İddia Olunan İrtica ile Mücadele Eylem Planı

Is General Staff given a task to prepare a plan such as “Alleged Action Plan to Fight Reactionaryism”?

No, it isn’t.

Because the tasks, “Fight Strategy for Reactionary Activities” dated May 18, 2000 and “Additional Action Plan to Fight Strategy for Reactionary Activities” dated October 28, 2004, assigned by the Prime Ministry were being performed.

General Staff is responsible to perform the tasks assigned to it by these plans.

It is understood from the official writings in the case files that those plans had become void on December 14, 2010.

When this alleged plan appeared on a newspaper on June 12, 2009, did General Staff  take action?

Yes, it is understood from suspect and witness statements that from the beginning of the same morning, the computers in the Information Support unit, which is the subject of the alleged plan, were left untouched, at 09:15 am the order to initiate investigation was given to the General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office and at 10:50 am General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office investigated the unit and the hard disks of the computers in the 3rd Information group were confiscated.

Opening an administrative investigation rather than a legal one was not considered.

In the indictment, it is stated that; On June 12, 2009, Chief of the General Staff was abroad and the commander of the Land Forces assumed temporarily Chief of the General Staff duty. The act of Deputy Chief of the General Staff calling Chief of the General Staff, who was abroad, and offering him to initiate an investigation is considered as the existence of an organizational connection.

This consideration is very unfortunate and thought-provoking.

It is very natural to get the decision of Chief of the General Staff, who is abroad, on important matters before taking actions.

It is a well known practice of Deputy Chief of the General Staff debriefing Chief of the General Staff, who is abroad, every morning.

It is also known that this practice is being applied by other institutions in our state.

Besides, the offer of initiating an investigation was found appropriate in this matter.

What was the result of the investigation initiated by the General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office?

The General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office carried the investigation based on a photocopy of the alleged plan, which only was available at that time, and it is known that they concluded on June 24, 2009 deciding “not grounds for legal action.”

Why the term “piece of paper” was used instead of the term document, for the alleged plan in the press conference held on June 26, 2009?

According to the Supreme Court jurisprudence; a document is a writing that constitutes a legal provision, emergence of a right and a proof of an incident.

The one on which the investigations were done on June 26, 2009 was a photocopy. That photocopy was not a writing of “document” nature that would be used as a proof of this incident.

However, in the same press conference, it was stated that if a new evidence or document  related with the alleged plan appeared, the investigation would be re-initiated.

When the existence of a new evidence related with the alleged plan appeared on a newspaper on October 23, 2009, what happened?

Upon this news, General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office, on October 26, 2009, restarted investigating.

The document with the alleged wet signature, after General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office’s many requests, after 4,5 months, on February 16, 2010, was send to them.

Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory, on February 25, 2010, presented a report, stating that there was a possibility of the signature of being wet signature, to the General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office.

Investigations related with the matter  were conducted by independent military judiciary.

It can be remembered that the military prosecutor’s office, on March 1, 2010, demanded for arrest, but the demand was not accepted by the Military Court.

Could the alleged plan have been prepared under the knowledge or instruction of the head office?

Same question, on June 16, 2009, was asked to Gen. Basbug by the journalist Mr. Ertuğrul Özkök. The answer for this question on that time was;

Even asking this question is preposterous and an insult. Such an instruction was not given certainly.

This answer is also valid today.

Upon this matter appeared on media, perhaps for the first time, the General Staff’s Military Prosecutor’s Office was given immediately an investigation order.

Initiating an administrative investigation was not considered.

It is said that the alleged plan was prepared on April 2009, on what does this allegation depend?

There is no date on the alleged plan. What this allegation depends on is unknown.