themselves before the court today citing examples from their writing, but by the serious crime court that is obliged to pass judgment on the basis of such an indictment.
Let us see what answer it gives.