My response to Mahcupyan

An article I wrote for the Times about the doctoring of evidence in the Sledgehammer trial has been widely picked up in the Turkish press (see previous posts on the issue here and here).

This is a very politically sensitive trial, and I was aware that I might be attacked in some sections of the media as a result of the article.

Even so, I was slightly taken aback to find myself compared to Norwegian terrorist and mass murderer Anders Breivik in a column by Etyen Mahcupyan in Today’s Zaman.

After accusing both the Economist (see their offending article here) and myself of showing ‘categorical bias, reminiscent of Brevik’, Mahcupyan went on to brand my story ‘disgusting’ and ‘offensive’.

Mahcupyan claims that the allegations in it are propaganda ‘concocted by the daughter and son-in-law of the number-one suspect’.

This is, simply, wrong. There is clear evidence, from independent sources, that elements of the Sledgehammer coup plot have been doctored.

Specifically, the CD containing most of the incriminating evidence in the trial was manipulated, apparently to augment the case against the defendants.

The creation date shown in the metadata of the CD in question was March 5, 2003, the starting date of a military seminar, a recording of which forms part of the evidence in the case, and which prosecutors claim was a coup rehearsal.

This date is confirmed by a police forensic report, a TUBITAK report, and in the indictment itself. It was even reported by Today’s Zaman.

If you’re looking at the indictment, which I hardly need point out was prepared by prosecutors, check page 60, the CD in question is number 11.

But CD 11 also contained lists of institutions and places, many of which did not exist on March 5, 2003. In some cases, they did not exist until up to six years later.

This can only mean that creation date shown on the CD was faked (easily done by changing the date settings on the computer used to burn it). 

For an example that proves this creation date was faked, look again at the indictment. Page 116 contains a citation of the main coup plan, found on CD 11, containing a reference to Turkiye Genclik Birligi, established May 19, 2006.

There are dozens of examples like this, and although it’s true that many were first exposed by defendants’ lawyers and family members, no one has disputed that the lists from which they are drawn are genuine.

Supporters of the trial more familiar with the details acknowledge that there may have been tampering.

When I interviewed him back in December, Emrullah Uslu (a Zaman columnist himself) suggested military officers may have tampered with the files as part of some internal plot. Henri Barkey thought it likely that officials in the judiciary may have fiddled with the evidence. See the story here.

There are, of course, the documents from the Golcuk naval base, which were discovered after these two interviews, and which Mahcupyan mentions.

But even if these do show that plans were updated, as Mahcupyan claims, they cannot alter the simple fact that the creation date of the original CD was faked.

Also, given the fact that the Golcuk documents are largely identical to the ones on the CD, and are all in the form of digital unsigned word files and spreadsheets, it is hard to see what makes them ‘originals’, or indeed what they add to the case at all.

Of course, people will fiercely debate the significance of these problems. Are we talking minor inconsistencies or outright fabrication? What does this say about the culture in the judiciary?

These are healthy and important questions to ask, and I don’t think anyone can dispute that there is an evidential basis for asking them.

What no doubt made Mahcupyan’s blood boil was that my story placed a strong emphasis on the problems with Sledgehammer.

I make no apology for this. The doubts over the Sledgehammer plot have been woefully under-reported in the international media, and I believe they need to have a proper airing.

As for Mahcupyan’s ‘Breivik’ claim, common sense tells me that I shouldn’t even waste my time refuting such an idiotic statement.

But then this is slander, and the assumption underlying his stupid comparison is even more offensive.

I’m proud to be part of a multi-cultural society (The UK). I’d also agree with Today’s Zaman that a racist fear of Islam has gained ground in Europe in recent years and that it needs to be exposed, analysed and fought (though the paper itself sometimes seems content simply to gloat about it).

More importantly, I did not write about the Sledgehammer case because I support the Turkish army, or because I fear the Islamist tendencies of the AKP.

I wrote about it because now that the army is a spent force, judicial and police corruption have, in my view, replaced it as the biggest threat to Turkish democracy.

What I believe the Sledgehammer, Ergenekon, and KCK trials suggest is that the judiciary and the police are rotten institutions deeply vulnerable to manipulation by the powers that be.

I’m not pretending that this is a new thing, but as someone who believes Turkey has made genuine democratic progress in recent years, I think now is the time for the media to start seriously probing current judicial malpractice, regardless of how unsympathetic they may be to the victims.

Perhaps I’m naive to think we can do so without being likened to racist terrorists.


2 thoughts on “My response to Mahcupyan

  1. You are an independent journalist, what they can not understand how that is supposed to They can attack the entire command block of Turkish army with the accusation of being a terrorist, no surprise they would not mercy a journalist releasing an objective comment on this massive attack..

    By the way, as regards “updated” Golcuk documents, funny thing is all in 9 bags are trash and irrelevant which is again just the opposite of Turkish media under influence expresses.. There is only a unusual hard-disc in a hand pack tried to be bridged with the current sledgehammer..

  2. Liam Murray says:

    I think most people who read that article would be baffled at best and furious at worse. comparing your work to briever's was a tenuous conceit, if not an entirely without merit. fair rebuttal none-the-less.

    this article may put things in perspective, but i doubt you will lose sleep over this whole affair!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: